Published on August 20 2018

Why Outright Marijuana Legalization Is Closer Than You Think

By Justin Spittler, editor, Casey Daily Dispatch

The War on Marijuana is over in Canada.

Come October, recreational marijuana will be legal across the country.

When this happens, Canada will become the first developed country in the world to legalize marijuana outright. But it certainly won’t be the last.

In fact, the United States could soon do the exact same thing. After all, 30 states along with Washington, D.C. have already legalized medical marijuana. Not only that, nine of those states, plus D.C., have given recreational marijuana the green light. And the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just approved its first ever cannabis-based drug.

In short, the U.S. federal government’s tone on marijuana is changing. It’s now only a matter of time before it follows in Canada’s footsteps and completely legalizes marijuana.

Of course, you’d already know this if you’ve been reading the Dispatch. That’s because I’ve been covering the North American marijuana story for over a year now.

But here’s something even regular readers might not realize…

Recommended Link

President Trump Issues 180-Day Deadline to Unlock America’s Entire “Brandt Oil” Reserves

There’s a new type of "oil" under the ground in America, and President Trump is out to get it.

With no fanfare… no report from the press… or the usual tweet…

President Trump quietly signed what may go down in the financial books as his most significant executive order…

He issued a 180-day deadline to locate U.S. reserves of a new fuel called "Brandt Oil". It’s unlike anything you’ve heard of before, and it could potentially make you 15X your money in the coming months. But you must get in now before barrels of this fuel begin to sell on the open market. See full details here.

• Marijuana legalization isn’t just sweeping across North America…

It’s sweeping the world.

Thirty countries have already legalized medical marijuana. And many more will soon follow.

I say this because the United Nations (UN) just made history. It announced that it’s launching an in-depth review to determine if marijuana is properly classified under international drug treaties. This is a first.

And it’s doing so, in part, because the World Health Organization (WHO) just declared that cannabidiol (CBD) shouldn’t be controlled under international agreements.

CBD, as regular readers know, is a compound found in marijuana that has many health benefits. It doesn’t get people high like THC, another compound in marijuana.

It’s also not prone to abuse like many other illicit substances. But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what the WHO said about CBD recently:

There are no case reports of abuse or dependence relating to the use of pure CBD. No public health problems have been associated with the use of pure CBD… CBD is generally well tolerated with a good safety profile.

This is a huge development. If the UN decides that marijuana’s status should be changed, that will lead the U.S. to review how it classifies CBD.

And just so you know, the feds currently consider CBD a Schedule I drug. This means they consider marijuana more dangerous than cocaine or meth.

It’s obviously ridiculous. But CBD’s days as a Schedule I drug would be numbered if the UN decides CBD is classified inappropriately at the international level.

This would obviously be great news for everyday people. It would give them more say over what they can put into their bodies.

Recommended Link

This is the #1 Tech Investment for August 2018

Early investors in this technology have already had the chance to make gains of 12,813%, 19,990% and 264,753%.

But so far, it’s mostly Silicon Valley insiders, the world’s richest families, and some of Wall Streets’ top players making a killing from it.

Make your move now, and I guarantee this will be your #1 investment story of 2018.

Get the full story here.

• This would also be great news for investors…

You see, rescheduling CBD would allow more research to be done on the plant. It would allow doctors to prescribe it to patients. And it would lead to more commercial applications for CBD.

A favorable ruling would also open the door for outright marijuana legalization.

Think about it.

Canada has legalized marijuana outright. That puts the Canadian marijuana industry miles ahead of the U.S. marijuana industry.

• I don’t expect President Trump to stand for this much longer…

So, don’t be surprised if Trump makes legalizing marijuana outright a top priority… especially if CBD is rescheduled.

In short, this development is yet another reason to be bullish on marijuana stocks.

So consider speculating in this booming market if you haven’t yet. Just remember, as with all speculations, never bet more money than you can afford to lose. It only takes a little bit to make a fortune in the years ahead.

Also, if you missed Crisis Investing editor Nick Giambruno’s essay on Saturday, I urge you to read it here. In it, he explains why the U.S. CBD market could easily grow 10 times larger in the years ahead.

Regards,

Justin Spittler
Istanbul, Turkey
August 20, 2018

P.S. I also recommend you check out Nick’s new video presentation, which reveals another big reason to invest in the marijuana sector today—one that you won’t hear about anywhere else.

He’s calling it the “Trillion Dollar Mainstream Marijuana Takeover.”

You see—after years of restrictions—hedge funds, Fortune 500 companies, and banks are finally investing some of their trillions of dollars into marijuana businesses. But they’re not growing or selling pot.

Instead, they’re buying into fully developed marijuana assets. And Nick has discovered three tiny pot companies that could be in the crosshairs of the big funds. Well-positioned investors could see gains of 7,500%… 9,329%… even 12,547% if these companies get taken over. Click here to learn more.

P.P.S. Changing gears now, I’ll pass the baton off to John Hunt, Doug Casey’s coauthor in the High Ground novel series, who has a brand-new interview with Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw…


Living in Two Worlds

A conversation among Durk Pearson, Sandy Shaw, and John Hunt, MD

John: Instead of life extension or computer security, let’s talk about what makes the news these days. But I suppose it depends on whose news.

Durk: That’s right. As a result of the technical characteristics of the internet, people are living in two different worlds: the right and the left. It’s not a new phenomenon that newspapers are biased. If you look back at late 18th century newspapers, it was the Federalists versus the Democratic-Republicans. You had newspapers that supported John Adams. You had papers that supported Thomas Jefferson. And they were vicious in their criticism and slander. Later, you had the Democrats versus the Whigs and then the Democrats versus the Republicans. Throughout American history, most newspapers have been openly biased for one side or the other.

Sandy: But most people weren’t involved with this. Only a select group of people were interested in political activity. But they led the others.

Durk: Then along came radio broadcasts and then TV broadcasting. Because it had to operate within a very limited bandwidth, and because it was immensely expensive to operate a TV station, you ended up with ABC, NBC, and CBS being pretty much the same, all trying to attract both sides of the aisle. If they were too narrow, they wouldn’t have a big enough audience to sell their ads.

Sandy: They were all trying to compete for everyone.

Durk: And then along came cable and all of a sudden, you had 100 channels. Things started differentiating. There was a difference between CBS and CNN. Next, you get into the internet and something wholly different happens. First off, instead of having 100 channels, you’ve got 100 million channels. And secondly, you have something that’s much more important and that didn’t apply to newspaper or broadcast TV or cable TV. And that is feedback. Now the provider of the information—of the content—looks at your clicks. They know what you want to see and they supply it. They want to keep you on their website as long as possible to sell as many ads as possible and to earn as much money as possible. They don’t want you to click away… so what you see on a particular website can be very different from what someone else sees.

Google, for example, keeps track of all your searches. I don’t use Google. I use DuckDuckGo.com, which doesn’t do that. But Google is going to show you what you want to see based on what you’ve searched for in the past. Actually, they’re going to show you what you want on websites that pay them for the clicks. And as a result, you end up with Republicans and conservatives, Democrats and liberals, and progressives and socialists, all seeing very different things.

Half the population thinks that Putin wanted Trump to be president rather than Hillary. But logically, why would Putin want a President Trump when Trump is in favor of fracking? In 2014, oil prices were in the range of $90 to $120 a barrel. In 2016, American fracking had increased our oil production from 4.2 million barrels a day to about 9.6 million barrels a day, dropping the price into the $35 to $45 per barrel range. That cost Putin and his cronies $180 billion per year. Hillary promised to stop fracking. She said that if she couldn’t ban fracking on private property, she would use regulations to make it so expensive that nobody could afford to frack.

Doing that would have made Putin and Russia very happy. It’s obvious that Putin would want the Democrat to win and not Trump. However, most people have never heard that, and they never will hear it because they don’t want to hear it. Google and the others know they don’t want to hear it. So you’ve got half the people thinking that Putin controls Trump. And then the other half thinks that the Democrats conspired with Putin. You get people living in two different worlds.

John: Then there is the tweeting.

Durk: If you look at Trump’s Twitter account, it sure looks like he’s just button-pushing. He’s a superb button-pusher. He is Loki, you know, the Norse God of randomness and chaos. And he’s making fools of people. Here’s an example of what Loki did: his competitor, Thor, was building a big castle with the help of a huge powerful stallion. Loki turned himself into a mare in heat, luring away the stallion, so Thor had to build the castle himself.

Sandy: All this stuff about gay marriage and transgender bathrooms and abortion… is all minor compared to the hassles of the administrative state and its costly regulations. But it’s soaked up a huge amount of conservative money and time putting through definitions of marriage at the state level and all sorts of garbage like that. In the future, these issues will not be of importance, whereas Trump’s removal of these regulations will have been of great importance. The left has been very successful at misdirecting the right’s efforts. Trump is returning the favor.

Durk: The position of a prospective Supreme Court justice regarding Roe v. Wade is essentially irrelevant in the long run. Banning abortion is a bad idea for the same reasons that banning certain drugs is a bad idea; it doesn’t effectively stop the banned action, but the prohibition itself increases the risk of worse outcomes. People had abortions before Roe v. Wade. They’ll continue getting them whether or not the federal government requires states to allow abortion, especially with chemical abortions. The same guy who will sell you a baggie of heroin for $5 will sell you a baggie of abortion pills for $50.

What will make a difference is the Supreme Court judge’s position on “Chevron deference.” The Supreme Court made a horrible decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, that compelled courts to give deference to the administrative bureaucrats’ interpretations of federal statutes.

Sandy: The bureaucrats’ determination of the meaning of a law became law. So the agencies are able to determine their own rules and regulations! It makes way for agencies to take over the entire government.

John: Ahh, the swamp.

Durk: Fortunately, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is very much against Chevron deference. So is Justice Clarence Thomas. And Brett Kavanaugh—the new nominee—is against it, too. He said that Chevron deference is basically throwing away the power of Congress and the power of the courts to decide what the law is, and instead, allows unelected executive bureaucrats to define what the law is.

Anyway, regarding what Trump said at the Helsinki conference about trusting Putin… I think that was a button he pushed to get the left all freaked out and to look at that rather than what he was actually doing.

Sandy: Most people aren’t at all interested in Putin and the price of oil. People are talking more about social activities that don’t have a lot of technical aspects to them.

John: But when these folks (who could be voters) do pay attention briefly to politics and government, they get fed stuff that feeds whatever biases they may have.

Durk: Right. So they are living in two different worlds, and this is very dangerous because there’s no compromise between these different worlds.

Sandy: It doesn’t necessarily have to be dangerous to live in two different worlds. It’s only when they make it into a war that it becomes dangerous.

John: Right. And the problem is that many on both the left and right are statists who want to force their will on others. Force is violence. The statist left is particularly violent now. But they don’t recognize it. A key component of the left is the denial that they are supporters of violent oppression.

Durk: If the federal government was actually confined by the constitutional limitations on what it’s authorized to do, it wouldn’t be a problem for people to not share values. However, the federal government is no longer effectively confined in regard to the things that it does.

John: And so those who like to use force to accomplish their goals get control of the government. That’s the statists of either major party. One of the phrases that is often said is, “We’ll have to agree to disagree.” This is fine if you’re two libertarians agreeing to disagree, because then neither is going to force the other person to do something. You live and let live. But if you agree to disagree with a statist, the statist is still going to force you to do what they want done. And that does indeed get very dangerous.

Durk: They will whip out their guns and say, “You’ve got to bake that cake, or we’ll take your business and your home away.”

John: It is dangerous because the philosophy of any statist is the same exact philosophy that underlies all war, which is, “I’m going to initiate force against you because I am smarter or better than you, or because I want something you have.” The progressive statist philosophy is a war philosophy every bit as much as the neoconservative notions are about war.

Sandy: And they’ll gather as much material as they can to use against the other side. It is a real war.

John: Will it come to fisticuffs?

Durk: It already has. That cake baker who didn’t want to bake cakes for a gay wedding? He was forced to pay damages in court for hurting their feelings. I mean, whatever happened to the 13th Amendment prohibiting involuntary servitude? How can somebody say, “You’ve got to bake a cake for me… or else”? Isn’t that involuntary servitude, when you’re pointing a gun at them?

John: Not only did the progressive politically correct crowd celebrate their successful use of coercion in this case, but their goal was stupid. Coercing commerce will cause people to hide their beliefs, and that will decrease available information.

Sandy: SCOTUS ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission exhibited clear and open bias and hostility toward the baker’s religion, but they didn’t say he had a right to refuse to bake the cake—a typical Chief Justice John Roberts punt.

John: Thanks for the insights, Sandy and Durk. Looking forward to our next conversation…


Reader Mailbag

Today, lots of great feedback on last Friday’s Conversations With Casey on the Alex Jones ban

I have been a longtime fan of Doug’s from the sideline. But his last few missives have been worth their weight in gold.

That government is a useless institution that should simply “get out of the way,” is something Ayn Rand wrote in her epic Atlas Shrugged, and Doug seconds. And now this one.

Let these companies like Facebook and Google do what they will. Better companies will come along that will not kowtow to government wishes or those of vocal minorities. As Doug so elegantly states, we, the people, are watching what you do… and will ultimately answer with our wallets.

Everyone deserves to have their voice heard. Because, as Doug so brilliantly notes, otherwise, it’s just tightening the lid on a pressure cooker.

—Luke

I very much enjoyed reading your interview. I have listened to Alex Jones for over a decade and, yes, he has been his own worst enemy. To his credit, he stepped into a forming journalistic vacuum, as the formation of the internet revealed the extent to which people were being lied to by the very sources they believed to be telling them the truth. While, I guess, these so-called news agencies have no public trust obligation to actually report what is true, still, in this country, one would think that the survival of this “grand experiment” would require individuals to have more faith in it. Sadly, it is proving otherwise. More and more, it is becoming glaringly apparent why the Founding Fathers were so insistent on declaring that man’s rights were given to him by God and not subject to the whims of any individual or group of men.

More and more, we are finding these weak-minded politicians leading even weaker-minded citizens down the path to spiritual oblivion. The party makes no difference; the rise of these people to the positions they hold only represents the weakness of mankind to so easily fall out of grace. Anyway, I very much enjoyed the interview.

—Frank

I agree with Doug and eagerly await his take on national and international goings-on. I feel like he is reading my mind, sometimes. I love how he just gets to the heart of the matter.

—Marilyn

I agree 100% with Doug Casey. Let the market decide who the winners and the losers are!

—Kevin

People should be up in arms about this ban… Instead, I don’t hear a thing about it.

Alex is a threat to the Deep State. So they take him down. If this doesn’t scare people, I’m not sure what will.

—Terese

I totally disagree with Alex being banned. But for God’s sake, Jones brought this on himself. I was a loyal listener to Jones every single day. I purchased his documentaries. I can name the day he claimed the Sandy Hook school massacre was “a government false flag so Obama could take your guns.” People suffered the worst thing imaginable for a parent—the loss of a child—and Jones made it worse. Even now, he still holds that somehow, it was child actors, yada yada yada! I’ve always believed you can say anything you want, anywhere you want, any time you want… just so long as it’s true. And if you’ve made an error with a comment, you man up, apologize for that error, and move on. You don’t continue spouting the nonsense.

—Terry

And another reader appreciates our recent Dispatch on the currency crisis in Turkey

Justin, your information is very interesting and useful. Thank you!

I was in Turkey 10 or more years ago, and in those days, it was as unbelievable of a bargain spot as you describe it today.

—Sidney


In Case You Missed It…

China’s on the verge of opening the largest factory in world history…

When Tesla opened its $5 billion battery factory—called the “Gigafactory”—prices of one critical metal spiked immediately. And companies that mine this metal saw their shares surge as high as 4,066%.

And any day now, China’s opening a battery factory 50 times larger than Tesla’s. How much higher could it send the price of this metal—and shares of the companies that mine it?