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)

“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. “
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.
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):

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]”

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.

Societal impact of currently under-regulated legal substances: Alcohol and Marijuana in comparison to lead

As seen in the Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography scan imaging, the cognitive damage from alcohol is legitimate; there is damage being done to the brain in significant and substantial amounts over any amount of use. In a heavy marijuana user, one region of the brain increased in function and activity, while the rest remained strong. It would appear that humans have become used to a level of alcohol (a naturally fermenting fruit rotting on the tree at late harvest will not have alcohol over .5%). For adults, while the damage is not permanent, it is significant, and by removing the toxins the brain has the capability of returning to normal. See the video below, posted before, to see an example of this.
What is the impact of this? It was in low and moderate marijuana users found to be nearly 5 points on average an increase in IQ (Fried et al.); there have been studies that suggest marijuana has a detrimental effect, though this can be attributed to increased levels of toxoplasmosis gondii as marijuana is grown in greater amounts in home operations and has exposure to cat feces and has only been observed in states with illegal or decriminalized marijuana laws and recent exposure of leading anti-marijuana academics as corrupt and accepting corporate bribes without disclosing their anti-marijuana bias (Fang). Of low and moderate alcohol users: a “number of studies have noted a measurable diminution in neuropsychologic parameters in habitual consumers of moderate amounts of ethanol” (Eckardt). Taken into context, the estimated damage of lead poisoning (affecting the majority of Americans before the 90’s or so, but today only affecting a minority) is 5-10 points  (Bellinger). Translated, as seen on the graph below, this means that the first toxin a population is exposed to will reduce the number of gifted (IQ of 125+) by 80% while when multiple of these are introduced, the bell curve flattens and the damage from 15 points for example will well within 85% (How Pollutants Affect Brain Development). Due to this nature of the bell curve and the improving environmental standards in the United States, there is now the capability to definitely recommend the regulation of alcoholic drinks and foods to under .5 percent.



It should be noted, however, that this graph is not perfectly accurate, and there is a skew on the graph towards a lower IQ where the population is more gradual, as seen demonstrated in actual IQ data below. This means that the effect that is being observed on the high end of the scale is “mirrored” on those with functional or mental retardation and with some substance there is no noticeable effect, and at some point there is an amount at which the number dramatically increase (closer to 20 or 30 points, perhaps associated with illegal narcotic or prescription drug use). An example of this can be seen by looking at the Chinese economy following the legalization of hard drugs in the 1800’s which was associated with a loss of approximately 95% of the economy (Major Economies’ Share of Global GDP, 0-2005) in just a few generations.
The economic impact of the loss of the gifted group is real, as IQ is directly correlated with achievement, productivity, and income. While the income difference between 90 and 110 IQ points is in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, from 110 to 125 or 130 can be over 500,000 dollars annually (seen below). So it may only be two percent of the population that is substantially impacted by lead poisoning or unregulated alcohol and marijuana, but the impact to the economy is exponentially greater. This can be seen in the change in the workplace today, populations with clean environments, high-tech industry and low substance use rates have averages of 10 or 20, sometimes just 5 or 6 employees for each manager. Low tech industry in the 1960’s involved hundreds of employees per manager or executive in companies and poorly qualified supervision. In countries and parts of the US with low environmental standards or high use rates this can continue to be seen, both legally and in illegal sweatshops.
By regulating the use of these substances to fall within safe levels, the cultural and societal benefits can be retained, while creating an artificial “Flynn” effect, where environmental factors such as health care, nutrition, or mating and marriage regulation and rules gives a boost to the population as seen below.
Addendum: Due to information on infection from toxoplasma gondii and resulting psychosis and schizophrenia that has only been compiled in a meta-analysis in 2014, the impact of marijuana on the IQ may be incorrect in places with legalized marijuana industries. It would appear that the most severe perceived negative effects of marijuana are in actuality the effect of a small parasite that is present in many cats, the fece of which will infect soil and crops in a home-grow operation for up to a year. The information provided here on the impact of illegal or decriminalized marijuana holds, however, as these laws encourage home grown operations meaning many users will contract the parasite as they will buy from a cat owner at some point.
Bellinger, David C., Karen M. Stiles, and Herbert L. Needleman. “Low-level lead exposure, intelligence and academic achievement: a long-term follow-up study.” Pediatrics 90.6 (1992): 855-861.
Eckardt, Michael J., et al. “Effects of Moderate Alcohol Consumption on the Central Nervous System*.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research22.5 (1998): 998-1040.
Fang, Lee. “Leading Anti-Marijuana Academics Are Paid By Painkiller Drug Companies | VICE News.” VICE News RSS. VICE News, 7 Sept. 2014. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.

Effects of under-regulated or decriminalized regular or light marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco use on the brain – Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography

These are the brains of various substance users, including the marijuana user, center in states with illegal or decriminalized marijuana laws. On the right are alcoholic and various other drug users. Using four times a week over the period of three years, this heavy user’s brain is scalloped out, and damage to the blood circulation in the brain is apparent. In a normal person without any substance use and in continued sobriety, seen at the top, there is no damage to the circulation of the brain. Due to statistics suggesting infection from toxoplasmosis, the information provided here regarding marijuana, which is frequently homegrown may be incorrect. An addendum is provided at the end explaining this. The scan remains an excellent example of light alcohol use as well as the impact of potential parasitic infection or pesticide exposure from using marijuana in a decriminalized or illegal setting.

With the alcohol and other drug users, this looks like swiss or cottage cheese after decades or years of abuse. Interestingly and significantly, an example of a weekend only drinker is provided. The brain still looks completely decimated by the alcohol use, dismissing the concept that just sometimes using alcohol limits or reduces the damage done by the neuro-toxins present in alcoholic beverages. I wondered what might occur with light marijuana use (and much less alcohol use).
After about a year of sobriety (enough time for the circulation of the brain to return completely to normal), this experiment involved use of one half to one full ounce of marijuana and around 36 beers over a 6 month period and getting a single photon emission computed tomography scan which accurately shows brain function and substance use.


Source: The Hanley Center, Amen Clinic, Siemens

Over a six month period, occasional use of around 36 beers, seen following, moderate non-consecutive use and between one half and one full ounce of marijuana, medium quality consumed less than one half of a gram at a time. The damage to blood flow in the brain is clearly beginning in the same areas as that exhibited by an alcohol and marijuana user, though only a fraction of the levels as displayed through heavy use. This indicates positively that light substance use has a legitimate and severe negative impact on multiple areas of cognitive and motor skill functioning as well as emotional processing. It must be noted, however, that in a legal setting the impact of pesticide and parasite free marijuana may be completely different from alcohol, and some studies have connected current light marijuana use with an increase in IQ (though alcohol remains negative regardless of legality). The scalloping seen on the top of the head is light, and most likely caused by alcohol consumption, along with reduced circulation to decision making and memory functions which are likely caused and exacerbated by marijuana consumption as well. Full recovery is expected in less than six months, if in keeping with other subjects. There is currently no permanent structural damage, as expected as well. No significant history of physical brain trauma, ie. head injury or medical problems to rule out. Some prior use of hallucinogens including absinthe, but several years past and not apparent in this scan. Use of marijuana in this scan is after 7 years, and is normal in comparison to a caffeinated scan obtained later from another, non-substance using individual (see above).

Imaging by Eclipse Nuclear Medicine
Facility: The Hanley Center

Addendum: Due to information on infection from toxoplasma gondii and resulting psychosis and schizophrenia that has only been compiled in a meta-analysis in 2014, the impact of marijuana on the IQ may be incorrect in places with legalized marijuana industries. It would appear that the perceived effects of marijuana are in actuality the effect of a small parasite that is present in many cats, the fece of which will infect soil and crops in a home-grow operation for up to a year. The information provided here on the impact of illegal or decriminalized marijuana holds, however, as these laws encourage home grown operations meaning many users will contract the parasite as they will buy from a cat owner at some point. Also please remember that psychosis is pursuant to nearly all child abuse cases, and in 50% of students who were victims of bullying.


Amen, Daniel G., and Martin Waugh. “High resolution brain SPECT imaging of marijuana smokers with AD/HD.” Journal of psychoactive drugs 30.2 (1998): 209-214.

Callender, Thomas James, Lisa Morrow, and Kodanallur Subramanian. “Evaluation of chronic neurological sequelae after acute pesticide exposure using SPECT brain scans.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A Current Issues 41.3 (1994): 275-284.

Fried, Peter et al. “Current and Former Marijuana Use: Preliminary Findings of a Longitudinal Study of Effects on IQ in Young Adults.” CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 166.7 (2002): 887–891. Print.

Mariani, Giuliano, et al. “A review on the clinical uses of SPECT/CT.” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 37.10 (2010): 1959-1985.

Skip to toolbar