1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP

United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Marijuana

Rating:
4/5,
  1. westie420uk
    Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars.com
    November 21, 2012

    The United Nations has declared Colorado and Washington in violation of international treaties following ballot initiatives that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana.
    The President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Raymond Yans, has voiced “grave concern about the outcome of recent referenda in the United States of America that would allow the non-medical use of cannabis by adults in the states of Colorado and Washington, and in some cities in the states of Michigan and Vermont,” according to an INCB press release. The INCB is a quasi-judicial “control organ” for the implementation of the United Nations drug conventions.
    Mr. Yans said the referenda in Colorado and Washington state “are in violation of the international drug control treaties, and pose a great threat to public health and the well-being of society far beyond those states.” Yans cited the standard nanny-state reasons for dictating what consenting adult Americans put in their bodies, including mental disorders, and cited the welfare of children as a primary concern of the internationalist organization.
    “Legalization of cannabis within these states would send wrong and confusing signals to youth and society in general, giving the false impression that drug abuse might be considered normal and even, most disturbingly, safe. Such a development could result in the expansion of drug abuse, especially among young people, and we must remember that all young people have a right to be protected from drug abuse and drug dependency,” the globalist bureaucrat said.
    Yans called for the U.S. federal government to “resolve the contradiction between the federal and state levels in the implementation of that country’s obligations under the drug control conventions” and demanded it “take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties within the entire territory of the United States, in order to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.”
    In other words, the United Nations insists the federal government perpetuate the destructive and expensive War on Drugs that has fostered a massive prison-industrial complex and ruined countless lives over the last few decades.
    As a consequence of the War on Drugs, the prison population in the United States has quadrupled since 1980, primarily as a direct result of mandatory sentencing for drug crimes. Around half of all inmates in federal prisons are there for drug offenses and more than 45 percent of all drug possession arrests in the U.S. last year were for marijuana, according to the FBI’s annual crime report. The United Nations supports this insanity with its call for the United States to obey international drug treaties.
    Marijuana legalization is a classic states’ rights and federalist issue. “States should be allowed to make a lot of these decisions,” Rand Paul said earlier this week when asked about marijuana legalization. “I want things to be decided more at a local basis, with more compassion. I think it would make us as Republicans different.”
    “I think, for example, we should tell young people, ‘I’m not in favor of you smoking pot, but if you get caught smoking pot, I don’t want to put you in jail for 20 years,’” Paul said.
    Fortunately, the tide is slowly turning and many states are finally realizing the War on Drugs is not only grossly unfair, but an immense waste of law enforcement resources and tax payer money.
    The United Nations is attempting to insert itself in decisions made by the states and by doing so is acting to perpetuate the War on Drugs. Americans should not only ignore the United Nations and the INCB Secretariat, but the federal government as well when it comes to decisions made by citizens on the local level.

    http://www.infowars.com/united-nati...nal-treaties-on-states-legalizing-marijuana/#

Comments

  1. Alfa
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    Its not surprising that the UN's Narcotic Control board is fearing legalization. The legalization of marijuana in the USA has a domino effect that can be felt already. Various South American state are now calling for a revision of the UN drug treaties, as they too want to legalize marijuana and other drugs. Once that happens the way is free for many countries to consider alternative policies and even tax or regulate the production of drugs.
  2. source
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    This kind of statement really annoys me. 'Legalization sends wrong signals to youth giving a false impression that drugs are normal and, more distrubingly, safe???

    So we should make cigarettes, alcohol and even FOOD illegal then, because in excess they can all do damage to ones health.

    *sigh*
  3. Isodimorphism
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    I read this while tired and very slightly high, and it took me a while before I realised that Yans was being serious; his statements read like satire. Poe's Law in evidence right here.

    But I can't blame Mr Yans for being worried. His job apparently relies on the war of drugs being taken seriously, and like Alfa says, there could be a domino effect. Several Latin American states are recognising the failures of prohibition, and now that the US, of all countries, has rejected prohibition in some states, we may have reached a tipping point where more and more nations stop taking the INCB seriously.

    And I did have a chuckle at the site's description of Yans as a "globalist bureaucrat".
  4. quickiB
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    Fuck the UN, the INCB, the US federal government, and every piece of shit prohibitionist. And yeah, its a better message to the children to say that its better to overdose or get a criminal record than to simply use whatever drug you want when you want. But no, the government, pharmaceutical companies, law enforcement, the judicial system, the prison companies, stupid fucking government bureaucracies that demand mile-long shit paper trails for every stupid little pill or drug. I cannot wait until the world over realizes that legalization is a huge boon to state budgets, a relief from law enforcement ones, and a relief from the miles-long que of court hearings and drug trials. These useless entities like the International Narcotics Control Board ensure that we continue to experience opiate shortages for legitimate medicines with the fucking useless quotas and pressuring producing countries to make less. Fuck those bastards, prohibition is dying a little more every day.
  5. nitehowler
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    The UNITED NATIONS can rip up their treaties or use them as shit house paper cause we have had enough of their do gooden hog wash.

    The people have voted so their is no turning back unless communism is at play.

    The majority of people that are for prohibition are people that rely on it to stay employed.

    Governments of today have been put in power by the people and will act for the needs and wants of the people or they will be treated as traitors by their own countrymen.

    I believe and agree with the post above "FUCK EM".
  6. derpahderp
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    Ill agree with those sentiments of 'fuckem'-- but collectively that will only get each state front headline news and some of us getting hauled away in fistacuffs.

    I don't take lightly what the UN has to say or declare-- but let's keep in mind each state violated their international policy. If they sat there and said nothing then they'd look like lobyists for the US funded World Drug War puppet.

    Let them validate themselves and force the US to inact yet another backdraft or policy which will get shot down. Even if it's passed-- the time and money dealing with their 'stance' on individual states, will find some backburner to yet another false reason marijuana kills brain cells. lol

    It shouldnt take away from what you guys have stated though.
    Pressured by a world stage won't change our oldest rights and laws in each state.

    Well-played UN in splashing your innocent. Im interested in the follow-up and end game. Just a humble opinion.
  7. Basoodler
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    Some of you guys are making a better case for prohibition than for legalization. The job of the UN and Federal government is to uphold laws that are already in place.... you cant say that Colorado needs to respect the Law passed by popular vote, then at the same time put other people down for doing the same thing.

    If they did not follow through with this, the entire democratic system failed. Even if they disagree with a law, they are still responsible to uphold it.. that is how our government and The UN works.. you should be thankful for such integrity

    Further more on the topic of drug legalization. For all drugs laws to change you have to make a case for the good things that will come from changing the law, and convince a majority of voters that legalization would benefit us.

    making comments that sound like you are addicted to drugs, want to do drugs, are oppressed because you can be arrested for drugs, want change so you can freely do drugs.. all of that will push the majority closer to upholding prohibition.

    It is a fragile topic, where people are going to have to make solid cases for how legalization will reduce addiction, reduce irresponsible drug use, reduce crime, not only because you are no longer arresting drug users, but that the people using drugs get arrested less for non drug related crime. A lot of the time an irresponsible drug user does a good fucking job of justifying their arrest as it is. There is no margin of error in this case. Making comments like "so anyone can do drugs whenever they want" is doing more to hurt the case for legalization.

    The sooner people realize that the sooner we will see change. Its important to behave responsibly as a drug user and make educated comments, make responsible decisions in life and be an example of how it could work.. things like stealing chor boy while looking like a crack zombie, walking around in public places TWEAKED on a 5 day bender or any public behavior just reinforces prohibition in the eyes of the majority. Not to mention scaring the shit out of old people and children :p


    Its a hard sale to try to change a law by saying "this will drastically things for the better, with very counterintuitive changes in law... we swear".

    @quiki

    The people who are making the comments are public officials that are employed to support the laws that have been passed. They all 3 in fact are right to speak out. If they did not, then they would be in negligence of their duty.

    Its nothing personal, they are just doing what they are paid to do. Just like a police officer is paid to give speeding tickets, its nothing personal.. that is just what he is paid to do. I am sure state highway patrolmen would rather not spend hours ruining peoples day.

    Not sure what you are talking about here.. I don't think anyone is telling children to get arrested or overdose. If your trying to make a point, try to be rational about it.

    Do you understand the concept behind the legalization movement at all?

    The foundation is that people will be more responsible with drug use and through diverting moneys from enforcement to education and rehabilitation. Which in turn will lead to more responsible drug use and less addiction.

    It has nothing to do with hedonistic drug use... The idea is to reduce hedonistic drug use. If a lobby went to the senate, house or even state governments and said

    "We need to legalize drugs, so the people can use whatever drug you want when they want".. He would probably get arrested for stupidity (they would make a new law just to make that arrest)

    The idea is to focus on what positives can come from legalization. If the Political stance was "We can get high whenever we want!"... we would never have reform


    "fucking" government is tasked to uphold the laws that were passed by a majority vote.

    law enforcement is tasked to uphold the laws that were passed by a majority vote

    the judicial system is tasked to uphold the laws that were passed by a majority vote

    government bureaucracies paper trails were put in place to help uphold the laws that were passed by a majority vote.

    Just like it is the Job of the governors, state officials , L.E. , judicial systems and profiteers in Washington and Colorado to enforce the laws that were passed by a majority vote.

    Its kind of hypocritical to say one group can do its job, but the others are bastards for doing the same thing.

    If its a HUGE boon for state budgets then we are in more trouble than we were to begin with. especially if you are making this argument about hard drugs.

    even with Marijuana legal, you will still be drug tested for employment. The laws in Colorado and Washington are not a free-for-all state smoke out. They are crafted to better control Marijuana not to give everyone a free pass to stay high 24/7.

    just doing their job.. People at the ICNB again are just upholding laws that were passed by an international vote. If they did not do their jobs, its our duty to put someone in who does.

    That is just how it works.. again Hypocritical to say its great for Colorado to enforce laws that were passed by popular vote, But everyone else who is doing the same thing is wrong.

    I doubt you will ever see the prescription laws change anyway. It would be beyond irresponsible to just put all the c2 narcotics in the OTC section. Nobody would go to the DR. there would be no way for doctors to dictate treatment. People don't need Oxicontin for headaches.

    Your comments only feed in to the stereotypical hype that keeps prohibition alive.


    @nitehowler

    ..................... again hypocritical.. The USA was the main author of the laws that the UN is enforcing.

    For the federal government or UN to not put in some sort of protest would be the same thing as Colorado not allowing the law to go into effect.

    State, Federal and international Officials have 1 job which is uphold the Laws that the people voted for... It should be no surprise that they are making comments .. That is what they are paid to do.

    Not sure What your referencing about communism, do you understand the concept? The USA is currently getting their ass handed to them financially by a communist nation. Just because its a different concept of government doesn't make it evil.. or just because the USSR was communist its a terrible system.. The USSR collapsed because they were spending all of the money on defense and letting the people starve..

    Socialist concepts are accepted by many democratic governments... and they are working.. Do you know The USA pays almost the same amount of tax as a country with socialized medicine or education.. and we don't get shit for our taxes.. they get free college, and more accessible healthcare..

    The US Mass Media does a good job of hyping things that are different as evil.. Hell, they just now started pointing out that the Palestinians are getting slaughtered. Isreal probably kills 100 of them for every one of their own.. its been news worldwide for decades.. never was covered here.. wonder why..

    There are aspects of the US policy that is communist or socialist.. The cold war ended 20 years ago.. its ok to move on.

    Huh? even in the states that passed it there were at least 40%+ who voted against it.. so you are saying that all those people are cops and federal agents... in a recent national poll the legalize MJ vote did not surpass the prohibition vote (it was close though).. are most of the people in the USA cops?

    That is exactly what the UN and Federal Government are doing.. and exactly what Colorado and Washington are planning to do.. the international and federal laws did not change.. they can't enforce some laws and not others.

    They uphold the laws that are currently in place.. when the laws change federally and internationally there job will be to uphold those laws.


    I mean really, what did you expect? The federal government to just say fuck it change the law federally without a vote because two states out of 50 passed a law.
    that is not how things work..

    I know it pisses you off that they would say that.. just like getting a speeding ticket pisses you off.. you have to understand that they both have jobs to do and its nothing personal. The UN is just fulfilling the Task they are responsible for.
  8. nomud
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    Hopefully there's a special place in hell for the UN ;)
    They are the most useless pieces of crap yet.They
    should be hung by their necks,and their remnants sold for
    dog food. ;)
  9. hookedonhelping
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    Im on board with Fuck'em sentiment.

    I take issue with this wording. No one is saying "abuse" is OK. We are, as a people, saying USE is acceptable. Just like Alcohol USE is OK, abuse is a different story entirely.

    U.N, What have you done for me lately? Exactly.
  10. Alfa
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    Do mind that it was the US who started these idiotic treaties. Like the US government has drummed the same anti-drug rhetorics over the decades, the UN uses the same logic: any non-medical use of narcotics is abuse. Therefore recreational drug use is drug abuse.
  11. derpahderp
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    Im not blaming the UN per se. Just the sentiments of those who started it.. Oh. The that would be the United States-- good thing I don't feel like my foot is in my mouth. *blinks*

    Seriously though, I still think it's just as I stated. The UN cannot make any headway in World opinions if they don't say at least draw up these treaties, 'saying' they're opposed to it-- (research material) hmm, Im wondering how much power congress or the President will have to appeal/agree with that treaty.


    Edited after Basoodler reply:

  12. Basoodler
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    An Anti-Drug Treaty Cannot Authorize the Feds to Make States Ban Marijuana



    Last week, as Mike Riggs noted a few days ago, the president of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Raymond Yans, argued that the U.S. government's treaty obligations preclude Colorado and Washington from legalizing marijuana. Responding to passage of Colorado's Amendment 64 and Washington's Initiative 502, Yans said "these developments are in violation of the international drug control treaties." That does not appear to be true, and even if it were the U.S. Constitution would bar the federal government from forcing states to ban marijuana.

    In a November 15 press release from the INCB, Yans claims the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, adopted in 1961 and amended in 1972, requires the U.S. government to override the drug policy choices made by voters in Colorado and Washington:

    The limiting of the use of cannabis to medical and scientific purposes is laid out in the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which was agreed to by 185 States, who by consensus decided to place cannabis under control and limit its use to medical purposes....

    For the international drug control system to function effectively, to achieve its aim of ensuring availability of drugs for medical purposes while preventing their abuse, the conventions must be universally adhered to and implemented by all States. In this regard, Mr. Yans stressed that national laws, policies and practices in drug abuse prevention and control should be fully aligned with the conventions. He further emphasized that States Parties have an obligation under the Conventions to ensure their full compliance with the conventions within their entire territory, including federated states and/or provinces.

    Mr. Yans recognized the commitment of the Government of the United States to resolve the contradiction between the federal and state levels in the implementation of that country's obligations under the drug control conventions. The INCB President requested the Government of the United States to take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties within the entire territory of the United States, in order to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.

    The "necessary measures" Yans is demanding are clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution's Supremacy Clause says "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." But it is also clear, as Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars note in Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, that "the Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws." Hence a treaty that purported to require such legal subjugation would not be "under the authority of the United States," and any act of Congress aimed at dictating state drug laws would not be "made in pursuance" of the Constitution.

    Furthermore, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says a signatory's obligation to enact criminal penalties for the nonmedical production, possession, and distribution of marijuana is "subject to its constitutional limitations." Patrick Gallahue of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program says:

    The penal provisions of the '61 convention includes the caveat: "subject to the constitutional limitations of a Party, its legal system and domestic law." How does that interact with the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"?...

    There is an argument that [America's] unique situation regarding states' rights allows one of these states to do this [i.e., legalize marijuana without violating the treaty].

    Gallahue adds that "there is always the option for the United States to withdraw from the '61 convention and re-enter with reservations," as Bolivia recently did so it could legalize the traditional use of coca. But even if that never happens, and even if Yans' reading of the treaty is correct, the federal government simply does not have the authority to do what he wants.

    Addendum: For a thorough and incisive critique of the view that international treaties can expand the legislative powers of Congress beyond those enumerated by the Constitution (an idea that the Supreme Court endorsed in the 1920 case Missouri v. Holland), see this 2005 Harvard Law Review article by Georgetown law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.

    [Thanks to Bruce Majors for the link to the INCB press release]

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/23/a-treaty-cannot-authorize-the-feds-to-ma
  13. kumar420
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    I find it so ironic that in the case of weed prohibition ending, they have an almost immediate response, but when the topic of concern is genocide or outright tyranny, them don't have a problem sitting on their hands and citing 'international sanctions' as an excuse for inaction.
    Get your priorities straight, bureaucratic hypocrites.
  14. derpahderp
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    (MintPress) – On Election Day, three states voted to pass state laws that legalized the recreational use of cannabis, despite federal restrictions. Two states — Colorado and Washington — passed the resolution. Along with the 20 states that allow medical marijuana use — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Washington, D.C. — and the six additional states that decriminalized personal marijuana use — Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina and Ohio — the plurality of all American states have a more liberal view on marijuana use than the federal government, which lists marijuana as a Schedule I substance or a substance with “no currently accepted medical use.”

    Schedule I substances must, under 21 U.S.C. § 812b, have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and have a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or substance under medical supervision. The sale of cannabis is illegal under current federal law, although an Oct. 19, 2009 Justice Department memorandum to the United States Attorneys established guidelines that discouraged the prosecution of patients and users of cannabis who are obeying their respective state laws.
    The federal government’s opposition to medical marijuana lies contrary to the federal government’s Health and Human Services’ patent on medical marijuana – -patent number US6630507 — which, according to its abstract:

    “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.”

    The United States is second only to Canada in the percentage of adults that have used cannabis in their lifetimes with 42.4 percent as of 2002-2003. In 2009, 13.7 percent of the American population from age 15 to 64 used cannabis at least once that year. In comparison, in 2010, 19.3 percent of all adults 18 years or older smoked tobacco.

    The federal marijuana regulations — along with most of the controlled substances laws — are among the most racially motivated laws still being enforced. First introduced as a proposed control for a “poison” in New York and later as an intended dig against Mexican farm laborers, the ban was enforced based on racial misconceptions on Latino and black use of the drug.

    Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Bureau of Narcotics (now the Drug Enforcement Agency), while contributing for the American Magazine, wrote unsubstantiated and blatantly racist quotes, such as:

    “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
    “…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
    “Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”
    “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”
    “Marijuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”
    “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”
    “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”
    William Randolph Hearst, a notable hater of Mexicans (Pancho Villa took 800,000 acres of timberland from him), used his use of “yellow journalism” to assist Anslinger’s campaign (Hearst was heavily invested in wood paper production, which hemp paper production threatened). From the San Francisco

    Examiner:
    “Marijuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”
    “By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms. … Marijuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marijuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him. …”
    It could be argued that Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed for a ban of cannabis in order to have Hearst support his administration’s policies. At any rate, all of this led to widespread cannabis bans, and ultimately, a federal ban — first, through an unpayable tax and later, through scheduling.
    Despite reports that marijuana is neither overtly dangerous nor a gateway drug, the United States has been reluctant to approach reconsidering this infamous ban. However, with a plurality of all states now in direct violation of federal law, the United States government faces an interesting choice: stick to its guns and maintain the ban or acknowledge the will of more than half of the people and remove marijuana from Schedule I.

    Why is marijuana illegal in the first place?
    “That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marijuana addiction. We are told that the use of marijuana causes crime.
    “But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marijuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.
    “You have been told that school children are great users of marijuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children’s Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.
    “Inquiry of the Children’s Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.
    “Inquiry of the Office of Education— and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit— indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it …”

    —Dr. William C. Woodward of the American Medical Association addressing the House’s Committee on Ways and Means, May 4, 1937

    Despite private reservations about the dangers of marijuana and the public and often inaccurate persecution of the drug, the American Medical Association has traditionally sided with the federal government in its opposition of marijuana. However, in its 2009 recommendations on the use of cannabis for medical purposes, the AMA suggested that research into the benevolent use of medical marijuana would be prudent and that discussions to reform Schedule I to reflect this research would be worthwhile.

    The Drug Enforcement Agency, while suggesting that it supports continued studies on the use of medicinal marijuana, has presented such anecdotes, such as the one following, in its 2011 position paper:
    “Organizers behind the ‘medical’ marijuana movement have not dealt with ensuring that the product meets the standards of modern medicine: quality, safety and efficacy. There is no standardized composition or dosage; no appropriate prescribing information; no quality control; no accountability for the product; no safety regulation; no way to measure its effectiveness (besides anecdotal stories); and no insurance coverage. Science, not popular vote, should determine what medicine is. The legalization movement is not simply a harmless academic exercise. The mortal danger of thinking that marijuana is ‘medicine’ was graphically illustrated by a story from California. In the spring of 2004, Irma Perez was ‘n the throes of her first experience with the drug Ecstasy … when, after taking one Ecstasy tablet, she became ill and told friends that she felt like she was … ‘going to die’ … Two teenage acquaintances did not seek medical care and instead tried to get Perez to smoke marijuana. When that failed due to her seizures, the friends tried to force-feed marijuana leaves to her, ‘apparently because [they] knew that drug is sometimes used to treat cancer patients.’ Irma Perez lost consciousness and died a few days later when she was taken off life support. She was 14 years old.”

    Despite the president’s promise in 2008 that he will not use the Department of Justice (DOJ) to impose national laws on states that legalized medical marijuana, the DOJ has hit and closed several dispensaries in California and other states under Obama. Since Nixon, who introduce the current drug scheduling, every president — except Jimmy Carter, who ran on a campaign of decriminalization in 1976, and Barack Obama, who promised less aggressive enforcement in 2008 — has ran on an anti-drug policy.

    Internationally, marijuana is regulated under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Treaty of 1961. Signed by 183 nations, the treaty creates schedules that restricts the growing, cultivating and use of various narcotics and authorizes the World Health Organization and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs to amend the schedules as needed. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is charged with enforcement, although — since the treaty is not self-enforcing — each signatory must enforce laws compliant to the treaty. Because the United States’ Controlled Substance Act of 1970 — the U.S.’ complementary bill to the treaty — mandates that federal laws are at least as strict as the Single Convention, modifying federal scheduling is a tricky, if not outright difficult, maneuver.
    However, articles 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 19 and 49 of the Convention explicitly encourage the medicinal use of controlled drugs, including marijuana. The Convention condemns drug addiction, however, and seeks to
    limit it through the cutting off of drug supplies.

    Cannabis is a Schedule IV drug, according to the Single Convention. Schedule IV is the most severe, and while, technically, Schedule IV drugs are reserved for research only, the Convention allows the various parties to make their own reasonable judgments regarding the legislation of Schedule IV drugs.
    While marijuana research is permitted under the Single Convention, the reality behind this is daunting in the United States. Researchers must be registered with the DEA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and a host of other government agencies. This could be difficult, as these systems have contrasting and competing registration processes. Once registered, the researcher must obtain their sample material from the United States’ only licit marijuana farm at the University of Mississippi: a 1.5 acre garden that is cultivated every other year of a low-THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the active hallucinogen in cannabis) quantity strand which is of poor standard for laboratory testing. As such, cannabis research has suffered in this country.

    In addition, the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances mandates that signatories establish criminal penalties for recreational use of a controlled, scheduled substance. Signatories can leave both conventions to legalize marijuana or any other drug, but a full withdrawal from both conventions would be needed. The U.S. has traditionally opposed this.
    Reform to the schedules are equally opposed by the U.S., the conventions’ biggest sponsors by bureaucratic barriers (the conventions would have to be amended by a full committee of all 53 Commission on Narcotic Drugs members) and by the International Narcotics Control Board.

    The future of marijuana in America
    Last Tuesday, Maricopa County, Arizona — one of the most conservative counties in one of the most conservative states — was ordered in Arizona Superior Court to enforce the state’s 2010 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.
    The winds are changing about America’s drug policy.
    There is no easy answer out of the quagmire the federal government now faces. The government must enforce its drug laws on the book, or risk being found in violation of treaty. At the same time, the people have overwhelmingly rejected the government’s assessment that marijuana is dangerous.
    The answer may be found in Portugal.
    In 2001, Portugal decriminalized personal use and possession of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD and other street drugs. Instead of prison time, drug violations (possession of quantities equaling less than 10 days of personal use of a drug) are handled administratively with mandatory therapy and fines. Larger possession cases still risk prison time.
    The results have been startling. The number of new HIV cases from sharing needles has bottomed out. The number of street overdoses dropped in half. Drug abuse treatment has doubled. The lifetime marijuana use for Portugal for those over 15 is the lowest in Europe at 10 percent. That is almost a quarter of the U.S.’ rate of 39.8 percent.
    The results have been so impressive that Spain and Italy are now following Portugal’s lead.

    What is needed is bold and decisive leadership on this issue. The United States must be willing to do
    what is not politically conservative or easy in order to satisfy the needs and wants of the people.


    Thomas Jefferson once said, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”
    It’s curious how a law that came to be because of blatant lies and racial inundations is so vigilantly defended now, despite evidence that suggests that drinking or smoking tobacco is more detrimental than marijuana use.

    The nation must answer if the people’s will is its first obligation.

    http://www.mintpress.net/marijuana-and-the-us-is-nationwide-discrimination-on-the-horizon/
  15. Basoodler
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    They are not forcing our hand.. they are just doing what they always do.. saying that they disagree, I don't think they will be forming a coalition of the willing to take down our hypocritically challenged government as a result.. they most likely won't mention it much after it takes effect
  16. Not my Drug
    Re: United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Mariju

    The war on drugs has yet to begin. Legalization of drugs in America is going to topple the UN and they will attempt to force us to abide. But again, entire states have already decriminalized the drug and it's in use for thousands of medical patients. If they attempted to even try to step back from where they are now, the consequences are dire for all of the country. Just think about it, the war on drugs is the people vs the prohibitionists, AKA Gvt. Agencies and Groups against the cannabis plant itself. If they took away the plant from the states it's decriminalized in there would be a revolution, an uprising. Not just of the cannabis followers, but of people against communistic ways. It would be a very sad sad time, but in the end the country would have a more open mind to the new chemicals in the plants and such we take for not just entertainment, but for medicinal logical purposes.

    16 states that openly use medicinal cannabis vs prohibitionists
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!