This is a misconception that is quite common amongst our population. Due to propaganda.
The Marijuana Stamp Tax Act is unconstitutional. It was ruled unconstitutional in Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionalityof Marijuana Tax Act.The Stamp tax was self incriminating by allowing it to ID individuals.The Feds(DEA) and many states still require licensure and application of this "stamp".
Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marijuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marijuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary's conviction was overturned. However, Congress responded shortly after by passing the Controlled Substances Act to continue the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States.
The body and the language are the same in the controlled sunstance act.Look at your local and state and city statutes.
Prior to this illegal act, marrijuana(Harrison Narcotics act and the following MSTA) was "free" .
Forget the part that it's illegal for someone to force another into self incrimination...that's relevant and correct...but the fact is it's a plant.Making war on a plant?A beneficial plant? It's insane.But you also still self incriminate everytime you light up some bud when it could get you thrown in jail and you lose your freedoms.Only because of the illegal statutes still in place in too many places around the world.
You're right.Most people will want to buy their weed rather than attempt to grow it and maintain it.
But there are really lots and lots of proficient indoor and outgrow farms here in the states.And there will be quite an increase in new ones.And then of course the retailers who would want to vend this herb...so many jobs.But the point is it should be free for anyone to grow and sell.Private transaction between private citizens.
The others that are not personal and private transactions are already taxed by the income and revenue they generate.
Free the weed.(Herb)... weed is just a term of affection.
The popular and therapeutic uses of hemp preparations are not categorically prohibited by the provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The apparent purpose of the Act is to levy a token tax of approximately one dollar on all buyers, sellers, importers, growers, physicians, veterinarians, and any other persons who deal in marijuana commercially, prescribe it professionally, or possess it.
The deceptive nature of that apparent purpose begins to come into focus when the reader reaches the penalty provisions of the Act: five years' imprisonment, a $2,000 fine, or both seem rather excessive for evading a sum (provided for by the purchase of a Treasury Department tax stamp) that, even if collected, would produce only a minute amount of government revenue. (Fines and jail sentences were further increased to the point of the cruel and unusual in subsequent federal drug legislation that incorporated the Marijuana Tax Act. It is now possible under the later version of the Act to draw a life sentence for selling just one marihuana cigarette to a minor.) One might wonder, too, why a small clause, amounting to an open-ended catchall provision, was inserted into the Act, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to grant the Commissioner (then Harry Anslinger) and agents of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Narcotics absolute administrative regulatory, and police powers in the enforcement of the law. The message becomes entirely clear when, having finished the short text of the Act itself, one proceeds to the sixty-odd pages of administrative and enforcement procedures established by the infamous Regulations No. 1. That regulation, not fully reproduced here, calls for a maze of affidavits, depositions, sworn statements, and constant Treasury Department police inspection in every instance that marijuana is bought, sold, used, raised, distributed, given away, and so on.
Chapter 8. The Harrison Narcotic Act (1914) http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cu8.html
"On its face, moreover, the Harrison bill did not appear to be a prohibition law at all. Its official title was "An Act to provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax upon all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes ."
The provision protecting physicians, however, contained a joker hidden in the phrase, "in the course of his professional practice only ." 7 After passage of the law, this clause was interpreted by law-enforcement officers to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict to maintain his addiction. Since addiction was not a disease, the argument went, an addict was not a patient, and opiates dispensed to or prescribed for him by a physician were therefore not being supplied "in the course of his professional practice." Thus a law apparently intended to ensure the orderly marketing of narcotics was converted into a law prohibiting the supplying of narcotics to addicts, even on a physician's prescription.
SEC. 2. (a) Every person who imports, manufactures, produces, compounds, sells, deals in, dispenses, prescribes, administers, or gives away marihuana shall ( 1 ) within fifteen days after the effective date of this Act, or (2) before engaging after the expiration of such fifteen-day period in any of the above mentioned activities, and (3) thereafter, on or before July 1 of each year, pay the following special taxes respectively:
(1) Importers, manufacturers, and compounders of marihuana, $24 per year.
(2) Producers of marihuana (except those included within subdivision (4) of this subsection), $1 per year, or fraction thereof, during which they engage in such activity.
SEC. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person required to register and pay the special tax under the provisions of section 2 to import, manufacture, produce, compound, sell, deal in, dispense, distribute, prescribe, administer, or give away marihuana without having so registered and paid such tax.
It never indicated it "unlawful" for personal possession or consumption. You are sovereign.
his next article will help you understand the truth of your natural personal sovereignty, the artificial corporate person and it's relevance to this issue of Marijuana and prohibition.