What is the DEA up to now? What are they doing to our CBD?


When the news hit the fans today concerning the DEA’s “new rule” on the sale of CBD remedies and other products everybody jumped up and said “WHAT?”, or at least I did!

I had been so wrapped up in the Kratom issue lately I hadn’t even been thinking about CBD’s.  Low and behold, I thought, while I was looking over ‘here’, ‘they’ were conjuring up a

new “rule” over ‘there’.  Something else to be able to use to fill up the Courts, Jails, even Prisons with.  It just never ends.  Every time that we as a people come upon anything that may be

legal at the time, that actually may be worth using, and could possibly benefit us in one way or another, ‘They’ come along and snatch it right out from under us.

That is what Agenda 21 (Agenda 2030) is  all about!  Control of the masses through regulation of food and medicines, (among other things).

THIS is unacceptable!  This must stop!  We cannot allow the Government, whether it be State, Federal or U.N., to be able to have this kind of control over our food and other natural plants!

Before the pharmaceutical conglomerates ever existed it was the herb gardens which provided the medicine to the households.  This is referenced throughout history.

After reading updates and trading information with others who are watching these issues closely as well, it seems like the DEA is just trying to stand up and make some noise so as to get everyone a little worried.

I am copy/pasting a letter here that was forwarded to me from a colleague which states that legally they cannot prosecute for CBD oil as long as it is below .3% THC.

This having been said, the DEA memo states the following:

The memo states: it serves to clarify and reinforce the DEA’s position on all cannabis extracts, including CBD oil. That position is: They are all federally illegal Schedule I substances. “Extracts of marihuana will continue to be treated as Schedule I controlled substances,” the notice says. CBD oil derived from hemp is now commonly available nationwide via web sites and mail order services. Those operations survive on the assumption that cannabidiol products below the legal threshold for THC percentage in hemp (0.3 percent or less) are technically legal. Not so, says the DEA.

“For practical purposes, all extracts that contain CBD will also contain at least small amounts of other cannabinoids. However, if it were possible to produce from the cannabis plant an extract that contained only CBD and no other cannabinoids, such an extract would fall within the new drug code” and therefore remain federally illegal. In other words: The DEA is confident that it can find enough traces of other cannabinoids in your CBD oil to arrest and prosecute. And if they can’t, they still have the option of arresting and prosecuting based on the CBD oil itself.

Now the question becomes this, will the DEA use this “rule” to stage raids and arrests for marketing CBD products?  Knowing that according to the information I have here from the Folium Legal Counsel anything under the .3% threshold cannot be prosecuted, they can still use it to fill up the Courts and jails and maybe even some Prisons while collecting Fines and Court Costs as well, because not everyone will be able to afford to go to Court and fight the charges, much like Marijuana is now.

So how do we go forward with this information and what do we do to change it?  Start by calling the White House and complaining!  Obviously the current Government as it stands now has lost all touch with its people.  It is not because they are stupid, ignorant, or ill-informed.  It is because they know exactly what they are doing, and they DO have a plan.

It is time that the people make their own plan.  To take back our Country.

Remember the United States of America, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?

I want it back now.

SK

 

 

A MESSAGE FROM FOLIUM LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING THE DEA’s MEMO:

On December 14, 2016, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration published a final rule regarding the “Establishment of a New Drug Code for Marijuana Extract.” ( https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/14/2016-29941/establishment-of-a-new-drug-code-for-marihuana-extract)
This new rule does not create any new substantive regulation or law regarding the legal status of marijuana or marijuana extract. Instead, it creates a new tracking code number for “Marihuana Extracts” (which include cannabinoids).

Previously, Marijuana Extracts were classified under the code number for “Marihuana. Under the new rule, extracts are now classified separately. The DEA uses these codes to track quantities of controlled substances imported to and exported from the United States. This new rule affects only DEA-registered entities who previously were required to track such materials. As the document states, “[t]he only direct effect to registrants who handle marihuana extracts will be the requirement to add the new drug code to their registrations.” The rule goes into effect on January 13, 2017.

Regarding the legal status of CBD derived from industrial hemp: The 2014 US Farm Bill was an act of congress signed by the president and that is the highest law of the land. The DEA cannot make law and try to redefine a law passed by the US Congress which defined industrial hemp in section 7606 as “Any cannabis sativa L that produces naturally less than .3% THC on a dry weight basis.”
Furthermore, the DEA is not allowed to interfere with a legal state licensed cannabis business – there is very recent case law that set precedent for this in the 9th circuit. See here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ruling-marijuana-idUSKCN10R1YN
Lastly, the DEA was purposely de-funded by the US Congress last year (and is poised to do the same for this year:
(http://archives.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/12/16/congress-set-to-ban-feds-from-enforcing-cannabis-laws-again) from pursuing any enforcement of their archaic interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in legal states.

We hope this information helps you and your customers filter through the mis-information and fear mongering that usually runs rampant anytime a government memo affecting cannabis is circulated. If you have any further questions feel free to contact us directly, but it’s business as usual over here!

 

 

 

The DEA May Have Just Flipped The Script on the Cannabis Industry And Not In A Good Way

If you are licensed to work with marijuana extracts, you have 30 days from today to update your paperwork. Also, Cannabidiol (CBD) extracts are now Schedule I substances and can’t cross state lines.

Did the DEA Just Outlaw Hemp-Derived CBD?

A new rule published by the DEA today led many in the cannabis industry to assume the worst – that the agency had decided to crack down on hemp-derived CBD. Take a deep breath. This is likely not the case.

New DEA Rule Says CBD Oil is Really, Truly, No-Joke Illegal

The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) made CBD oil a little more federally illegal in a little-noticed bureaucratic maneuver this morning.

New DEA Rule Says CBD Oil is Really, Truly, No-Joke Illegal


Bruce Barcott

December 14, 2016

The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) this morning made CBD oil a little more federally illegal in a little-noticed bureaucratic maneuver this morning.

Today’s Federal Register (Dec. 14, 2016) contains an item (21 CFR Part 1308) that establishes a new drug code for “marihuana extract.”

“This code,” wrote DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg, “will allow DEA and DEA-registered entities to track quantities of this material separately from quantities of marihuana.” The move, the Register entry explained, is meant to bring the US into compliance with international drug-control treaties.

There is no major change in law brought about by the Register item. Rather, it serves to clarify and reinforce the DEA’s position on all cannabis extracts, including CBD oil. That position is: They are all federally illegal Schedule I substances.

CBD oil derived from hemp is now commonly available nationwide via web sites and mail order services. Those operations survive on the assumption that cannabidiol products below the legal threshold for THC percentage in hemp (0.3 percent or less) are technically legal.

Not so, says the DEA.

In the DEA comment on the entry, Rosenberg directly addressed the question: What if it’s only cannabidiol (CBD) and no other cannabinoids? The agency’s response: “For practical purposes, all extracts that contain CBD will also contain at least small amounts of other cannabinoids. However, if it were possible to produce from the cannabis plant an extract that contained only CBD and no other cannabinoids, such an extract would fall within the new drug code” and therefore remain federally illegal. In other words: The DEA is confident that it can find enough traces of other cannabinoids in your CBD oil to arrest and prosecute. And if they can’t, they still have the option of arresting and prosecuting based on the CBD oil itself.

RELATED STORY

Is CBD from Cannabis the Same as CBD from Cannabis?

Is your CBD derived from hemp? Doesn’t matter to the DEA. The new extracts classification applies to all “extracts that have been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis and which contain cannabinols and cannabidiols.” Hemp is not a separate genus. (Although it may be a separate species; lot of debate on that point.) Legally speaking, hemp is simply cannabis with no more than 0.3 percent THC content.

The new rule seems to clarify the DEA’s position on hemp-derived CBD, which entered a legal gray area following Congress’ passage of the 2014 farm bill. That legislation allowed certain states to grow hemp in pilot projects, and blocked federal law enforcement authorities (ie, the DEA) from interfering with state agencies, hemp growers, and agricultural research.

What DEA Administrator Rosenberg seems to be saying with this clarification is: You may be able to grow hemp. But if you try to extract CBD oil from it, the DEA considers that a federal crime.

The rule did not contain any hint as to when the DEA will step into the 21st century and stop using the archaic version of the word “marihuana.”

Lead Image: Brennan Linsley/AP

CONTINUE READING…

Does the President Have Too Much Power?


By Mark Nestmann

Nestman.com

December 14, 2016

Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kind of cool.

Paul Begala, advisor to President Bill Clinton (1998)

One of the oldest traditions in the American republic is “government by an emergency.” Over the last 2½ centuries, US citizens have endured confiscation, imprisonment, and censorship conducted outside normal constitutional constraints. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld war and emergency powers claimed by US presidents. In most cases, the majority of Americans have supported these measures.

An executive order is the “law of the land” unless overturned by the Supreme Court or overridden by Congress. That’s happened only twice in American history. And if Congress overrides an executive order, the president can always veto it. That means unless two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate vote to override the veto, the executive order stays in place.

Instant Access to Current Spot Prices & Interactive Charts

This is not likely to happen in the Trump administration since both houses of Congress will be controlled by his party, the Republicans. And even if they do, Trump could simply veto that law.

In just over five weeks, President Trump will, at the stroke of a pen, be able to:

  • Seize the property of any person, entity, or government in the United States. This authority was used to freeze assets in 1941 of several European countries, including Switzerland, six months before the United States entered World War II. In the last two decades, presidents have issued executive orders to seize US assets of Iran, Libya, Kuwait, Serbia, Iraq, Nicaragua, South Africa, and Panama, along with thousands of persons allegedly tied to terrorism. And in case you didn’t get the point, in 2006, the Treasury announced that it has the power to confiscate “any financial instrument” in the event of a national emergency. President Trump could use this authority, for instance, to seize the fund’s foreign workers in the US often send home to their families. Indeed, Trump has threatened to do just that to fund construction of a wall on the US-Mexican border.
  • Imprison or detain individuals or an entire class of people without trial. President Lincoln used this authority during the Civil War to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and bring accused political criminals before military tribunals for trial. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans living in the western United States to internment camps. The second President Bush used this authority to detain suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If I were Megyn Kelly, I’d be thinking seriously about leaving the US for at least the next four years.
  • Impose national banking “holidays” closing all US banks. President Franklin Roosevelt used this authority in 1933 to close down the US banking system after a run of bank failures. Alternatively, the president may restrict or ration currency withdrawals and the cashing of checks or drafts.
  • Investigate, regulate, or prohibit the importing, exporting, or holding of currency, securities, or precious metals. In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt mandated the sale of all privately held gold bullion held by US persons to the federal government.

And that’s just for starters. President Obama presided over a breathtaking expansion of executive authority. And once President Trump is sitting in the Oval Office, he can use this authority for whatever purpose suits him.

For instance, during his campaign, Trump promised to expand the use of torture. While Obama ended the use of torture during his administration, President Trump could revive the practice with a stroke of his pen.

How about targeted assassinations of Trump’s political enemies? That’s a piece of cake. The second President Bush started targeted assassinations to kill suspected terrorists, and Obama massively expanded this initiative. Obama authorized the killing of hundreds of terrorists and suspected terrorists. Again, President Trump could expand the program further.

Candidate Trump also threatened to tear up NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. And he could do it easily. NAFTA’s Article 2205 allows any signatory of the agreement to withdraw from it with six months’ written notice. He can do this without congressional approval as well. Mexico would almost certainly respond tit-for-tat with its own tariff. Both countries would lose big economically, but that doesn’t appear to bother Trump in the least.

Then there’s Trump’s promised war against whistleblowers. President Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president in history. Trump wants to go further. For instance, he promised to “execute” NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who exposed that agency’s massive campaign of illegal spying. There’s no reason to think he won’t follow through on this promise either since Snowden is trapped in Russia with Trump’s “best bud” Vladimir Putin.

And if Trump wants to go to war? Obama has paved the way for him as well. Three days after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against the perpetrators. President George W. Bush used the authorization to justify going to war in Iraq. Obama has used it much more creatively. US military forces are directly involved in wars in at least six countries that we know of… and there could be others we don’t know about. While Trump has repeatedly insisted he has no interest in “regime change” in other countries, the people he’s appointing as his top advisors presided over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that did just that.

Trump’s supporters, of course, say that he’ll do none of these things; that he merely wants to “make America great again.”

We will see. As for me, I’m very pleased that I have my own Plan B in place. Do you?

 

The Best of Mark Nestmann

 

Mark Nestmann [send him mail] is a journalist with more than 20 years of investigative experience and is a charter member of The Sovereign Society Council of Experts . He has authored over a dozen books and many additional reports on wealth preservation, privacy and offshore investing. Mark serves as president of his own international consulting firm, The Nestmann Group, Ltd.. The Nestmann Group provides international wealth preservation services for high-net worth individuals. Mark is an Associate Member of the American Bar Association (member of subcommittee on Foreign Activities of U.S. Taxpayers, Committee on Taxation) and member of the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2005, he was awarded a Masters of Laws (LL.M) degree in international tax law at the Vienna (Austria) University of Economics and Business Administration.

 

Previous article by Mark Nestmann: Carrying Cash?

CONTINUE READING…

Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (hereafter known as the Patriot Act, because that name is long and dumb)


Data shows Patriot Act used more often to justify drug warrants, not terrorism ones

by Miranda Nelson on September 8th, 2011 at 11:24 AM

 

null

New York Magazine has put out an incredibly detailed compendium of 9/11 information on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attacks that left over 3,000 people dead. The September 11 attacks, as you’re well aware, were the impetus (or used as justification, depending on how cynical you are) for pushing through the USA PATRIOT ACT, which was hurriedly signed into law on October 26, 2001.

One of the main focuses of the Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (hereafter known as the Patriot Act, because that name is long and dumb) is Title II, which is all about surveillance. That’s right: even though those dastardly terrorists who hate our freedom came from overseas (as was the rhetoric beaten into the collective consciousness post 9/11), the U.S. government thought it was prudent to pass a bunch of surveillance laws so it could spy on its own citizens.

Let me quote the relevant section before we proceed:

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

…(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if–

(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

Delayed-notice search warrants: we won’t tell you we’re breaking into your house to look around if we think there will be adverse results, like you calling up your terrorist buddies to let them know we’re on to you.

Something seems wrong with this graph (courtesy New York Magazine).

But between 2006 and 2009, do you know how many times the Patriot Act was used to issue delayed-notice warrants relating to terrorists and related activities? That would be a whole 15 times—even though the act mentions the word terrorism 161 times and terrorism 175 times.

Aside: did you know that not a single person has been brought to justice on American soil for those deaths?

In the same time period, New York Magazine reports that 1,618 delayed-notice search warrants were issued in relation to drugs and related activity. If you had any doubts about the true mandate of the Patriot Act, doubt no longer. Congratulations America on using a senseless tragedy to justify targeting marijuana users!

And why am I concluding that these people are primarily low-level marijuana offenders and not cocaine smugglers or meth manufacturers? The statistics on arrests and imprisonment make it clear: in 2006, 829,627 marijuana-related arrests were made in the United States, 89 percent of which were for mere possession. Not for growing or selling. Just for holding onto the stuff. In 2010, 50,383 arrests were made in New York City alone for possession.

The Patriot Act: great for the War on Drugs, bad for anyone who likes to smoke a joint, laughable in regards to stopping terrorism.

Follow Miranda Nelson on Twitter at @charenton_.

CONTINUE READING…