Possible loop hole with 21st amendment and how it relates to marijuana

T

thinker

New Member
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933. History

1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

intoxicating liquors - alcohol

now anyone who knows anything about alcohol and chemistry knows that any compound with an OH (hydroxyl) group is an alcohol.

coincidentally Tetrahydrocannabinol is an alcohol. for those of you who dont know what this chemical is its THC the active compound in marijuana. THC has been shown not to produce the same effects without the other compounds found in marijuana. when smoked marijuana offers up a list of active chemicals which to our luck also happen to be alcohols. what are they you ask:

CBD (Cannabidiol)

CBN (Cannabinol)

CBL (Cannabicyclol)

THCV (Tetrahydrocannabivarin)

all of the active compounds (i can find) of marijuana are alcohols.

the government loves using loops holes to get around the constitution. ITS TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO DO THE SAME.

now the 18th amendment clearly states "beverage purposes" however the 21st amedment has no mention of beverages and it also appealed the 18th so the 18th has no grounds in court.

what i have also found is that the controlled substance act of 1970 lists marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. it also lists psilocybin and mescaline and peyote as illegal however THC is not mentioned.

this leads me to the conclusion that things such as marijuana browines (special browines) and anything "special" butter/oil is used in is competely LEGAL. you can also soak marijuana in liquor for a week or so and get the simliar effects to smoking. there are more loops holes to be had here which ill address later if you wish.

now there is still the argument that you have to grow the illegal plant in order to get these products. this is true HOWEVER being caught selling or consuming these products is not illegal ---- for you are ingesting intoxicating liquors.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE ----- THIS IS POLITICS AT ITS FINEST. ALWAYS READ THE SMALL PRINT. copyright 10/28/2010 3:55am
 
can you elaborate ?

marijuana (the way its going to be interpreted by law makers) is any plant that produces flowers that create thc and biproducts.

as far as i know sativas produce thc.
 
THC and Alcohol are both alcaloids and belongs to same chemical OH group, have same chemical formel CHOH, onley diferent number of C AND O Molekules and thatts why had diferent influence on human body. CH?OH?...:blunt:
 
i took organic chemistry I and II in college although i dont remember the technical aspects i remember the overall details.

any chemical which contains an -OH group is an alcohol. it could also have N (nitrogen) groups, double bonds, benzyl groups scattered throughout the molecule.

Think of a molecule as an american each is made up of many different ethnic groups but each group is as important as the next.

so all of the active chemicals in marijuana have an -OH group making them alcohols among other things.

this is why thc and cbn, cbd, cbl dissolve in liquor. like dissolves like.
 
Excuse me,

What does the 21st amendment have to do with marijuana? Or am I missing something?

The 21st amendment is not the "law" that is used to prosecute marijuana laws, the controlled substances act is what is used. What is the loophole supposed to provide? The CSA lists "esters" and derivatives from Cannabis as unlawful, that is how they bust you for resin, etc.

If you are looking for federal loopholes, you would have to read the CSA, and then the implementing regulations in the CFR to show that the feds have no authorization to do what they do, unless it is in a customs territory or in Guam, D.C., and Puerto Rico, etc.

The truth is that the DEA and DEA agents have NO CLUE what their laws are or what regulations authorize them to do anything. I have talked to them about it. The entire Title 21 of the U.S. Code is not enacted law, and the government admits this on several official sites.

Thanks
 
CSA
SCHEDULE I
(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another
schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which
contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances,
or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers
whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers
is possible within the specific chemical designation:

(10) Marihuana

dam. thanks for bringing this to my attention i was aware of the csa but i could never find the actual document.

they can cover their as*ses on this legislation but they wont regulate the banks so people can keep the houses theyve been paying for.

just have to keep fighting for federal decriminalization.
 
Anyone have some of that hallucinogenic marijuana that the government is refering to? It's been almost 20 years since I've been lucky enough to sample any (and believe me, I've looked). Came close a couple times with sativas from Thailand and Oaxaca, but they only seemed to be in the ballpark.
 
you mean that "rice" that puts some pep in your step?

i tried it. didnt feel any extra special effects especially (unfortunately) not hallucinating.

or are they talking about "saliva divide"? also tried that and that makes you trip balls for about 5 mins. intense hallucinations. some people dont like it i find it to be hysterical. everything turns into a cartoon world. the first time is definitely the most intense cause i guarantee youve never had something set on so fast and so intense. the only problem with this is the price $65 for .5g of 50x around me.
 
Huh? I thought I was confused when it was ME doing the "talking," lol. Rice? I was speaking of good old powerful-as-they-come pure landrace sativas.
 
never heard of those sativas. i thought you were referring to the marijuana type substances the fda is now making illegal and adding to schedule 1 since they are similar.

i wouldnt even know where to get those n,n dmt or MeO dmt. ive heard it sets on the same trip as the trip when you die. the same chemical is released when you die and your brain is active for 7 minutes after you die so i assume you get to experience one trip in your lifetime even if youre against drugs.

how are real sativas not marijuana like ludi ivek said? dont they contain thc and wouldnt that classify them as marijuana under csa?
 
thinkerr said:
CSA

dam. thanks for bringing this to my attention i was aware of the csa but i could never find the actual document.

they can cover their as*ses on this legislation but they wont regulate the banks so people can keep the houses theyve been paying for.

just have to keep fighting for federal decriminalization.
Click to expand...


The CSA is important, yes, but the Code of Federal Regulations are as important, if not more important than the US Code. The Code of Federal Regulations are where the particular agency assigned by the President writes the regulations telling the affected parties HOW and WHERE the law that was passed will be implemented or enforced.

Because the DEA, FDA, etc., are all in the Executive Branch, they cannot write regulations that expand the law past what Congress intended. If they did, then they would be writing law, and this is an unconstitutional act.

The most important thing to understand about the implementing regulations are that the supreme court has stated that you cannot be guilty of breaking a code if you have not broken the implementing regulation that accompanies the code.

The key to understanding that the CSA does not apply INSIDE the 50 states of the Union is to read 21CFR1300 sections and carefully read and understand the definitions of "United States" and "customs territories of the United States" as defined in those regulations. If the definitions don't list the 50 states of the Union, then the regulations are not allowed to be enforced inside those states, which is the way it is supposed to work.

The situation now is that the federal government arrests people and scares the shit out of them like they did to marc emery and people take the plea, admit guilt, and at that point, the judge accepts their guilty plea. The 50 states of the Union are partners in crime because of the federal drug money funding that they get to fill their fat bank accounts with.

Let me know if you need more documentation on all of this stuff, I have been studying this for quite some time.
 
so the CSA laws they were writing are expressed in the CFR as having jursidiction outside the 50 states only?

unless i am misunderstanding the CFR is a contantly growing document that dictates the extent to which laws can be and where they can be inforced? or is the CFR a set of regulations in which each piece of legislation has to be frameworked around?

so ----can the CFR legislation pertaining to the CSA laws (or CFR framework) be interpreted to include the 50 states or does it have to be explicitly stated where the laws have jurisdiction?
 
And how much of it would have gone out the window with the passage of the HSA terror, excuse me, anti-terrorism act?
 
thinkerr;1209481]so the CSA laws they were writing are expressed in the CFR as having jursidiction outside the 50 states only?


21CFR1300 and up is the section in the CFR that implements 21USC13. In the definitions section, we find number 22, the definition of "jurisdiction of the United States".

"(22) The term jurisdiction of the United States means the customs territory of the United States, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands."

Interesting that the jurisdiction of the "United States" is missing the 50 constitutional states. This is because anything not listed specifically in the constitution regarding federal authority is reserved to the states, and the federal government knows this, but if it can hide things then it can get away with it because the average person, and most lawyers don't know understand this or how to attack this. Another interesting thing....

In the above definition for "jurisdiction of the United States" there is another general term "customs territory of the United States". If I asked you for your personal layman's definition of "jurisdiction of the United States" before showing you the legal definition in the 21CFR1300 you probably would have said something referencing the continental USA, and not anything like the definition above. Let's look at the definition for "customs territory of the United States" as defined in 21CFR1300.

"(9) The term customs territory of the United States means the several States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico."

By combining the two definitions we get the complete (almost) definition of "jurisdiction of the United States" in 21CFR1300.

The term jurisdiction of the United States means the several States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands.

Now what happens is we see the complete (almost) definition. The only thing left is the phrase "the several States", which is designed by the federal government as a last ditch effort to confuse the average joe when he reads this. Most people read that and think "state", as in Virginia, Ohio, etc., the fifty constitutional states. This is not correct for several reasons.

English grammar rules tell us that the first letter of a word capitalized renders the word a proper noun, and this means that the "State" referred to is a proper noun. So, what is this "State" exactly. Well, the deception continues so that you give up before finding out.

There is no definition of "State" in 21CFR1300 and up. However, 21CFR1300 does say the following:

"(a) Any term not defined in this part shall have the definition set forth in section 102 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 802), except that certain terms used in part 1316 of this chapter are defined at the beginning of each subpart of that part."

So we have to go to 21 USC 13 to see if "State" is defined and we see that "State" is

"(26) The term "State" means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States."

So, a "State" is the above, and those things above are NOT the 50 states of the Union. When a definition of a word uses the word to define itself, it is not a definition at all and the federal government is again trying to confuse. If you asked me what a widget is and I said a widget is a widget that weighs ten pounds, then I still have not defined widget. All of this could be easily fixed if they would just say "the fifty states of the Union" like they do elsewhere, but they can't let you see behind the curtain. They have no trouble naming Guam, Puerto Rico, or any other officially named entity. They are purposefully shading everything so it is difficult to understand.

Here is the 21USC13 definition for "United States".

"(28) The term "United States", when used in a geographic sense, means all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Notice again the phrase "jurisdiction of the United States". It is not defined in plain site here, so we have to remember and apply the 21CFR1300 definition that is quoted above.

Putting this all together, we see that the CSA and the regulations are NOT unconstitutional, we as a public just don't read the laws and regs that show the CSA to be only applicable inside the "jurisdiction of the United States", which is NOWHERE in the 50 states of the Union.

It would be really easy for the feds to clear this up, but they can't without exposing the fact that they have their elephant balancing on a pin. As another example of how they purposefully try to deceive, we see in the notes under the definition section of 21USC13 that in 1996 they feds changed the definition of "State" to make it even more confusing.

"1996 - Par. (26). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 607(j)(1), amended par.
(26) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (26) read as follows: "The
term 'State' means any State, territory, or possession of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Canal
Zone."

and now it reads...

(26) The term "State" means a State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States."

The "States" of the new definition are the names that were omitted from the old definition, "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Canal Zone"

The entire concept is to try to make everyone PRESUME that "State" means a constitutional state when it does not. One more nugget of buttery goodness to back up my claim that "State" does not mean a constitutional state.

4USC110 which is titled "FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES" says that "State" is

"(d) The term "State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States."

The Supreme Court has ruled that the states of the Union are foreign states and governments in relation to the United States. The word "State" is NOT a constitutional state of the Union.


unless i am misunderstanding the CFR is a contantly growing document that dictates the extent to which laws can be and where they can be inforced? or is the CFR a set of regulations in which each piece of legislation has to be frameworked around?

The CFR does change and is amended frequently, but it is basically agency rules (regulations) that are written by the agency head of the DEA, IRS, FDA, or to whatever agency the President delegates the authority to enforce the law, and the regulations are stating the agencie's understanding of the law that Congress passed, and how they plan on enforcing it.

The Statutes at Large passed by CONgress are formed into the US Code, which takes precedence over the CFR because the CFR is written by the Executive branch, and cannot write the regulations in such a way that expand the intent of the Statute passed by Congress. This would be legislative action performed by the executive branch and not allowed under the Constitution.

In order for a Statute to be enforceable against every man or woman, it has to be published in the Federal Register along with the implementing regulations from the CFR because this is the only legal and approved method for giving the public "proper notice". Proper notice is required because of the requirement for consent needed according to the constitution (consent of the governed). That is another topic, the requirement of something to be published in the FR in order to be binding. If the Statute AND the implementing regulation is not published in the FR, then the "law" is a private or special law, and not a public law.

The Office of Law Revision Council and the GPOaccess websites, as well as the legislative notes under 1USC204 all state clearly that more than half of all US Codes are NOT enacted law, and can be rebutted in court. Here is a link:

US Code about page

Office of the Law Revision Counsel

Notice that Title 21 is not listed as enacted law. If you really want to get pissed, take note that Title 26 is not enacted law either.:smokin:

so ----can the CFR legislation pertaining to the CSA laws (or CFR framework) be interpreted to include the 50 states or does it have to be explicitly stated where the laws have jurisdiction?

There is a maxim of law that says "that which is not listed is specifically excluded" (paraphrased). A law is one of limitation, not expansion. Laws have to be specific, because if they were not, then everyone would be at the mercy of the enforcement personnel, and our constitution states that there are 3 branches and they can only do what they are authorized to do. If a law says that you can't buy beer on Sunday and you go to buy on Friday and then get arrested because the enforcement officer says just because Friday is not listed and another day is listed, that you are still guilty of buying on a "day", then you would have your cased dropped and be able to sue him for damage. The law has to be specific so that the public knows how to act and what to do and not do.
 
TorturedSoul said:
And how much of it would have gone out the window with the passage of the HSA terror, excuse me, anti-terrorism act?
Click to expand...

If you read that ACT, you will probably see that it only applies in the Federal Zone or against federal public officers, which is what you are if you have a Socialist Security Number.

Most people don't know that participating in Social Security is voluntary and by participating, the government changes your domicile to Washington D.C. or Puerto Rico and changes your tax status to "duties of a public office" to make it appear that you work for the federal government and have domicile in one of their territories. This happens when you get your SSN and fill out your first "voluntary withholding agreement".

The TSA agents that are touching the physical bodies of men, women and children are acting outside the law and in their personal capacity. They can be sued instantly because they have NO implementing regulations that authorize them to do these pervert things. They are also only allowed to scan cargo and not passengers. If everyone actually read the law to see what it says, then this crap would not happen.
 
+reps excellent research. no wonder the gov is so messed up nothing theyre doing is actually legal just accepted as legal. id actually never heard of CFR until you brought it up i cant say i blame myself because how would i know about it if im not in law. in school we learn about the constitution and declaration of independence but not the legislation behind the legislation which actually controls the show.

has norml or any organization affected by the laws brought this to the supreme court?
 

Similar threads

tricome
Marijuana, Prohibition and the 10th Amenment
Replies
2
Views
1K
tricome
tricome
Smokin Moose
"Marijuana, Prohibition and the Tenth Amendment"
Replies
0
Views
3K
Smokin Moose
Smokin Moose
The General
Pros And Cons Of Ohio Marijuana Constitutional Amendment Debated
Replies
0
Views
1K
The General
The General
The General
Pros And Cons Of Ohio Marijuana Constitutional Amendment Debated
Replies
0
Views
798
The General
The General
Ganjarden
Medical Marijuana and Constitutional Confusion in Virginia
Replies
0
Views
706
Ganjarden
Ganjarden
Back
Top Bottom