1. If a Party or the World Health Organization has information relating to a substance not yet under international control which in its opinion may require the addition of that substance to any of the Schedules of this Convention, it shall notify the Secretary-General and furnish him with the information in support of that notification. The foregoing procedure shall also apply when a Party or the World Health Organization has information justifying the transfer of a substance from one Schedule to another among those Schedules, or the deletion of a substance from the Schedules.
2. The Secretary-General shall transmit such notification, and any information which he considers relevant, to the Parties, to the Commission and, when the notification is made by a Party, to the World Health Organization.
3. If the information transmitted with such a notification indicates that the substance is suitable for inclusion in Schedule I or Schedule II pursuant to paragraph 4, the Parties shall examine, in the light of all information available to them, the possibility of the provisional application to the substance of all measures of control applicable to substances in Schedule I or Schedule II, as appropriate.
4. If the World Health Organization finds:
a) That the substance has the capacity to produce
i) 1) A state of dependence, and
2) Central nervous system stimulation or depression, resulting in hallucinations or disturbances in motor function or thinking or behaviour or perception or mood, or
ii) Similar abuse and similar ill effects as a substance in Schedule I, II, III or IV, and
b) That there is sufficient evidence that the substance is being or is likely to be abused so as to constitute a public health and social problem warranting the placing of the substance under international control, the World Health Organization shall communicate to the Commission an assessment of the substance, including the extent or likelihood of abuse, the degree of seriousness of the public health and social problem and the degree of usefulness of the substance in medical therapy, together with recommendations on control measures, if any, that would be appropriate in the light of its assessment.
5. The Commission, taking into account the communication from the World Health Organization, whose assessments shall be determinative as to medical and scientific matters, and bearing in mind the economic, social, legal, administrative and other factors it may consider relevant, may add the substance to Schedule I, II, III or IV. The Commission may seek further information from the World Health Organization or from other appropriate sources.
6. If a notification under paragraph 1 relates to a substance already listed in one of the Schedules, the World Health Organization shall communicate to the Commission its new findings, any new assessment of the substance it may make in accordance with paragraph 4 and any new recommendations on control measures it may find appropriate in the light of that assessment. The Commission, taking into account the communication from the World Health Organization as under paragraph 5 and bearing in mind the factors referred to in that paragraph, may decide to transfer the substance from one Schedule to another or to delete it from the Schedules.
7. Any decision of the Commission taken pursuant to this article shall be communicated by the Secretary-General to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the World Health Organization and to the Board. Such decision shall become fully effective with respect to each Party 180 days after the date of such communication, except for any Party which, within that period, in respect of a decision adding a substance to a Schedule, has transmitted to the Secretary-General a written notice that, in view of exceptional circumstances, it is not in a position to give effect with respect to that substance to all of the provisions of the Convention applicable to substances in that Schedule. Such notice shall state the reasons for this exceptional action. Notwithstanding its notice, each Party shall apply, as a minimum, the control measures listed below:
a) A Party having given such notice with respect to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule I shall take into account, as far as possible, the special control measures enumerated in article 7 and, with respect to that substance, shall:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution as provided in article 8 for substances in Schedule II;
ii) Require medical prescriptions for supply or dispensing as provided in article 9 for substances in Schedule II;
iii) Comply with the obligations relating to export and import provided in article 12, except in respect to another Party having given such notice for the substance in question;
iv) Comply with the obligations provided in article 13 for substances in Schedule II in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import;
v) Furnish statistical reports to the Board in accordance with paragraph 4 a) of article 16; and
vi) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
b) A Party having given such notice with regard to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule II shall, with respect to that substance:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution in accordance with article 8;
ii) Require medical prescriptions for supply or dispensing in accordance with article 9;
iii) Comply with the obligations relating to export and import provided in Article 12, except in respect to another Party having given such notice for the substance in question;
iv) Comply with the obligations of article 13 in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import;
v) Furnish statistical reports to the Board in accordance with paragraphs 4 a), c) and d) of article 16; and
vi) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
c) A Party having given such notice with regard to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule III shall, with respect to that substance:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution in accordance with article 8;
ii) Require medical prescriptions for supply or dispensing in accordance with article 9;
iii) Comply with the obligations relating to export provided in article 12, except in respect to another Party having given such notice for the substance in question;
iv) Comply with the obligations of article 13 in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import; and
v) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
d) A Party having given such notice with regard to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule IV shall, with respect to that substance:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution in accordance with article 8;
ii) Comply with the obligations of article 13 in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import; and
iii) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
e) A Party having given such notice with regard to a substance transferred to a Schedule providing stricter controls and obligations shall apply as a minimum all of the provisions of this Convention applicable to the Schedule from which it was transferred.
8. a) The decisions of the Commission taken under this article shall be subject to review by the Council upon the request of any Party filed within 180 days from receipt of notification of the decision. The request for review shall be sent to the Secretary-General together with all relevant information upon which the request for review is based.
b) The Secretary-General shall transmit copies of the request for review and the relevant information to the Commission, to the World Health Organization and to all the Parties, inviting them to submit comments within ninety days. All comments received shall be submitted to the Council for consideration.
c) The Council may confirm, alter or reverse the decision of the Commission. Notification of the Council's decision shall be transmitted to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the Commission, to the World Health Organization and to the Board.
d) During pendency of the review, the original decision of the Commission shall, subject to paragraph 7, remain in effect.
9. The Parties shall use their best endeavours to apply to substances which do not fall under this Convention, but which may be used in the illicit manufacture of psychotropic substances, such measures of supervision as may be practicable.
Topic: What does Temple Coin have to do with the DEA?? (Read 116 times)
Btw, since I sent in the DEA Petition around Thanksgiving, I have been nice and I have been giving them time because it is the Holidays, but now New Years is over, so if I don't receive a Response, I will do the same as the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church and take the DEA to Federal Court for not Responding. And the Federal Court is guaranteed to Comply and will make the DEA Respond or come to Court. And the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church was not in a State that had Recreational (let alone Religious) Marijuana, which we are. And the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church did not have the DEA accepting Registration for New Marijuana Importers, as of August 2016 (Google: "Federal Registry Marijuana Importers").
So they will probably just comply once the Federal Court is involved.
Contradictions in Law that will be decided in my 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 (Jeff Sessions overturned this Memorandum today, and has yet to replace it, so the R-B Amendment is the only thing Dispensaries have left, if Congress even renews it for 2018).
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.
So they will probably just comply once the Federal Court is involved.
Contradictions in Law that will be decided in my 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 (Jeff Sessions overturned this Memorandum today, and has yet to replace it, so the R-B Amendment is the only thing Dispensaries have left, if Congress even renews it for 2018).
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.
Everyone should know something, my Religion involves the use of Marijuana, but if your Religion involves a substance that is Schedule II, III, IV, V then Religious Use is not bared by the UN Psychotropics Convention, and therefor the DEA has no obligation to anything other than the 1st Amendment if your Religious Substance is Schedule II, III, IV or V. (Check the UN Psychotropics Convention for the Scheduling that matters in Religious Court Cases)
Mine just so happens to be Schedule I, so we have to go to the Human Rights Court and argue about it, but anyone using other Substances can just get an exemption easily, and if the DEA denies it, a US Judge will reverse that.
Mine just so happens to be Schedule I, so we have to go to the Human Rights Court and argue about it, but anyone using other Substances can just get an exemption easily, and if the DEA denies it, a US Judge will reverse that.
Analogues of Schedule III, IV or V substances are not regulated. So things like Alprazolam (Xanax) Analogues, Marinol Analogues, Ketamine Analogues, Testosterone Analogues, are all unregulated. Only Analogues of Schedule I and II Substances are regulated.
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.
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.
We are going to start getting Generic Powder forms of over the Counter Medicines in Bulk in Foreign Countries, then having them packaged somewhere and then sell them in the United States over the Counter as our own brand.
And our Brand is going to be different, for example, the first thing I want to offer is Clemastine
For some reason it is fairly expensive over the Counter, but is meant to do nothing more than Benadryll really. But what we will sell it for it 2 fold. As an Anti-Histamine, like Benadryll, but we will also let people know that it causes Remyelination, which forms Oligodendrocytes.
1
Oligodendrocytes (from Greek, meaning cells with a few branches), or oligodendroglia, are a type of neuroglia discovered by Pío del Río Hortega. Their main functions are to provide support and insulation to axons in the central nervous system of some vertebrates, equivalent to the function performed by Schwann cells in the peripheral nervous system. Oligodendrocytes do this by creating the myelin sheath, which is 80% lipid and 20% protein. A single oligodendrocyte can extend its processes to 50 axons, wrapping approximately 1 μm of myelin sheath around each axon; Schwann cells, on the other hand, can wrap around only one axon. Each oligodendrocyte forms one segment of myelin for several adjacent axons.
Better Understanding Nootropics
There is a class of Chemicals known as Nootropics, or Smart Drugs; They are prescribed in many other Countries, but in the US they are just “Not FDA Approved”. It is hard to figure out what is what, so I am going to explain them in a way that makes it all a lot more simple. Everyone knows what Tryptophan is, Tryptophan is in Turkey, but not in high enough amounts to make you tired. You can get Tryptophan Powder, and you could even buy it by the Barrel on Alibaba, and it is a sleep aid better than Melatonin. Melatonin is another example of a Nootropic, but it has basically defined the laws for FDA non-approved remedies, and has not really been considered a Nootropic. But Melatonin is a sleep Regulator, Tryptophan is a sleep Aid.
Tryptophan is related to Tryptamine, with is in DMT, which many people have probably heard of. And Melatonin is related to Serotonin. Another example of something closely related to Serotonin is 5-HTP, which is 5-Hydroxytryptophan. Then there are Cholergenics. People have probably heard that Nicotine can induce Dreams, and that if you wear a Nicotine patch and aren’t a smoker, it can cause Dreams. Nicotine is Cholerginic. Choline is in Milk, it is in Eggs, it is in a lot of different things, and you can buy pure Choline Powder. But you can also get Alpha-GPC, because Choline mostly is destroyed by your Stomache acids, so Alpha-GPC is more bio-Available. Then, once you have Choline in your system, what it does is create Acetylcholine, which Regulates Thoughts and Dreams. So once you have the Choline, you can activate it. You can do that with Piracetam, or Phenylpiracitam, which cause your brain to use it’s Acetylcholine. You can also get Galantamine, which is an Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor. The way this works is similar to an SSRI, but for a completely different part of the brain. Acetylcholine Regulates Thought and Dreams. Acetylcholine Esterase is an Ezyme that breaks down any “extra” Acetylcholine your brain makes. And Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor, inhibits the action of the Acetylcholine Esterase, so that all Acetylcholine created is used and none is wasted.
Then there are things like Octopamine, which is in Bitter Orange Peel. It is similar to Caffeine, but is related to Adrenaline, so it is more natural. And there are other similar Nootropics. As well as things like GABA, which can help you relax or sleep. Then there is Modafinil which is a Prodrug of Provigil, and breaks down in the stomache to do the exact same thing. So when getting a Nootropic, you just have to figure out how it relates to Human Biochemistry, and maybe figure out what the plant equivalent is.
And our Brand is going to be different, for example, the first thing I want to offer is Clemastine
For some reason it is fairly expensive over the Counter, but is meant to do nothing more than Benadryll really. But what we will sell it for it 2 fold. As an Anti-Histamine, like Benadryll, but we will also let people know that it causes Remyelination, which forms Oligodendrocytes.
1
Oligodendrocytes (from Greek, meaning cells with a few branches), or oligodendroglia, are a type of neuroglia discovered by Pío del Río Hortega. Their main functions are to provide support and insulation to axons in the central nervous system of some vertebrates, equivalent to the function performed by Schwann cells in the peripheral nervous system. Oligodendrocytes do this by creating the myelin sheath, which is 80% lipid and 20% protein. A single oligodendrocyte can extend its processes to 50 axons, wrapping approximately 1 μm of myelin sheath around each axon; Schwann cells, on the other hand, can wrap around only one axon. Each oligodendrocyte forms one segment of myelin for several adjacent axons.
Better Understanding Nootropics
There is a class of Chemicals known as Nootropics, or Smart Drugs; They are prescribed in many other Countries, but in the US they are just “Not FDA Approved”. It is hard to figure out what is what, so I am going to explain them in a way that makes it all a lot more simple. Everyone knows what Tryptophan is, Tryptophan is in Turkey, but not in high enough amounts to make you tired. You can get Tryptophan Powder, and you could even buy it by the Barrel on Alibaba, and it is a sleep aid better than Melatonin. Melatonin is another example of a Nootropic, but it has basically defined the laws for FDA non-approved remedies, and has not really been considered a Nootropic. But Melatonin is a sleep Regulator, Tryptophan is a sleep Aid.
Tryptophan is related to Tryptamine, with is in DMT, which many people have probably heard of. And Melatonin is related to Serotonin. Another example of something closely related to Serotonin is 5-HTP, which is 5-Hydroxytryptophan. Then there are Cholergenics. People have probably heard that Nicotine can induce Dreams, and that if you wear a Nicotine patch and aren’t a smoker, it can cause Dreams. Nicotine is Cholerginic. Choline is in Milk, it is in Eggs, it is in a lot of different things, and you can buy pure Choline Powder. But you can also get Alpha-GPC, because Choline mostly is destroyed by your Stomache acids, so Alpha-GPC is more bio-Available. Then, once you have Choline in your system, what it does is create Acetylcholine, which Regulates Thoughts and Dreams. So once you have the Choline, you can activate it. You can do that with Piracetam, or Phenylpiracitam, which cause your brain to use it’s Acetylcholine. You can also get Galantamine, which is an Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor. The way this works is similar to an SSRI, but for a completely different part of the brain. Acetylcholine Regulates Thought and Dreams. Acetylcholine Esterase is an Ezyme that breaks down any “extra” Acetylcholine your brain makes. And Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor, inhibits the action of the Acetylcholine Esterase, so that all Acetylcholine created is used and none is wasted.
Then there are things like Octopamine, which is in Bitter Orange Peel. It is similar to Caffeine, but is related to Adrenaline, so it is more natural. And there are other similar Nootropics. As well as things like GABA, which can help you relax or sleep. Then there is Modafinil which is a Prodrug of Provigil, and breaks down in the stomache to do the exact same thing. So when getting a Nootropic, you just have to figure out how it relates to Human Biochemistry, and maybe figure out what the plant equivalent is.
We are currently in the Process of getting a DEA Exemption for our Religion using the DEA Form 225 Process, found at this link.
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
In August 2016, the DEA opened up Registration for Federal Marijuana Growers, Importers, and Researchers.
Federal Register
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to
Catalent has already been approved to Import Tons of Marijuana
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/app/2017/fr0918_4.htm
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)
Watch Senator Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions talk about the Federal Marijuana Program in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOU7kVRwFxw
Here is what the Senate has to say about Marijuana
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-13-16%20Weiss%20Testimony.pdf
Kratom not Scheduled after massive Twitter Response
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/10/13/2016-24659/withdrawal-of-notice-of-intent-to-temporarily-place-mitragynine-and-7-hydroxymitragynine-into
Lipomed can pretty much import anything
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/reg/2016/fr0119_2.htm
DOJ Anti-Trust Division says that the DEA has to accept new Manufactures and Importers so as not to be creating Monopolies.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-antitrust-division-united-states-department-justice-amicus-curiae-support-application
Here is the contact email to ask questions for the Registration department at the DEA
[email protected]
2 Cases about how the DEA let a 12 year old Die in furtherance of Public Safety, because Religion is Dangerous.
IACHR Petition (Human Rights Case) Case # P-2098-17
Dallas Federal District Case # 3:17-cv-734-LBN
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.
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.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/faqs_policy_statement_regarding_marijuana_issues_in_indian_country_28jan15.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/332
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.
https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/Young1988.pdf
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
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.
http://www2.mallinckrodt.com/Active_Pharmaceutical_Ingredients/Controlled_Substances/
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=1597
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
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.
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.
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=20171698993
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
In August 2016, the DEA opened up Registration for Federal Marijuana Growers, Importers, and Researchers.
Federal Register
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to
Catalent has already been approved to Import Tons of Marijuana
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/app/2017/fr0918_4.htm
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)
Watch Senator Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions talk about the Federal Marijuana Program in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOU7kVRwFxw
Here is what the Senate has to say about Marijuana
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-13-16%20Weiss%20Testimony.pdf
Kratom not Scheduled after massive Twitter Response
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/10/13/2016-24659/withdrawal-of-notice-of-intent-to-temporarily-place-mitragynine-and-7-hydroxymitragynine-into
Lipomed can pretty much import anything
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/reg/2016/fr0119_2.htm
DOJ Anti-Trust Division says that the DEA has to accept new Manufactures and Importers so as not to be creating Monopolies.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-antitrust-division-united-states-department-justice-amicus-curiae-support-application
Here is the contact email to ask questions for the Registration department at the DEA
[email protected]
2 Cases about how the DEA let a 12 year old Die in furtherance of Public Safety, because Religion is Dangerous.
IACHR Petition (Human Rights Case) Case # P-2098-17
Dallas Federal District Case # 3:17-cv-734-LBN
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.
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.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/faqs_policy_statement_regarding_marijuana_issues_in_indian_country_28jan15.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/332
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.
https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/Young1988.pdf
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
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.
http://www2.mallinckrodt.com/Active_Pharmaceutical_Ingredients/Controlled_Substances/
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=1597
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
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.
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.
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=20171698993
Jump to: