Cannabis Freedom Index

Changelog a69eb64tree

Separate Trust Territory drug laws and document the 1980 penalties

3 history entries added4 history entries edited1 article written1 article edited5 files of code, design or docs +485 −73 lines

History changes.yaml

Added 3

Edited 4

Micronesia’s territorial code records a $50 small-possession fine

title

Micronesia carries the Trust Territory drug law into its own’s territorial code records a $50 small-possession fine

description

The Federated States adopted the former Trust Territoryterritorial code as their own. Possessing anpublished in 1980 records a maximum $50 fine for possessing one ounce of marijuana or less was punishable by a fine of up to $50, including the same penalty for an unpaid gift of that amount.[@1] More than one ounce to a kilo by up tobut less than 2.2 pounds could bring three months, and more than a kilo by up to a year$500 fine, or up to five years when treated asboth; 2.2 pounds or more could bring a year and a rebuttable trafficking presumption.[@1] A later exploratory study described Chuuk state had no drug law of its own and usedrelying on the national codeformer territorial rules.[@2]

sources

Trust Territory Code 1980 — Title 63, Controlled Substances FSM Code 2014 — full Title 11 Chapter 11, Controlled Substances, sections 1111–1149 1 unchanged

related

micronesia-controlled-substances-act-1974, micronesia-chuuk-police-cannabis-1978, marshall-islands-territorial-code-record-1980

The Trust Territory adopts a scheduled drug-control law

category

banother

title

The Trust Territory bans marijuana asadopts a controlled substancescheduled drug-control law

description

The Congress of Micronesia's Public Law 5-110, passed inadopted the firstTrust Territory Controlled Substances Act in its special session of 23 July-–9 August 1974, enacted the Trust Territory Controlled Substances Act.[@1,3] Marihuana meant all parts of Cannabis sativa, its seedsThe later territorial code names marijuana and resin, and satTHC in Schedule I, exempts specified mature-stalk products and non-germinating sterilised seeds from its marijuana definition, and reserves schedule changes to Congress after recommendations from the health director.[@12] The act'searlier law challenged in Bermudes used a different scheme, letting the health director decide which drugs to regulate was struck down days later in a July 1974 marijuana possession-were prohibited.[@3] The code’s geographical clause covers the Mariana, Marshall and-sale prosecution Caroline islands.[@24]

before

possession 10 · cultivation 10 · enforcement 10 · sharing 10 · consumption 10 · access 10

related

micronesiacnmi-chuukbermudes-policemarijuana-cannabischarges-19781974, micronesia-criminal-code-1980

sources

Trust Territory Code 1980 — Title 63, Controlled Substances Trust Territory Code 1980 — Title 1, geographical application FSM law archive — Trust Territory Controlled Substances Act (63 TTC ch. 4, COM P.L. 5-110) 2 unchanged

unscored

Replacement of earlier territorial drug controls, not a verified first prohibition. The session bibliography dates adoption only; original commencement and the original penalty text remain unverified. The first-restriction estimate is retained separately pending reconstruction.

Palau comes under the Trust Territory’s scheduled drug-control law

category

banother

title

Palau bans marijuanacomes under the Trust Territory’s scheduled drug-control law

description

The Congress of Micronesia's Public Law 5-110, passed inadopted the first special session of July-August 1974, enacted the Trust Territory Controlled Substances Act for Palau district as for the restin its special session of the territory23 July–9 August 1974.[@1,2] Marihuana meant all parts of Cannabis sativaThe later territorial code names marijuana and THC in Schedule I, its seedsexempts specified mature-stalk products and resinnon-germinating sterilised seeds from its marijuana definition, and satreserves schedule changes to Congress after recommendations from the health director.[@2] The earlier law challenged in Schedule IBermudes used a different scheme, letting the director decide which drugs were prohibited.[@13] The code’s geographical clause covers the Mariana, Marshall and Caroline islands.[@4]

before

possession 10 · cultivation 10 · enforcement 10 · sharing 10 · consumption 10 · access 10

sources

Trust Territory Code 1980 — Title 63, Controlled Substances Trust Territory v Bermudes, 7 TTR 80–90, 23 July 1974 Trust Territory Code 1980 — Title 1, geographical application FSM law archive — Trust Territory Controlled Substances Act (63 TTC ch. 4, COM P.L. 5-110) 1 unchanged

unscored

Replacement of earlier territorial drug controls, not a verified first prohibition. The session bibliography dates adoption only; original commencement and the original penalty text remain unverified. The first-restriction estimate is retained separately pending reconstruction.

related

cnmi-bermudes-marijuana-charges-1974, micronesia-criminal-code-1980

The Northern Marianas come under the Trust Territory’s scheduled drug law

category

banother

title

The Northern Marianas ban marijuanacome under the Trust Territory’s scheduled drug law

description

The Congress of Micronesia's Public Law 5-110, passed inadopted the first special session of July-August 1974, enacted the Trust Territory Controlled Substances Act for the Mariana Islands district as for the restin its special session of the territory23 July–9 August 1974.[@1,2] Marihuana meant all parts of Cannabis sativaThe later territorial code names marijuana and THC in Schedule I, its seedsexempts specified mature-stalk products and resinnon-germinating sterilised seeds from its marijuana definition, and satreserves schedule changes to Congress after recommendations from the health director.[@2] The earlier law challenged in Schedule IBermudes used a different scheme, letting the director decide which drugs were prohibited.[@13] The code’s geographical clause covers the Mariana, Marshall and Caroline islands.[@4]

before

possession 10 · cultivation 10 · enforcement 10 · sharing 10 · consumption 10 · access 10

sources

Trust Territory Code 1980 — Title 63, Controlled Substances Trust Territory v Bermudes, 7 TTR 80–90, 23 July 1974 Trust Territory Code 1980 — Title 1, geographical application FSM law archive — Trust Territory Controlled Substances Act (63 TTC ch. 4, COM P.L. 5-110) 1 unchanged

unscored

Replacement of earlier territorial drug controls, not a verified first prohibition. The session bibliography dates adoption only; original commencement and the original penalty text remain unverified. The first-restriction estimate is retained separately pending reconstruction.

related

cnmi-bermudes-marijuana-charges-1974, micronesia-criminal-code-1980

Articles and atlas entries 2

micronesia-controlled-substances-act-1974 articles/micronesia-controlled-substances-act-1974.md

text

In the last weeks of July 1974 the Congress of Micronesia passed Public Law 5-110, the Trust Territory Controlled Substances Act, inadopted a scheduled drug-control law during its special session that ran fromof 23 July to –9 August 1974.[@3] Marihuana meant all parts of the cannabis plant, its seeds and the resin from any part, and it went into Schedule I beside tetrahydrocannabinol.[@1] For the first time the whole Trust Territory — from PalauThe law belongs to the Marshalls to Chuuk — shared onea longer territorial history: a marijuana lawprosecution decided in July had used an earlier, different system for deciding which drugs were prohibited.[@12] ## A director decides The Act copiedold rules behind the American model:court case Mariano Bermudes faced possession and sale charges in the health director would recommend,Mariana Islands. The old law defined drugs through their effects on current medical knowledgeconsciousness, which substances belonged in which schedulethought, mood and the Congress would list them.[@1] Sections 301 and 302 set up that pipelineperception, lettingthen left the health director's judgment decide what to publish the territory's drug law coveredlist.[@2] ## Tested the same week The scheme met its test almost immediately.[@2] Prosecutors charged Bermudes with possessing and selling Its marijuana under section 303 penalty could reach a year in prison, and the defence attacked the whole edifice: marijuana was no narcotic, personal use sat inside a protected zone of privacy$1, and letting an administrator choose the regulated drugs was an unlawful delegation of Congress's power000 fine, or both.[@2] Decided On 23 July 1974 — as, Chief Justice Burnett dismissed the special session that passedcharges. The definition gave the Act was opening — director insufficient guidance and left people unable to know what conduct the court split law prohibited. The judge also found no rational basis for penalties that could punish marijuana more heavily than opium or heroin. He accepted the differencegovernment's power to control drugs and left the private-use question unresolved.[@2,3] The dismissal is tracked separately as [the Bermudes charges caseentry](/history/cnmi-bermudes-marijuana-charges-1974/) follows that case.[@2] The territory could prohibit the possession, use and sale ## Congress keeps control of the drug, but the delegation failed: the directorschedules The later code's power to decide which drugs counted violated equal protection,controlled-substances chapter names Public Law 5-110 as its source. It lists marijuana and THC in Schedule I. Its marijuana could not properly be classed a narcotic anywaydefinition covers the plant and resin broadly, while excluding specified mature-stalk products and sterilised seeds incapable of germination.[@23] The judges addedhealth director has a pointed aside — the penalties for marijuana ran harsher than those for opiumdifferent role in this text. The director assesses abuse, medical hazards and heroinother factors, then recommends changes. Congress has sole authority to add, remove or reschedule substances. Notice and nothing in current knowledge justified itan opportunity for a hearing normally precede a recommendation, with an exception for specified federal scheduling notices.[@23] ## Adopted twice overSmall amounts have their own penalties The Act outlived the territory.[@41980 territorial code] The Federated States adopted the old Trust Territory Code as its own (/history/micronesia-criminal-code in -1980, carrying the marijuana penalties with it: up to/) records a maximum $50 fine for an ounce or less, three months and for an unpaid gift of that amount. Larger holdings have separate prison-or $500 to a kilo, a year-fine bands. At 2.2 pounds or $1more,000 above it, and possession creates a rebuttable presumption of trafficking — up to five years or $5,000 — for kilo quantities which the defendant can contest.[@43] ## The rules reach Chuuk's later history A report published in 1991, which never wrote its own drug lawbased on exploratory fieldwork in 1985, simply useddescribed Chuuk relying on the national codeformer territorial drug rules. Its police-record discussion also traced local enforcement back to [@4a plant uprooted on Moen in 1978] That 1980 adoption is why the 1974 Act still anchors the recorded first prohibitions of [Micronesia](/history/micronesia-controlledchuuk-substancespolice-actcannabis-19741978/), .[@4] The [Micronesia profile](/country/fm/) follows the subsequent national and state rules; the territorial histories also continue under [Palau](/history/palau-controlled-substances-act-1974/) and the [Northern Marianas](/history/cnmi-controlled-substances-act-1974/) alike. [@1,4]

model

musegpt-spark6

sources

Trust Territory Code 1980 — Title 63, Controlled Substances FSM law archive — Trust Territory Controlled Substances Act (63 TTC ch. 4, COM P.L. 5-110) 3 unchanged

Code, design and documents 5 files

docs/research/history-micronesia-1974-act-2026-10-27.md +3 −0
@@ -1,4 +1,7 @@
 # Micronesia 1974 Controlled Substances Act (estimate replaced)
 
+**Superseded chronology/scoring:** the [primary-text review](history-ttpi-chronology-review-2026-10-27.md) separates the earlier statute challenged in Bermudes from Public Law 5-110. The 1974 replacement is no longer treated as a verified first ban; provisional first-restriction estimates are restored separately. The notes below record the earlier interpretation and must not be used as its verification.
+
+
 - Replaced `fm-first-restriction-estimate` (1925 window) with
   `micronesia-controlled-substances-act-1974` (ban, 1974, before all-10,

docs/research/history-ttpi-act-article-2026-10-27.md +3 −0
@@ -1,4 +1,7 @@
 # TTPI Controlled Substances Act article (new, 383 words)
 
+**Superseded chronology/scoring:** the [primary-text review](history-ttpi-chronology-review-2026-10-27.md) separates the earlier statute challenged in Bermudes from Public Law 5-110. The 1974 replacement is no longer treated as a verified first ban; provisional first-restriction estimates are restored separately. The notes below record the earlier interpretation and must not be used as its verification.
+
+
 - Wrote `articles/micronesia-controlled-substances-act-1974.md`: P.L. 5-110
   (July-Aug 1974 special session), marihuana definition, Schedule I →

docs/research/history-ttpi-chronology-review-2026-10-27.md +44 −0
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Trust Territory: the predecessor drug law, 1974 replacement and 1980 code
+
+Reviewed 27 October 2026. The preceding goal turn made progress by committing India's 2001 reform article, two follow-up events and historical corrections. Read the maintenance requirements for first restrictions, commencement and score chains, the writing guide, the open-instrument lead file, the earlier Marshall/Mariana territorial review, and the three later notes that replaced first-ban estimates. The gap scan exposed an internal chronology conflict in the newer 1974 article, which this pass resolves before extending coverage.
+
+## Evidence actually read
+
+1. **Trust Territory v Bermudes, 7 TTR 80–90, 23 July 1974**, High Court Trial Division, Mariana Islands District: https://cnmilaw.gov/docs/ttr/vol7/7-TTR-080.pdf . Read the case through the dismissal. Printed pp. 82, 84–87 and footnote 1 on p. 85 identify the challenged law as Title 63 chapter 7, subchapter II, sections 301–303, with health-director regulations. Section 301 used broad effects/abuse language; section 302 let the director identify covered substances; section 303 prohibited unauthorised supply and possession/use outside prescribed treatment. The court found insufficient statutory guidance, equal-protection defects and an unjustified harsher marijuana fine comparison. It did not decide the private-use question. This is the predecessor scheme, not the schedule/recommendation scheme attributed to P.L. 5-110 in the later code. No first-enactment date is supplied by the judgment.
+2. **Congress of Micronesia Library, Congress of Micronesia Bibliography**, official library publication hosted by Habele: https://habeleinstitute.org/w/img_auth.php/6/65/6EKWQ8YC.pdf . Downloaded the complete 7,456,972-byte PDF, extracted text and visually checked printed p. 5 (PDF p. 9). It lists Laws and Resolutions, Fifth Congress First Special Session, 23 July–9 August 1974, containing P.L. 5-90 through 5-110. This establishes the session associated with the Act. It supplies neither a precise passage/assent day nor a commencement day. A first partial download timed out; the complete second download is the one used.
+3. **Trust Territory Code 1980, Title 63**, archived original scan already recovered in the earlier Marshall review: https://web.archive.org/web/20241223000000id_/https://www.cnmilaw.org/pdf/ttc/t63.pdf . Re-read printed pp. 127–142 from the retained full text and visually inspected pp. 140–141. Sections 251–252, 256, 259, 291–292 and 298 attribute the controlled-substances chapter to P.L. 5-110. Section 256 provides hearings/recommendations and reserves scheduling to Congress, unlike the predecessor law in Bermudes. Section 252 excludes specified mature-stalk products and non-germinating sterilised seed. Section 292 uses one ounce or less, more than one ounce but less than 2.2 pounds, and 2.2 pounds or more: the last category is inclusive and creates a rebuttable trafficking presumption. It must not be paraphrased as only more than a kilo. Section 291(3) treats an unpaid gift of no more than one ounce as small possession. Section 298 allows once-only conditional discharge, subsequent expungement application and a retained nonpublic eligibility record. These are statements about the published edition, without assigning every clause to its original 1974 commencement.
+4. **Trust Territory Code 1980, Title 1**, archived original scan: https://web.archive.org/web/20241223000000id_/https://www.cnmilaw.org/pdf/ttc/t1.pdf . Re-read section 151, printed p. 75: coverage is the Mariana Islands other than Guam, and the Marshall and Caroline Islands. Its credits refer to 1966 section 35 and 1970 section 151. This establishes territorial scope, not the date cannabis first came under it.
+5. **Innocente I. Oneisom, Marijuana in Chuuk**, Micronesian Counselor 3, June 1991: https://micsem.org/micronesian-counselo/marijuana-in-chuuk/ . Re-read the introduction and law/enforcement sections. The report describes exploratory fieldwork in 1985 and Chuuk's use of former territorial rules. Its rounded ounce/kilo boundaries are overridden by the primary 2.2-pound wording. It reports daily/monthly police discrepancies: 36 daily-report cases versus 56 monthly-report cases and 40 arrests in 1984. These are local records, not national prevalence or complete comparable enforcement series.
+
+Sources 3–4 and their PDF renders remain in `tmp/history-marshall-territorial-gap-2026-10-23/`; new bibliography downloads, extraction, render and audit logs are in `tmp/ttpi-1974-review/`. The PDF skill was applied for source-image inspection. No original P.L. 5-110 scan or commencement instrument was recovered.
+
+## Corrections and expanded coverage
+
+- Rewrote the 1974 article, preserving its URL and linking the already existing Bermudes article. Removed the impossible “tested the same week” account and the assertion that the Act supplied the territory's first shared marijuana law. Explained the predecessor scheme, the later Congress-controlled schedules, definition exceptions and the 1980 published penalties separately.
+- Corrected the Micronesia, Palau and Northern Mariana 1974 entries to `other`, adoption dated at year precision, with explicit unscored reasons. The bibliography supports adoption during a session; the current sources do not establish the first restriction or original commencement. Added the geographical source rather than relying on a case heard in one district to establish coverage everywhere.
+- Added a 350–500-word article to the existing 1980 Micronesia entry. Reframed that event as a territorial code-edition record, matching the earlier Marshall entry. Removed its unsupported impression of a separately verified 1980 national enactment of every territorial drug clause. No automatic new fine-only reform is assigned to 1980. The 1991 study's report of continued local reliance remains attributed.
+- Marked the three previous 27 October research notes as superseded for chronology/scoring, with a link here; their old interpretation remains available as an audit trail.
+
+## Historical scoring: uncertainty restored, not hidden
+
+The 1974 replacement had incorrectly been used to replace three provisional first-restriction estimates and carry 100→restricted first-ban drops. Bermudes proves there were earlier controls. The replacement's original commencement and original penalties have not been established, so retaining a verified first-ban step there would overstate the evidence.
+
+Restored `fm-first-restriction-estimate`, `pw-first-restriction-estimate` and `mp-first-restriction-estimate` as explicit estimates. Their 1925 modelling origin comes from the earlier provisional model, not from a newly found local enactment. The explicit window now extends through 1974, the year by which the predecessor controls are demonstrated, rather than pretending the old 1961 endpoint was established. The lower endpoint remains a modelling assumption: this review does not rule out an earlier restriction. Their descriptions state that distinction. No territorial statute is claimed to have been enacted in 1925.
+
+The all-10 vectors move off the replacement events and onto those estimates; the destination vectors and present profiles stay the same. This changes the timing/interpolation of the three historical series before 1974 and therefore their contribution to historical aggregates. It does not change current scores: FSM 18, Palau 17, Northern Marianas 55. Later scored transitions stay unchanged. Marshall's separate provisional 1987 chronology remains an open reconstruction; no first-ban claim is added there.
+
+## Remaining leads and limits
+
+Retrieve the First Special Session laws volume, especially the actual P.L. 5-110 and commencement clause; recover the predecessor statute and drug regulations; then reconstruct the first restriction and the fine-only reform as distinct scored stages. The bibliography's session is useful evidence but cannot replace those texts. The original NORML Leaflet report identified in an academic footnote remains a lead, not a read source for decriminalisation details.
+
+A 1975 diplomatic cable was located again but its full page timed out; no implementation event is added from its search excerpt. FSM early-case searches opened Hartman (1981), Hartman (1982), Nota (1983), Ruben (1981) and Yal'mad (1982). Those retrieved judgments did not identify the report's July 1982 marijuana jurisdiction case; no cannabis event is fabricated from unrelated offences. The precise national adoption/continuation path needs its own original instruments. Several open-lead notes are stale where other profile research has since recovered laws (including Oman 1974); consult the current entries before retrying them.
+
+## Validation and commit scope
+
+History tests: 46 passed. Profile/answer tests: 69 passed, for 115 total. The full Astro build succeeded with 4,517 pages in 43.97 seconds. Both articles meet the writing limits (379 and 396 words), have four short sections and at most one table. Whitespace checks passed.
+
+A semantic audit verifies that only the four reviewed baseline entries changed, all other baseline entries remain intact, and exactly the three first-restriction estimates were restored. Their all-10 vectors match those removed from the replacement events. All current profiles and later scored events remain unchanged. Chains for FM, PW and MP report zero flagged steps.
+
+Browser-checked the new 1980 article and its table, the rewritten 1974 article with its context label and correct references, and Micronesia's profile. The chart's accessible link says “Between 1925 and 1974 (estimate)”; the current score remains 18. Exported history marks the restored entries `date_estimated: true` and `confidence: estimated`. The yearly panel now interpolates across the stated window and retains the same 1974/current destinations. These historical interpolation changes are intentional corrections to false date precision.
+
+Every cited source address was already used in the repository; the two code-source URLs are archived originals. No shared archive mutation is required. The concurrent Dubai article and the running archive worker's changes are excluded from the commit. The temporary preview and build output are cleaned up after verification; downloaded research sources and logs remain.

docs/research/history-ttpi-siblings-1974-2026-10-27.md +3 −0
@@ -1,4 +1,7 @@
 # Palau + NMI 1974 TTPI Act (estimates replaced)
 
+**Superseded chronology/scoring:** the [primary-text review](history-ttpi-chronology-review-2026-10-27.md) separates the earlier statute challenged in Bermudes from Public Law 5-110. The 1974 replacement is no longer treated as a verified first ban; provisional first-restriction estimates are restored separately. The notes below record the earlier interpretation and must not be used as its verification.
+
+
 - Replaced `pw-first-restriction-estimate` and `mp-first-restriction-estimate`
   (1925 windows) with `palau-controlled-substances-act-1974` and

scripts/history-scope.test.cjs +19 −0
@@ -1067,2 +1067,21 @@ test("India's 2001 reform retains the original penalty, bail exceptions and appe
  assert.doesNotMatch(old,/Up to 1 kg|20 kg or more|bhang stayed\s+legal/);
 });
+
+test("The 1974 Trust Territory Act is separate from Bermudes' predecessor law",()=>{
+ for(const c of ['fm','pw','mp']){
+  const first=scored(c)[0];assert.equal(first.id,c+'-first-restriction-estimate');
+  assert.equal(first.estimate,true);assert.deepEqual(first.window,[1925,1974]);
+ }
+ for(const id of ['micronesia-controlled-substances-act-1974','palau-controlled-substances-act-1974','cnmi-controlled-substances-act-1974']){
+  const e=byId[id];assert.equal(e.category,'other');assert.equal(e.before,undefined);
+  assert.match(e.description,/reserves schedule changes to Congress/);
+  assert.match(e.description,/sterilised seeds/);
+  assert.doesNotMatch(e.description,/struck down days later|first time|first prohibition/);
+  assert.match(e.unscored,/not a verified first prohibition/);
+ }
+ const code=byId['micronesia-criminal-code-1980'];assert.match(code.description,/published in 1980/);
+ assert.match(code.description,/More than one ounce but less than 2\.2 pounds.*three months/s);
+ const article=fs.readFileSync('articles/micronesia-controlled-substances-act-1974.md','utf8');
+ assert.doesNotMatch(article,/Tested the same week|first time the whole Trust Territory|struck down days later/);
+ assert.match(article,/Congress has\nsole authority/);
+});

    ↑↓ to move, ↵ to open.