PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues UN to Obama Regime: Punish Washington and Colorado for Undermining Global Drug War


BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 04:03 PM
Didn't know if this should have had an International Issues prefix or just U.S.—only 'cause of the UN sticking it's nose in our internal affairs. Thought they weren't suppose to do that.


Washington and Colorado approved measures decriminalizing recreational use of marijuana in their states.

In response, Raymond Yans, head of the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board, has called for Attorney General Eric Holder to ignore the law and continue cracking down on marijuana use and possession. Decriminalizing marijuana use, Yans insists, sends the “wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad."

So are we a sovereign nation that was founded under a system of federalism or are we not? I find this outrageous. Wtf is the UN a wannabe govt in waiting?

Some things I never knew before:

The “war on drugs” didn’t begin with Richard Nixon. It is an outgrowth of a 1961 United Nations document called the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which created the framework for a global drug prohibition jihad.

In that same year, the JFK administration published a proposal called “Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World,” also known as State Department Document 7277. That proposal, which remains the operational framework for U.S. arms control policy, called for the creation of a nationalized, militarized “homeland security force” – in other words, exactly the kind of overtly militarized law enforcement bodies that have been prosecuting the “war on drugs.”


Origin of the War on Drugs (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/126785.html)

BigMeatballDave
11-20-2012, 05:43 PM
UN: Go fuck your mother

Easy 6
11-20-2012, 05:46 PM
Is there a more worthless world body than the UN?

mnchiefsguy
11-20-2012, 08:32 PM
The UN needs to shut the hell up and stay out our business.

patteeu
11-20-2012, 08:36 PM
Will Obama side with the UN or Americans? The outcome remains uncertain.

Pitt Gorilla
11-20-2012, 09:24 PM
Are there federal laws pertaining to marijuana use?

La literatura
11-20-2012, 09:44 PM
LMAO

"The UN talked about laws! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!"

La literatura
11-20-2012, 09:45 PM
UN: Go **** your mother

The US is the UN's mother.

WoodDraw
11-20-2012, 09:45 PM
The problem is that the US has some treaty obligations here... It's the same problem a lot of countries have run into.

listopencil
11-20-2012, 09:45 PM
Are there federal laws pertaining to marijuana use?

Yes. It's illegal.

La literatura
11-20-2012, 09:46 PM
Is there a more worthless world body than the UN?

Is there a more productive one?

listopencil
11-20-2012, 09:52 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Smokers-as-a-percentage-of-adult-pop.jpg

listopencil
11-20-2012, 09:58 PM
Cannabis use among Europeans:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Cannabis_use_among_adults_%28aged_15-64%29.svg


Cannabis laws in European countries:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/European-cannabis-laws.png

Pitt Gorilla
11-20-2012, 10:11 PM
Yes. It's illegal.if that is the case, why was the article talking about Holder ignoring the law? Wouldn't he simply be enforcing the federal law?

ClevelandBronco
11-20-2012, 10:21 PM
Just pay attention to the budget back there in Washington, okay? Colorado's got this one, fellas. We're not asking for your input, and we don't need your permission.

ClevelandBronco
11-20-2012, 10:43 PM
if that is the case, why was the article talking about Holder ignoring the law? Wouldn't he simply be enforcing the federal law?

From BEP's OP: "In response, Raymond Yans, head of the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board, has called for Attorney General Eric Holder to ignore the law and continue cracking down on marijuana use and possession. Decriminalizing marijuana use, Yans insists, sends the 'wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad.'"

I believe that they're encouraging Holder to ignore Colorado law.

Easy 6
11-20-2012, 10:53 PM
Is there a more productive one?

How many millions of africans has that August world body sat by and watched slaughtered alone? as they dither and conspire, endless talks that amount to negative nothing in beautiful hotels.

The UN talks while people die crazy deaths everywhere in the world, for every humanitarian gesture i read about it, i read about its corruption and we all see first hand, year in and out, how very little it helps control violence in the world.

When was the last time UN forces truly defended something with sustained effort and blood?... the Balkans to an extent maybe... they observe as the world crumbles around them.

The UN cant get the world to agree on the color of crap.

listopencil
11-20-2012, 10:55 PM
if that is the case, why was the article talking about Holder ignoring the law? Wouldn't he simply be enforcing the federal law?

Because state law conflicts with federal law in this case.

La literatura
11-20-2012, 10:58 PM
How many millions of africans has that August world body sat by and watched slaughtered alone? as they dither and conspire, endless talks that amount to negative nothing in beautiful hotels.

The UN talks while people die crazy deaths everywhere in the world, for every humanitarian gesture i read about it, i read about its corruption and we all see first hand, year in and out, how very little it helps control violence in the world.

When was the last time UN forces truly defended something with sustained effort and blood?... the Balkans to an extent maybe... they observe as the world crumbles around them.

The UN cant get the world to agree on the color of crap.

I take it then that you think they don't have enough power? It's not like the world's policeman. It's a large forum for every sovereign country to come together.

ClevelandBronco
11-20-2012, 11:01 PM
I take it...

...up the ass. He meant no such thing, obviously.

La literatura
11-20-2012, 11:06 PM
...up the ass. He meant no such thing, obviously.

Let's talk about the UN and not your sexual appetite. The only way they can stand by and watch evil is because they don't have the authority to do something. If you have a problem with standbys, then you have a problem with lack of authority.

ClevelandBronco
11-20-2012, 11:14 PM
Let's talk about the UN and not your sexual appetite. The only way they can stand by and watch evil is because they don't have the authority to do something. If you have a problem with standbys, then you have a problem with lack of authority.

No. There's another possibility. Stretch yourself.

La literatura
11-20-2012, 11:16 PM
No. There's another possibility. Stretch yourself.

Educate me.

ClevelandBronco
11-20-2012, 11:17 PM
Let's hear it.

Fuck off.

La literatura
11-20-2012, 11:19 PM
**** off.

You're still hurting over Obama's win. It's destabilizing you.

go bowe
11-21-2012, 12:05 AM
republicans from all wings of the party will be hurting over obama's win for the next four years...

the question is can they get over their butthurt and return to governing in a bipartisan way, without compromise being a dirty word?

and the question is also can the dems stop talking about it and start doing it too (governing, compromising getting the nation's business done, etc.)?

pelosi sounds more intransigent on tax rates than mcconnel or even obama...

i think she and mitch will continue to be obstacles to reaching a deal, but we're apparently stuck with them and will have to muddle through somehow...

Easy 6
11-21-2012, 12:32 AM
pelosi sounds more intransigent on tax rates than mcconnel or even obama...

She needs to be marginalized and muzzled, a major drag on democrats.

She's Bachmans even crazier Mom.

CoMoChief
11-21-2012, 01:07 AM
Most of the morons on this board that play party politics aka left/right paradigm don't understand that our CIA runs the drug war in and out and most of the money profited is laundered through mega corporations and banks. The CIA is simply an asset of the people who run Wall St.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 07:05 AM
Are there federal laws pertaining to marijuana use?

I don't think you understand. Those states are nullifying those federal laws—which they should. It's another check and balance on the federal govt. Real ID was nullified. States just did not implement it.

However, this is not a thread about our federal govt or the supremacy clause. It's about an international body thinking they can stick their noses in our internal affairs. And how too many treaties could result in more erosion.

You're welcome to start your own thread....so that Americans can hash it out and not foreigners in the UN.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 07:08 AM
The problem is that the US has some treaty obligations here... It's the same problem a lot of countries have run into.

I had another thread up regarding treaties with an international body, not another country, erodiing our national sovereignty and most thought it was nothing to be concerned about.
But it is something to be concerned about, for precisely what you see happening here.

There's two arguments I've seen:

1) Treaties become law
2) Treaties that violate our Constitution should not be valid or the parts that do are not to be enforceable.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 07:10 AM
Cannabis use among Europeans:
[/IMG]

Your map shows that places where its legal has the most use.

patteeu
11-21-2012, 07:12 AM
Your map shows that places where its legal has the most use.

Not really. It's more convoluted than that.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 07:13 AM
Not really. It's more convoluted than that.

I was just about to delete when looking at it again to check. That's true.
I should learn to proof in preview but I'm lazy about that.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 07:17 AM
I take it then that you think they don't have enough power? It's not like the world's policeman. It's a large forum for every sovereign country to come together.

Except that NATO is under the UN. Obama bombed Libya under the UN then. Obama authorized the UN to invade Mali. It's usually our troops that get used to enforce their resolutions, whether it's done under a unilateral or multilateral decision. Even if our troops are used in conjunction with other nations. So it is more and more acting like a cop. It's even wanted to pass global taxes.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-21-2012, 07:23 AM
UN: Butt the fuck out.

patteeu
11-21-2012, 07:37 AM
I was just about to delete when looking at it again to check. That's true.
I should learn to proof in preview but I'm lazy about that.

I understand. I post and then notice I said something wrong and revise it too. :thumb:

whoman69
11-21-2012, 01:01 PM
First drug laws in the US were the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 01:20 PM
First drug laws in the US were the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914.

The Harrison Act did not prohibit any drugs outright.
Congress wasn't sure of its authority to do so under the Commerce Clause at that time.
That had to do with distribution for medical purposes and required recordkeeping—something pharmaceutical companies could afford to do over their competitors.

Amnorix
11-21-2012, 01:44 PM
Your entire post makes no sense. Not that that is unusual for you, of course....


Didn't know if this should have had an International Issues prefix or just U.S.—only 'cause of the UN sticking it's nose in our internal affairs. Thought they weren't suppose to do that.

You didn't? Is the US somehow exempt or excluded from the things the UN deals with? Is there something in the UN charter about this? Or is there anything about our federalist form of government that the UN must honor when it comes to criticizing our policies?

So are we a sovereign nation that was founded under a system of federalism or are we not?

We are, but what does that have to do with anything? The UN is saying that the federal government, using its own powers, should continue to enforce ITS (the federal government's) laws in those states that have decriminalized certain types of drug use. There's nothing inappropriate about the federal government doing that, nor in the UN asking that the federal government do that as part of the global "war on drugs." (a war I disagree with, btw).

I find this outrageous. Wtf is the UN a wannabe govt in waiting?

This makes so little sense it isn't worth discussing.

Some things I never knew before:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K1ipcrN0PaE/TjH-Wj_PWWI/AAAAAAAABQc/x4inDQMFoB4/s1600/every.jpg

FYP.

Amnorix
11-21-2012, 01:48 PM
Except that NATO is under the UN.

No it isn't you batshit crazy loon.

Obama bombed Libya under the UN then. Obama authorized the UN to invade Mali. It's usually our troops that get used to enforce their resolutions, whether it's done under a unilateral or multilateral decision. Even if our troops are used in conjunction with other nations. So it is more and more acting like a cop. It's even wanted to pass global taxes.


Think of what you're saying when you're saying that "Obama authorized the UN to invade Mali". It makes no sense. Par for the course for you, but still.

The second part of your post is true, but ignores the fact that the US and/or NATO must WILLINGLY AGREE to use its troops to do these things, working cooperatively with the UN. The UN has no independent military power.

Get a grip.

Amnorix
11-21-2012, 01:49 PM
The Harrison Act did not prohibit any drugs outright.
Congress wasn't sure of its authority to do so under the Commerce Clause at that time.
That had to do with distribution for medical purposes and required recordkeeping—something pharmaceutical companies could afford to do over their competitors.


Prohibition sure as hell did, and that was essentially a drug prohibition law.

Amnorix
11-21-2012, 01:52 PM
I don't think you understand. Those states are nullifying those federal laws—which they should. It's another check and balance on the federal govt. Real ID was nullified. States just did not implement it.

States that legalize drugs are overturning/changing their OWN INTERNAL laws. Federal law remains because under our FEDERAL system, the federal government can pass laws and regulations under its SEPARATE powers.

Where states are required/requested by the federal government to enforce federal laws, they can "nullify" of a sort by inaction or by refusing to cooperate. That's fine. The feds can't force the states to enforce federal laws, though they can try to strong arm them through withholding of federal dollars, but that doesn't prevent the fed from independently enforcing its laws.

However, this is not a thread about our federal govt or the supremacy clause. It's about an international body thinking they can stick their noses in our internal affairs. And how too many treaties could result in more erosion.

Wherever the UN "sticks its nose", it's in the internal affairs of some country or another, right? Why should we be exempt? Of course, we can ignore them just as many other countries do.