• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN: Colo., Wash. legal pot violates drug treaties

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020487915_apcolegalizingmarijuanaun2ndldwritethru.html

Originally published March 5, 2013 at 6:36 AM | Page modified March 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM

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."

UN dictating us policies??

Is this a cautionary tale of where globalization is taking us?

Is this ok because of treaties?
 
the idiotic drug warriors are in full panic gear worldwide. look for a new flood of "studies" that make reefer madness look legitimate in comparison.
 
If they are asking us to do our best to ensure it doesn't leave our borders, then I am ok with that. If they are saying we have to stop doing what we are doing because it violates a international rule, then I say we cease funding the UN. We need to save money anyways.

Because they want our Federal Government to challenge the local government...let's pull funding.
 
I await the arrival of the mighty blue helmeted troops to set this violation of international law right. F**k human rights, these evil weed ingesting folks must be jailed immediately! I just love UN logic. ;)
 
I await the arrival of the mighty blue helmeted troops to set this violation of international law right. F**k human rights, these evil weed ingesting folks must be jailed immediately! I just love UN logic. ;)

All the more reason to tell the UN to go to h***!!!

The UN is the biggest waste of time and money that I can see.
 
All the more reason to tell the UN to go to h***!!!

The UN is the biggest waste of time and money that I can see.

Yep. Obviously, during such times of world peace and harmony, the UN must address the serious issue of decriminalized marijuana consumption in a few US states. It makes me wonder what they are smoking? ;)
 
Would love to see how long the U.N. would last without U.S backing.
 
You think someone at the UN thinks they can make more money off of Pot if it stays illegal.:mrgreen:
 
How dare the UN suggest America abide by treaties that it willingly signs. It's almost as though they expect the constitution requires us to do so.
 
Meanwhile people are bleeding out of their assholes, suffering from "sudden death", aggression/hostility ,agitation, anxiety, birth defects, convulsions, deafness, emotional changes, hallucinations, hostility, impulsivity, irritability, psychosis, muscle spasms, nightmares, panic attack, paralysis, self-harm, sorotonin syndrome, severe restlessness, suicidal ideation, Tourette's syndrome, tremors, withdrawl symtoms, developing a sponge of a tongue(ok I guess weed does this one too), advancing in age 20 years, phasing out of existance with our realities wavelengths, turning into plastic, enjoying reality shows all comes from pharmaceuticals.

Try to guess the 3 that I just made up in injected into Zoloft lists of side effects? And im not even sure about them....
 
How dare the UN suggest America abide by treaties that it willingly signs. It's almost as though they expect the constitution requires us to do so.

On the one hand I agree with you :gasp:, we should be abiding by treaties.


However, this case does highlight the importance of maintaining national sovereignty.
 
Meanwhile people are bleeding out of their assholes, suffering from "sudden death", aggression/hostility ,agitation, anxiety, birth defects, convulsions, deafness, emotional changes, hallucinations, hostility, impulsivity, irritability, psychosis, muscle spasms, nightmares, panic attack, paralysis, self-harm, sorotonin syndrome, severe restlessness, suicidal ideation, Tourette's syndrome, tremors, withdrawl symtoms, developing a sponge of a tongue(ok I guess weed does this one too), advancing in age 20 years, phasing out of existance with our realities wavelengths, turning into plastic, enjoying reality shows all comes from pharmaceuticals.

Try to guess the 3 that I just made up in injected into Zoloft lists of side effects? And im not even sure about them....

Its quite obviously the last three, I'd guess.
 
If they are asking us to do our best to ensure it doesn't leave our borders, then I am ok with that. If they are saying we have to stop doing what we are doing because it violates a international rule, then I say we cease funding the UN. We need to save money anyways.

Because they want our Federal Government to challenge the local government...let's pull funding.

Who exactly funds the UN? Us and the other countries that are in it? I think it's time we abolish the UN for sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Not only the UN, but we need to abolish DHS. DHS has given us more than enough reason to label them a threat to the American people (who don't seem to think the water is going to boil soon). Americans just sit there complacent as DHS arms itself to the teeth in preparation for some unknown war that is going to take place on American soil. The silliest thing about it is that we are funding them!!! Why don't we just abolish them now while we maybe still can?
 
UN: Colo., Wash. legal pot violates drug treaties | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

Originally published March 5, 2013 at 6:36 AM | Page modified March 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM



UN dictating us policies??

Is this a cautionary tale of where globalization is taking us?

Is this ok because of treaties?

The UN urges us to do a lot of things we don't do. It's not a UN issue, they have no say in our policies regarding our own citizens. This is an issue of state rights.
 
Who do you think pressured the UN and every other country into signing on to anti-dug legislation. Who do you think menaced everyone to make damn sure they changed their laws. Who shoved this down the world's throat. Who painted us into the corner and filled our prisons to overflowing.
imgres-5.jpeg
We did.
 
Who do you think pressured the UN and every other country into signing on to anti-dug legislation. Who do you think menaced everyone to make damn sure they changed their laws. Who shoved this down the world's throat. Who painted us into the corner and filled our prisons to overflowing.
View attachment 67143831
We did.
 
How dare the UN suggest America abide by treaties that it willingly signs. It's almost as though they expect the constitution requires us to do so.

You're on your own on this one. I don't support any law or treaty that removes personal rights.
 
You're on your own on this one. I don't support any law or treaty that removes personal rights.

He makes a solid point though. We got signed up for the 1961 Convention of Narcotics, which puts strong limits on marijuana. Once the representative put his signature on that piece of paper, it became US law according to the Constitution. Granted, this is just the UN whining about double standards, but a double standard it is if we choose to ignore them.

Personally, I say **** 'em, but for the sake of keeping our global counterparts happy, we should move to either amend or revoke the treaty.
 
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances states:

Subject to its constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system, each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention.
Link

So the US government is still constrained by US law. The individual states don't sing on to these treaties. The federal government does and it is obligated to pass alws in keeping with the treaty. However, if the laws are intruding onto an area that should be a state's rights issue (such as what drugs should be legal) then the treaty should hold no sway.

That is one of the issues about the UN. Not all nations have the same government styles. Some issues fall into the hands of the states, who are not signatories, rather than the national government, who is. Once we can get the courts to establish this is a state's rights issue then the treaty is worthless as far a the US goes, since the treaty itself states it is subject to each Party's "constitutional principles" and "legal system".

And I don't know crap about the law other than what I read on wikipedia so I could be talking out my a$$.
 
He makes a solid point though. We got signed up for the 1961 Convention of Narcotics, which puts strong limits on marijuana. Once the representative put his signature on that piece of paper, it became US law according to the Constitution. Granted, this is just the UN whining about double standards, but a double standard it is if we choose to ignore them.

Personally, I say **** 'em, but for the sake of keeping our global counterparts happy, we should move to either amend or revoke the treaty.

No, I get that. And for whatever it counts, I believe that individual liberties, so long as they do not result in harm to another person or their property, trumps other treaties. It's the same logic I've always applied to state laws vs. Federal laws. As I said, for whatever it counts.
 
No, I get that. And for whatever it counts, I believe that individual liberties, so long as they do not result in harm to another person or their property, trumps other treaties. It's the same logic I've always applied to state laws vs. Federal laws. As I said, for whatever it counts.

In a perfect world, under a perfect system designed to protect freedoms and liberties, it would go something like that. Unfortunately, we're stuck with crap like this.
 
I'm not in favor of legalizing the recreational use of harmful drugs, but this is none of the UN's damn business.

It's not even any of the federal government's damn business.

Per the Tenth Amendment, this belongs entirely to the states or lower levels of government.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any power regarding recreational drug use, so it certainly has no authority to delegate that power to an outside organization such as the UN.
 
Back
Top Bottom