Why growing marijuana for oneself is lawful within all American state republics
Subtitled: The Controlled Substances Acts regulate all manufacturing, but not all production
For anyone contemplating growing marijuana, this information is for you and your attorney. (I do not recommend growing pot before consulting an attorney who has read my book: BUSTED - A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs).
Let's start with the basics. If you intend to manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana, then you are required by every Uniform and U.S. Controlled Substances Acts to register with both your state drug regulatory agency and with the DEA (which answers to the U.S. Attorney General).
In Indiana where I live, this requirement is at Indiana Code 35-48-3-3(a) and (b) [[hyperlinked]]. According to these provisions, all people who intend to manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled substances, such as marijuana, must register with the Indiana State Board of Pharmacy. In the U.S. Code, the similar requirement to register with the DEA is at 21 USC 822(a).
[[By the way, Indiana is neither a medical nor recreational marijuana state.]]
However, these provisions only apply to people in the commerce of marijuana, i.e., people who grow and provide marijuana for others. These provisions do not apply to people who grow marijuana for themselves and for those in their households. Such people are exempt or free from both criminal prohibition and commercial regulation -- which are America's two police powers -- for their marijuana growing.
This is evident in exactly the same statutes cited above. At IC 35-48-3-3(e)(3), it says that individual drug users – called “ultimate users” – need need not register with the Indiana pharmacy board and may “lawfully possess” drugs. IC 35-48-1-27 shows that this means to possess drugs for their own use and the use of their households, including animals.
These provisions are the same in federal law at 21 USC 822(c), as defined at 21 USC 802(27).
This is further supported by the statutory distinction between “manufacture" and "production.” These terms are respectively defined in Indiana at IC 35-48-1-18 and IC 35-48-1-26 and in the U.S. Code at 21 USC 802 (15) and 21 USC 802 (22).
According to these provisions, all manufacturing is production, but not all production is manufacturing. This means that all manufacturing of drugs is subject to governments' regulatory powers (and their powers to confiscate and enjoin), but not all production. That production which is cultivation for oneself or one's household is to lawfully acquire drugs and is not subject to regulation. IC 35-48-3-3(e) and 21 USC 822(c) say that ultimate users who lawfully acquire controlled substances need not register with the Indiana pharmacy board and the DEA, and that they may "lawfully possess" drugs -- for example the marijuana they grow -- that they intend to use themselves.
(Note, one may lawfully acquire drugs by any consensual means, which excludes theft, fraud or coercion. To lawfully acquire and lawfully possess drugs are defined by the law jurisdiction, which is to say by natural law, and are not subject to inconsistent legislative suggestions.)
The reason for the distinction between production and manufacture is because they operate in separate judicial jurisdictions. Production of things for oneself operates in the law jurisdiction, where possession of things (property) is lawful and judicial jurisdiction is defined by injury. Marijuana gardening operates in the same jurisdiction as tomato growing. It does not operate or belong in the criminal law jurisdiction where only injury invokes judicial power, or in the equity jurisdiction that regulates marijuana dealing (commerce).
In contrast, growing marijuana for people outside of one's household is commerce. All commerce is subject to state and federal regulation. (The Interstate Commerce clause at Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. constitution empowers Congress to regulate commerce under equity, but not to prohibit it at law.)
Those people who grow marijuana for commercial purposes, i.e., to distribute marijuana to the public, are subject to regulation. This means that unapproved violators of marijuana growing laws are subject to being enjoined under equity, but not incarcerated under law. Drug dealing is subject to regulation, not criminal prohibition.
The war on drugs exists only because drug defense attorneys have not read state and federal law, and do not know the distinctions between production and manufacture and between law and equity. The above analysis is true in every state 1) because every state is required to use the same definition of crime as in the U.S. constitution, and 2) because every state and Congress (acting as a republic) regulates drug commerce, instead of prohibiting it.
For more and better information on this important topic, buy my book (in softback or Kindle) here.
Let's start with the basics. If you intend to manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana, then you are required by every Uniform and U.S. Controlled Substances Acts to register with both your state drug regulatory agency and with the DEA (which answers to the U.S. Attorney General).
In Indiana where I live, this requirement is at Indiana Code 35-48-3-3(a) and (b) [[hyperlinked]]. According to these provisions, all people who intend to manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled substances, such as marijuana, must register with the Indiana State Board of Pharmacy. In the U.S. Code, the similar requirement to register with the DEA is at 21 USC 822(a).
[[By the way, Indiana is neither a medical nor recreational marijuana state.]]
However, these provisions only apply to people in the commerce of marijuana, i.e., people who grow and provide marijuana for others. These provisions do not apply to people who grow marijuana for themselves and for those in their households. Such people are exempt or free from both criminal prohibition and commercial regulation -- which are America's two police powers -- for their marijuana growing.
This is evident in exactly the same statutes cited above. At IC 35-48-3-3(e)(3), it says that individual drug users – called “ultimate users” – need need not register with the Indiana pharmacy board and may “lawfully possess” drugs. IC 35-48-1-27 shows that this means to possess drugs for their own use and the use of their households, including animals.
These provisions are the same in federal law at 21 USC 822(c), as defined at 21 USC 802(27).
This is further supported by the statutory distinction between “manufacture" and "production.” These terms are respectively defined in Indiana at IC 35-48-1-18 and IC 35-48-1-26 and in the U.S. Code at 21 USC 802 (15) and 21 USC 802 (22).
According to these provisions, all manufacturing is production, but not all production is manufacturing. This means that all manufacturing of drugs is subject to governments' regulatory powers (and their powers to confiscate and enjoin), but not all production. That production which is cultivation for oneself or one's household is to lawfully acquire drugs and is not subject to regulation. IC 35-48-3-3(e) and 21 USC 822(c) say that ultimate users who lawfully acquire controlled substances need not register with the Indiana pharmacy board and the DEA, and that they may "lawfully possess" drugs -- for example the marijuana they grow -- that they intend to use themselves.
(Note, one may lawfully acquire drugs by any consensual means, which excludes theft, fraud or coercion. To lawfully acquire and lawfully possess drugs are defined by the law jurisdiction, which is to say by natural law, and are not subject to inconsistent legislative suggestions.)
The reason for the distinction between production and manufacture is because they operate in separate judicial jurisdictions. Production of things for oneself operates in the law jurisdiction, where possession of things (property) is lawful and judicial jurisdiction is defined by injury. Marijuana gardening operates in the same jurisdiction as tomato growing. It does not operate or belong in the criminal law jurisdiction where only injury invokes judicial power, or in the equity jurisdiction that regulates marijuana dealing (commerce).
In contrast, growing marijuana for people outside of one's household is commerce. All commerce is subject to state and federal regulation. (The Interstate Commerce clause at Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. constitution empowers Congress to regulate commerce under equity, but not to prohibit it at law.)
Those people who grow marijuana for commercial purposes, i.e., to distribute marijuana to the public, are subject to regulation. This means that unapproved violators of marijuana growing laws are subject to being enjoined under equity, but not incarcerated under law. Drug dealing is subject to regulation, not criminal prohibition.
The war on drugs exists only because drug defense attorneys have not read state and federal law, and do not know the distinctions between production and manufacture and between law and equity. The above analysis is true in every state 1) because every state is required to use the same definition of crime as in the U.S. constitution, and 2) because every state and Congress (acting as a republic) regulates drug commerce, instead of prohibiting it.
For more and better information on this important topic, buy my book (in softback or Kindle) here.