Kant
Well-Known Member
I was reading some article about a lawsuit over the dea raiding a mmj dispensary, and i remember one of the dea agents say "it's our job to eradicate every plant that produces and illicit drug" (sorry i don't have URL). It just occurred to me, IF they ever got close to that goal, Wouldn't it be in violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973?
wikipedia:
Endangered Species Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS):
Species Protected Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) - Office of Protected Resources - NOAA Fisheries
In the second link there's a box that says:
I don't know if any of this would work, as i am not a lawyer, but it's something to think about.
wikipedia:
Endangered Species Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS):
Species Protected Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) - Office of Protected Resources - NOAA Fisheries
NMFS said:A species is considered threatened if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
Even though cannabis isn't endangered, could some potentially sue the DEA to stop it's war on drugs because their goal would be in direct violation of the ESA?Wikipedia said:The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not only to protect species, but also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." It encompasses plants and invertebrates as well as vertebrates. It does not expressly include fungi, which were widely considered to be plants in 1973.
The ESA forbids Federal Agencies from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions which may "jeopardize the continued existence of" endangered or threatened species (Section 7(a) (2)). It forbids any government agency, corporation, or citizen from taking (i.e. harming, harassing, or killing) endangered animals without a permit. Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the ESA also requires that "critical habitat" be designated for that species, including areas necessary to recover the species (Section 3(5) (A)). Federal agencies are forbidden from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action which "destroys or adversely modifies" critical habitat (Section 7(a) (2)).
In the second link there's a box that says:
So does that mean someone could potentially sue the feds into preserving a specific strain of cannabis?NMFS said:How Does the ESA Define "Species"?
"Species" includes subspecies, or, for vertebrates only, "distinct population segments (DPSs)". Pacific salmon are listed as "evolutionarily significant units (ESUs)", which are essentially equivalent to DPSs for the purpose of the ESA.
I don't know if any of this would work, as i am not a lawyer, but it's something to think about.