Posted on 11/14/2014 6:45:11 PM PST by Wolfie
U.S. states' pot legalization not in line with international law: U.N. agency
Vienna -- Moves by some U.S. states to legalize marijuana are not in line with international drugs conventions, the U.N. anti-narcotics chief said on Wednesday, adding he would discuss the issue in Washington next week. Residents of Oregon, Alaska, and the U.S. capital voted this month to allow the use of marijuana, boosting the legalization movement as cannabis usage is increasingly recognized by the American mainstream.
"I don't see how (the new laws) can be compatible with existing conventions," Yury Fedotov, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), told reporters.
Asked whether there was anything the UNODC could do about it, Fedotov said he would raise the problem next week with the U.S. State Department and other U.N. agencies.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I imagine the UN just wants their cut.
The UN supports slavery and genocide and child sex for oil.
The American people don’t support those perversions.
American voters must always trump the UN. No discussion whatsoever. .
So-called “International Law” is a fiction that has ZERO standing on U.S soil.
Tell that to Obamass.
All the UN wants is ownership of the World. Nothing serious. /S
If it a ratified treaty (dont know if it is) then it has the same standing as the constitution if I remember right.
F the un
Agreed!
If it is ratified, then it is US law. But I don't believe any such "international law" has been ratified.
Another bonus of the legalization efforts: pissing off the UN idiots AND possibly pitting US liberals against their UN god.
I don’t partake. But if the UN said I can’t, I’d spark up a fattie just to spite em.
It has the same status as a law passed by Congress, such as Obamacare. Article VI =>
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 ratifies a treaty banning private gun ownership, do you think that would be in keeping with the original meaning of the Constitution?
Fedgov can not legitimately sign away the Bill of Rights, either by law or treaty.
We are not really talking about the UN, we are talking about treaties that the U.S. government has entered into. In fact, it was the U.S. that strongarmed most countries into signing these treaties.
Yes, they are ratified treaties:
1912 – International Opium Convention
1961 – Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
1971 – Convention on Psychotropic Substances
1988 – United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties
“Fedgov can not legitimately sign away the Bill of Rights, either by law or treaty.”
That is correct, however the statists will argue that the Supremacy clause gives the federal laws and treaties precedence over state laws on the same matters. They ignore the fact that they cannot take precedence unless the federal government actually has constitutional standing to make laws on the matter.
Hopefully this will cause a groundswell of support for telling the UN to go pound sand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.