Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-04-2004, 05:54 PM
W00lygimp W00lygimp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 309
Default Re: Legalization of Drugs

The united is a SIGNATORY to the international anti-drug treaty. We cannot BY law legalize drugs.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-04-2004, 05:56 PM
EarlCat EarlCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 411
Default Re: Legalization of Drugs

[ QUOTE ]
The united is a SIGNATORY to the international anti-drug treaty. We cannot BY law legalize drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

and treaties are so difficult to break...
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-04-2004, 06:03 PM
jakethebake jakethebake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9
Default Re: Legalization of Drugs

[ QUOTE ]
The united is a SIGNATORY to the international anti-drug treaty. We cannot BY law legalize drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]I assume you meant United States? According to whose law? International law? Oh, and you can't change laws right? No one has ever changed or broken an international treaty? And we should always do whatever the rest of the world wants.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-04-2004, 06:07 PM
Trantor Trantor is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 12
Default Re: Legalization of Drugs

[ QUOTE ]
The united is a SIGNATORY to the international anti-drug treaty. We cannot BY law legalize drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Obligations of the UK Government under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961.

There is an 'urban myth' propagated by spinned-out Government Ministers, ignorant drug policy 'experts' and lazy journalists, that Britain's supposed 'obligations' under the Single Convention prevents the government from legalising cannabis (or other drugs).

In fact the Single Convention places no obligation on any signatory to make possession, production or distribution of any drug for personal use a criminal offense. This has always been accepted as at least a permissible interpretation by the United Nations itself, as the official commentary on the Convention makes clear. ('Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs', 1961, United Nations, New York, 1973.)

The working papers of the Shafer Commission contain a detailed discussion of this point, reaching the conclusion that: "although a country may decide that possession for personal use should be a punishable offense, there is nothing in the Convention which requires it to do so". (Marihuana: Signal of Misunderstanding: The Shafer Report, Appendix, Vol. 1,Technical Papers, p 533.)

The most authoritative interpretation is that of Professor Adolph Lande, who as Deputy Executive Secretary of the Plenipotentiary Conference, acted as chief draftsman of the Convention: "The terms 'possession' and 'purchase' used in the penal provisions of the Single Convention mean only possession and purchase for the purpose of illicit traffic. Consequently unauthorised possession and acquisition of narcotic drugs for personal consumption need not be treated under the Single Convention either as punishable offenses or as serious offenses". (A. Lande The International Drug Control System in Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, Appendix, Technical Papers, Vol. III, p 129.)

The correct interpretation of the penal provisions of the Single Convention is that they deal only with the production and supply of drugs; acts incidental to personal use are not within its scope. It follows that not only possession but cultivation and distribution are required to be punishable only insofar as they are related to commercial trafficking not personal consumption.

1. It is open to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, acting on the recommendation of the World health Organisation, to delete cannabis from the schedules to the Convention.

2. Cannabis could be removed from the scope of control by an amendment to the Convention proposed by any party and discussed by a special conference called for the purpose by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It was with this in mind that the Dutch delegate to the Council

(19th April 1978) proposed that the Convention should be amended "so as to enable each party to decide for itself the extent to which cannabis may be allowed for personal use".

3. Any party to the Convention may legally withdraw from it on six months notice. The commonly used argument that for Britain to do this would lead to a breakdown in the international system of control of opiates, or even prevent the UK from obtaining opiates for legitimate use is simply not true. Ireland is not a signatory and they suffer no inconvenience. The reality is the system of control is applied to every country in the world whether it has signed the Convention or not. The International Narcotics Control Board is specifically authorised to do this by Articles 12, 13, 14 and 21 of the Convention.

4. The Vienna Convention of 1969 introduced the procedure of 'selective denunciation', which provides that a country may unilaterally withdraw from part of a treaty to which it is a party on various grounds, including "error of fact" in which the treaty itself and "fundamental change of circumstances". (The relevance of these provisions is considered in: Lienward The International Law of Treaties and US Legalisation of Marijuana, Columbia J Transnet. Law 1971 10(2) 413.)

5. The prohibition on non-medical use of drugs does not extend to cannabis leaves, and the prohibition of cultivation of the cannabis plant does not extend to cultivation for any purpose which does not involve the separation of the flowering and fruiting tops, or the resin, from the rest of the plant. (A Lands The International Drug Control System in Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, Appendix, Technical Papers, Vol III, p 129.)

source http://www.ccguide.org.uk/treaties.html
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-04-2004, 06:26 PM
pokerjo22 pokerjo22 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 240
Default Re: Legalization of Drugs

[ QUOTE ]
MDMA, or otherwise known as Ecstasy, has never killed a monkey brain cell even when the monkey was given 600 times the intoxication dose

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a reference for that? I'd be interested. Also was it 600 times the primate dose or 600 times the human dose?

I remember the Science paper a year or so ago, where something like 2 out of 6 of the monkeys died after having a human equivalent ecstasy dose, and a lot of their dopaminergic cells had been killed, but it later turned out that through a labelling mistake they'd given them meth, not Ecstasy. Has there been a more recent study since?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-04-2004, 08:27 PM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default Bring Out The Gimp

W00ly Gimp, I have a serious question for you:

Politics; world history; religion; and now ..drugs. The question is:

When are you gonna post on something you are not ridiculously ignorant about?


[ QUOTE ]
...a drug so potent it kills a high rate of users ... drugs that will drive people insane causing them to commit haneous [sic] crimes ... Thats like saying If we legalized bank robbery, bank robberies would decline ... Imagine your doctor getting high while performing surgery ... Build more prisons ... prisons create jobs ... alchohol (which I hope they never ban) can kill entire families ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-04-2004, 08:55 PM
tolbiny tolbiny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: Legalization of Drugs

"You don't ban cars because they kill people"

We do however ban unsafe cars, and enfore strict requirements for safty equipment.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-04-2004, 09:13 PM
Shaun Shaun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 125
Default Re: Drugs SHOULD be Legal

The Republicans talk about freedom to fail when it comes to economics, which I agree with completely, but when it comes to one's personal life they aren't interested. Millions of dollars are wasted fighting a "drug war" that amounts to putting a lot of people in jail for smoking pot. Similarly we must endure ad after ad discussing the dangers of marijuana- not crack, not heroin, but pot- less dangerous than a glass of scotch.

The illegality of drugs creates a huge blackmarket, and it is this- the economic reality of the drug war- that leads to the violent crime asscoiated with drugs. One can kill one's self with many many legal substances. A true doctrine of freedom entrusts decisions about one's life to the citizens, so long as one does not infringe upon another's life, liberty, or property.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-04-2004, 09:42 PM
ThaSaltCracka ThaSaltCracka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 983
Default Re: Bring Out The Gimp

Cyrus,
easily your funniest post.
[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.