January 10, 2018 at 8:50 pm #424
Most people have heard of the Federal Marijuana Patients, but most people do not understand how that whole system works. I have been studying Supreme Court Cases, and DEA Administrative Law for the past few years, so I will explain the process.
So I will start with the Federal Marijuana Patients, they exist.
The Federal Marijuana Patients exist through the Investigational New Drug (IND) program, which is run through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), via their Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) department. For years the Marijuana sent to these patients has been grown by the University of Mississippi, and the strain G-13 is supposedly the “liberated” genetics from this program at some time in the past.
In August 2016, the DEA opened up Registration for Federal Marijuana Growers, Importers, and Researchers.
Catalent has already been approved to Import Tons of Marijuana
Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions had a discussion about it the other day, there are 26 new companies that are waiting to be approved (we submitted our Religious Exemption in there too, so now it’s 27)
Here is what the Senate has to say about Marijuana
Kratom not Scheduled after massive Twitter Response
Lipomed can pretty much import anything
DOJ Anti-Trust Division says that the DEA has to accept new Manufactures and Importers so as not to be creating Monopolies.
Here is the contact email to ask questions for the Registration department at the DEA
United States v. E. C. Knight Co. 156 U.S. 1 (1895)
Counsel contend that this definition, as explained by the derivation of the word, may be applied to all cases in which “one person sells alone the whole of any kind of marketable thing, so that only he can continue to sell it, fixing the price at his own pleasure,” whether by virtue of legislative grant or agreement; that the monopolization referred to in the act of Congress is not confined to the common law sense of the term as implying an exclusive control, by authority, of one branch of industry without legal right of any other person to interfere therewith by competition or otherwise, but that it includes engrossing as well, and covers controlling the market by contracts securing the advantage of selling alone or exclusively all or some considerable portion of a particular kind or merchandise or commodity to the detriment of the public, and that such contracts amount to that restraint of trade or commerce declared to be illegal. But the monopoly and restraint denounced by the act are the monopoly and restraint of interstate and international trade or commerce, while the conclusion to be assumed on this record is that the result of the transaction complained of was the creation of a monopoly in the manufacture of a necessary of life.
You may have heard some crazy quotes about how safe Marijuana is, such as “Aspirin is more dangerous than Marijuana” or “Potatoes are more dangerous than Marijuana” or “It would take 100 tons of Marijuana, smoked in 15 minutes to Overdose” and other crazy quotes. Those actually came from a DEA Judge, Judge Francis, and he backed up everything he said.
The way this works is that the DEA has absolutely no Obligation to refuse Religious use of Substances which are not on the UN Psychotropics Convention.
The DEA used to say “Everyone is banned, so Religion is banned”. But then in Gonzales V O Centro, they pointed to DEA Form 225, and showed that not everyone is banned. And the Supreme Court said that if they are doing it, then Religion can do it. And the DEA said “But we have the UN Psychotropics Convention” and the Court said “This substance is not covered by that Treaty”. And the DEA had to stand down and create this process.
If anyone is confused about how I am going to get a DEA Exemption, this explains how it actually works. The Controlled Substances Act is what we are talking about, and first off, is it called the “Banned Substances Act” or the “Controlled Substances Act” and are they “Banned” or are they “Scheduled”?
Mallinkdrot is literally allowed to sell Medical Cocaine online, here is the link.
So what Mallinckrodt has is an exemption. A Medical Exemption. Yet no where in the Constitution is there a “Medical Clause”, but there is a “Free Exercise Clause”; which forced the DEA to create the process in this link:
http://www2.mallinckrodt.com/Templates/Pages/productdetail.aspx?id=1597January 10, 2018 at 8:51 pm #425
Sasha Shulgin’s words on the Analogue Act
This base, a-ET or etryptamine, was a promising anti-depressant, explored clinically as the acetate salt by Upjohn under the name of Monase. Its central stimulant activity is probably not due to its monoamineoxidase inhibition activity, but appears to stem from its structural relationship to the indolic psychedelics. It was withdrawn from potential commercial use with the appearance of an unacceptable incidence of a medical condition known as agranulocytosis, but the extra mural research into its action, among the lay population, goes on.
One property has been mentioned more than once in anecdotal reports. It appears to serve well, with short term dosage regimens, as an effective tool in kicking dependency on opiates. In chronic use, there is a rather rapid tolerance built up over four or five days, that allows a dosage escalation to a daily load of a gram or more. There might be some discomfort such as sores in the softer tissues of the mouth, but apparently the withdrawal from heroin is easy and effective. Here is a potential tool in addiction treatment that might warrant closer investigation.
Other homologues of a-ET have been synthesized. The a-propylhomologue (a-PT) has been made from tryptophan, and the acetate salt was recrystallized from ethyl acetate/MeOH and melted at 158-158.5 °C. It has not, to my knowledge, ever been tasted. But I suspect that it will take a pretty hefty dosage to get some CNS effect based on the loss of potency with the similar homologation in the Muni Metro series related to MDMA. Rather than lengthening the chain on the alpha-position, some studies have exploited the known potency enhancement that comes from putting a methoxyl group on the 5-position of the indole. This compound, 5-MeO-a-ET, has been made from the 5-methoxyindole-3-aldehyde by coupling with nitropropane (with ammonium acetate) to form the nitrobutene which is a reddish crystalline material, mp 114-116 °C from ethanol. LAH reduction in Et2O/THF gave the desired 5-MeO-a-ET in a 72% yield, mp 201-203 °C as the hydrochloride salt. An alternate synthesis that avoids LAH involves the conversion of 5-methoxyindole to the nitrobutane with 2-nitro-1-butene, followed by reduction with nickel boride to give 5-MeO-a-ET, as the free base in a 52% yield, mp 110-112 °C. As might have been predicted, it was more potent than a-ET by a factor of two with 70 milligrams orally producing a trippy feeling that lasted several hours accompanied with an increased heart beat and difficulty in sleeping. There were no psychedelic effects as such, and no unpleasant side effects. Another compound that has been closely associated with a-ET is a carboline. If a molecule of acetone is brought to react with the amine group and the indolic 2-position, in a condensation that is called a Pictet-Spengler reaction, there would be formed 1,1-dimethyl-3-ethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-b-carboline. This is a chemical ally of the harmine family of alkaloids, but I have not heard of its having been explored psychedelically. It has been reported to be an impurity of commercial a-ET (including the prescheduling product from the Aldrich Chemical Company) to an extent of some 30%. At these levels, it was suggested that it might play some role in the central action of the parent tryptamine.
a-ET has played yet another role in the evolution of our drug laws, a role that will be found to be of extraordinary importance once it becomes more widely known. This compound may prove pivotal in our ultimate definition of the Analogue Drug Law. I want to talk about: (1) The Controlled Substance Analogue Drug Bill; (2) What happened in a trial in Denver; and (3) What happened in a District Court in Colorado.
During the most political period of the War on Drugs, Congress passed, and the president signed, a new law every two years, on the even-numbered years (the years of congressional re-election) that increased either the definition of what were illegal drugs, or the penalties that follow a conviction for having been associated with them in any way. In 1986, there was a proposed draft of a bill called the “Designer Drug Bill” that had been created within the DEA, and sent on to the Justice Department who, in turn, submitted it to Congress as desired legislation. This was a proposal that would make illegal the tinkering with the structure of a molecule of an illegal drug, to change it in a way that would make it fall outside of the explicit listings of illegal drugs but without significant changes in its pharmacological effects. It was the first time a drug law would define a crime by the activity of a compound as well as by chemical structure. The proposal went to the appropriate legislative committee and, with some modifications, it became law in 1986. There was considerable celebration within the DEA, expressing a “We did it!” kind of satisfaction.
The first three Articles of the Constitution of the United States are entitled: Article. I. The Legislative Department; Article. II. The Executive Department; and Article. III. The Judicial Department. The first of these, consisting of Congress, has the role of writing law and defining the military structure of the nation. The second of these defines the president, who approves the laws of Congress and is the highest military officer. The third of these is invested in the enforcement of these laws. The three departments were defined in a way to assure a balance of power. It is a dangerous step towards a totalitarian state when one special interest group (here the DEA) can, in effect, both write the law and then enforce it.
Here is the text of the Analogue Drug Bill:
(1) The Controlled Substance Analogue Drug Bill. This is contained within Public Law 99-570, the Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986. This is the so-called “Designer Drug” bill which was intended to allow the prosecution of any act associated with an unscheduled drug, if that drug is analogous either in structure or in action to a scheduled drug, and if it is intended for use in man. Here is the exact wording of this amendment:
(32)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ‘controlled substance analogue’ means a substance —
(i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II;
(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II; or
(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucino-genic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogen effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.
(B) Such term does not include —
(i) a controlled substance;
(ii) any substance for which there is an approved new drug application;
(iii) with respect to a particular person any substance, if an exemption is in effect for investigational use, for that person, under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) to the extent conduct with respect to such substance is pursuant to such exemption; or
(iv) any substance to the extent not intended for human consumption before such an exemption takes effect with respect to that substance.
SEC. 203. A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for purposes of this title and title III as a controlled substance in Schedule I.
This is the exact wording of the law, and I have discovered that the more times I read it the more convinced I become that, whatever the original intent might have been, it was structured in a way to promote vagueness. I have written elsewhere about the rhetorical nightmare of a double disclaimer, “substantially similar.” “Similar” means “pretty much the same.” “Substantially identical” would means “pretty much the same.” But what does “substantially similar” mean? I like the analogy of seeing two cut glass shakers in the center of the fancy table, one with small holes in the silver screw-down cap containing salt, and the other with slightly larger holes containing pepper. Are these two items substantially similar? If you happen to be a collector of antique crystal glassware, these items are completely identical. If you happen to need to add a condiment to your entree these items are totally different. You must know whose eyes are being looked through to approach the question of “substantial similarity.” At a trial a few years ago in Southern California the issue was settled once and for all for a confused jury when a forensic chemist gave an expert opinion that two things were substantially similar when they were greater than 50% identical. Is the right hand more than 50% identical to the right foot? This opinion was patently absurd.
(2) What happened in a trial in Denver? A few years ago a young man discovered that the Aldrich Chemical Company offered alpha-ethyltryptamine acetate as a fine chemical. He could buy it in 100g quantities, and package it in 150 milligram capsules to be sold to the street trade as Ecstasy, or MDMA. He could and he did. His actions came to the attention of Law Enforcement, and an opinion was obtained from a DEA chemist that a-ET was not an analogue substance. So the prosecutor decided against pressing charges. But not every one agreed with this not-analogue opinion.
So the chemist solicited the thoughts of his professional colleagues and the answers cam back with as many no’s as yes’s. The no’s were from those who reasoned objectively (scientific, compare the structures) and the yes’s were from those who reasoned subjectively (abuse potential, compare the action).
The adventurous a-ET peddler continued, and was again brought to task. The analytical duties went to another chemist, and charges were finally brought under the Analogue Drug Bill. But the earlier opinion was in the record, and the first chemist was brought in by the defense to present these findings at the trial. Clearly there was uncertainty if this was an analogue of anything that was scheduled. The research toxicologist for the home-office of the DEA gave testimony that it was, without question, an analogue. But on cross examination, he was asked just how many times, and for how many different drugs, he had been asked that same question, as an expert witness at a criminal trial. Perhaps twelve, he said. And how many times had he offered the conclusion that the proposed compound had been an analogue of a scheduled drug? In every case. The judge decided that there were some conflicting opinions here, amongst the experts, and dismissed the charges. The defendant was given the warning that this kind of leniency was not common and told to behave himself in the future.
(3) The text of the appellate decision in this matter is a valuable lesson in the fine aspects of grammatical analysis. This is all from 806 F.Supp. 232 (D.Colo., 1992). In way of background it emphasizes that the purpose of the controlled substance analogue statute is to attack underground chemists who tinker with molecules of controlled substances to create new drugs that are not yet illegal. In this case, the defendants were not chemists who created or marketed a designer drug but rather allegedly purchased and distributed a substance that preexisted drugs to which it was a purported analogue. This was probably, in and of itself, sufficient reason to deny the appeal. But the argument developed marvelous new texture as things progressed. As a reminder of the wording of the law (here SS is, of course, substantially similar but this terminology is not addressed in the decision), the three phases of the definitional part of the law can be summarized as follows:
(i) a chemical structure which is SS to … ;
(ii) which has an effect that is SS to … ;
(iii) which is represented as having an effect that is SS to …
The prosecution’s reading and analysis of this definition:
“The government’s reading of the analogue definition has superficial appeal. As a matter of simple grammar, when an “or” is placed before the last term in a series, each term in the series is usually intended to be disjunctive. Under this reading, a-ET would be an analogue if it satisfies any of the three clauses; however, this reading ignores other grammatical principles that apply in favor of defendant’s construction. The operative segments of clauses Iii) and (iii) both begin with the word ‘which,’ signaling the start of a dependent relative clause modifying a previous noun. In each case the precedent noun is ‘chemical structure’ found in clause (i). Because both clauses (ii) and (iii) can be read to modify clause (i) the statutory language can be fairly read as requiring the two-pronged definition asserted by the defendants.”
The defendant’s reading and analysis of this definition:
“Defendant’s reading is also bolstered by a deeply rooted rule of statutory construction. A statute must be construed to avoid unintended or absurd results. If I adopt the government’s construction and read clause (ii) independently, alcohol or caffeine would be controlled substance analogues because, in a concentrated form, they can have depressent or stimulative effects substantially similar to a controlled substance. Likewise if I read clause (iii) independently, powdered sugar would be an analogue if a defendant represented that it was cocaine, effectively converting this law into a counterfeit drug statute. In both cases the defendant could be prosecuted for selling a controlled substance analogue even though the alleged analogue did not have a chemical structure substantially similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance. Therefore, to prevent this unintended result, clause (i) must apply to any substance that the government contends is a controlled substance analogue.”
There is a most instructive bit of history to be considered. In July, 1986, the House of Representatives considered the Designer Drug Enforcement Act of 1986 (H.R. 5246). As with the Senate, the House bill focused on underground chemists who seek to evade the drug laws by slightly altering a controlled substance. The House proposed a two-pronged definition of “analogue” that is virtually identical to the construction advocated by the defendant here. The House bill contained the same three clauses as the current statute, but added the word “and” after clause (i). Congress ultimately adopted the analogue statute as part of the comprehensive “Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.” Inexplicably, the analogue definition enacted by Congress dropped the word “and” after clause (i).
This pretty well defines the legislative intent of Congress, and I would give a pretty penny to meet the writer who happened to delete that “and,” the one critical word that changed the heart of the law. i would like to know to whom he answered.
Here is a masterpiece of logic which makes some sense out of sloppy law. It must be remembered that the purpose of all of this is to determine if one, or two, or three definitions must be applied to establish just what is an analogue. This court declared that a substance may be a controlled substance analogue only if it satisfies clause (i) and at least one of clauses (ii) or (iii).
There is a fascinating, and potentially most disruptive, appeals ruling made in 1996 concerning the interpretation of this law, in this case involving aminorex and phenethylamine as being analogues of 4-methyl aminorex and methamphetamine, respectively, and thus chargeable as a crime under this analogue statute. This is from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 95-2132. In this ruling the Analogue Drug Bill is paraphrased with the following text: “… a drug becomes a controlled substance if it has a chemical structure substantially similar to that of a controlled substance, and either has a substantially similar effect on the user’s central nervous system, or a relevant someone represents that it has or intends it to have such an effect.” This is fascinating in that the source cited for this quote, 21 U.S.C. SS 802(32)(A), has no such text. And it is potentially disruptive for two reasons. It suggests that an analogue shall become a controlled substance, rather than be treated as if it were a controlled substance. It also introduces a new and undefined term, a “relevant someone.” I do not have the legal background to guess the extent that this statement can influence future court challenges in the area of controlled substances analogues. Do, always, keep in mind that the finding that a chemical, in a given situation, is a controlled substance analogue does not make that chemical a controlled substance. The analogue status exists for just the single instance, and the next time the arguments all start over again.
Back to the case involving a-ET. The DEA retreated, licking its wounds, and got its own back by immediately proposing the placement of a-ET into Schedule 1. They succeeded, and Monase is today no longer an FDA-approved antidepressant but it is, instead, a drug with a high potential for abuse. One of the more unexpected forms of abuse can be seen in the costs to the researcher who wished to study it in some legal way. Before it became a scheduled drug, alphaethyltryptamine was what is known as a “fine chemical” and was listed in the catalog of a major chemical company (1993) for a modest $60.90 for a hundred grams. It became a Schedule I drug by emergency scheduling that same year. Recently (1995) I noted that the chemical has been discontinued (as a fine chemical) but has appeared in a catalog from a major supply house for neurological chemicals. Alphaethyl tryptamine now requires a DEA license for purchase, and retailed at $424.00 for 100 milligrams. That calculates out at $424,000.00 for a hundred grams, a price inflation of a factor of almost 7000, or a 700,000% increase. Now THAT is truly drug abuse.January 10, 2018 at 8:52 pm #426
Sasha Shulgin Contemplating Religious Sacraments, and not yet tying the UN Psychotropics Convention’s Definitions for “Scheduled Substances” to his thought process like I have
The earliest reports of human activity, at 1 mg/Kg, are mentioned under DMT. The clinical trials from which the 80 mg comment above was entered, were conducted on a population of physically sound alcoholics. It was not only a study to define the nature of action of DPT, but to challenge the idea that the metabolism of the dialkyltryptamine on the 6-hydroxyl position might give rise to active metabolites. This challenge was in the form of assaying 6-fluoro-N,N-diethyltrypamine in the same subjects, to see if it might be an active placebo. This is discussed under that specific compound, DET. Incidentally, the actual amount of DPT used was originally published as being 1.0 mg/Kg body weight, and I am guessing that the subject might have been of average weight, about 175 lbs. In these studies, dosages were taken up to as high as 1.3 mg/Kg, which resulted only in a prolongation, not an intensification, of effect. In all trials, the onset of effects occurred between 10 and 15 minutes following injection.
Studies using lower dosages of DPT (15-30 mg intramuscularly) have been explored as adjuncts to psychotherapy with alcoholic patients. The enhancement of recall of memories and experiences, the greater emotional expressivenes and self-exploration, coupled with a consistently short duration, made the drug very attractive. Higher doses, up in the 100 milligram range, have been explored in psychotherapy, in the quest for peak experiences. Yet another study, in exploring the interaction of therapy counseling and DPT-induced peak experiences with patients who are dying, the i.m. dosage range was between 75 and 125 milligrams.
There is a rather remarkable religious group known as the Temple of the True Inner Light, in New York City, which has embraced as its Eucharist DPT which they refer to as a powerful Angel of the Host. Their communion is confirmed by either the smoking or the drinking of the sacrament, and they have been totally unbothered by any agency of the Federal Government, as far as I know. It is not as if they were unknown. Quite on the contrary, I had on one occasion received a request for information on the drug from a reporter who was writing a story on DPT and its use in the church. I asked him just how he had gotten my name, and he told me that he was given it by someone within the DEA. Someone, sometime, should write an essay on contemporary religions, as to why DPT has flown, why peyote forever struggles, and LSD and marijuana have bombed out, when tied to religion. Is there something about a faith being an “approved” religion? Who gives his approval? Who decides the applicability of the first amendment which explicitly states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
I wish the True Inner Light congregation Godspeed, if you will excuse the expression. My impressions of them from our correspondence have left me totally convinced of their integrity and dedication. It is an intriguing fact that this tryptamine was commercially available for a while from at least one small independent supplier of chemical novelties, but I believe that this is now no longer a valid source.
An intriguing (and perhaps theoretical) homologue of DPT is the 1-propyl counterpart, 1,N,N-tripropyltryptamine, referred to as PDPT. It is claimed that simply reacting tryptamine with an excess of propyl bromide put an alkyl group on the indolic 1-position (as stated also for the ethyl counterpart, sometimes referred to as EDET). In my own experiments with this reaction, I have yet to see any suggestion of 1-alkylation.January 10, 2018 at 8:54 pm #427
I’m going to explain the Human Rights case for everyone. In Human Rights Court there are 3 types of actions that can be considered by the Court. A Direct Act, an Act of Acquiescence, or an Act of Omission.
I have been practicing my Religion since I was 14 years old, but that is not even the main part of the Case. My brother died when he was 12 when the Doctors put him into a Coma, and his brain began releasing a Molecule that they said would make it swell, as a defense mechanism, until it filled up like a Balloon and no lines were left, and it filled every crevice of his skull, and went down his spine. Most people would hear that and accept that the Doctor said their Family member was going to die. I started doing research, and I found that brain swelling (Edema), the defense mechanism the brain was causing, which was going to kill it, had been studied in Israel. They had seen people get caught in bomb droppings in Palestine, or have some other Traumatic Brain Injury, but if the Cannabinoid 2-AG were applied, it completely preserved the persons brain. And the research papers I found explained how Cannabinoids are a Neural Protectant, and even promoted Neurogenesis, meaning the creation of New Brain Cells.
So I showed this research to the Doctors, and they said “We are willing to try anything” and they said the Research Papers looked like they were right, and that they would work. But they told me that I would have to get the Cannabinoid, and it would have to be the exact one from the Israeli paper, because that was the paper where they were doing exactly the procedure we needed, but really any Cannabinoid would have worked according to all the other papers. And they acknowledged that all the Papers were right, but that they were unwilling to do it unless it was with 2-AG; and we needed to get it in his feeding tube. And we were in Colorado.
So my brother died, because Doctors are afraid of the DEA’s guidelines.
Now, to prove the DEA is at fault. First, the Controlled Substances Act was written in 1971, and the goal was not to ban substances, but to keep drugs out of “illegal channels” and “provide for regulation and research of drugs”. The Controlled Substances Act is part of the “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970”. The best way to explain the process is Coca-Cola. In the early 1900s the Pure Food and Drugs Act was created, which took Cocaine and Heroine off of the grocery stores and beverages. So Coca-Cola removed the Cocaine, but kept the Coca. A company called Stepan Company got an exemption from the DEA to import Coca leaves from Peru, extract the Cocaine to sell to Mallinckrodt, and then make a second extract from the depleted leaves, and sell that extract to Coca-Cola. The rules are that if you want to import Cocaine, you must alert the DEA, tell them how much you are importing, from where, and what was going to be done with it. Then the Attorney General reviews it, and sees if you meet the Security and other standards, and if you do, you get an exemption.
In 2004 the DEA was part of a case called Normaco V DEA, where the DEA was trying to allow a new Cocaine Manufacturer, Johnson Mathey, into the Market. And Normaco, another Cocaine Manufacturer, said that if the other company were allowed it, it would hurt their Profits. The Federal Court ruled that the DEA can’t enforce Monopolies or Trusts using US Law that states that you just have to meet certain guidelines. And the DOJ Anti-Trust Division made a Statement that “That is called the Free Market” and said the DEA could not enforce Monopolies.
So that is how it works.
But Doctors still do not have access to, or are afraid to access if they do have access to, life saving treatments. And it’s not the Doctors faults, they don’t have access to research about this, or the ability to retrieve most of it. And every day they have to tell people “Their brain is going to swell until it fills every cavity of their skull” and the family of that person just accepts it, because they don’t know. And there are companies that are allowed to Manufacture, Tetreahydrocannabinols of any kind, and Catalent is allowed to import Marijuana, and the University of Mississippi has been supplying Federal Marijuana Patients for Decades. And people are allowed to let their family member die by putting hands on them and refusing medical treatment in a Hospital, and get arrested. But a Doctor would not even let me get arrested by practicing my Religion to save my brother. If I were able to put something in his feeding tube, he would be alive right now.January 10, 2018 at 8:55 pm #428
Contradictions in Law that will be decided in our Court Cases
1. The UN Declaration of Human Rights provides a person the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of Conversion; and the Ability to not only believe but Practice. And the supporting Conventions and Treaties provide the same, as well as the ability to Make and Use Articles of your Faith.
2. The UN Psychotropics Convention States that all Schedule II and lower substances (Cocaine, etc) are Free for Religious Use, but that Schedule I plants can only be used by Native Populations.
3. The OAS ‘American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man’ also provides for the protection of Religion, as well as the people’s benefit and use of Scientific Discoveries as a Right.
4.The US Supreme Court says that if a Treaty Violates the Constitution, that the part of the Treaty that does not follow the Constitution will be struck down in US Courts. So basically, if they can’t get it into Codified US Law, then the part of the Treaty that doesn’t fit, doesn’t fit.
5. The US Constitution States that Congress can not write a Law that Prohibits Religion, and the US Courts have said that Congress must first “Enact a Law, Attach a Penalty, and Give the Courts Jurisdiction” in order for a decision to be made in Court.
6. The Controlled Substances Act says that the only Exemptions are Medical.
7. In the case Gonzlaes V O Centro, the Supreme Court forced the DEA to create a process for Religion.
8. Congress enacted the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment which protects Dispensaries, and the Cole Memorandum lays out the Guidelines.
9. The Colorado State Constitution provides any Citizen over the age of 21 the Right to grow 6 Marijuana Plants, and provides Dispensaries and Manufacturers the ability to grow Hundreds or Thousands.January 13, 2018 at 5:22 pm #655
A Church is not much different in Nature from a State, see Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1868). Religion is a form of COMITY INTER GENTES from AFFLATUS. The Separation of Church and State in the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE exists because of the fact that Religion used to be the State, as it is now in Vatican City and the Holy See, Churches may even be a party to CONCORDAT see Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church 210 U.S. 296 (1908); Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111 (1784); Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976); Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969), and allows American’s to practice not only one Religion, but any Religion, free from persecution. Not only is there an ANTINOMY between the RELIGIOUS FEEDOM RESTORATION ACT / RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUATIONALIZED PERSONS ACT and the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, there is a CONFLICTUS LEGEM between the Plaintiff’s Church and the Federal State arising from the ANTINOMY, which can be resolved by the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE. RELIGIOUS ACCESSION also needs to be considered in the progress of History, Technology and Knowledge. “The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief”, see 42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 (7) (a). “the general characteristics of Schedule I substances cannot carry the day”, see Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal 546 U.S. 418 (2006); Church of Holy Light of the Queen V. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-35058 (9th Cir. 2014). “Congress must first enact a law criminalizing an activity, attach a penalty, and give the Federal courts Jurisdiction”, see Hudson v. United States 522 U.S. 93 (1997). “Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the Free Exercise of Religion”, see FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, I AMENDMENT. “If a Government confronts an individual with a choice that pressures the individual to forgo a Religious practice, whether by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit, then the Government has burdened the individuals free Religious Exercise.”, see Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398 (1963). “Even neutral laws can be used unconstitutionally”, see Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886); 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb (a) (2). “failing to accommodate petitioners’ exercise of their “nonmainstream” religions in a variety of ways”, see Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005). “conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs”, see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. _ (2014).
The Defendants would likely use Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878) in their Defense, but if we are going to go that route, Reynolds would be overturned if it were brought to the court today. Reynolds was decided based on USC Ch126, 12 S 501, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which was, and is well understood to have been, targeting Mormons, and was A POSTERIORI an illegal Act of Congress and is VOID AB INITIO, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). A FORTIORI Using Reynolds as precedent to allow Congress to prohibit Free Exercise is ULTRA VIRES; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. _ (2012). This case is not an argument that the US Government does not have jurisdiction of the Church or its members and is not a statement of ABJURE, it is an argument that Congress has overstepped its role in the Constitution, that Church law is to be considered in these courts, and that arguments from Reynolds should no longer be considered persuasive to US Courts, see Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila 280 U.S. 1 (1929).
Due to the ANTINOMY of the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT and The FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT and the RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT, the ABOLITIO LEGIS of the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT is necessary, it must be ABROGATED as a matter of DE FACTO Right and PENUMBRA.
The Latin phrase SUB ROSA means “under the rose”, and is used in English to denote secrecy or confidentiality, similar to the Chatham House Rule. The literal rose and its essence or attar has also played a role in religious and spiritual rites which often would have been held in secret.
Persecution under the modern ULTRA VIRES actions of the US Congress has forced many religions and religious practitioners to operate SUB ROSA or in CLANDESTINE settings AB INVITO, in violation of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE which is AD GRAVE DAMNUM to these Religions, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993). During this time of ULTRA VIRES, CAUSA SINE QUA NON religious practitioners have been CASTIGATED, COERCED and brought to CARCER with no method of ASYLUM established. CESSANTE CAUSA.
During the initial development of the Christian Church under the Roman Empire followers often had to practice in secret. Official policy under Trajan was to provide Christians with the choice between recanting and execution. In 1636, expelled from Massachusetts in the winter, former Puritan leader Roger Williams issued an impassioned plea for freedom of conscience. He wrote, “God requireth not an uniformity of Religion to be inacted and enforced in any civill state; which inforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civill Warre, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisie and destruction of millions of souls.” Williams later founded Rhode Island on the principle of religious freedom. He welcomed people of religious belief, even some regarded as dangerously misguided, for nothing could change his view that “forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils.”.A clandestine church (Dutch: schuilkerk), defined by historian Benjamin J. Kaplan as a “semi-clandestine church”, is a house of worship used by religious minorities whose communal worship is tolerated by those of the majority faith on condition that it is discreet and not conducted in public spaces. Schuilkerken are commonly built inside houses or other buildings, and do not show a public façade to the street. “Here, however, defendants challenge plaintiffs’ sincerity, citing plaintiffs’ decision to conduct ceremonies in secret until the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the UDV plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ secrecy does not show a lack of sincerity. Instead, it shows that plaintiffs remained committed to practicing their religion despite the threat of criminal prosecution and loss of professional status.”, see Church of Holy Light of the Queen V. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-35058 (9th Cir. 2014) “Moreover, the latter ordinances’ various prohibitions, definitions, and exemptions demonstrate that they were “gerrymandered” with care to proscribe religious killings of animals by Santeria church members but to exclude almost all other animal killings. They also suppress much more religious conduct than is necessary to achieve their stated ends. The legitimate governmental interests in protecting the public health and preventing cruelty to animals could be addressed by restrictions stopping far short of a flat prohibition of all Santeria sacrificial practice…The resulting syncretion, or fusion, is Santeria, “the way of the saints.” The Cuban Yoruba express their devotion to spirits, called oris has, through the iconography of Catholic saints, Catholic symbols are often present at Santeria rites, and Santeria devotees attend the Catholic sacraments. 723 F. Supp. 1467, 1469-1470 (SD Fla. 1989); 13 Encyclopedia of Religion 66 (M. Eliade ed. 1987); 1 Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience 183 (C. Lippy & P. Williams eds. 1988)…The sacrifice of animals as part of religious rituals has ancient roots. See generally 12 id., at 554-556. Animal sacrifice is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, see 14 Encyclopaedia Judaica 600, 600-605 (1971), and it played an important role in the practice of Judaism before destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem, see id., at 605-612. In modern Islam, there is an annual sacrifice commemorating Abraham’s sacrifice of a ram in the stead of his son. See C. Glasse, Concise Encyclopedia of Islam 178 (1989); 7 Encyclopedia of Religion, supra, at 456…Santeria adherents faced widespread persecution in Cuba, so the religion and its rituals were practiced in secret. The open practice of Santeria and its rites remains infrequent. See 723 F. SUPP.,;lt 1470; 13 Encyclopedia of Religion, supra, at 67; M. Gonzalez-Wippler, Santeria: The Religion 3-4 (1989)…Pichardo indicated that the Church’s goal was to bring the practice of the Santeria faith, including its ritual of animal sacrifice, into the open…The court also concluded that an exception to the sacrifice prohibition for religious conduct would “‘unduly interfere with fulfillment of the governmental interest'” because any more narrow restrictions-e. g., regulation of disposal of animal carcasses-would be unenforceable as a result of the secret nature of the Santeria religion. Id., at 1486-1487, and nn. 57-59…Although the practice of animal sacrifice may seem abhorrent to some, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981). Given the historical association between animal sacrifice and religious worship, see supra, at 524-525, petitioners’ assertion that animal sacrifice is an integral part of their religion “cannot be deemed bizarre or incredible.” Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U. S. 829, 834, n. 2 (1989).”, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from
these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in
blood for centuries.”
– James Madison, 4th president of the United States
OUTLINE OF THE CASE
All I have to do to get the case accepted by the court is prove Prima Facie (Not beyond a reasonable doubt) that my claim is plausible.
So, the first Cause of Action. According to the Supreme Court, Schedule I substances are not enough to bar a substance from Religious Use. The wording they used is that calling a substance Schedule I as an argument against Religious use “can not carry the day”.
My Religious rights are regularly violated by the DEA. I have been arrested, charged with both a Misdemeanor and a Felony and jailed (and won the case in the end, everything is dismissed), I have been arrested, had items seized and had a Narcotics Investigation opened (and won the case in the end, everything is dismissed). The fact that the DEA does not openly recognize the O Centro case, and make a Public Statement for lower Enforcement bodies, is dereliction of duty.
Laws must be Neutral and can not Overtly or Covertly ban Religions. The DEA allows large corporations to Manufacture, Import and Posses Schedule I and II Substances using DEA form 225, protocol can be found in 21 CFR 1301.18, the Constitution allows the regulation of Commerce, but not the Regulation of Religion. The Controlled Substances Act is not a Neutral Law.
Second cause of Action, Gerrymandering causing Death. My brother died in 2013 at the age of 11, the final cause of death was Edema (brain swelling). There is solid research (the Doctors even agreed, which is laid out in an Affidavit) that Cannabinoids can reverse Edema. But doctors are either Unable or Unwilling to retrieve Cannabinoids for this purpose due to the current operations of the DEA. The University of Mississippi was a protected Monopoly until August 2016 for Marijuana, at which time the DEA admitted it was allowing this Monopoly and opened up registration to more companies (the DEA admission of this is included in the lawsuit). Mallinckdrot has been allowed to Synthesize Tetrahydrocannabinoids (THC derivatives) but, due to this Gerrymandering, Hospitals do not have access. My brother’s Death certificate and Autopsy are included in the lawsuit, as well as the research papers proving he could have been saved. The files showing that they have allowed companies to Manufacture, Import and Posses these Substances is also included, along with case law for what legally defines a Monopoly.
Third Cause of Action, laws are not Amendments. The 18th Amendment started prohibition, and the Volstead Act was passed by Congress which put it into action. During Prohibition (and in the Volstead Act) Religious use of Alcohol was not Prohibited. If an Amendment did not have the power to violate Religion due to the 1st Amendment, then a mere law can not violate Religion. There is another point made in the third cause of action, but it would take up way more space to explain it here.
Fourth Cause of Action, Rights retained by the People. I am challenging the Controlled Substances Act under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as an Unconstitutional law, the Controlled Substances Act must be overturned. Any judge involved in protecting it is in violation of their oath.
Fifth Cause of Action, violation of International Agreements. The United States is a party to various Treaties stating that 1. Religion can not be violated, 2. Religion can not be targeted, and; 3. Religions must be able to manufacture and use Religious items/materials.
The Church of Neuroscience is a Church that was started by Dr. Jeremy Kerr in New Orleans, Louisiana. The cornerstone of the Church is molecular sacraments, mixtures of spirit and matter outside of yourself, which interact with the senses to connect parishioners to their God. The Church accepts people of all faiths. Sacraments of this Church are not included in the Psychotropics Treaty of 1971, and so can not be reached by it. And will help in overturning the Controlled Substances Act. This treaty is what the DEA falls back on. If you read any recent cases, which have torn apart their CSA argument with the RFRA, and their public interest argument by pointing out corporate exemption. The only thing they have left is this treaty, they are no longer arguing that they have a right under law to ban things, but an obligation under treaty. And the treaty does not reach the Sacraments of the Church of Neuroscience. So it does not apply.
Then after that is the claim and what I am requesting the court to do about this, and 72 pages of evidence, but to get in to all of it would take forever. Once the case has hit the Federal Docket records on Supreme Justia I will post a link to the case and a PDF to the actual document.
No one has ever filed a case like this before, and if you read Gonzales V O Centro (the first link in this post), the DEA can not defend against it.January 13, 2018 at 5:23 pm #656
Btw, the Shaivite Temple is a Licensed Non-Profit in the State of Colorado.
https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityDetail.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityResults&nameTyp=ENT&entityId2=20171698993&srchTyp=ENTITY&fileId=20171698993&masterFileId=20171698993January 13, 2018 at 5:24 pm #657
Also, I happen to be in the perfect position. Because I submitted my Petition when Jeff Sessions was still saying that Dispensaries would be fine, and I can prove that not only did I submit my Petition to the DEA, but also submitted a Lawsuit against the Attorney General in March 2017, and went to the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Agency, not to get a Red Badge, not to get a Dispensary License, but to get a Religious Exemption. And I can prove all of it.
Anyone else that tries to argue Religious Marijuana Right now, like say any Wealthy Dispensary in Colorado who wants to keep their Business, is nothing but Opportunists, while I can prove that my Religion is Sincere. So I am in the Perfect Position.
This all worked out very nicely.