• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

The House Just Stripped Medical Marijuana States Of Protection From The DEA

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
31,453
Likes
39,672
Location
Rocky Mountains
#1
This should be interesting....



The House Just Stripped Medical Marijuana States Of Protection From The DEA
By
admin
-
November 8, 2017

By James McClure

States that have legalized medical marijuana could soon get an unwanted visit from the DEA. Yesterday, Congress stunned the cannabis industry by rejecting the only legal protection preventing Attorney General Jeff “good people don’t smoke marijuana” Sessions from cracking down on those 30 states for violating federal cannabis prohibition.

Back in 2014, lawmakers passed an amendment to the federal budget to protect state-legalized medical marijuana industries and the patients they serve. The amendment prevented the DEA from spending a single penny on enforcing cannabis prohibition in those states. It didn’t overturn federal cannabis prohibition or legalize medical marijuana, but it did tie the Department of Justice’s hands by freezing their finances.

At the time, medical marijuana was legal in 21 states, a number that has grown to 30 since then. But they could all be shuttered soon because that amendment — which has to be renewed with every budget — was rejected yesterday by the House Rules Committee. That means the House can’t include the rider in their final version of the federal budget.

If the budget passes without that rider, budtenders, dispensary owners, doctors recommending cannabis and even medical marijuana patients could face prosecution for their involvement in the industry. And not just for what they’re doing right now. They could be charged with offences dating back to when they got involved in the state’s cannabis industry.

anti-marijuana rhetoric in America. And last May, he asked Congress to drop the amendment so that he could unleash the DEA on medical marijuana states if he saw fit. His request was denied in July by the Senate Appropriations Committee, but it seems like his message resonated in the House.

The fight for the marijuana amendment isn’t over yet though. The budget has yet to reach the Senate, where the rider could be re-inserted with support from Senators Cory Booker (D – NJ), Mike Lee (R – UT), Lisa Murkowski (R – AK), Rand Paul (R – KY), Bernie Sanders (D – VT) and others.

But even if it does get reinserted and passed, the amendment only buys patients, doctors and businesses a small window of relief before they have to start looking over their shoulders for DEA helicopters again. The reality is that the industry won’t be safe until Congress listens to the 94 percent of Americans who support medical marijuana and changes the country’s criminally outdated cannabis laws.

Source: www.civilized.life
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,233
Likes
19,917
Location
ORYGUN
#3
Where does their authority come from? Other than by arrogant force?
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,301
Likes
3,527
Location
On a mail train.
#7
I am having difficulty confirming that story.
I tried to find out how my state reps voted.
And the story is a little confusing.
Was it a House vote or Senate vote?..
More research is needed....
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,301
Likes
3,527
Location
On a mail train.
#8
A little history on the current bill...


Rohrabacher–Farr amendment
The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment(also known as the Rohrabacher–Blumenauer amendment) is legislation first introduced by U.S. Reps. Maurice Hinchey, Dana Rohrabacher, and Sam Farr in 2003, prohibiting the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws. It passed the House in May 2014 after six previously failed attempts, becoming law in December 2014 as part of anomnibus spending bill. The passage of the amendment was the first time either chamber of Congress had voted to protect medical cannabis patients, and is viewed as a historic victory for cannabis reform advocates at the federal level.[1] The amendment does not change the legal status of cannabis however, and must be renewed each fiscal year in order to remain in effect.[2]




Legislative historyEdit

Initially known as the Hinchey–Rohrabacher amendment with Rep. Hinchey as its lead sponsor, the amendment was defeated by a vote of 152–273 upon its initial introduction in 2003. It was defeated five more times over the next decade until it passed the House by a 219–189 vote on May 30, 2014, as an attachment to theCommerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015.[3]The amendment was then introduced in the Senate by Sens. Rand Paul andCory Booker on June 18,[4] but did not receive a vote.[5] In December, however, the amendment was inserted into the $1.1 trillion "cromnibus" spending bill as part of final negotiations,[6] and the bill was signed into law by President Obama on December 16, 2014.[7]

The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment passed the House for a second time on June 3, 2015, by a 242–186 vote.[8] It was voted on by members of the Senate for the first time on June 11, 2015, winning approval in a 21–9Senate Appropriations Committee vote led by sponsor Barbara Mikulski.[9] The amendment remained in the FY 2016 omnibus appropriations bill that was signed into law by President Obama on December 18, 2015.[10][11]

The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment was not voted on by the House in 2016, but did pass the Senate Appropriations Committee for a second time on April 21, 2016, by a 21–8 vote.[12] The amendment was later renewed in a pair of spending bills signed into law on September 29 and December 10,[13][14]and again for an additional week on April 28, 2017.[15] In January 2017, Rep. Farr retired from Congress, with Rep.Earl Blumenauer taking over as lead co-sponsor of the amendment moving forward.[16]

On May 5, 2017, the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment was renewed until September 30, 2017, as part of a $1 trillion spending bill signed into law byPresident Trump. In regards to the medical cannabis provision, President Trump added a signing statement that read "Division B, section 537 provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories. I will treat this provision consistently with my constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The statement has been interpreted as the Trump administration reserving the right to ignore the amendment and enforce federal law, which could conflict with Trump's earlier pronouncements that he supports medical cannabis "100 percent" and that the issue should be left up to the states.[17][18] Days before the spending bill was signed into law, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote to congressional leaders urging that the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment not be renewed.[19]

On July 27, 2017, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved inclusion of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in the CJS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2018, in a voice voteled by sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy.[20]On September 6, however, the U.S. House Committee on Rules blocked a vote on the amendment, due to Republican leadership viewing it as too divisive.[21] The amendment was then renewed on September 8, as part of an emergency aid package approved by Congress, in effect until December 8.[22]After expiration of the aid package, renewal of the amendment hinges on the work of the House-Senate conference committee, which reconciles differences between bills of the two chambers.[22]

House votesEdit
The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment has been introduced on the House floor eight times. The vote totals are as follows:

Year Ayes Noes Not voting
2003 152 273 9
2004 148 268 17
2005 161 264 8
2006 163 259 10
2007 165 262 10
2012 163 262 6
2014 219 189 23
2015 242 186 4
The passage of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in 2014 was noted for its rare bipartisan support,[23] garnering the approval of 49 Republicans and 170 Democrats.[24] Among the notable "no" votes was DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was the only member of Democratic leadership to vote against it.[25] The medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access subsequently targeted her with a TV ad criticizing her vote against the amendment.[25]

The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment passed the House in 2015 with the support of 67 Republicans and 175 Democrats.[26]


Amendment text

Implementation

References
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,514
Location
right here right now
#10
Always figured that it was the drug companies
That is exactly why Sessions is backpedaling. He is obviously more concerned with pharmaceutical profit than helping people, true medicine that is helping people.
 

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,357
Likes
4,472
#12
Anniversary today !
The Whiskey Rebellion: How Brand New America Tore Up The Bill of Rights

by TDB
Nov 13, 2017 11:47 AM
154
SHARES
Via The Daily Bell

223 years ago today, “The Dreadful Night” occurred in Western Pennsylvania, after an uprising called The Whiskey Rebellion.

The United States was brand new. Soldiers who had fought for independence from Great Britain found themselves on opposite sides of a skirmish. Some were having their rights violated practically before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights. Other Veterans of the Revolution were doing the oppressing at Alexander Hamilton’s behest.

The Whiskey Rebellion saw farmers stand up to an unfair tax handed down by the federal government, and the government responded with the force of a monarchy. It may have all sprung from Alexander Hamilton’s desire for glory. Or Hamilton, the first Secretary of Treasury, may have had other motives for setting the precedent of force which still lives on today.

It all started after the Revolution, in 1791, when the federal government was in debt, and had no official money. The notes they paid to soldiers were worth fractions of what was promised, but many had no choice but to accept the funds and go home in order to try to survive.

But the soldiers were not the only ones who needed to be paid after the war. There were a number of rich investors and bankers who had provided the capital needed to win the Revolution. They too were awaiting repayment.

Alexander Hamilton had a better relationship with these financiers than with the soldiers. Hamilton was one of the leading banking figures of the time. He proposed a tax which would have two purposes. The tax would raise the revenue necessary to pay back the wealthy financiers of the Revolution. But the tax would also bring under the jurisdiction of the federal government a group of pioneers living in rural western Pennsylvania. The tax was to be levied on the production of whiskey, and not just at a commercial level. Everyone who made whiskey owed the tax. This would be the first federal tax on domestic goods.

This was a problem for the people of western Pennsylvania. Most people in this area used whiskey as a currency. Whatever surplus grain a family had would be converted into whiskey in order to preserve it. Whiskey would still have the calories of grain and was drank by almost everyone. It could be used for preserving and making some medicines.

Whiskey didn’t spoil, was widely used, and easy to transport. This made it an ideal currency. No need for banks, no need for paper money the worth of which can be manipulated. These people had tangible goods with intrinsic value absent of government mandate.

But Alexander Hamilton and the federal government insisted that the tax on whiskey be paid in coin.

For western Pennsylvanians, this amounted to an income tax. But even worse, now they had to find a way to convert their whiskey into coin. They had no use for coin since they used whiskey as a currency. But now the federal government would require them to use more time and effort just to pay the tax.

But it gets worse. Producers of whiskey were given a choice. They could pay a flat tax or pay a per gallon price. For commercial distillers who produced a lot of whiskey, the flat rate was cheaper than the per gallon rate. But for individuals, the per gallon rate was cheaper.

This was a political reward that Hamilton gave to commercial whiskey distillers in the area. They would now have the cheapest whiskey available since the flat tax worked out to a lower per gallon rate than home-distillers were forced to pay.

Hamilton did this to gain a foothold of support in the area (his enforcer was a large scale distiller) and to convert the economy of western Pennsylvania away from a whiskey-based currency. The sooner everyone was brought under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the sooner the government could raise money to pay for spending.

The tax destroyed the way of life for your average rural Pennsylvanian. First, they were singled out for a tax that most city dwellers would not be affected by. Next, they were forced to find a way to earn coin in order to pay the tax. Then, the tax made their whiskey more expensive compared to commercial distillers. This meant it was harder to sell, making it harder to convert the whiskey into coin to pay the tax.

Many people from this area moved out west to avoid the intricacies of society and government. Some were veterans of the Revolution. They would not accept this tax.

They were outraged that this tax was levied against them while the Northwest Indian War was going badly for the U.S. making the area unsafe. Seeing the tax as an advantage to grain growers (who owed no tax) and big distillers in the east (who owed a flat rate) also fueled western Pennsylvanian’s anti-federal sentiment.

They decided that if this was the way the new country was to treat its people, they wanted no part in it. They refused to pay the tax and served vigilante justice to tax collectors and other sympathizers of the federal government. They reacted similarly to how the United States reacted to unfair British taxes which sparked the Revolution.

By 1794 the climax of the situation unfolded. A U.S. Marshall was sent to the area and a showdown ensued. Some rebels were shot in a skirmish and their leader, a veteran of the Revolution, was killed. The tax collector and U.S. Marshall were captured only to later escape, and the fury of western Pennsylvanians peaked.

There was talk among the rebels that they should secede from the United States and form their own country. The plan that emerged was a watered down version of protest in which the rebels would march through Pittsburgh nonviolently. This was meant to send a message that they would not back down against what they saw as Hamilton’s attempts to pay back the wealthy by taxing the ordinary citizen.

President George Washington decided it was time to send in the army. A commission he sent to western Pennsylvania returned and recommended using the military to enforce the tax laws, and restore order.

By October 1794 Washington was seeing troops off, and heading back east, much to the dismay of some moderate locals including Congressman William Findley. He saw Washington as a fair president who just wanted to do what was right. Alexander Hamilton was the real force behind the army heading west, according to Findley, who was included on Hamilton’s list of possible rebels to be arrested.

Hamilton went with the army of nearly 20,000 as a civilian adviser. He was instructed by Washington to maintain the utmost discipline among the troops. As they advanced toward their target in western Pennsylvania, Hamilton was to prevent any breach of law by the troops, such as pillaging the countryside.

Officers harshly punished any soldier caught stealing, but the soldiers were doing so because of the lack of rations and clothing. Hamilton decided to solve this by making the theft of these goods legal. According to William Hogeland in his book The Whiskey Rebellion:

The quartermaster corps, [Hamilton] announced, would impress civilian property along the way. Now families watched helplessly as bayonet-wielding soldiers–no longer freelancing thieves but officials, authorized by the president–commandeered hard-won winter supplies of grain, meat, firewood, and blankets on behalf of the government of the United States. A steady, freezing rain meant the arrival of winter. Families whose sustenance was carted away faced grim months ahead (218).

Once the army and Hamilton finally arrived at the target county in western Pennsylvania, they contonued their oppression. They did not care much to follow the due process laid out in the Bill of Rights in new Constitution, despite Hamilton’s assurances to the President.

Many residents had signed oaths of support for the U.S. government. By signing, they risked local vigilante justice. But the U.S. promised that they would be pardoned as punishment was served to the region for failing to pay the new tax, and leading an insurrection against officials of the federal government.

These oaths were ignored and many who had signed them were arrested by Hamilton and the army anyway. A month earlier the first arrests of a few rebels had been made, prompting the most guilty among the rebels to flee. Anyone left in western Pennsylvania had minimal roles in the insurrection, and had certainly not led it. The most violent rebels, who had committed the worst acts against government officials, had already fled.

“The Dreadful Night” began in the middle of the night on November 13, 1794. Hamilton had created three lists of people: those who were not to be arrested, those who would be arrested, and those who were to be brought in as witnesses for questioning. The first list was not provided to the generals. Hamilton gave them the authority to arrest anyone they suspected of having participated in the rebellion, aided the rebels, raised liberty poles, or robbed the mail. He also authorized the troops to arrest local officials who failed to suppress the insurrection. The officers and soldiers who were passed these orders were delighted to finally have some excitement and authority on this trip west.

One particularly unstable officer named White was put in control of the 40 prisoners which Hamilton thought would give the most valuable intelligence on the whole situation. These prisoners “were brought to a dark log structure” where they were tied up and seated on the muddy floor, and guarded by soldiers instructed to keep the prisoners away from the warmth of the fire. The tavern keeper was told he would be killed if any prisoners received food, and thus for more than two days the sadistic officer in charge:

…starved and dehydrated his shivering, exhausted captives, steadily cursing and castigating them, glorying in their helplessness and describing their imminent hanging. Even White’s troops became concerned about the captives who seemed barely alive (222).

The prisoners were then marched 12 miles in bad weather to be held in another jail, still without being charged with any crime. Following interrogation, most of them were eventually released without any criminal proceedings. This was unsurprising since most of those arrested were indeed innocent.

The arrests and brutality went on for several days throughout western Pennsylvania. This served as a reminder to all residents not to speak out against the federal government. Hamilton made it clear to the presiding judge that regardless of innocence, a good number of detainees would need to be marched back to Philadelphia in order to give the impression that the federal government had accomplished its goal, and put down a violent, unjustified rebellion. The judge held a number of rebels for trial even with what he considered lack of evidence, fearing that the army would revolt if too many prisoners were let go.

The prisoners that remained in custody were marched back to Philadelphia with great show in order to create the illusion of glory. It was essentially a photo op for Hamilton and Washington, who could now say, see, look what we did, look at the problems we solved. The prisoners were paraded on Christmas Day 1794 before 20,000 Philadelphians.

It was a disappointing show to the spectators who knowing that thousands of rebels had marched against the government, were surprised to see only twenty prisoners. Twelve cases went to trial, and two rebels were convicted. The rest weren’t released until 1796. They were left to find their way home if they could afford it. The whiskey tax remained hard to collect until it was repealed in 1801 by President Thomas Jefferson.

From the beginning of this country, the federal government has not been very good at abiding by the Constitution. Clearly, the due process rights of most of the “rebels” arrested were violated. Also violated were the rights of the farmers whose food and property was confiscated along the way in order to supply the army.

Cruel and unusual punishment was used on the prisoners, prior to them even being charged. What a precedent to set at the birth of a “free” country. They tore up the Bill of Rights before the ink had time to set.

With Hamilton’s broad presence in the foundation of the country’s banking and finances, is it any wonder that his vision has led us to where we are today? The government still uses taxes to give some businesses an advantage. The government still levies taxes which are meant to change the way citizens live their lives.

But remember that the government still found it hard to enforce and collect the whiskey tax. And today we can arrange our lives in a similar fashion, and make it difficult for the government to collect their unfair taxes. Let the spirit of rebellion inspire you.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,766
Likes
6,192
Location
Seattle
#13
Wow, haystack, I didn't realize that. Almost as good a remembrance as the fifth of november.
And, yeah, silver, I knew already that it didn't work out well for them but we peoples gave them a run and showed em we weren't gonna just set down and take it.

BF
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
24,852
Likes
28,060
#14
From the beginning of this country, the federal government has not been very good at abiding by the Constitution
there you have it, by none other than apple boy washington and hamilton

look at your fiat, and guess who is on it......
 

Thecrensh

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,231
Likes
4,671
#15
...shivering, exhausted captives, steadily cursing and castigating them, glorying in their helplessness and describing their imminent hanging. Even White’s troops became concerned about the captives who seemed barely alive (222).

The prisoners were then marched 12 miles in bad weather to be held in another jail, still without being charged with any crime. Following interrogation, most of them were eventually released without any criminal proceedings
That passage could apply to 21st Century America as well in some cases...
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,233
Likes
19,917
Location
ORYGUN
#16
The ONLY reasons that cannabis is illegal is:
The tobacco industry
The pharmaceutical industry
The alcohol industry
The medical industry
The psychological industry
The clothing & rope industry
AND the governmental industry (taxation) Now that they figured out how to tax it, they are having a problem justifying it !!!
Why?? See the above industry lobbyists !!!!
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,024
Likes
6,056
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#17
Where does their authority come from? Other than by arrogant force?
As @Bottom Feeder said, it comes from the the Constitution. At least by their interpretation of it anyways.

It all starts with the Single Convention Treaty on narcotics that was ratified by the US Senate and enforced under Article 6 of the US Constitution.

Which says in part, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Now that said, IMHO it should not be Constitutional in this case to enter a Treaty such as this one, because by its very nature, this Treaty destroys at least some of the intent of the Constitution itself. By their logic, it would be ok to enter a Treaty that said the entire Constitution is null and void.
...and I think most people would agree that was not the Founders intent in writing Article 6.


The reason they went with the Treaty is because the old way of banning things was to tax them out of existence. That's how the Harrison Act worked as well as the original law making weed "illegal" in 1937. I say "illegal" because it really wasn't illegal. Just taxed so heavily and enforced so vigorously that anyone previously trading in it could no longer afford to. By the time the 60's rolled around, the SC was starting to rule against this type of thing, so the drug enforcement act was made law under the authority of the narcotics Treaty to take its place as the main enforcement mechanism for prohibition.

In fact, for a very short time, the weed was technically legal for a time in 1969. How many of you knew that?

Leary.PNG


Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession ofmarijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary's conviction was overturned. Congress responded shortly thereafter by replacing the Marihuana Tax Act with the newly written Controlled Substances Act while continuing the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States.




there you have it, by none other than apple boy washington and hamilton

look at your fiat, and guess who is on it......
We shouldn't be in no hurry to throw out the baby with the bath water. Sure, the Constitution has been walked all over, but that's only because the people who are supposed to enforce it are imperfect. Same as all of us.

The Constitution spells out ideals that we should strive for in government. In practice, it requires people to actually want those Constitutional ideals to be enforced. Problem is, too many are more than willing to find ways to carve out exceptions or even find ways to creatively destroy its intent. The whole drug treaty thing is a good example of that. Yet the People keep sending Reps to DC that engage in this type of thing.

So yes, people are not perfect, but we shouldn't lower our ideals to our collective level of imperfection. It's supposed to give us something to strive for.
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,661
Likes
8,025
Location
State of Jefferson
#18
...

The Constitution spells out ideals that we should strive for in government. In practice, it requires people to actually want those Constitutional ideals to be enforced. Problem is, too many are more than willing to find ways to carve out exceptions or even find ways to creatively destroy its intent. The whole drug treaty thing is a good example of that. Yet the People keep sending Reps to DC that engage in this type of thing.

So yes, people are not perfect, but we shouldn't lower our ideals to our collective level of imperfection. It's supposed to give us something to strive for.
Something worth fighting for.
 

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,092
Likes
5,232
Location
Michiana
#19
As the American populace has shown, we WILL have marijuana, regardless of law, regulation, policy, bureaucratic or presidential personality. However, as prohibition became very violent, the war on some drugs is about to become quite brutal and the government will be the ultimate loser.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,221
#20
The CONgress can only write law for land that is owned by the United States and that is the District of Criminals and some military bases and needful court buildings.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,024
Likes
6,056
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#21
The CONgress can only write law for land that is owned by the United States and that is the District of Criminals and some military bases and needful court buildings.
What if people make legally binding declarations stating they are part of that?
 

gringott

Killed then Resurrected
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,752
Likes
19,071
Location
You can't get there from here.
#22
They need to make a constitutional amendment just like with booze if they want a plant to be illegal.
Otherwise, STFU and leave the stoners alone.
 

Flight2gold

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,486
Likes
1,834
Location
Florida
#23
Anyone who’s holding any marijuana stocks better jump ship for a while.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,221
#24
What if people make legally binding declarations stating they are part of that?
I have never jumped through the hoops that are required to become a US Citizen.

Which is to stand in front of a Judge authorized to administer an oath of allegiance to the United States and swear same oath.

Most of us have been tricked into declaring ourselves as US Citizens, but it is just another lie from lieyers.