Tag Archives: commerce

TRUMP’S DHS CHIEF JUST FLIPPED! WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE WAR ON DRUGS IS GAME-CHANGING!

 

Untitled

The Next News Network

Published on Apr 18, 2017

MORE INFO: http://CannaSense.com | Email Jordan jpage@cannasense.com | Sub for more: http://nnn.is/the_new_media | Eliot Nelson for the Huffington Post reports, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly said that marijuana “is not a factor in the drug war,” placing him at odds with a number of other Trump administration officials.
Take action MORE INFO: http://CannaSense.com
Email Jordan jpage@cannasense.com
See the report here:
https://youtu.be/LM-f3qlRYMM
ref:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/j…
————————————————————————————
SUPPORT THE NETWORK WITH THE LINKS BELOW!
————————————————————————————
Patreon $5/mo: http://nnn.is/monthly-gift-5
Give Once: http://nnn.is/one-time-gift
Give BTC: 13Hd1HFqS5CDLCMcFQPWu9wumubo6X2hSM
Tip Brian The Editor: http://nextnewsnetwork.com/tip-the-ed…
T-Shirt Shop: http://nnn.is/get-your-gear-here
Teach Your Child About Liberty: http://nnn.is/1HvxU37
Get the Smartphone app that is restoring freedom here:
http://nnn.is/Download-Candid-Here
Learn What Stocks Will Survive The Collapse:
http://nnn.is/n3-trade-genius
Watch Us on Tiger Steam!
http://nnn.is/GET-TIGER — $50 off promocode: BUYTIGERSTREAM
Get The Tea!
http://GetTheTea.com
Stock Up On Survival Food Today!
http://www.foodforliberty.com/nextnews
GET YOUR TACTICAL GEAR!
Get The Light! http://nnn.is/tac-lights
Get The Pen! http://nnn.is/tac-pen
Get The Headlamp! http://nnn.is/tac-headlamp
—————————————-
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL!
—————————————
http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
http://NextNewsNetwork.com
Hashtag: #N3
Copyright Disclaimer: Citation of articles and authors in this report does not imply ownership. Works and images presented here fall under Fair Use Section 107 and are used for commentary on globally significant newsworthy events. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

CONTINUE TO VIDEO!!!

The “Lessor of Evils” as a Defense for Marijuana

 

MARY 2

 

I must start out with a initial plea of Guilty but Innocent in Order to initiate the Process of establishing no “Mens Rae” with the Motion of a “Lessor of Evils” defense, based on having no other choice but evil in the case at hand!

As for guilt, I have none and I have already proven it by my already having plead Guilty and Not! Based on a Motion for a “Lessor of Evils”.

I am then given the chance to introduce all the evidence in Court that in fact proves my innocence and my lack of guilt in the case or crime I am being charged for…

The real two evil choices you/we are currently given in a Marijuana Case is either ~

A)

I/you/we know we are being forced into choosing between the Evil of choosing to “Uphold” an evil Abusive LIE… = Unconstitutional Controlled Substance Act = Prohibition which they created to divide the Market place for double the profit in order to drive prices, as this also allows for more venues or avenues, for them to profit in while they enslave everyone we love… and everything through their unconstitutionally declared “Foreign Synthetic War” on Nature, I mean drugs! The “drug war” which evidence shows has already destroyed too much and too many in America… While be forced to give up my/your already won Supreme Court decision of Leary vs The U.S, which established Constitutional Inalienable Sovereign Freedoms and Rights… While we bend over for Evil…

Or

B) We risk being deemed evil and getting arrested, criminalized, going to prison, or even worse dying… shot by a cop… For doing the right thing and flexing my Constitutional Inalienable Sovereign freedoms and rights to utilize this plant untaxed, which was upheld in the Supreme Courts Ruling in Leary vs The U.S.!

For my/your/our needs and or the needs of others…

Which they have deemed as evil? And want to call me/you/us a criminal for  violating and breaking their Unconstitutional Illegal overreach and Acts of Congress and Statutes… Not Law! to use this non-toxic food as it was freely Divinely and Sacramentally given to us as a nontoxic most nutritious meat first!  As we also now know that we are all in fact, Endocannabinoid based species or life forms and we also know that it is in fact malnutrition that causes the majority of disease and death…

While many are suffering in pain, in jails or prison, starving and dying from not having this food and the genocide and Slaves being caused by all their propaganda Legal Lies – Legalize BS Babble being told by their Big Corporate Industrial Synthetic Military Prison Church Complex!

Just in order for us to… be, eat, heal, sleep, maintain,… Naturally as it was Divinely ordained by/in Nature and/or G-d…

As apposed to being forced to utilize addictive and/or become dependent and/or being poisoned by all of it… Their patented chemical synthetic look alikes… When we know for a fact, that Cannabis/Marijuana is non-toxic… Breaks Addiction and Dependency while it has has so many other good industrial uses… For our sustainability and tranquility!

https://marythomasspearsblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/is-no-mans-rae-the-plea-to-set-us-free/comment-page-1/#comment-5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leary_v._United_States

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-statutory-law-and-constitutional-law

http://norml.org/library/item/introduction-to-the-endocannabinoid-system

Rule or Law? The Difference Matters For Your Marijuana Business

By Daniel Shortt on October 28, 2015 Posted in Legal Issues, States

This is for federal bills, but it nicely illustrates how complicated the process can be.

Laws are different than rules and understanding the difference between the two can be important to your marijuana business’s bottom-line. I will use Washington State as the example.

In Washington, laws are generally enacted through initiative or through the legislative process. Initiatives allow voters to pass laws directly by popular vote. Washington legalized recreational marijuana by popular vote — Initiative 502 in 2012. The legislative process requires a bill pass through both Washington’s Senate and House of Representatives and then garner the Governor’s signature before becoming law. Recently, SB 5052 and HB 2136 were passed through the legislative process and established new Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis.

As is the case with other states with “robust regulation,” Washington cannabis businesses are also subject to rules created by state agencies without the political protections provided by initiatives and the legislative process. State agencies, like the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB), are government entities given the power to regulate and govern a specific area or industry. These agencies are typically run by unelected officials. Agencies arguably create more efficient government because they a focus on one discreet area or industry, with expertise not usually available to legislatures and lawmakers.

A rule is an agency order, directive, or regulation that applies to the public generally. Rules are similar to laws because those who violate them may be subject to penalties and sanctions. Rules can and do change constantly, whereas laws tend to remain more static. The LCB’s rule-making process may begin with an individual’s petition to the LCB, but often the agency itself initiates the process against a cannabis business if it sees a need to do so.

To enact a rule, the LCB must publish notice of the rule-making in the Washington State Register. The LCB then holds a public hearing at which citizens are given an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Citizens can also submit written comments to the LCB about the proposed rule. The LCB must consider the public comments and then issue an order of adoption, which explains the new rule and the basis for its adoption.  Agencies can also institute emergency rules, which are not subject to the above requirements and become effective immediately. These emergency rules only last for up to 120 days and they must be in response to some immediate issue or danger. The Washington Department of Health recently issued emergency rules for medical marijuana, for instance.

Despite similarities to laws, LCB rules are not subject to the same type of political recourse as laws. This is significant because LCB regulations have huge impacts on the cannabis marketplace. For example, in Initiative 502, voters enacted residency requirements that restrict issuance of cannabis licenses only to those who can demonstrate having spent a certain amount of time in the state (see here and here). The Initiative never mentions “True Party of Interest.” In its rule making though, the LCB created the term, True Party of Interest, and defined it, and now applies the residency requirements to any party deemed to be a True Party of Interest. The definition for a “True Party of Interest” includes all investors and the spouses of any shareholders or principal. Though never contemplated by the voters, the “True Party of Interest” rule significantly restricts the marijuana marketplace by making it difficult for out-of-state investors to put their funds into Washington State cannabis businesses. Moreover, Washington voters who disagree with the “True Party of Interest” rule have little recourse beyond lobbying to get this rule changed.

One of the best ways for citizens to get involved with LCB rule making is to comment during the agency’s rule-making process. Currently the LCB and the Washington State Department of Health are holding hearings regarding medical marijuana regulations. If you care about the future of the marijuana industry in Washington State you should make your voice heard at one or more of these hearings.

CONTINUE READING…

House passes bill to prevent mandatory GMO labeling

 

"We should not raise prices on consumers based on the wishes of a handful of activists."

 

Posted: Thursday, July 23, 2015 5:39 pm | Updated: 6:01 pm, Thu Jul 23, 2015.

Associated Press |

WASHINGTON (AP) — Food companies would not have to disclose whether their products include genetically modified ingredients under legislation passed by the House Thursday.

The House bill is backed by the food industry, which has fought mandatory labeling efforts in several states around the country. The legislation, which passed 275-150, would prevent states from requiring package labels to indicate the presence of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

So far, Vermont is the only state set to require the labels. That law will take effect in July 2016 if it survives a legal challenge from the food industry. Maine and Connecticut have also passed laws requiring the labeling, but those measures don’t take effect unless neighboring states follow suit.

The country’s largest food companies say genetically modified foods are safe and that labels would be misleading. They say a patchwork of laws around the country would be expensive for companies and confusing for consumers.

"The reality is, biotechnology has time and time again proved safe," the bill’s sponsor, Kansas Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, said on the House floor. "We should not raise prices on consumers based on the wishes of a handful of activists."

Advocates for the labels say people have a right to know what is in their food and criticize the legislation for trying to take away states’ ability to require the labels.

"What’s the problem with letting consumers know what they are buying?" asked Vermont Rep. Peter Welch, a Democrat.

Genetically modified seeds are engineered in laboratories to have certain traits, like resistance to herbicides. The majority of the country’s corn and soybean crop is now genetically modified, with much of that going to animal feed. It also is made into popular processed food ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup, corn starch and soybean oil.

The food industry says about 75 percent to 80 percent of foods contain genetically modified ingredients.

The Food and Drug Administration has said GMOs are safe, and the federal government does not support mandatory labels. Even so, the House bill would make it harder for the agency to require labeling nationally by laying out additional standards for such a policy.

At the same time, the legislation would step up FDA oversight by requiring that any new genetically engineered products be reviewed by the agency before they can be sold. That process is now voluntary for most modified foods.

The bill would also create a new certification process at the Agriculture Department for foods that are labeled free of GMOs. That would mean anyone wanting to use that label would eventually have to apply. Organic foods would be automatically certified, since they are already required to be free of engineered ingredients.

A December Associated Press-GfK poll found that two-thirds of Americans support labeling of genetically modified ingredients on food packages.

Many of those who support the labels say they have no problem buying food containing GMOs, but they think there should be more accountability in the food industry. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said Wednesday in a speech opposing the bill that he buys genetically modified foods but thinks it should be a choice.

Michael Gruber of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the industry group leading the fight against mandatory labels, says those who want the labels are trying to scare people away from genetically modified foods. "This is to tear down brands in the name of right to know," Gruber said.

There is no similar bill in the Senate, although Sen. John Heaven, R-N.D., has said he is working on legislation.

It’s unclear whether President Barack Obama would sign the legislation. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been supportive of genetically modified crops and has praised voluntary labeling solutions like special bar codes on packages to allow consumers to access information via smartphone. But the White House has not said whether it will endorse the House bill.

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin said after the vote that people who want to know what’s in their food will eventually win the fight.

Americans "are demanding the right to know," Shumlin said.

___

Associated Press writer Wilson Ring in Montpelier, Vt., contributed to this report.

___

Follow Mary Clare Japonica on Twitter http://twitter.com/mcjalonick

CONTINUE READING…

Marijuana could be a $35 billion market by 2020

Published: July 15, 2015 1:36 p.m. ET

 

If all 50 states were to fully legalize pot, it could generate big sales

 

By

KathleenBurke

Reporter

If all 50 U.S. states were to approve the consumption of marijuana for medical and recreational use, it could become a $35 billion market by 2020.

That’s according to GreenWave Advisors, an industry research firm that tracks retail sales in the four states and the District of Columbia that have already legalized it. Those markets have experienced explosive growth since marijuana was approved, demonstrating the strong opportunity for industry players and state governments eager to gather the tax on sales and replenish their coffers.

The sale of recreational marijuana in Washington began July 8, 2014, and has steadily grown to $31.9 million in June from $2 million in that first month, or a total of nearly $180 million for the first 12 months, according to an analysis by Marijuana Business Daily of data from the state’s Liquor Control Board.

The Washington market is catching up on recreational sales in Colorado, which began in January 2014. Colorado state retailers brought in about $305 million in sales in 2014, according to GreenWave Advisors.

See also: Get marijuana on demand for $95 a month

Analysts attribute the growth in sales to a variety of factors, primarily the conversion of a long-existing black market to a regulated one.

“We’ve never had an industry that was a black market industry of this size,” said Leslie Bocskor, founder of cannabis industry consulting firm Electrum Partners.

Steve Gormley, chief business development officer at OSL Holdings, Inc. (OSLH), a company focused on consumer advocacy and social activism, compared legalization to the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933.

“As was the case in advance of the federal repeal of alcohol prohibition, there is a landscape of opportunity in states that allow for the use of recreational or medical marijuana,” Gormley said.

Analysts identify California as the watershed state that would lead to the rest of the country approving full legalization. State voters will decide on the issue on the November 2016 ballot.

“California is the big kahuna,” said Matt Karnes, founder of GreenWave Advisors.

Gormley agreed. “…It is a tremendous market, with its proximity to Washington and Colorado, there is an advantage from a revenue standpoint of legalizing recreational, and we will start to see other states moving rapidly in the same direction.”

As the recreational industry grows, there will be increasing opportunities for businesses to enter the market.

“This is an industry that is allowing people to come in and start businesses that they otherwise might not have been able to start,” Bocskor said. “The events and pressures—pressure for regulation of markets, federal legality versus state legality—create a unique business environment never seen before.”

See also: Marijuana moms shatter the grass ceiling

Though the budding market might seem attractive to potential investors, Gormley advises careful research before dedicating funds.

“The reality is you want to make investments in companies with solid fundamentals rather than concepts, specifically publicly traded companies in the space,” Gormley said. “If investors are going to go in privately, you need to have a well-developed network of people inside the industry. There are a lot of crooks out there, and investors can get fleeced. ”

Despite the potential risks, analysts expect the market to continue its upward trajectory for the foreseeable future.

“It will eventually plateau, but we still have a few years of growth,” Bocskor said. “Growth begets growth.”

More from MarketWatch

CONTINUE READING…

Prohibitionists are Overstating Feds vs. State Marijuana Legalization Case to Media

by David Borden, December 10, 2012, 02:54pm

Posted in:

A mostly great piece in Rolling Stone this weekend, "Obama’s Pot Problem," missed the mark on the federal preemption question — can the feds shut down Washington and Colorado’s legalized regulation systems? Tim Dickinson wrote the following on that subject:

[T]he administration appears to have an open-and-shut case: Federal law trumps state law when the two contradict. What’s more, the Supreme Court has spoken on marijuana law: In the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich contesting medical marijuana in California, the court ruled that the federal government can regulate even tiny quantities of pot – including those grown and sold purely within state borders – because the drug is ultimately connected to interstate commerce. If the courts side with the administration, a judge could issue an immediate injunction blocking Washington and Colorado from regulating or taxing the growing and selling of pot – actions that would be considered trafficking under the Controlled Substances Act.

But a former Bush administration official quoted in the New York Times on Thursday, former DOJ civil division head Gregory Katsas, made the opposite prediction. Katsas was "skeptical" that a preemption lawsuit would succeed, according to the Times. Why? Perhaps because it’s not just that the feds can’t force states to criminalize drug possession, as Kevin Sabet selectively pointed out to Dickinson. It’s also the case that they probably can’t directly force the states to criminalize sales either. The Controlled Substances Act in fact leans against federal preemption of state drug policy, as pointed out in a law professors brief on preemption submitted in a California case this year.

Dickinson also pointed out that federal officials had used threats to prosecute state employees involved in implementing regulations for medical marijuana. In my opinion the US Attorney letters were deliberately vague — scary enough to influence state officials, but in most if not all cases stopping short of explicitly making that threat. A better piece of evidence, I think, is that in 16 years of state medical marijuana laws, no federal prosecutor has ever tried to actually invalidate such a law in court, not even after the Raich ruling. Why not? They must not think they have a slam dunk case. And if preemption is not a slam dunk for medical marijuana, then it’s not a slam dunk when it comes to legalization either, although there are additional arguments to throw against full legalization.

The reality is that no one knows how this will turn out if it goes to court. Raich established that federal police agencies can use their powers in medical marijuana states to continue to criminalize marijuana federally, justified by the Interstate Commerce Clause. But that is not the same as having the power to forbid states from granting exceptions to the states’ own anti-marijuana sales laws, which in legal terms is what the regulatory frameworks do, and plenty of smart lawyers are skeptical that they can do that. This is not a slam dunk either way.

CONTINUE READING HERE….