Engelberg buying hash

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Engelberg buying hash

Cannabis has always had an important place in the cultures of the world, with an image as virtuous as it is disparaged. Indeed, despite the psychotropic effect of its main molecule THC, many people recognize the medicinal benefits of cannabis. However, today, the vast majority of countries continue to prohibit it. It is one of the narcotic products as categorized by the United Nations Single Convention. This convention strongly limits the possibilities of production and trade of narcotics. Switzerland, on the other hand, has strictly prohibited cannabis in its law since According to this law, it is forbidden to cultivate, produce or sell cannabis on Swiss territory. In , this law was extended to punish even the consumption. But things have been moving in the opposite direction since the year Nowadays, legal Swiss cannabis can be found on every street corner. In Switzerland, you can find cannabidiol products at Coop or Denner. Today, even some gas stations or kiosks offer Swiss cannabis products. However, it is in specialized CBD stores online or not such as uWeed that you will find legal cannabis in Switzerland of very high quality. According to the Tages-Anzeiger, this growth will continue. The law on narcotics LStup and its ordinances contain the provisions for the management of narcotics and psychotropic substances. It also deals with the distribution of tasks between the national and cantonal authorities. This is what is more commonly known as cannabis, whether it is recreational or medicinal. It is sold on the black and illegal market. These products with a limited THC content are legal in Switzerland although their marketing is regulated. Obviously, when we talk about cannabis, the words decriminalization, legalization, decriminalization, are usually associated. To understand the issues surrounding cannabis, here are the differences to remember between these different terms. Decriminalizing the possession and use of cannabis means that it is no longer considered a crime. The act remains prohibited, but the sanctions are only administrative, such as a fine. This is the case in Switzerland for the consumption of a small amount of cannabis, i. A person in Switzerland can therefore possess up to 10 grams of cannabis and only be fined in case of control. Legalization means the removal of a ban. In the case of legalization of cannabis as in the Netherlands , the consumption, production and sale of cannabis are no longer sanctioned, neither criminally nor administratively. Legalization does not mean absolute liberalization or free access. Be careful though, even if a substance becomes legal, its possession and trade can still be regulated. Regulation refers to the creation and enforcement of rules to govern the use, possession and trade of cannabis. This may include setting a minimum age for consumption or setting rules for controlling production or sale. Penal or administrative sanctions may be imposed for any breach of these rules, as in other sectors such as food, for example. While the second half of the 20th century was rather unfavourable to the legalization of recreational cannabis, it seems that Switzerland has been in a more progressive position since the early s. However, there has been considerable progress in recent years, which we summarize below. Consumption and possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis is now considered a simple offence and punishable by a fine of CHF for adult consumers art. Minors remain subject to the criminal law for minors. According to the Swiss Addiction Monitoring, approximately 7. Cannabis is the most frequently used drug in Switzerland. About one third of the population aged 15 and over have already experimented with this drug. It appears that repression has never been effective in curbing cannabis use, let alone in eliminating the black market. As a result, Swiss lawmakers concluded that other regulatory options needed to be explored. At its March 31, meeting, the Federal Council passed the Cannabis Pilot Trials Ordinance , which sets a detailed framework for the dispensing of cannabis products for non-medical use. Prescription medical use is not included in these trials, which we will discuss at greater length later in this article. On May 15, , an amendment to the LStup went into effect, allowing pilot testing for the controlled sale of cannabis for recreational purposes. This amendment will remain in effect for ten years, and serves as the legal basis for the implementation of scientific cannabis pilot tests. The pilot tests will allow consumers to legally purchase a wide range of cannabis products. The latter will have to meet high quality standards, with strict transparency from seed to sale, and must be organically grown which by definition excludes indoor flower cultivation. The objective of these studies is to broaden the knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of controlled access to cannabis. They should facilitate the examination and documentation of the health consequences and consumption patterns of users in a scientific setting. These studies will also provide data on the effects on the local illicit drug market, as well as on the protection of minors and children. To host these pilot tests, a number of Swiss cities have been selected such as Basel the first city to be accepted , Bern, Geneva, Zurich and Lausanne. In the fall of , Zurich, the largest city in Switzerland, will allow the sale of recreational cannabis in pharmacies but also in Social Clubs. Addiction Suisse is the partner chosen by the city to lead the scientific part. The supervision of the sale of cannabis is entrusted to a non-profit association. It bears the same name as the trial: Cann-L. On the sidelines of the pilot projects, on September 25, , Heinz Siegenthaler, member of the Swiss National Council, filed a new parliamentary initiative. The reasoning accompanying the original text of the initiative describes an inconsistency of cannabis prohibition based on current scientific research, especially when compared to other harmful substances such as tobacco and alcohol. The Federal Council simply considered that the LStup has not fulfilled its objective of protecting the population, given the more than , regular cannabis users in Switzerland. This justifies the replacement of the current prohibition by a fully regulated cannabis market, meeting the requirements of Swiss addiction and health policy. On April 28, , the Health Committee of the Swiss National Council voted in favor of controlled legalization of cannabis. This is the first major political hurdle of the parliamentary initiative. This latest political development around cannabis legislation is proof of the urgency to regulate this growing market for the general public. The limited view of cannabis as an allegedly harmful drug and the stigmatization of its users are giving way to recognition of its significant medical potential , as well as the promising economic growth it could generate through recreational and industrial use. With its already progressive regulatory framework regarding THC thresholds compared to the rest of Europe and a liberalization of cannabis for medical purposes, Switzerland is in an excellent position to strengthen its leadership position in Europe. In Switzerland, the slow administrative process as well as expensive procedures to obtain medical cannabis have pushed patients to the black market. This health problem has led to an amendment of the cannabis law on March 19, The regulations on the use of medical products and medical devices are set out in the following laws:. These laws and regulations apply to therapeutic products, which include medical cannabis products. Ready-to-use medical products can only be placed on the market if they are authorized by Swissmedic. The application for a marketing authorization for medical cannabis products must include, for example, detailed documentation of the results of physical, chemical and biological or microbiological tests, as well as the results of pharmacological and toxicological tests and clinical trials. The applicant must prove that the medical products are of high quality, safe and effective. It can be prescribed without special authorization for spastic convulsions in patients with multiple sclerosis. The manufacture of medical products and pharmaceutical derivatives e. The GMP guidelines provide the minimum requirements that a manufacturer of medical products must meet to ensure that their products are of consistently high enough quality for their intended use. Medical cannabis not to be confused with recreational cannabis is therefore also becoming increasingly popular for its benefits. Measures have been taken to allow its commercialization, and therefore its purchase by individuals, either in the form of medicine or in the form of cannabis flowers weed. In order to obtain medical cannabis, you must first obtain a prescription from your doctor , who will support your request to the Federal Office of Public Health OFSP. Please note that special permits can only be issued by doctors practicing in Switzerland and for patients residing in Switzerland. Beware, even as a medical treatment with a special permit, cannabis contains THC: it is therefore not possible to drive after its consumption, nor to travel with it in other countries where the legislation is not as flexible. As seen previously, there are multiple constraints to selling cannabis. There are just as many for its production. Such authorizations are only issued for purposes related to a limited medical application, scientific research or the development of medicines. Concerning medical cannabis products, the rules are not the same, as they are dictated by SwissMedic directly. Only this organization can validate a medical cannabis product. Once the application has been studied, the Federal Office of Public Health will decide if the project is feasible. To become a producer of recreational cannabis within the framework of the pilot tests , it is necessary :. In order to make the quality of the plants and their THC concentration homogeneous it is necessary to produce indoors. In outside, many external elements can influence the parameters of the plants. Home production of cannabis for personal consumption remains prohibited, as it cannot meet the requirements set by the FOPH for the cultivation of recreational cannabis. The cultivation of cannabis therefore remains exclusive to professionals licensed by the Swiss state. Swiss citizens cannot grow their own cannabis at home for the moment, even in small doses. However, this allows everyone to buy only from highly specialized and controlled outlets, and to benefit only from very high quality products. It is also generally called legal cannabis or Swiss legal cannabis, as the CBD molecule does not cause a high. The effects of CBD are widely acclaimed, both by consumers and the medical profession. The consumption of legal cannabis has been increasing rapidly in the last few years, leading to the opening of numerous online CBD stores. Although CBD is a legal substance, there are still many regulations and restrictions on how companies can market it. In addition, research is advancing strongly every year to further demonstrate the benefits of Swiss legal cannabis. Cannabis regulations in Table of contents on cannabis in Switzerland Understanding the terms of the cannabis legislation Switzerland moves towards legalization of recreational cannabis What does the Swiss law say about medical cannabis? Decriminalization or Depenalization Decriminalizing the possession and use of cannabis means that it is no longer considered a crime. Cannabis legalization Legalization means the removal of a ban. Regulation or regulation of cannabis Regulation refers to the creation and enforcement of rules to govern the use, possession and trade of cannabis.

Is Weed legal in Switzerland? Cannabis regulations in 2024

Engelberg buying hash

Download a PDF version of this article here. Heus, tu insidiator, ac alieni laboris et ingenii surreptor, ne manus temerarias his nostris operibus inicias cave. Scias enim a. The art market is a high-risk industry in which authentication is the sina qua non of merchantability. Recently, authentication technology has become incredibly sophisticated, enabling scientists and historians to authenticate works based on minutiae as discrete as the lead in white paint or the weave of an individual bolt of canvas. Simultaneously however, savvy art forgers are developing new ways to evade detection, through both artificial intelligence and already-present weaknesses in the market. Nevertheless, American law has lagged behind in providing adequate protections for buyers. Existing protections—a patchwork of contract, tort, and state statutory provisions—are incomplete and leave buyers bearing the risk of purchasing a forgery. This Note then examines the role of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology in both ensuring authenticity and creating further problems for the provenance of presently unauthenticated works. Analysis also examines the current allocation of risk between buyers, sellers, and authenticators. Finally, the Note considers the ethical and normative obligations of collectors of fine art. Ultimately, this Note demonstrates the extent to which authentication is a double-edged sword. On one hand, authentication drives up the value of paintings, creates publicity that benefits owners, and adds prestige to institutions and individuals whose art has been authenticated. While technology can streamline, reinforce, and guarantee the authenticity of a work, it can also create the opportunity for nefarious actors to perpetrate fraud on a massive scale. Until the art market adapts ways to address these risks, the old adage of caveat emptor—buyer beware—will continue to be the hallmark of the market. The most expensive painting in the world is missing. Part I examines why the art market demands authentication and provides a brief overview of the centuries of art fraud that created that need. Part II explains the authentication process itself. Part III provides an overview of the risks associated with authentication and considers the rights, obligations, and remedies when an owner of art—be it an individual, a gallery, or a museum—discovers that a purchase is forged or fake. It also provides a comprehensive explanation of existing statutory and common law protections for owners and authenticators, which demonstrates critical gaps in protection but also possible ways forward. Part IV considers the public harms created by art fraud, as well as ethical and normative obligations of collectors of fine art. Forgeries and fake art are nothing new to the art market. From a formalist perspective, it is difficult to understand why the art market places such a premium on authenticity. Visual art is the only form of expression that is singular, unrepeatable, and requires proof that the artist created the piece with his own hand in order to determine authenticity. Instead, the value that an original work commands in the market must derive from another source. Despite having aesthetic significance, the experience of even the most deceptive fake cannot match that of the real thing. Considering a work of art aesthetically superior because it is genuine, or inferior because it is forged, has little to do with aesthetic judgment or criticism. In the seminal case of Hahn v. In the Middle Ages, European art was designed for systematic and identical distribution to the masses; iconography and Byzantine artistic tropes dictated not only taste, but also the forms, appearance, and prevalence of direct copying of art. Even so, it was common for masters in this era to produce works with the aid of apprentices and employees. Historical Legal Protections for Bona Fide Buyers Most early legal protections against art forgery served to protect artists or the public writ large; these schemas did not protect private buyers. In the sixteenth century, art forgery and art fraud became criminally sanctionable under English law, with possible penalties including physical punishment and even death. In a forty-year period coinciding with the end of the Georgian Era and the reign of King William IV, English law began to address private disputes regarding art fraud and forgery, albeit in a limited manner. One of the first recorded English court cases to deal with the authentication of an artwork arose in , when two paintings sold as the work of painters David Teniers the Younger and Claude Lorrain were discovered to be copies. Slade , permitted the plaintiff to recover if he could show that he received a warranty from the defendant, not just an opinion upon which the defendant was meant to rely. Slade was carried forward in future cases. Modern art authentication is incredibly complex, incorporating expert analysis by art authenticators and technologically sophisticated methods. Given shortcomings inherent to connoisseurship, one might wonder why it is still a valued means of authenticating artwork. Carina Popovici and Christiane Hoppe-Oehl, have developed an algorithm that can successfully identify fake works of art. Works that have been retouched by curators can present unique challenges, as certain paint and brushwork will necessarily be newer than others. Petersburg, who thought of using radioactive isotopes created by the nuclear bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August to identify paintings as having existed before or after that date. Provenance Authentication Of the three methods of authentication, provenance authentication is the most straightforward. Allocating Risks from Authentication and Legal Remedies for Bona Fide Purchasers Despite the great degree of precision with which art authenticators can identify forgeries, the consequences of authentication are often difficult to predict with any accuracy. As such, the art market has developed a risk allocation framework between the parties providing authentication services—art authenticators or connoisseurs, auction houses, curators, and artist-specific authentication boards—and purchasers that on the whole leaves both parties at risk of otherwise unforeseen liability. In the event that an authentication goes awry, bona fide purchasers in particular can only seek the protection of a patchwork of contract, tort, and state statutory protections, likely providing inadequate compensation for their loss. As relevant background to this next section, contemporary artworks are typically bought and sold in one of two markets, a primary market for new works and a secondary market for sales of works already in circulation. The fear of authenticity-related litigation looms large, and without the protection of an airtight indemnity provision, many authenticators and expert consortiums have opted out of authenticating controversial works altogether. To do so, the Note considers reasons why an authentication may go awry, then discusses risks faced by authenticators, and finally examines the risks that bona fide buyers of fine art face. Given the complexity of the authentication process, it is unsurprising that, in some instances, the process fails. These failures can occur for a variety of reasons—misplaced trust, negligence, sheer mistake, or scientific or historical error—but the results of a failure can be wide-ranging in their fallout. Further, even when it appears that a piece is genuine, new evidence can always come to light after a sale that indicates that a work may be a forgery or was potentially misidentified. Just the rumor that a work is not authentic can have grave consequences for the buyer, rendering it virtually unsalable. This subsection describes some of the reasons that authentication can go awry, while noting that some such reasons for default are controllable and others, largely, are not. In either set of circumstances, it is unfortunately unavoidable that, sometimes, artworks slip through the metaphorical cracks. One example of such widespread and total failure, in extremis , is that of the Terrus Museum, in Elne, France. In another example of the extreme risks associated with authentication, a federal court case that questioned the authentication of a mobile sculpture rendered the piece unsalable even after the court ordered that it was a genuine piece by Alexander Calder. In performing a valuation or an authentication of a work, museums, artist foundations, and authenticators face significant conflicts of interest. Individuals must turn instead to individual authenticators or auction houses to take on this task—an imperfect solution to an already delicate situation in many circumstances. Museum curators are often not permitted to render authentication opinions due to the risk that a conflict of interest could be imputed in an otherwise innocent interaction. In the past few decades, some foundations have been the subject of litigation related to the inherent conflicts of interest in their authentication—or their refusal to authenticate—privately-held works. Certification by private organizations, described above, creates a partway, patchwork solution that remains inadequate. Considering the substantial monetary risks art buyers face using unqualified authenticators, such a move could reduce uncertainty in the market to a non-negligible degree. Other common reasons for errors to arise during an authentication include human error, negligence, and fraud. When an authentication goes wrong, a buyer may assert a case for negligence or fraud against either the authenticator or the seller. One example of a case alleging fraud is that of Aryeh v. Although a rare occurrence in the art world, there are occasions when a painting is presumed to be authentic, comes from a reputable collection, has a relatively solid provenance, and yet is later discovered to be a fake. Some of these risks are unforeseeable—no reasonable amount of due diligence on the part of the art owner could have prevented them, while others could have been avoided had more advanced technology or increased oversight existed at the time of the authentication. Gallery abruptly closed after facing several high profile lawsuits against its owner and president, Ann Freedman, for selling forged works. As detailed below, the standard system of risk allocation typically leaves the buyer bearing the risk when a transaction goes wrong; thus, the injured party is at best only partially protected from risk of loss. In such circumstances, the aggrieved party—usually the buyer—can bring suit against the authenticator. There have been some limited attempts by states to provide legal protection to art authenticators, but none have successfully done so thus far. Despite the risks that auction houses face in authenticating a work, many large auction houses guarantee authorship or authentication to some extent. Auction houses render more authentication decisions than any single authenticator, and thus aggregate a greater amount of total risk exposure. Moreover, auction houses make more than a single representation to a client: they can face liability for negligently warranting the authenticity of a work merely by describing it in a certain way in their catalogues. Furthermore, due to the high risk of purchasing a fraudulent piece, buyers interested in investing in expensive art should make hiring their own independent authenticity expert a priority. There are a number of legal protections and remedies available in the United States to the good faith purchaser who falls victim to a forgery by mistake or misrepresentation. Additional statutory protections, like those adopted in New York and California, would help protect bona fide buyers from the risk of loss associated with fraudulent or negligent authentication. Additional legal protections of this nature would encourage independent authenticators and auctions houses to take more care in rendering their opinions about the authenticity of a work, as well as help deter criminal actors from undertaking fraudulent schemes. Thus, a proliferation of state-level legislation like that enacted in New York state, discussed infra , would be a net positive for all parties involved in the art market. At present, the Uniform Commercial Code comes the closest to providing a national and uniform means of protection for purchasers of fine art and other chattel, but it is inadequate to provide full protection in the ever-shifting world of art authentication. As laid out infra , none of the current protections available to good faith purchasers are on their own sufficient, though the New York state legislation provides a case study on some potential improvements. Many dealers include disclaimers in all correspondence and contracts with buyers. While permissible, U. Further, U. Under U. The inadequacy of U. Thus, rather than protecting unsophisticated good faith purchasers, the U. If the U. In Hahn v. Contract Law Contract law may provide another layer of protection for the good faith purchaser. For example, if a contract includes a provision allocating risk to the buyer, or when the buyer is aware of his own limited knowledge but relies on its sufficiency, he cannot seek rescission of the contract for mutual mistake. In recent years, several states have enacted specific statutory protections for good faith purchasers of fine art. New York state lawmakers stand out as leading the nation in codifying law to protect the art market and its key players. Greater criminal penalties for art market crimes, including art forgery and fraudulent misrepresentation, can have an important deterrent effect by encouraging authenticators to take more care in rendering opinions and by deterring criminal syndicates from entering the art market. Furthermore, stronger default protections for bona fide buyers may make it easier to bring a civil case against authenticators and auction houses that have made erroneous representations as to the authenticity or attribution of a work. Art fraud is, in many ways, the epitome of white-collar crime, as it involves billions of dollars in discrete transactions over what some have dismissed as an elitist status symbol. However, when art fraud occurs, the harm created affects more than just elite art collectors and private museums. Public harm from art fraud and mistaken authentication can occur in a variety of ways, such as a decline in federal tax revenue. Such a decline results because, at present, there are several tax benefits that apply in the fine arts market. Beyond the harms to public tax revenue that art fraud can pose, the fear of mistaken authentication may make some parties hesitant about exhibiting their art, lest someone else through research and study determine that it is not authentic. Indeed, the fear that a work could even be destroyed—as the forgery laws of some jurisdictions require upon discovery and confirmation of a forgery —proves to be a strong disincentive to loaning out works. Such a reduced exhibition of museum-held art causes the public to suffer, as society is deprived of exposure to art, resulting in a cultural loss. Ultimately, expanding criminal penalties to address art fraud and improving the ability for private parties to bring civil suits for faulty authentication would do double duty to improve outcomes for both private parties and the public. The increased ease of seeking a civil remedy will incentivize auction houses to improve the rigor of their authentication services. Increased criminal penalties for forgery will put criminal syndicates on notice that they could face significant liability for fraud and misrepresentation in the art market. Combined with stronger statutory protections for bona fide buyers of fine art, such a renewed statutory scheme could finally throw light onto the dark recesses of the art market, increasing buyer confidence and seller accountability. Authentication is a double-edged sword. While authentication drives up the value of paintings, creates publicity that benefits owners, and adds prestige to institutions whose art has been authenticated, it carries inherent risks. Authentication can destroy the value of an artwork as easily as it can bolster it. Ultimately, technology can streamline, reinforce, and guarantee the authenticity of a work, but technology can also create the opportunity for nefarious actors to perpetrate fraud on a massive scale. At present, however, legal protections have not yet adapted to ensure adequate protections for authenticators, auction houses, and bona fide buyers to fairly and predictably allocate risk. Until these concerns can be addressed, and the art market adapts ways to address them, the old adage of caveat emptor —buyer beware—will continue to be the hallmark of art authentication. Staff Editor, N. Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law. The authors would like to thank Professor Deborah Gerhardt, professor of law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, for extensive revisions during the drafting process; Dr. Beware of laying your rash hands on our work. Do you not know what. And if you do so, through spite or covetousness, not only will your goods be confiscated, but you will also find yourself in the greatest danger. This is one of the first recorded copyright warnings, first printed in John Jackson et al. Skip to content. The Significance of Authenticity in Fine Art. Reasons Authentication Goes Awry. Lack of Professionalization for Authentication. Human Error, Negligence, and Fraud. Continued Influence of Artist. Lingering Uncertainty: Discovering Unsuspecting Forgeries. Remedies for Bona Fide Purchasers.

Engelberg buying hash