Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
Good, That makes room for all these WEFFER Socialists, Bidet et al.Biden to Pardon Thousands for Marijuana Possession
President Joe Biden took his first major steps toward decriminalizing marijuana, pardoning thousands of Americans convicted for possession of the drug and ordering a review of its legal status.www.bloomberg.com
Still comes down to the fact that someone has to become a defendant in order to fight it via the courts.Any law passed repugnant to the Constitution (including treaties) is null and void.
Again, I voted for the original MT Medical Marijuana bill because I am open minded enough to understand that it is a viable natural treatment for many things. Problem was as soon as the bill passed we were inundated with quackery. Suddenly, everyone had some unexplainable ache or pain and the State was overwhelmed with MJ bullshit. Typical “give a mouse a cookie” syndrome. So, we scaled back but then came the fun times weed bill and, now, Katy-bar-the-door.suppose I live in Montana and I am dying of cancer and the only chance I have for a cure is marijuana
are you in favor of harsh marijuana laws to punish people like me for using marijuana?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."I agree, but the way to do it is by having "leaders" that want it to work that way. As long as virtually everyone going to DC see's the Constitution as a hinderance to be creatively overcome, we'll never get that.
That is exactly what I expected and predicted.Pretty much a “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” guy here. When MT first had a vote for medical marijuana, I voted for it as did the overwhelming majority of the state. That was a few years ago and we are now seeing the effects of publicly supported weed. The “Big Town” close to me has about 120,000 people. Shootings and stabbings simply did not happen in during my lifetime (now 50+ years) until now, post-pro weed laws. Now we have at least 2 shootings a week and stabbings are becoming normal. The idyllic nature of what was a quaint western cow town is gone. Is it all weed’s fault? I doubt it. Did the lax public attitude towards weed, largely a form of “sticking it to the man”, have a lot to do with the current drug problems in the state? I don’t see how not. So, in short, I wish that MT still had harsh anti-weed laws on the books, and enforced.
You're right in describing the situation.Still comes down to the fact that someone has to become a defendant in order to fight it via the courts.
.....and do so using a convincing, argument that what the gov is doing is unConstitutional.
Problem is, if they thought there were even half a chance they would lose the case and f' up the little scheme the gov has going, the prosecutor would just drop the charges.
.....and if you fight it like that and lose, expect a maximum punishment.
Does the State do anything else?the State slobbering over the tax money involved,
No, they don’t. They promote addictions by legalizing and taxing substances, then John Q Taxpayer is taxed to pay for “programs” to treat the addicts that were created, to some degree, by State law while we sit here and argue Constitutional legalities. If it all could go private, take the money out of it, inclusive of substance abuse programs, the tax incentives out of it (and the crime money by extension) then I do not care one whit what stupor you smoke, drink, shoot, or snort yourself into as long as you do at home.Does the State do anything else?
If so, it's news to me!
I admit that I don't know much about the treaties, but whatever, they cannot supercede the constitution, although they certainly will try, and have most convinced of it.
Still, the only way to fix it is by becoming a victim (in order to have standing) and make the courts acknowledge all of that.TREATY CANNOT INFRINGE THE CONSTITUTION
“A treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that document.” – Foster & Elam v. Neilson, (1826) 27 U.S. (2 Pet) 253
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, let alone alien to our Constitutional history and tradition to construe Article VI (the Supremacy Clause) as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement, without observing Constitutional prohibitions. In effect such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.” – Reid v. Covert, (1957), 354 U.S. 1
“The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive, or by the Executive and the Senate combined.” –Reid v. Covert, (supra)
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
Sorry, but I never touch the stuff myself.Go right ahead, do it yourself if you have the balls
One other thing that should be remembered, is that the Senate ratified the Treaty.Go right ahead, do it yourself if you have the balls
"Look over here not over there"Is this another window dressing by Biden to hide the real issue of the day namely the Saudi Prince telling him oil will be cut even more?
I think more crime and nonsense comes from the infrastructure that comes along with prohibition. Cartel, smugglers, burglars, police, lawyers, prisons and prison guards, medical intervention etc etcI fully agree with not wanting a life supervisor, nor wanting people in my business or desiring to be in their business.
Problem is that the crime associated with drugs very much makes it my business, whether I want it to be, or not.
Because, of course, pharma has our interests at heart.When produced and sold by pharma with known (fentynal free) doses. The cost and price would plummet.
Best or worst interests they’d be for it because of the profit motiveBecause, of course, pharma has our interests at heart.
As they demonstrated with their vaccine program.
stoners drive so carefully they’re dangerously in the wayAgain, I voted for the original MT Medical Marijuana bill because I am open minded enough to understand that it is a viable natural treatment for many things. Problem was as soon as the bill passed we were inundated with quackery. Suddenly, everyone had some unexplainable ache or pain and the State was overwhelmed with MJ bullshit. Typical “give a mouse a cookie” syndrome. So, we scaled back but then came the fun times weed bill and, now, Katy-bar-the-door.
If you want to grow it, keep it to yourself, and smoke it in your own home, I could not care less. When it (has) becomes big business with the State slobbering over the tax money involved, and I am then forced to deal with stoners in the passing lane and a quite impressive spike in crime rates then somebody else’s pleasure trip is ultimately infringing on my pursuit of peace and happiness, personal safety and that of my family, and that is no bueno.
A bipartisan coalition of senators behind a cannabis banking bill is pushing for a markup and working to clear key hurdles on both sides of the aisle to lock down support.
...
The SAFE Banking Act would give federally regulated banks and credit unions legal cover to take cannabis dispensaries and growers as customers. Financial institutions have been hesitant to serve state-legal cannabis businesses because of the federal ban on the drug.
...
Proponents of the bill say the SAFE Banking Act would help legally operating businesses avoid the headaches and safety risks of dealing only in cash without affecting the legal status of cannabis beyond states where it’s legal.
But despite passing the House several times in recent years, the bill has faced a bumpy road in the Senate, where it needs at least 60 votes to clear the upper chamber. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed objections to the bill, reflecting sharp partisan divides over cannabis use and regulation beyond the financial sector.
Senators had previously sought to pass the bill as part of the larger government funding omnibus approved late last year, but talks fell apart after it faced staunch opposition from GOP leadership.
...
Republicans have also raised concerns about preventing banks from cracking down on other politically controversial industries.
“I think there’s a desire to sort of level the playing field, if you will, between things like hemp and CBD, and then there’s been some desire to — I, for one, would like to see the same premise applied obviously to banks and things like Operation Choke Point,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told The Hill, referring to the Obama-era scrutiny of bank transactions with firearms businesses.
“Try to eliminate some of that nonsense,” he said. “I think there is a discussion ripe for some compromise and some deal-making.”
...
The issue extends beyond the retail store. The banking issue affects growers, distributors, etc. - the whole supply chain and support services.Everything is cash in the weed stores. ...
Why can't they all just conduct business in cash?The issue extends beyond the retail store. The banking issue affects growers, distributors, etc. - the whole supply chain and support services.
That's good so I can get points when I use a credit card to buy some Hindu Kush indica.Marijuana Industry Banking Bill Passes Key Senate Panel
The U.S. Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday brought major federal marijuana banking legislation closer to becoming law than ever, approving a bipartisan bill that advocates say is essential to the safety of legal recreational and medical marijuana businesses across the United States.
The committee voted 14-9 in favor of passing the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act, which would legally protect banks and credit unions that provide services to cannabis operations and prohibit federal regulators from ordering financial institutions to close a business' account based on "reputational risk."
An earlier version of the bill passed in the U.S. House numerous times but was never advanced in the Senate under either Democratic or Republican control.
More:
Marijuana Industry Banking Bill Passes Key Senate Panel | Common Dreams
"We've got momentum on our side," said Sen. Jeff Merkley. "Let's get this done to protect our legal cannabis businesses!"www.commondreams.org
Horrific risk.Why can't they all just conduct business in cash?
....and convert to gold for savings?
^^^^^^^^^
Here's the vid:
^^^^ that's the vid? why on Earth would youtube age restrict that video?
I can only assume that by doing so, they are merely trying to protect the bidet family.
Well in that case we should all quit using cash?Horrific risk.
From employees, from burglars/robbers, and from government.
Sales for cash, is far different from not having a bank to store/take custody of receipts.Well in that case we should all quit using cash?
My point was that they are already all cash, and they obviously aren't being run out of business by everything you mentioned.
Considering the push for cashless-ness that we should all be trying to stop, having a whole industry using only cash seems like a good first step.
Personally, I'd like to see every business operate like they are.
Then what we need is for more people to just say f' the banks.Sales for cash, is far different from not having a bank to store/take custody of receipts.
This is a illustrative of the problems of this new era - where no one can be trusted, where public facilities such as banks are free to reject businesses and even seize property based on POLITICAL OPINIONS held by customers.
It's business without Rule of Law, and it will not work. As I said. The business is cash, and then because banks are lawless, the cash must be physically stored. Because customers are lawless and because we've militarized police, it's easy to stage a commando raid based on one dishonest phone call. And because police and courts are lawless, it's even easier then, to seize the held cash-assets.
This is a drastic turnaround. Hotels cannot refuse customers when there's even a POSSIBILITY it's based on race...cannot turn away minorities who look bedraggled, are intoxicated, have no credit card (necessary in most hotels to secure payment) but BANKS can now refuse business because they and the government, dislike the KIND of business being banked, or dislike political opinions of the OWNERS?
Well...how's the mechanics of that, work?Then what we need is for more people to just say f' the banks.
The only reason they can do as you describe is because too many people have been brainwashed into thinking that we can't live without them.
News flash! We can.
people used to exclusively use cash. No reason we still couldn't.
Same way it did prior to electronic banking.Well...how's the mechanics of that, work?
There's always been danger.I mean, seriously. It's not even what I want or what I've been saying - it's our dark future, literally. We're in a lawless world, now - a banana republic.
How did they do it prior to credit cards and wire transfers?So. When you can trust no one, and the law is for sale and a joke, how does this work? You have the cash for the day's take...say, $20,000. Keeping it on-site is asinine.
The gov has always had the ability to take from the citizens. Do you really think a bank is gonna say no to the gov taking your money from it? Even if it's an illegal seizure, they'll just turn over your funds and tell you to go fight 'em to get it back.So, how do you do it? You saw the California raid on a private safe-deposit-box facility. How are you going to ensure your private vault is not likewise raided and seized, when it's lucrative enough?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?