UN: Legalizing Pot Violates International Treaty

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Mar 5, 2013.

  1. pspr

    pspr

    Another tough spot for Obama. Does he ignore treaties we have signed and keep the druggies happy or does he honor our signed commitments and piss off all the pot users?

    A United Nations-based drug agency urged the United States government on Tuesday to challenge the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in Colorado and Washington, saying the state laws violate international drug treaties.

    The International Narcotics Control Board made its appeal in an annual drug report. It called on Washington, D.C., to act to "ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties on its entire territory."

    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said last week that he was in the last stages of reviewing the Colorado and Washington state laws. Holder said he was examining policy options and international implications of the issue. Marijuana is illegal under federal law.

    The federal government could sue the states over legalization or decide not to mount a court challenge. Washington and Colorado became the first states to pass laws legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in last fall's elections.

    "The entire international system is based on countries respecting the rules, and there's a broad fabric of international treaties that are part and parcel to that," said David Johnson, the U.S. delegate to the Vienna-based board.

    The control board is the independent monitoring body for the implementation of United Nations drug control conventions. Its head, Raymond Yans, also called on Holder to challenge the laws soon after voters in both states approved them in November.

    The director of the Open Society Foundations' Global Drug Policy Program, Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, blamed repressive drug laws for millions of arrests and called on the United Nations General Assembly to reconsider its approach when it holds a special session on drugs in 2016.

    The U.N. report also cited prescription drug abuse as a continuing problem as well as the emergence of so-called designer drugs that are engineered to fall out of the scope of existing drug controls.


    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020487915_apcolegalizingmarijuanaun2ndldwritethru.html
     
  2. I happen to support legalization, but the double standard is obvious. How long did it take Obama and Holder to challenge Arizona over its immigration laws, which happened to be consistent with federal law? a NY minute, that's how long. Thw weed laws are directly inconsistent with federal law.

    No doubt they will be violating some UN conventions, but since when do they override domestic law? Texas executed some mexican who had not been given consular access in violation of a treaty. The Supreme Court ruled they were wrong but there was no vehicle for enforcing it, other than asking nicely. Rick Perry said screw you.
     
  3. pspr

    pspr

    The only fall out of not honoring our international drug enforcement agreements could be that other countries will be reluctant to cooperate with us to their fullest with regard to drug trafficking.
     
  4. Wallet

    Wallet

    If the pot doesn't cross state lines, does the Federal Government have any jurisdiction? The only case I could see is if the grower doesn't claim the income on their tax returns.

    It's a State-Rights issue, Tell the U.N. to take a hike.
     
  5. fuck'em what they do isn't any of our business and the UN has no business sticking it's nose in ours.
     
  6. This is actually a very interesting constitutional issue.

    There is an old case from the days when FDR had intimidated the Supreme Court into backing his New Deal socialist scheme after earlier decisions had said parts were unconstitutional. That case involved a farmer who had grown corn on his own land for his own use. In doing so, he violated regulations governing how much he could grow. The Court ruled that because his corn might displace corn from interstate commerce, the government could regulate it.

    The case, Wickard v. Filburn, is regarded as a high water mark of disrespect for federalism and state's rights, although the Voting Rights Act is worse in my view.
     
  7. jem

    jem

    I believe it is important this issue gets tested in the courts.
    We can't have the UN or the Hague telling our states what to do about internal matters like this.

    If the court says the UN can tell our citizens what to do... then our elections will have a very serious international law component.

    What we need to stop is backing into a massive give away of rights to international bodies... the way the Federal govt usurped states rights.