Given #4 - The U.S. Government, therefore, has no legitimate authority to legislate the manufacture and use of any drug by any citizen of the 50 States.

Given #5 - The U.S. government does have legitimate authority to lay an excise, impost, or duty on imported goods to this country and any due as specified on state to state business transactions.

Given #6 - Without proper authority designated by the Constitution for the United States of America, improper authority will be cloaked under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3. In other words, false authority will be hidden behind taxation (import) and commerce with other nations, and controlling commerce "among" the states.

Given #7 - Federal laws can be applied only within jurisdictional areas, which includes only the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariner Islands, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, possessions and other territories, and federal enclaves, including military bases, armaments, and other designated federal properties.

If you wonder why the federal government is taking land from people under every unlawful guise possible, wonder no more. It establishes the land and people as being under the jurisdiction of the US Government and out of control of the owner�s and State�s jurisdiction through the use of "treaties" and other unlawful means, such as applying bureaus' duties, specifically the IRS, BATF, and FBI, to the people of the States. Practically speaking, this isn�t any different than the monarchs of old just marching in and taking people�s land.

Given #8 - One must always search for a hidden agenda when considering any legislation made by the US Government.

First of all, we all know (or should know) that the federal government hasn�t any power to dictate what drug may be grown, manufactured or used by the citizens of the 50 States if we would just think once in awhile instead of responding like braindead slaves to authority. It has been proved concerning a drug that kills far more people annually than all the so-called �illegal� drugs put together - alcohol.

This drug is related to over 100.000 deaths per year. Even keeping in mind that if a person happens to be walking down the sidewalk under the influence and is hit by a person not under the influence of any drug, that it is alcohol related, or if a straight person causes an accident but one of the people involved has been using alcohol (doesn�t matter if they are what we call drunk or not), it is an alcohol related death, the fact is alcohol can be thought of as a killer. But, it is �legal� and proved to be so when prohibition (18th Amendment) was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

Tobacco, containing one of the deadliest drugs known to man, nicotine, is responsible for at least 400,000 deaths per year and may go as high as 600,000 in this nation alone. This doesn�t count the person who drops a cigarette in his car and looks down for it and smashes into another possibly killing one or more in the other vehicle. In fact, if there is an open container in the other car, this accident would go down as an alcohol related death(s).

And, yet, this deadly drug is legal. Kids walk the streets openly smoking even though they may only be in grade school. Of course, it is not �legal� for them to buy the cigarettes but, somehow, they keep getting them.

But, what about cannabis? Marijuana. Marihuana (as spelled in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act). Mary Jane. Weed. Whacky weed or whacky tobaccy. Whatever you may call it, does this drug present any threat? Is it a health hazard? Is it a drug that cause terrible damage to society?

In this country, there are zero, that is - zero, nada, zilch - deaths or injuries attributed to the use of marijuana. In fact, this writer could not find one case world wide in which cannabis caused a death or even a serious illness.

But, there must be - after all, isn't our government a benevolent one looking out for our rights, including our safety. Maybe the writer just grew tired of going from site to site trying to find some positive evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug. Having known many who used it on a regular basis with no ill effects, including interference with work, he has never believed it to be a dangerous drug and tried to prove himself wrong.

Contrary to the myth perpetuated by law enforcement and drug-control bureaus, that the use of marijuana causes one to go on to stronger drugs, there is not one shred of evidence that this is the case. This simply isn�t an effect of the drug. Any desire for a stronger drug or one with different effets is a personal matter of the person themselves wanting stronger, more lasting effects. Cannabis certainly didn�t �cause� it.

The conclusion is that the need to prevent people from using marijuana based on its dangers is pure myth perpetrated by anti-drug people and those making tremendous profits because of cannabis becoming a �controlled� drug. More on this later.

Prescription drugs now cause around 32,000 deaths per year, while all other licit and illicit drug-induced deaths add up to just under 17,000 deaths per year. And, with non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (such as aspirin), just under 8,000, deaths, we get a grand total of about 57,000 deaths per year from the use of drugs, both controlled and uncontrolled.

As near as the writer could interpret from one of the graphs he studied, it appeared that there were less than 10,000 deaths per year from illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroine, PCP, meth, and others.

Consider. There are nearly as many deaths from drugs such as aspirins as there are from all the illegal drugs put together. And, yet, cocaine (the choice of the current president) is illegal although anti-inflammatory drugs can be bought over the counter (OTC).

Heroine has been the choice of the medical profession. The writer can�t remember the source but while he was earning his degree in psychology, an estimate was that 90 percent of all doctors nation wide used heroine.

So why are some drugs legal and some illegal, with the most dangerous drugs and most damaging to society (alcohol and tobacco) being legal and the least dangerous - illegal? Well, that is where hidden agendas of governments come in.

If a drug is controlled, is it unlawful to grow, manufacture, and use? That is the question the writer tried to answer. As alluded to, the prohibition of alcohol by the 18th Amendment was determined to be unconstitutional and repealed by the 21st Amendment.

If one reads the Constitution and its amendments, one finds that there aren�t any actual restrictions whatsoever on the manufacturing of, sale of, consumption of, or growing of any drug or drug-related plant or artificial sourse. In fact, it simply is not within the authority of Congress to legislate concerning this. Thus, the repeal of the 18th Amendment.

The US Government uses subterfuge to fool people with one of it ruses being the meaning of �State� by the year the 21st was ratified, 1933. As used in the context of the 21st Amendment, State would mean Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa since the federal government did not have any jurisdiction over the several states. In other words, each of the many States is not a State of the United States but is, instead, a State of the United States of America, with each a Republic retaining its sovereign status to the United States.

Since the United States is a foreign corporation in respect to many States, if one manufactured alcohol in Missouri and then shipped it to the District of Columbia, there would be an excise tax due on it in the port of entry into the District of Columbia. Or, if alcohol were manufactured in Puerto Rico or any other foreign source, including Canada and Mexico and shipped to Missouri, then an excise tax would be due in Missouri at the applicable port of entry.

Realizing many might wish to argue this point, the Constitution is FOR the United States of America and establishes the United States as the seat of the federal government, known as the United States (US) Government. It uses phrases such as �the States�, State (but not �of the United States�), �each State�, the "several States", or the "many States", when referring to the Republics (States) making up the United States of America.

In Article IV, Section 3, the Constitution states this: �The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union...� It does not state: The United States shall guarantee to every State of the United States! There are other examples in the Constitution supporting this but, in order to understand the many scams perpetrated by the US Government against the people of the United States of America, this distinction must be understood or, at a minimum, accepted as plausible.

To aid in this endeavor, the distinction has been ruled on in that Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 gave three definitions for the United States:

(1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations;

(2) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends;

AND...

(3) it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

To clarify this, you are a Citizen of the United States as in (3), not a United States citizen as in (1) and (2). If you give the indication you are a citizen of (1) and (2), you essentially subject yourself to the rules and promulgations of the federal government. This is strengthened by acquiring a social security number, having a driver's license (government granted privilege), use postal abbreviations (Ex. MO for Missouri), sign its or any state, county and city forms made out to an "identity" with a name in all caps, and so on.

Here is a break down of proper identification:

Citizen of the United States (3) - John Q. Citizen

Citizen of the United States (1) - JOHN Q CITIZEN

United States citizen (2) - JOHN Q CITIZEN

When you accept your name in all capital letters on government forms, you accept the strawman identity as your own and any demands made to the strawman identity by the government. You are responding to demands that are not, in reality, made on you. It is a ruse. The government hasn�t any jurisdiction over your legal identity but, because you assumed the strawman identity to be you, you became the fictional character living in a fedaral enclave and subject to all rules and regulations of the United States Government.

This is the basis for the fraudulent application of the Internal Revenue Code, property tax, interstate transportation laws, and including, but not inclusive of, laws concerning drugs and firearms on citizens of the 50 States. You accept debts and requirements of the federal (and state) government based on accepting your strawman identity created by federal government as your own. However, you are not a fictional identity in a fictional federal enclave subject to US Government control. You owe the federal, state, county, and city governments exactly NOTHING. You are a free, by birth right citizen of the United States of America.

For more information concerning fictitious identities known as "strawman" identities, just search for "strawman indentity" and it will lead you to informative sites.

By the 1930's or so, those who intended on establishing this nation as other than a Republic with the people as the sovereign knew how to use the subterfuge. They have since relied on wording, indoctrination in public schools to unconstitutional acts by Congress being treated as lawful and proper, and the use of government force whether by federal armed organizations or coercement through fear (such as using the conviction of Al Capone) to essentially place all citizens in servitude to the United States and, rapidly approaching, a one world government.

To review, it is well-proved that the US Government does not have any jurisdiction excepting that specified in Article I, Section 8. It may not lawfully and jurisdictionally control any drug any citizen of the several States wishes to introduce to his body since this is not specified as a duty of the United States established by the Constitution. Nor, may the manufacture or growth of any needed plant for the drug be controlled, meaning "prohibited". It is simply not within the jurisdiction established by the Constitution.

All that may be lawfully controlled by the United States Government is the imposition of a tax in the event a drug is imported from a source foreign to the United States and foreign to the United States of America.

There is this matter that must be considered. Why would the government wish to control hemp or fool the people into believing it is controlled (prohibited) by regulations? Remember, this plant has not caused the death of even one person in this nation and, possibly, the world. It has been used for over 4,000 years safely by people all over the Earth as a recreational drug. It does not cause traffic accidents, cancer, other organ problems, and has yet to be proven to have any provable negative effects either on society or on the human body.

It has, however, been proven time and time again to have tremendous medical benefits, including for claucoma, and inhibiting effects on other conditions. Prior to intervention by the government for certain oil buddies, it was once a prospering industry in this nation but not so much as a source for any �drug� use but as an agricultural industry, the growing of �hemp�, a plant which has been described as the most useful plant known to man. You see, it is from the hemp plant that plastic could be made.

Do you see any cause for control? Let's see if we can figure why hemp became controlled. We must consider this - plastic can be made from hemp plants. Plastic could also be made from pertroleum. Therefore, plastic from hemp could make growers quite wealthy. Plasic from petroleum could create tremendous additional wealth for oil moguls. Government had powerful friends in the oil industry but hemp growers did not.

Also, paper can be made from hemp. But, paper is also made from trees. Therefore, hemp growers would compete with the timber industry. Hemp growers were not huge backers of government entities. The timber industry was.

Furthermore, there are approximately 25,000 products that can be made from hemp. And worker don't get high making any of them, nor do the people using the products get high.

The hemp industry was projected in the 1930s to become a billion-dollar business because of its tremendous versatility. This, of course, would cut into the profits of many major businesses who were already in the practice of buying politicians through contributions.

Plus, although it is not well-known, the people in this country had no idea that marijuana came from a hemp plant. Guess they never dried the flowers and seeds and smoked them as the Mexicans who brought it from Mexico into this country had. In truth, the hemp plant grown here is not the hemp plant used to produce marijuana. The hemp that was being grown here at the time could be smoked until Hades froze over and one still wouldn't get a marijuana high from it.

Anyway, add to the equation that the 18th Amendment had been recently repealed. When prohibition was repealed, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the DEA), was essentially out of work since it had been created to enforce an unconstitutional act, the prohibition of alcohol. The director of the FBN at the time, Harry J. Anslinger, no doubt realized his days could very well be numbered unless there was some drug to act against. He, therefore, became a major demonizer of marijuana.

Then, there was the alcohol industry which now would become a big contributor to Congress and others in government, plus produce tremendous profits for the government through taxation (unlawfully, yes, but applied anyway). Marijuana has effects quite similar to alcohol except it does not have any bad side effects. And it is CHEAP to grow and buy. In fact, people with no gardening skills whatsoever can grow their own. All it takes is a bit of ground and the right hemp plant.

So, the FBN needed to stay in business. And the alcohol industry did not want hemp to stay available since it would cut into their profits. The government could easily fraudulently tax alcohol at the source of production but how could it ever enforce tax laws on every person who grew marijuana in their house or on their property?

Now do you understand?

At any rate, enter the 1937 Marihuana (Spanish spelling) Tax Act. If an excellent history of hemp is desired, there are many links available. Here is a link directly to the act itself: The Marihuan Tax Act of 1937. Read it carefully and try to determine where it states it is illegal to grow and use marijuana.

Of course, by convincing people it was illegal, tremendous revenues would be produced for all levels of government in the form of fines, confiscations of property, and allocations to "fight the drug war" to name a few. The fraud relied on hundreds of lies by government officials to the public but, as we all should know by now, "integrity" is NOT a characteristic of those who stay in government. The norm for them is to lie with few would recognizing the truth even if it tripped them and caused them to fall into a pile of fresh cow manure.

FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt), the man signing the act into law and treated by government controlled publications as a great American hero, was actually one of the most dispicable liars, cheats, frauds, and evil people to ever be alleged to be an "American". The Marihuana Act was just another corrupted action by him designed to control the people of this country and to help those working, including himself, for world domination over all people.

Addendum: The writer has been trying to find the exact statutes being pushed off on the public as valid law by the federal government concerning opium, heroine, and other drugs. So far, no luck. If anyone reads this, and knows of specific regulations that state - The poppy plant is illegal to grow in any of the 50 States - please send me the information to my email address: [email protected].

However, suffice it to say at this time, controlling any product or substance by the government is done for no other reasons than to help their good buddies in major industries that contribute mightily to their campaigns and offer up many perks; their good buddies in the banking industry, namely the Rothschilds and other foreigners who will cut their throats if they don't do what they are told; give a source of increased revenues for government, including to law enforcement, judiciary members, and prosecutors; and to give means of control and taking other BIG BROTHER actions against Americans.

In regards to the latter, these people controlling the weak people kept in government want world dominion and need at this time to have a means of convincing ignorant Americans that it is to their best interest for thugs from the government to be able to break into people's homes and do all sorts of other unconsitutional acts. It matters not to these evil beings that the acts can only be deemed Acts of War against American citizens on American soil. These monolithcv financial controllers simply will not tolerate less from those in government and will falsify anything, or kill anyone (Kennedy, King, and dozens of others), that block or attempt to block their path to complete world servitude to them.

Thus, one must come to the conclusion that the anti-drug efforts of the federal government serve only to further enslave the people of this nation; generate revenue for unscrupulous so-called "leaders", heavy contributors to the leaders and the stock-holders of the Federal Reserve Banking cartel; and to give the federal government a means, however fraudulent, of invading the sovereign 50 States with armed, ready-to-shoot federal agents under the guise of "protecting the children."

And we allow this war against liberty to continue. Shame on us.