You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International-UN-NGOs
UN Demands Obama Smash State Marijuana Legalization
2012-11-22
In a move likely to further alienate the already unpopular United Nations from the American people, a top official with the global body put his ignorance about the U.S. constitutional system on full display by calling on the Obama administration to lawlessly quash recent marijuana legalization initiatives in Washington State and Colorado. Voters in both states approved the decriminalization of the controversial plant on November 6, nullifying unconstitutional federal statutes and a dubious UN narcotics agreement at the heart of the global “war on drugs.”

While the international organization obviously has no power to enforce its dictates, UN “International Narcotics Control Board” (INCB) boss Raymond Yans said he hoped disgraced U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder would ignore state laws, the U.S. Constitution, and the will of voters by “challenging” the successful referendums. Similarly, a coalition of former federal “drug warriors,” citing UN agreements, called on Obama to speak out against the legalization measures before they were adopted by the electorate. The administration, meanwhile, has suggested that it would continue to enforce unconstitutional federal statutes in those states despite the nullification measures.

“These developments 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,” the UN’s Yans alleged. Despite the half-baked assertions, the 50-year-old UN agreement cited by the global drug boss, known as the “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,” does not actually purport to require the criminalization of drug possession, according to experts worldwide.

Even if it did, however, the federal government cannot legitimately expand its own powers beyond constitutional limits simply by signing on to UN agreements or making treaties. The U.S. Constitution, of course, does not give the central government any authority to regulate or control any substances. So, like with alcohol prohibition, granting the U.S. government power over drug policy would require a properly ratified constitutional amendment. Otherwise, narcotics issues, under the Tenth Amendment, are constitutionally in the realm of states or the people.

Still, the well-paid Belgian advocate of global governance and planetary prohibition said he was hopeful that Attorney General Holder “will take all the necessary measures” to continue the unconstitutional policy of prohibition in both states. Holder’s Justice Department, of course, was exposed trafficking heavy weaponry to Mexican drug cartels as part of Operation Fast and Furious while laundering narcotics money through the DEA. What measures the UN drug czar might be advocating was not immediately clear, though analysts suspect Yans was calling on the disgraced federal official to ignore the U.S. Constitution — a very serious matter.

Voters approving legalization of marijuana, Yans claimed in an attempt justify his arguments in an interview with the Associated Press, sends “a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad.” The UN INCB, though, seemed confident that Obama would obey the outlandish dictates of the self-styled international drug czar
Posted by:Au Auric

#12  Pot was available in High School in the '60s, too.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2012-11-22 14:45  

#11  we happen to like the Northwest, you should come and visit, it's really very nice. Esp the North Idaho region in Summer.
Posted by: 746   2012-11-22 14:35  

#10  I am not very happy with my western neighbor, and have no desire to visit the northwest, but I will take them any minute of the year to the f#kn UN and their irritable bowel dropping dictates.

Could a suit be filed against Mexico for product dumping?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2012-11-22 12:27  

#9  Yes of couse, our self-admitted crack using, pot smoking POTUS will be jumping on to this very soon!

In other news, Jerry Sandusky to release new book entitled.... "The Evils of Pedifila".
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-11-22 12:20  

#8  The UN is in with the drug cartels and don't want their gravy train to derail.
Posted by: Spot   2012-11-22 11:53  

#7  Weed is available in every high school in the land and it has been at least since I was in HS in the 80's.

Well, I was in high school during the early 70's, and it was plenty available then too. End the war on drugs.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man   2012-11-22 11:49  

#6  How about a compromise where the US allows this ONE TIME interference with our government in exchange for their supporting that people receiving government assistance for over 2 years (in total, excluding SSI and Military Pensions) lose their right to vote...?
Posted by: Uncle Phester   2012-11-22 11:39  

#5  If the UN is pushing for us to keep weed illegal they must be getting US funding for worldwide reefer madness training and eradication.
Posted by: Penguin   2012-11-22 11:22  

#4  Weed is available in every highschool in the land and it has been at least since I was in HS in the 80's. The drug war is a miserable failure. Trans-national functionaries don't care about what's right or wrong or what policies are effective. They are only interested in centralized control. They want more laws regulating human affairs, never less.

But ultimately, it is human nature that is the problem, we have a strong appetite for vice and intoxication and an equally strong puritan impulse (to save us from our destructive appetites).

On the vast spectrum of intoxicating substances known to man, weed is less harmful and dangerous than most others (and quite enjoyable - speaking of first-hand experience).
Posted by: DJ Curtis C   2012-11-22 10:38  

#3  The fact that this writer used the word "nullification" in the context of state laws overturning federal ones suggests that he has a really... archaic relationship with constitutional law. Like, Calhoun archaic.

And the federal drug laws have been in effect long enough, and survived court challenges long enough, to enjoy a certain presumption of constitutionality.

That being said, I have no dog in this fight, and frankly, my attitude is Kissingerian: it's a shame they both can't lose.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2012-11-22 08:08  

#2  This isn't about money or profits. This is about human rights, and the ability of the poor and the middle-class to receive medical care at minimal or no cost. Under Obamacare, greedy Wall Street moguls and the wealthy will pick up the cost of your BC tabs, reefers.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-11-22 07:45  

#1  UK Health Service here we come.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-11-22 00:19  

00:00