Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, we do need to regulate it.

Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which remains the standard for prescription and non-prescription drugs (making in the case of marijuana, the controlled substances act out of line and unconstitutional and infringement of the duties and obligations of the FDA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

“Goods found in violation of the law were subject to seizure and destruction at the expense of the manufacturer. That, combined with a legal requirement that all convictions be published (Notices of Judgment), proved to be important tools in the enforcement of the statute and had a deterrent effect upon would-be violators. “

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214416.htm
The enactment of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act tightened controls over drugs and food, included new consumer protection against unlawful cosmetics and medical devices, and enhanced the government’s ability to enforce the law. This law, as amended, is still in force today.
And of course, as we all know, the FDA has not made marijuana an FDA approved prescription in any state, mostly because it is available as a “dangerous” but legal drug, in the same wording as surrounds the alcohol industry.
We need better regulation  of these substances. The prohibition is ineffective and morally unjustifiable. 
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/18383-house-votes-to-stop-feds-from-interfering-with-state-marijuana-laws
The house has already voted to end Department of Justice funding for marijuana prosecution.

The effect of potent unregulated or decriminalized marijuana and alcohol versus legalized and properly regulated marijuana and alcohol (with proper FDA regulations full brain blood-flow should be possible regardless of which substance is consumed, though it would appear to be quite low, .5% in the case of alcohol, over half a dozen strains of marijuana are already identified that are purported to be safe some that may even contain moderate amounts of THC):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZgj_eH4x0

In addition, while the Controlled Substances Act of 1976 (the version in 1970 was still diagnostic in effect) gave federal agencies jurisdiction to act in the case of many drugs, including marijuana, this was in spite of a decriminalization law passed in 1973, still legally and enforced in the state of North Carolina. It was not out of error that the legislation in North Carolina passed this bill, they simply were regulating a dangerous industry concluding indemnifying research that showed alcohol and tobacco to be far worse than cannabis, legally according to the FDA regulations on the product and in keeping with importation laws from nations where it was legal to possess or produce (at the time 1/2 ounce in North Carolina, the substance was legal in many parts of the world notably the Netherlands and Morocco, where multiple brutal civil wars have been fought over the legalization of the product and the monarchy’s succession). Under the same legal logic that made the emancipation proclamation necessary before the constitution was amended to or acts passed to outlaw slavery, it is a de facto violation of states’ rights to pass the Controlled Substances Act, at least as it applies to marijuana. These sorts of mistakes are not unheard of, and happen frequently in the budget, as federal and state governments overlap. The only legal option is to encourage or federally mandate amendment of state laws before changing federal law in this matter. In this case, it is clear that the federal government already has a department, the FDA, responsible for this product and stifling research into this promising if dangerous drug is paramount to extortion, incarceration under false pretenses, embezzlement, and treason on a massive scale. Denying this reality and failing to prosecute organizations responsible for the suppression of research and development of this industry as such, would so fundamentally change the mechanisms of this country that entire peoples could be thrown into chains, dispossessed, or in other ways robbed of their fundamental liberties that the government exists to protect under the veil of enhancing freedom and pursuing happiness.

As for constitutionality:
The embattled Fourth Amendment[117]is probably the leading exam­ple of a “War on Drugs” casualty.[118] As has been erstwhile noted in an apropos reference to George Orwell’s, 1984, a date that we have passed in more than one sense, the “War on Drugs” has led to “[a] gradual but perceptive rise in Big Brotherism against the public at large in the form of eavesdropping, surveillance, monitor­ing, informing, and other intrusive enforcement methods.”[119] Among the inroads that have been sanctioned are those that have permitted intrusions into our homes by the use of aerial surveil­lance,[120] a practice that has led to the practical abandonment in other drug-related contexts of the privacy test announced in Katz v. United States.[121] These relaxations of the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment have allowed the expansion of police authority to carry out warrantless searches for drugs on individuals and automo­biles under circumstances beyond the original intention of Terry’s rationale,[122] which was based on police officer safety, not as a subterfuge, for a search for criminal evidence without meeting the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The creation of the so-called “good faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment require­ment of probable cause established in United States v. León,[123] which in practice we see stretched beyond “good faith,” is another example of the courts’ permissive attitude towards the government in drug cases. Equally troubling is the upholding of the validity of a warrant issued on the basis of a partially uncorroborated anony­mous tip,[124] leading to cases in which it was allowed to corroborate the anonymous tip by the post facto discovery of illegal evi­dence.[125]”

http://academiajurisprudenciapr.org/new/rethink-the-war-of-drugs/deja-vu-a-federal-judge-revisits-the-war-on-drugs/

PLEASE NOTE: Marijuana was re-legalized in the spending bill of 2014. This was seen as a national security issue and does activate the superiority clause in the Constitution, regardless of state laws. Marijuana is currently legally available for sale and manufacture across the USA on Native American reservations. It is highly probable that state or federal governments will take more responsible steps in the future towards regulating this substance. Also in September leading anti-marijuana academics were caught accepting money from corporate interests, which has changed the field of research in this field significantly.

In regards to state laws and international treaties: Does legal marijuana violate international treaties? The answer is no.
“Even if treaties could override federalism, the agreements that the INCB cites do not purport to do so. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says compliance is subject to “constitutional limitations” and undertaken with “due regard to [signatories’] constitutional, legal and administrative systems.” The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contain similar provisions.”
Representing these treaties in this manner as the INCB has done is criminal, it makes light of legitimate and extremely important resolutions and work the UN has done and made. Now that we can prove that marijuana provides a benefit to public health, we have the right to use and provide it.

Antiphon: The Prosecution of the Choregus Speech

Paul Andreas Fischer
10.1.2013
Brian Walsh


Antiphon: The Prosecution of the Choregus Speech


Excuse me, if I should seem distraught. The death of my brother weighs upon me heavily. The air was not yet filled with his ashes, but I look already to the populace for vengeance in a matter of death not metered by the gods. Indeed, rather than waiting any time, on the day of the funeral I saw fit to announce the proceedings that had to be made against the violator. It is known, that to be trained for the chorus is grueling, but when the competition drives one son of Athens to death, it is only pious that swift and just retribution is sought.
To begin, the character of the chorus leader must be known. For the jury to vote with confidence in a most intricate and high matter, witnesses will be needed from this current incident as well as from the chorus leader’s past. From his character, corrupted with greed and avarice, a motive will need not be inferred but the chorus leader will stand out clearly as the most malicious of offenders. His intention was to see my brother dead, and if not him than any son of Athens. Should he be allowed to continue it is clear that such an incident will necessarily repeat. Merely exiling him, while protecting ourselves, would be too light a punishment for such a crime; he must be executed to stop his own plotting and to set an example to others with such devious plots.
From the earliest time this chorus leader has interfered with the pious and upright lives of Athenians. Now in the hubris of searching higher and higher performance, a brother is dead and his death is a call that must be answered lest it spread as death, unchecked, is wont to do. What surprises me more than this man shirking his fate and punishment, is the unqualified and unabashed denial of all responsibility. Today in fact he stands as a true murderer, pathologically without remorse or need to make amends or understanding of the need for just retribution. With the witnesses brought today I will show the jury that this chorus leader ought to beg for the harshest penalty, while it is only the community that talks him down. Instead he mutters of plots and paranoid ideations. Well today you will see and hear the voices yourself that show incontrovertibly this man’s guilt, his knowledge that methods at his school were dangerous, and his complicity as supervisor in the death of my brother.
[WITNESSES]
I hope from these witnesses’ evidence given there can be no doubt as to the malicious intent of this choral driver, who makes such intention to present himself as a positive influence on this society. There is little to commend him even in matters of public affairs or state. His stories of prosecuting common criminals no doubt only served his own selfish interests! Forgive me if I speak passionately in the defense of the sanctity of my brother’s life and the prosecution of this monster.
He does not collect dues or levy fines for the support, but he also does not provide support forthe defense of Athens or for public works, with the exception of the theatre. And how outrageous! This sole act of public should he pervert into the morbid murder of a child. My own family sent a bright young man, excelled in all the classical arts and educated to gain glory and confidence through training in the chorus. Returned, we have only a corpse.
The witnesses have made it clear that the defendant was not present at the time of the poisoning, or had any knowledge of the drought provided. However, those responsible did answer to him, and felt such pressure to ensure the performance of my brother from the defendant that they were willing to risk the child’s life. Finally, the  awful reality occurred and his voice is now only heard in the chorus of the afterlife.
In order to prove guilt, the evidence is overwhelming. The defence is guilty of having abused the trust of parents and of the lives in his care. Taking one’s child to a bush of poisoned berries and failing to instruct him of their nature is infanticide. In the same way putting another’s child in a situation where he is forced to drink poison, without knowledge of its effects or lethality is justly classified as homicide. To ask for the full application of the law is not overbearing or overreaching, but is simply the only course of action available. This end should now be seen in evidence from witnesses.
[WITNESS]
As a final argument, it might be anticipated that the defence will reply that there are many professions and positions of leadership in which it is necessary to place subordinates and even children in harm’s way. This is, however, quite simply preposterous. To please the gods with acts of artistic endeavour is truly important, but to sacrifice the life of a child is barbaric. In protecting the city from crime, war, or in exploration, it might be satisfactory to argue that such an incident comes as an occupational hazard. I implore the jury to leave all such notions at the antidome and when stepping from the stories of comedy and now tragedy the defendant weaves, into the harsh facts of the world, in this hearing to understand that my brother, this child, was killed for a trivial end.
There is a blatant disrespect for life implied and proven in this court that exists in the Choregus, if he deserves such a title. His lack of presence in the actual committing of the crime is only the more indicting, what public service might he prove when children entrusted to his care are left alone? And when in order to meet impossible expectations set by this leader, my brother has been killed?
Without remorse now, even the gods have abandoned him and will not grant him the ability to beg for proper justice to be carried out. Instead he must die as the lowest of creatures, as one who has not demonstrated an ability to accept responsibility for the full extent of his actions. Indeed he will not even admit to the tragedy of my brother’s death, and without witness to provide a single other perpetrator or broken cog in the system, we can only conclude that this is his system, working in full order. Here is one so impious that he would have a poisoning, a clear case of homicide, be only counted as an accident. Failing to punish him fully for the charge of homicide will only implicate Athens, as a polis, as endorsing the murder and sacrifice of our young to feed this decrepit man’s vanity, greed and avarice.















Paul Andreas Fischer
Legal Receipts

Lawsuit
For a donkey in City of Ur belonging to Ali, son of Mo, the son of Ali, filed a claim against Jurizima, son of Dak, whereupon the judges in the Temple of Ur put Ali to oath to god. When Ali swore he renounced his claim. On no account shall Jurizima ever again file claim for that donkey, by the gods he swore.
The judgement of the temple of Ur
Receipt of furniture to home
17 accessories and three large furniture pieces belonging to Paul Fischer, the the student, received from Ikea, the department store, to home. Should a piece be lost, he shall make it good. By the United States Consumer Protection Agency he swore.
(The names of seven persons as witnesses, each preceded by the witness-sign.)
The seal of Paul Andreas Fischer
The month of October, when the US Federal Government shut down.
(sealed in six places with the seal of Paul Andreas Fischer, son of Andreas Dieter Fischer)


Skip to toolbar