Bernie Sanders and his disjointed promises of Legalizing Marijuana Federally. It was never meant to pass. Please let me explain.

I feel as though I am about to take a huge political fart in room full of proper women. I apologize in advance but here goes.

---

Sanders ought to have known and likely did know that retractions to federal marijuana laws would not fly.

However, that did not stop him from attempting to gain favor with all pot smokers (or would-be cannabis users) everywhere when he put forth his "federally decriminalize marihuana [sic]" bill late last year ^[1][2][3].

He ought to have known that the US cannot federally decriminalize cannabis, because they are contractually obligated to keep it illegal by UN convention. Here is that convention:

• UN 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances

The Convention, which contains import and export restrictions and other rules aimed at limiting drug use to scientific and medical purposes, came into force on 16 August 1976. As of 2013, 183 member states are Parties to the treaty. Many laws have been passed to implement the Convention, including the U.S. Psychotropic Substances Act, the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Adolf Lande, under the direction of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, prepared the Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The Commentary, published in 1976, is an invaluable aid to interpreting
the treaty and constitutes a key part of its legislative history.

What this means is that so long as the US remains within this convention (by treaty), the US shall pass no legitimate drug laws that can undermine them without creating a violation of that treaty and contradiction of its purpose. Ultimately, the US going rogue on a particular drug issue will make the UN look like it has egg on its face; it will weaken and diminish the UN's power of authority by causing them to lose face and look like it has no control over the US. So that's why we will not do it. We will have to change the UN laws first.

There are those of you who believe the the US can do whatever it wants, and that the UN is irrelevant. I would agree with these people, and I would add that the enforcement or the defiance of UN law has entirely to do with the US's interests. And by 'the US's interests' I mean the interests of the largest corporations, primarily in the energy, defense, and medical industries, which in turn steer policy groups (thinktanks), which in turn puppet the US Military Intelligence community, because the MIC outsources their intelligence to those groups necessarily; because military-intelligence is an oxymoron generally.

And since we have marines guarding poppy fields in the golden crescent, which provides the lion's share of both opiod painkillers and heroin the world-over^[4][5], it's as much in the MIC's interest to maintain an occupation of their drug farms for the pharma complex--and to continue dispensing them like candy even when there's an epidemic of interrelated pill and heroin abuse back home--as it is in their interest to keep cannabis--a wholly safe alternative both recreationally and for pain--completely illegal. Because someone did the math and found that a viable black market for both is more profitable and socially-controlling than decriminalizing one or even both. Apparently, even were they to be sold at your local CVS pharmacy.

However, the mainstream media doesn't talk about this and never will if you understand who owns them. And they certainly will not talk about the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Which is at the heart of this very matter.

But you can't keep this info under the lid forever. For example, Richard Branson gets it: Branson urged the UN directly to decriminalize drugs worldwide, and so did the World Health Organization (WHO)^[6][7], on the evidence-based notion that it will do less harm to have them be legalized, with a decade-plus, post-decriminalized Portugal as the test case, but the UN said "No"^[8].....and then crickets.

But then, not a month after the UN said no, Sanders raises his hand for emphasis, to paraphrase him, "It is time to stop putting kids in jail for using their marihuanas!" Whereas I strongly supported Sanders initially, having donated a hundo and my time to his campaign, and having supported this particular sentiment generally, I was puzzled when Bill Maher did not likewise support him: Maher ignored Bernie altogether on Maher's show just 2 days after that, Bernie submitted his bill to federally decriminalize marihuana.

Maher's Realtime show that aired live on hbo, the day after all the news hit that Bernie Sanders had proposed a bill to congress to federally legalize cannabis (nov of 2015 I believe, around the time of the paris attacks), Maher made absolutely no mention of Sander's bill. Instead, he talked about how it was a 'bad time for liberals...' saying something about some idiot state we don't care about...Ohio I think, failed to legalize medical marijuana. Sander's Bill was MUCH more important, Maher completely ignored it. This was a choice, not an accident. Sander's bill was all over the news the day prior to his show. --me, in a crazy latenight post about the illuminaughty

Reeling from the shock, then outrage that Maher--ostensibly a strong pot advocate--completely ignored maybe the biggest pot news in a decade--that a viable presidential candidate was running on a legalize weed platform. Maybe he was for Hillary, I thought. Who knows, or cares. But thanks to Maher, I had to look at this situation more closely. Since the initial excitement over the bill has faded and I've seen nothing come of this bill, I revisited the issue with a critical discernment.

Couple of things that are very curious about this federal bill that already neverwas:

• Sanders hasn't talked about this much. He put it out there and then walked away.
• He did the same over the Ron Paul / Sanders attempt to audit the Federal Reserve. Paul says Sanders deep sixed it because there were minor riders added that he would not compromise on. Considering the magnitude of this type of audit, no riders would have mattered, so it was a plausible deniablity in my book to kill the audit.
• Sanders spelled this bill with the latinized 'marihuana' instead of 'marijuana'. Also 'marijuana' is a term not used anymore. The botanical term "Cannabis" is preferred within communities that are close to it, such as dispensaries and growers such as those around Denver/Boulder Co.
• Perhaps the latinized spelling was to get the Latino vote, as a neurolinguistic political framing of the bill's title that would be syndicated across social media to cognitively influence latin voters. Yes, his people are that mindful. Nothing in politics happens randomly. It could be that was the bill's sole purpose, actually.
• Surely he knows criminal law and the statutes that are formed around the DEA schedules, which are schedules that are 1:1 identical with the UN's schedules. So not knowing the UN's relationship to illegal drugs makes him either totally out-of-touch with this drug issue--which I very much doubt, being he's been in congress or decades--or more likely he's a "limited cannabis hangout", ie: someone not serious about the issue but using the talking point as political leverage.

---

Having said all this, because of Bernie's overall campaign and character, I will continue to support him, letting the gaffe of 'supporting Hillary Clinton'--a known criminal at large--go, considering this as a political misstep, very likely made under extreme duress, as is the case of many a DNC delegate, five of whom have died under mysterious circumstances in this last month alone.

I'm hoping actually, that Mr. Sanders reads this post (he won't). If he did, maybe he'd want to respond to this accusation with an assurance that he will be talking to the UN about retracting both marijuana and mushrooms from the convention when he becomes our next US President, as Hillary walks off in handcuffs by the US Marshalls under RICO this november, per this author's ultimate fantasy.