June 5-10, 1998 - United Nations General Assembly on the
Question of Narcotic Drugs
PRESS RELEASE - PATIENTS OUT OF TIME
WHY HOLD A GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION ON THE SUBJECT OF
ILLEGAL DRUGS WHEN THE DRUG WAR ITSELF IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Patients Out of Time is an organization that recognizes the need for some patients to be accorded the compassion and dignity to alleviate their pain, sickness and suffering by using a natural plant, Cannabis, under a doctor's care. Patients Out of Time is composed of legal and illegal Cannabis using patients, Health Care professionals, and tolerant but affirmative citizens who desire a pro choice modality of treatment for the ill and dying.
In 1961, the United Nations in concert with the United States forced on the world the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics (ratified in 1973). It contained among other things, 2 provisions that make it not only invalid but also illegal.
The first is a provision that requires all use of Cannabis must be stopped in 25 years from the date of ratification, meaning that the act, under U.S. law, will expire with respect to Cannabis, on December 31, 1998.
The second is a bit more complicated. The law of the land prior to 1969 was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. It required that an "occupational tax" be imposed on all those who deal in the drug and provided that the taxpayer must register his or her name and place of business with the Internal Revenue Service. The act required that a transfer tax be imposed on all transfers of marijuana and required the transfer to be "effected" with a written order form. The forms, executed by the transferee must show the transferor's name and address and the amount of marijuana involved. A copy was "preserved" by the IRS and this information was made available to law enforcement agencies.
In 1969 as a result of Leary v. United States, 395 US 6, this Act was declared unconstitutional as it violated the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. In addition the Court found that it violated the constitutional protections grounded in the following cases previously decided by the Court:
1) Marchetti v. United States - 390 US 39
2) Grosso v. United States - 390 US 62
3) Hayes v. United States - 390 US 85
4) Thompson v. Louisville - 362 US 199
5) Tot v. United States - 319 US 463
As a result of Leary, the United States Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act of 1969, which is contained in Title 21, Chapter 13, Sections 801-971 of the United States Code (USC).
Under Section 811 of Title 21 the sole right of scheduling any drug was given to the Attorney General of the United States, based on scientific and medical evidence to support the request compiled by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The DEA has no authority under U.S. law to be involved in scheduling. Their authority is defined in Section 878 of Title 21 and specifies a role of that of law enforcement only.
How the DEA became the sole authority on scheduling of controlled substances is quite simple. Under the rules, the Attorney General can delegate anything under his or her authority to any person or persons that are under the direct control of the Office of the Attorney General. Given the DEA's defined role in Section 878 (USC), how this is legally permissible defies all logic and possibly violates the Government's own conflict of interest laws.
Under President Nixon's term of office, the Attorney General delegated this authority to the Administrator of the DEA, who eventually re-delegated this authority to the Deputy Administrator (See 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104 - 59 Fed. Reg. 23637 May 6, 1994).
Under paragraph d of Section 811 the following appears, "...If control is required by the United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970 (The U.S. signed the Single Convention Treaty in 1961), the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section...".
For the first time in U.S. history the Attorney General must answer to a foreign power or entity not elected by the people and not part of the government. That entity further barred him or her from using the powers of the office and barred the American people from using their constitutional powers to petition their government to address a grievance.
Section 811, paragraphs a & b give the Attorney General the power to remove a drug from scheduling or change a classification under the following: 1) on his or her own motion, 2) at the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or 3) on the petition of any interested party.
The Constitution gives the power to make law only to Congress and the power to make rules on how to enforce those laws only to the Executive branch of government. It should be noted that the constitution and the courts have defined "making rules" as having the power of law and are enforceable as such.
Here, we have an entity that is not elected by the citizens of the United States, not directly answerable to Congress (not impeachable) and not answerable to the President of the United States creating rules that carry the legal force of law, for the President's cabinet officers. This violates the United States Constitution's absolute "separation of powers" clauses. (Articles 1, 2, and 3)
In 1986, the United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Bowsher v. Synar, 478 US 714. Here the court found that Congress had illegally transferred constitutional powers expressly reserved for the Executive Branch to the Comptroller General of the United States.
The court found in this case these principles. Congress lacks the constitutional power to delegate away powers expressly reserved for them in the Constitution. It also found that they also do not have the power to delegate away of the powers reserved for the executive branch. The exact wording of the decision is as follows: "...To permit the execution of the laws to be vested in an officer answerable only to Congress would, in practical terms, reserve in Congress control of the execution of the laws. The structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws; it follows that Congress cannot grant to an officer under its control what it does not possess..."
The decision further states "...That this system of division and separation of powers produces conflicts, confusion and discordance at times is inherent, but it was deliberately so structured to assure full, vigorous and open debate on the great issues affecting the people and to provide for the operation of checks on the exercise of governmental power..." (See Myers v. United States, 272 US 52, and Humphrey's Ex'r v. United States, 295 US 602)
In conclusion, we have here a series of treaties that transfer powers expressly granted to the Executive branch of government in Article 2 of the Constitution to the United Nations Drug Control Program, an agent of a power not defined as a part of the US Government but a foreign entity. The US Constitution does not permit any officer of the Government, no matter which branch, to be controlled by, or have rules placed on them by, a foreign entity of an organization not directly answerable to either Congress or the President.