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

Seattle Times ^ | March 5, 2013 | P. SOLOMON BANDA

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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.

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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Now I'm conflicted.

If the UN is against it...

[WCH]

You and me both, buddy! WTF?

[USNBandit]

Console yourself, the lefties will be conflicted as well

[RC one]

Personally, I want to give the pot heads plenty of rope before we drop the floor out from underneath them.

[The Wizard]

I don’t give a damn what the UN says, period

[Bigh4u2]

And yet, there is Amsterdam.

[Vince Ferrer]

While I would get rid of the banning of pot at the federal level, I would still keep a ban on importing or exporting. the states cannot override that, and so what they do internally should be of no concern to any other nation.

By the way, why doesn't Amsterdam's drug laws violate treaties?

[Ken H]

You're conflicted between the UN and the US Constitution?

So which do you side with?

[traditional1]

Mexico and South American Countries have U.N. Treaties that give Drug Cartels EXCLUSIVE marketing rights for illegal drugs in the U.S., as long as they continue to skim some profits to the CIA.

We don't want no steenkin' competition from U.S. Citizens.

[Owl558]

“I don’t give a damn what the UN says, period”

It catches in my throat, but the constitution puts the UN in the right on this one. Like it or not, treaties have force of law.

[elkfersupper]

There were just a couple more places that cut into the turd world’s revenue stream.

[Secret Agent Man]

I say we nuke the (UN) site from orbit.

It’s the only way to be sure.

[microgood]

It catches in my throat, but the constitution puts the UN in the right on this one. Like it or not, treaties have force of law.

Well maybe part of the constitution does, but one thing is absolutely true - neither the UN nor the Federal Government can force a state to pass a law. You cannot force a state congressman to vote a certain way or force a governor to sign anything.

[Jacquerie]

Yes, treaties and the Constitution are supreme.

But . . . assuming a bona fide treaty exists, the article does not mention a title or date of ratification.

I suspect the pissant UN International Narcotics Control Board seeks to extend its power way beyond its authority and establish precedent.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Personally, I want to give the pot heads plenty of rope before we drop the floor out from underneath them.

How do you see us dropping the floor out from underneath them?

[manc]

LOL now the leftys dopes will be all confused as they want the UN but now want their dope too

[Ken H]

It catches in my throat, but the constitution puts the UN in the right on this one. Like it or not, treaties have force of law.

No it doesn't.

Article V: 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;

So if the US signs an anti-Second Amendment treaty, will you say the same thing?

Where does the United States get the authority to override the Second and Tenth Amendments?

[greene66]

No conflict for me. I’d like to kick out BOTH the United Nations AND the hippie dopehead scum out of America.

[Ken H]

So who do you side with in this case, the UN or CO and WA?

[BlueLancer]

"So who do you side with in this case, the UN or CO and WA?"

I think it would be nice if the UN sent troops into CO and WA to enforce it ...

... and do I really need a /s?