Answering the Libertarian argument for drug legalization

[AceArcher]

fyi... not sure that anything will come of it, but.......

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...marijuana-laws

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

fyi... not sure that anything will come of it, but.......

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...marijuana-laws

Legalization of cannabis at the federal level would require repeal of the Controlled Substances Act, which in turn would require the United States to withdraw from the international treaty known as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

This makes the question much bigger than "should marijuana be legal" and makes it necessary to consider bigger questions such as:

"Should the United States be unilaterally withdrawing from longstanding obligations under international treaties?"

I would hate for the US to set such an example, lest other nations start unilaterally withdrawing from their longstanding treaty obligations to the United States.

Is it wise to give other nations carte blanche to back out of their treaty obligations in matters such as trade, food safety, extradition, peace, environmental issues, arms inspections, nuclear reductions, etc.?

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Legalization of cannabis at the federal level would require repeal of the Controlled Substances Act, which in turn would require the United States to withdraw from the international treaty known as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

This makes the question much bigger than "should marijuana be legal" and makes it necessary to consider bigger questions such as:

"Should the United States be unilaterally withdrawing from longstanding obligations under international treaties?"

I would hate for the US to set such an example, lest other nations start unilaterally withdrawing from their longstanding treaty obligations to the United States.

Is it wise to give other nations carte blanche to back out of their treaty obligations in matters such as trade, food safety, extradition, peace, environmental issues, arms inspections, nuclear reductions, etc.?

Cannabis could easily be rescheduled and probably de-scheduled With a executive order.
Once rescheduled it would not meet the priority of the controlled substances act. Effectively removing it and keeping the CSA in place and the treaties in place.

Rescheduling and making it a non priority for law enforcement. That would be a good start. If there is nothing in it for them like asset forfeiture and keeping bodies in the prison industrial complex they wouldn't even bother. That would be a big step forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Legalization of cannabis at the federal level would require repeal of the Controlled Substances Act, which in turn would require the United States to withdraw from the international treaty known as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

This makes the question much bigger than "should marijuana be legal" and makes it necessary to consider bigger questions such as:

"Should the United States be unilaterally withdrawing from longstanding obligations under international treaties?"

I would hate for the US to set such an example, lest other nations start unilaterally withdrawing from their longstanding treaty obligations to the United States.

Is it wise to give other nations carte blanche to back out of their treaty obligations in matters such as trade, food safety, extradition, peace, environmental issues, arms inspections, nuclear reductions, etc.?

Originally Posted by Clampy

Cannabis could easily be rescheduled and probably de-scheduled With a executive order.
Once rescheduled it would not meet the priority of the controlled substances act. Effectively removing it and keeping the CSA in place and the treaties in place.

Rescheduling and making it a non priority for law enforcement. That would be a good start. If there is nothing in it for them like asset forfeiture and keeping bodies in the prison industrial complex they wouldn't even bother. That would be a big step forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

You might want to check your facts. Cannabis is a Schedule 1 substance, but making it legal for recreational use under the treaty is not as simple as de/rescheduling it. The treaty provisions explicitly require cannabis production, possession, and use all to be illegal, and the treaty provisions also explicitly require enforcement of prohibitions on cultivation.

It is possible that cannabis could be rescheduled for medical uses while complying with the treaty provisions, but this would require much more than an executive order, it would require cooperation and willingness from the Secretary for Health and Human Services, the DEA, the FDA, and the President. And even if rescheduled for medical uses, the binding treaty requires all cannabis cultivation to take place under the strict oversight of a single government agency, which takes possession and control of the entire crop every year. In the US, the National Institute for Drug Abuse fulfills that function.

Constitutional separation of powers and the due process clause do not permit the executive branch to abrogate treaties and laws passed by Congress to codify treaty provisions. Due process of both legislative and executive branches is necessary to put treaty provisions and laws in place, and due process of both legislative and executive branches is needed to change the law. Even so, it would still be unwise for the US to act unilaterally without reaching new agreements with international partners, since these partners reasonably expect the US to live up to duly agreed upon treaty stipulations.

If the US starts unilaterally breaking treaties due to popular (internal) opinion, other nations will think twice before complying with existing treaties and making new treaties. This could have a negative impact on trade, food safety, extradition, peace, environmental issues, arms inspections, nuclear reductions, etc.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You might want to check your facts. Cannabis is a Schedule 1 substance, but making it legal for recreational use under the treaty is not as simple as de/rescheduling it. The treaty provisions explicitly require cannabis production, possession, and use all to be illegal, and the treaty provisions also explicitly require enforcement of prohibitions on cultivation.

It is possible that cannabis could be rescheduled for medical uses while complying with the treaty provisions, but this would require much more than an executive order, it would require cooperation and willingness from the Secretary for Health and Human Services, the DEA, the FDA, and the President. And even if rescheduled for medical uses, the binding treaty requires all cannabis cultivation to take place under the strict oversight of a single government agency, which takes possession and control of the entire crop every year. In the US, the National Institute for Drug Abuse fulfills that function.

Constitutional separation of powers and the due process clause do not permit the executive branch to abrogate treaties and laws passed by Congress to codify treaty provisions. Due process of both legislative and executive branches is necessary to put treaty provisions and laws in place, and due process of both legislative and executive branches is needed to change the law. Even so, it would still be unwise for the US to act unilaterally without reaching new agreements with international partners, since these partners reasonably expect the US to live up to duly agreed upon treaty stipulations.

If the US starts unilaterally breaking treaties due to popular (internal) opinion, other nations will think twice before complying with existing treaties and making new treaties. This could have a negative impact on trade, food safety, extradition, peace, environmental issues, arms inspections, nuclear reductions, etc.

This fantasy world which you live in where the check's and balances system actually still works and is in place is very cute....

You are well aware that effectively all euro countries have "decriminalized" cannabis use on a personal scale, Most euro nations handle it with either small fines (similar to what we give people here for minor speeding infractions) or "warning" tickets. A couple have gone a bit further, some a bit less.

The following CBS article discusses this, and refers to studies showing that the US has the highest rates of drug abuse worldwide. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500368_162-4222322.html

I have no doubt that your also well aware that we lead the entire world in percentage of population that we imprison. It is easily documentable to show that we imprison our citizens at a rate 5-10 times higher than any other civilized country.

There couldn't be any chance that the extraordinarily stupid method in which we have waged our "war on drugs" could have anything to do with that huh?

I sincerely doubt that any international coalition would object to the US taking a more reasonable approach in how it deals with the drug trade.


I don't doubt that your correct in guessing that there probably won't be meaningful change in 1 discussion, The Alcohol, Tobacco, Pharma, and Prison lobbys have undoubtably bought of more than enough folks to make sure nothing sensible is going to happen.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Legalization of cannabis at the federal level would require repeal of the Controlled Substances Act, which in turn would require the United States to withdraw from the international treaty known as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

This makes the question much bigger than "should marijuana be legal" and makes it necessary to consider bigger questions such as:

"Should the United States be unilaterally withdrawing from longstanding obligations under international treaties?"

I would hate for the US to set such an example, lest other nations start unilaterally withdrawing from their longstanding treaty obligations to the United States.

Is it wise to give other nations carte blanche to back out of their treaty obligations in matters such as trade, food safety, extradition, peace, environmental issues, arms inspections, nuclear reductions, etc.?

Yeah because the US is known for listening to, and abiding by International agreements and mandates. We are beating the drums of war right now with Syria, It has already been stated by this administration that it's no longer a question of should but a question of WHEN. This even though the UN has warned countries not to take action until it is determined WHO used the chemical agents.

In regards to how this applies to cannabis legalization, All it can be viewed as is as a beginning to some much needed discussion on how to most effectively change from the current failed policies, to ones of legalization / decriminalization and regulation.



As far as there being laws both international and in the US banning this. Here's a short handpicked list of some of our nations current more stupid laws STILL in affect. (in other words just because its on the books does not mean its a good / enforceable law)



1. In Oklahoma, you can be arrested for making ugly faces at a dog.
2. In Salt Lake County, Utah, it’s illegal to walk down the street carrying a violin in a paper bag.
3. In San Francisco, it’s illegal to pile horse manure more than six feet high on a street corner.
4. In Devon, Texas, it is against the law to make furniture while you are nude.
5. In Bozeman, Montana, a law prohibits all sexual activity from the front yard of a home after sundown.
6. In California it is illegal for a vehicle without a driver to exceed 60 miles per hour. (that would be one clever trick)
7. In Florida men seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown can be fined.
8. In South Carolina it is legal to beat your wife on the court house steps on Sundays.
9. In Tennessee, you are breaking the law if you drive while sleeping.
10. In New York, the penalty for jumping off a building is: Death.
11. In Danville, Pennsylvania, all fire hydrants must be checked one hour before all fires.
12. In Connersville, Wisconsin, during sexual intercourse, it is against the law for a man to fire his gun whilst the woman in having an orgasm.
13. In Pennsylvania, it’s against the law to tie a dollar bill on a string on the ground and pull it away when someone tries to pick it up.
14. In New York City, it’s illegal for a restaurant to call a sandwich a “corned beef sandwich” if it’s made with white bread and mayonnaise.
15. In San Francisco, California it is unlawful to use used underwear to wipe off cars in a car wash.
16. In France, it is against the law to sell an “E.T” doll. They have a law forbidding the sale of dolls that do not have human faces.
17. In Louisiana, biting someone with your natural teeth is considered “simple assault,” but biting someone with your dentures is “aggravated assault.”
18. In the state of Washington, it is illegal to have sex with a virgin under any circumstances. (Including the wedding night.)
19. In Switzerland, it is illegal for a man to relieve himself while standing up after 10pm.
20. In Florida, it is illegal to fart in a public place after 6 P.M. on Thursdays.
21. In Massachusetts, it is illegal to go to bed without first having a bath. (However, another law prohibits bathing on Sunday)
22. In Jidda, Saudi Arabia, women were banned from using hotel swimming pools in 1979.
23. In Samoa, it’s a crime to forget your own wife’s birthday.
24. In Alabama, prison guards are forbidden from referring to their spouses as “the old ball-n-chain.”
25. In London, England it is illegal for a City cab to carry rabid dogs or corpses.
26. In England, it is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament.
27. In England, it is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the Queen upside down.
28. In Los Angeles, CA it’s illegal for a waiter to tell a customer “I’m really an actor.”
29. In Indiana, it’s against the law to dress ‘Barbie’ in ‘Ken’s’ clothes.
30. In Sedona, Ariz., it’s illegal to lie about your astrological sign.
31. In Texas, it’s illegal to threaten somebody with an UNLOADED gun.
32. In Australia, it’s illegal to name any animal you plan to eat.
33. In Cannes, France, it’s illegal to wear a Jerry Lewis mask.
34. In New Jersey, answering a traffic cop who asks “Do you know why I pulled you over?” by saying,“If you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you” is an automatic $300 fine.
35. In York (England), it is legal to kill a Scotsman within the ancient city boundary, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow.

[Goooh]

Treaties are not eternal. If the UN existed a couple hundred years ago, there would have surely been some treaties based on slavery - undoubtedly, those would have been washed away.

Being that the US contributes more to the UN than any other country, and the fact that these treaties are like a deadbolt keeping honest thieves out, I doubt the retraction due to hemp or marijuana legalization would have a profound effect on anything.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[mr crab]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Treaties are not eternal. If the UN existed a couple hundred years ago, there would have surely been some treaties based on slavery - undoubtedly, those would have been washed away.

Being that the US contributes more to the UN than any other country, and the fact that these treaties are like a deadbolt keeping honest thieves out, I doubt the retraction due to hemp or marijuana legalization would have a profound effect on anything.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Tru dat trudat

[cgoods17]

are yall still talking about this?

Geez, go bounce the hen or somethin..

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

are yall still talking about this?

Geez, go bounce the hen or somethin..

It's almost dead. He is running out of stuff for us to debunk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Clampy

It's almost dead. He is running out of stuff for us to debunk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

DUDE!!!!

why you gotta egg him on... Now he's going to have the moral fuel to go another 200 responses..

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

DUDE!!!!

why you gotta egg him on... Now he's going to have the moral fuel to go another 200 responses..

Because its funny to me.
I wonder if Gaftop Slime was found out to be psychoactive ? What would be his stance on it ?
We would undoubtedly have to kill all gafttops. Drug dealers of the fish world !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Clampy

Because its funny to me.
I wonder if Gaftop Slime was found out to be psychoactive ? What would be his stance on it ?
We would undoubtedly have to kill all gafttops. Drug dealers of the fish world !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Man, it's a hard world out there. Poor brother Trout and uncle Red getting chased by all dem fishermans! Why's the man wan't to take away there only form of recreation... Legalize the Slime!

[Clampy]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Clampy]

Darn it Ace! We imprison those adults to save the kids and dogs. Don't you get it man. We must continue to fight the
"War on ... Certain American Citizens using non alcoholic , non pharmaceutical , tobacco free
Drugs"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[duckman1911]

And the never ending battle continues no matter what forum you go to.lol. This subject has about a million miles of gray area and no resolution will ever be found that suits everyone. For the most part I think drugs should be legal (dont do any of them and have no plans to) within certain guidelines. Me personaly I dont care if mom and dad meth themselves out as long as their kids have food on the table. And a good place to live and all their needs are met. I drink and I smoke but dont smoke around my kids and i dont get behind the wheel after i've had a few. It comes down to a moral and concious decision on the adults part. That starts a whole other libertarian debate on whether the police are allowed to police people engaged in a legal activity. Its a no win situation

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

And the never ending battle continues no matter what forum you go to.lol. This subject has about a million miles of gray area and no resolution will ever be found that suits everyone. For the most part I think drugs should be legal (dont do any of them and have no plans to) within certain guidelines. Me personaly I dont care if mom and dad meth themselves out as long as their kids have food on the table. And a good place to live and all their needs are met. I drink and I smoke but dont smoke around my kids and i dont get behind the wheel after i've had a few. It comes down to a moral and concious decision on the adults part. That starts a whole other libertarian debate on whether the police are allowed to police people engaged in a legal activity. Its a no win situation

Well heck, you sound like a reasonable fellow to me.

[Average Fisherman]

And the Feds just released a statement saying they will respect states rights and allow these laws to go into effect in Colorado and Washington.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Average Fisherman

And the Feds just released a statement saying they will respect states rights and allow these laws to go into effect in Colorado and Washington.

A small step to be sure, but at least it's one in the correct direction.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/A...3-opa-974.html

[BassAssasin]

Originally Posted by Average Fisherman

And the Feds just released a statement saying they will respect states rights and allow these laws to go into effect in Colorado and Washington.

Wish they would respect states rights on most stuff. Giving more power back to the state would be a step in the right direction.