United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Marijuana

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Nov 21, 2012.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The United Nations has declared Colorado and Washington in violation of international treaties following ballot initiatives that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana.

    The President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Raymond Yans, has voiced “grave concern about the outcome of recent referenda in the United States of America that would allow the non-medical use of cannabis by adults in the states of Colorado and Washington, and in some cities in the states of Michigan and Vermont,” according to an INCB press release. The INCB is a quasi-judicial “control organ” for the implementation of the United Nations drug conventions.

    Mr. Yans said the referenda in Colorado and Washington state “are in violation of the international drug control treaties, and pose a great threat to public health and the well-being of society far beyond those states.” Yans cited the standard nanny-state reasons for dictating what consenting adult Americans put in their bodies, including mental disorders, and cited the welfare of children as a primary concern of the internationalist organization.

    “Legalization of cannabis within these states would send wrong and confusing signals to youth and society in general, giving the false impression that drug abuse might be considered normal and even, most disturbingly, safe. Such a development could result in the expansion of drug abuse, especially among young people, and we must remember that all young people have a right to be protected from drug abuse and drug dependency,” the globalist bureaucrat said.

    Yans called for the U.S. federal government to “resolve the contradiction between the federal and state levels in the implementation of that country’s obligations under the drug control conventions” and demanded it “take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties within the entire territory of the United States, in order to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.”

    In other words, the United Nations insists the federal government perpetuate the destructive and expensive War on Drugs that has fostered a massive prison-industrial complex and ruined countless lives over the last few decades.

    CONTINUE . . .

    It won't be long until we start hearing how states that allow their citizens to own guns are in violation of international treaties. Welcome to the New World Order where our federal government is commanded by unelected globalist bureaucrats to squash states rights.

    Law Enforcement Leaders Ask Department of Justice to Respect State Marijuana Laws

    Group Cites Public Safety Concerns Created by Illegal Marketplace

    Teleconference With Colorado and Washington Law Enforcers at 12:00 PM ET

    WASHINGTON, DC – This morning a former narcotics cop delivered a letter signed by 73 current and former police officers, judges, prosecutors and federal agents to Attorney General Eric Holder urging him not to interfere with the wishes of the voters of Colorado and Washington State to legalize and regulate marijuana.

    "We seem to be at a turning point in how our society deals with marijuana," said Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the group that authored the letter. "The war on marijuana has funded the expansion of drug cartels, it has destroyed community-police relations and it has fostered teenage use by creating an unregulated market where anyone has easy access. Prohibition has failed. Pretty much everyone knows it, especially those of us who dedicated our lives to enforcing it. The election results show that the people are ready to try something different. The opportunity clearly exists for President Obama and Attorney General Holder to do the right thing and respect the will of the voters."


    LEAP

    Some of the people who have been on the front lines of the drug war seem to have a different perspective than the globalists at the
    International Narcotics Control Board. Anyone care to venture a guess who's side Obama and Holder will be on? I'm going to guess they aren't going to be on the side of the voters.
     
    #1 poncho, Nov 21, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2012
  2. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have the leaders of the US signed a treaty that allows the UN the authority to demand that the US

    “take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties within the entire territory of the United States, in order to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.” ??

    Yep.

    snip from a long article on the history of this that goes back to the Old League of Nations.

    The "New World Order" has been in place for a while. We're just seeing more evidence of it actually being implemented.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The problem with any international treaty that is based on a false premise is that's it's based on a false premise. The "war on drugs" has done more to endanger our children and our society than the drugs themselves.

    Prohibition does not work. We learned that a long time ago. The only people who benefit from the war on drugs are the drug cartels and the banks that launder the estimated 500 billion dollars a year generated from global drug trade. The globalists aren't worried about the health and well-being of our citizens they are worried about the loss of profits they would suffer if the "war on drugs" were ended.

    They do a good job of feigning compassion for others but in the end their international treaties are meant to further erode our national sovereignty and put an end to our constitutional republic. They want our guns now and they're trying to get them through an international treaty. Will our leaders sign it? Obama will sign it, enthusiastically.
     
    #3 poncho, Nov 21, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2012
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,633
    Likes Received:
    310
    Who'da thought the UN would recognize States Rights. The UN doesn't like what they are doing. But, by their position, the UN assumes the States' actions trump the Federal position. Which, as we have found out in California, is still very much in prohibition mode.
     
  5. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't see where the UN is recognizing states rights at all. They are aware of the events that occurred in those states. If they recognized states rights they would not be calling on the Fed to attack freedom loving people. Acknowledgment of the action does not equal recognizing it.
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, the standard is the Constitution, for the one thousandth time. Treaties are negotiated with individual independent states and ratified by the Senate. End of story.

    So does the recreational use of marijuana make one see global conspiracy theories clearer?
     
  7. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    SN, there's a whole lot more behind this than someone smoking a little recreational weed. The above is just the introduction to the body of the article.

    The mechanics of treaty approval isn't the problem. Every time an international body is given authorization to dictate the course of events within the boundries of the US, more of our sovereignty is given away.

    Can you imagine our founders approving treaties that would give an inch of governance of the US to another govermental body? Does the Constitution include a provision for this? (I don't know, I've never looked it up, but should have. )
     
    #7 Oldtimer, Nov 21, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2012
  8. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no provision in the Constitution for a UN transfer of American sovereignty. The United States decided on its own to establish the UN, fund the UN, and participate in the UN. That is not the basis for international relations in the Constitution. We are to have bilateral or mutilateral treaties approved by the Senate.

    The UN has no authority over us except what the US Government has given away. There seems to be a false linking of the politicians not following the Constitution, which they have not for years through both parties in power, and an international global conspiracy. The two have nothing to do with each other. The first one can be proven, the second one cannot.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    I do not support drug use bit the UN can take a long walk off a short pier.
     
  10. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen to that. It kind of destroys the conspiracy theory. To believe the theory, one must agree with the legalization of marijuana and be against the UN. As Rev Mitchell, I am against both. All it would take to put the UN out of existence is for the United States to withdraw funding.
     
  11. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Start a petition. Get 25,000 signers and the WH has to acknowledge it!
     
  12. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's the whole point. The US has given away its sovereignty, bit by bit and is continuing to do so.

    And, IMO, there is no false linking of politicians and "global conspiracy". They have everything to do with each other. Just in a little different aspect from what some view.

    No, I don't believe there's a single group, sitting somewhere in a smoke filled room "conspiring" to bring about a New World Order. A group of international bankers, a group of elite, a group of 1%, or whatever label some wish to apply. Focusing on that misses the big picture. Which is exactly what those in power want the common folk to do. Stereotyping EVERYONE opposed to them as alien invasion tin foil hat deranged individuals.

    Let me switch for a moment to a couple of talking points:
    Anarchy vs Totalitarianism
    Conservative vs Progressive
    Perhaps, even Good vs Evil

    In the context of this discussion Anarchy = chaos due to a lack of an agreed upon set of rules of conduct for everyday activities. When the colonies (states) met to establish these rules, the result was the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights. A limited government with the role of coordinating the defense of the newly formed nation and a limited role in regulating some interactions between the states. Taking the nation just a few small steps to the left of anarchy.

    A good definition of totalitarianism is found here. (Wish I could quote in it's entirety.)
    Since the founding of this country, groups of people, for their own agenda, have pushed to move this country towards the left, towards totalitarianism. Progressives, if you will, vs Conservatives resisting that shift.

    One such group are environmentalists. They push for government intervention into every aspect of men's activities that can bring "harm" to Mother Earth. Yes, they may conspire among themselves as how to best achieve their goals. Thus, they see the UN as a way to accomplish them globally.

    Another group are, indeed, the money men. The 1% as some call them. Yes, bankers can and probably do conspire among themselves, as evidenced by our "global economy" that has been established. However, they couldn't accomplish all of this by themselves. It took cooperation with other groups of Progressives to accomplish that.

    Another catagory is big business, growing their bottom line. Using GE as the example. GE cooperated with bankers and environmentalists to further their goals. Conspiracy? Not necessarily, as none was needed. Every time environmentalists were able to push something through the US government and/or the UN, it suited the purposes of GE who wanted to capture the "green energy" market. The global market.

    Politicians moving this country away from the Constitution couldn't have done it alone. They received support from those who wanted the same goals, regardless of whether it was bankers conspiring with each other or environmentalists doing the same. Add to those two all the other factions from Christianity foes to you name the group.

    Whether we like it or not. Whether we agree with it or not. The fact remains that the US has, bit by bit transferred sovereignty to the United Nations. Various groups have conspired, within their groups, to make this happen.

    Some look at the issue about recreational use of marijuana and the UN involvement as no big deal. Same thing with UN poll watchers. On the surface, marijuana may not be a big deal, until you look at what is entailed within the authority that has been granted to the UN by the US and others. (Look at the drug list the UN has been authorized to dictate management.)

    Since WWI and the defunct League of Nations the US has been steadly yielding sovereignty. In the aftermath of WWII and the revival of the LoN, the United Nations, the pace of surrender has increased rapidly. How often, in recent years has the US gone to the UN seeking approval for her actions? Often without going to Congress -- undeclared wars, for example.

    Looking forward.....

    If some civil disturbance within the borders of the US comes about, will the US forcibly eject UN Peace Keepers when they arrive on our shores?

    As this nation is continuing to reject God, to remove Him from the public square (manger scene battles in the news yesterday), will our conquerors wear blue helmets?
     
  13. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Realistically speaking, how much chance is there that will happen?
     
  14. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    When we elect a serious president.
     
  15. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    We need to revise the song in Colorado to "its good to smoke the green, green grass of home."
     
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I have to wonder what drugs some of you are on. Forgetful pills I would imagine. For what other reason could you not remember the history of the 1st time we tried prohibition and what a huge failure it was and what the cost to society was with gang violence from booze traffickers.

    Prohibition doesn't work. Al Capone loved prohibition. It made him rich and powerful.

    The drug cartels love prohibition. It makes them rich and powerful.

    The government loves prohibition it gives them another excuse to waste tax money and trample our rights.

    And most of you love prohibition not because it makes you rich and powerful but because you just want to control what other people do and it makes you feel like you are better than someone else. Evidently you'd rather keep drugs in the hands of school children and gang violence on our streets than admit a proven fact.

    Prohibition doesn't work.

    I always thought conservatives were smart enough to look at a problem and weigh the costs vs the benefits and come to intelligent conclusions. Apparently I've given conservatives way too much credit. Next time you read about a Mexican drug cartel murdering a bunch of people give yourself a big ole pat on the back because if it weren't for your continued support of a failed drug policy the violence associated with prohibition would have never reached the level it has. You should be proud of your part in keeping the violence going.


    Some people just never learn. :tonofbricks:
     
    #16 poncho, Nov 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2012
  17. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >When we elect a serious president.

    I don't trust anyone who wants the job.
     
  18. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, and you top the list. You do not have the moral authority to tell anyone they do not understand. First of all, you have to read the Constitution. Next, you have to have practical experience to justify your theories. Going to websites to copy and paste, and maybe waving a flag at a 4th of July parade does not make the standard.
     
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No they wear three piece suits, smoke big cigars, ride around in stretch limos and buy up politicians. The people wearing blue helmets are just their enforcers.

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] One of the most alluring temptations that face men is the desire to enter the inner ring. C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay with this title. It should be part of every person's rite of passage into adulthood.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The desire to enter the inner ring is closely related to the desire to maintain a New World Order. There is always an institutional claimant to New World Order status. It is always structured in terms of a series of concentric rings. These rings are always vertical. They are part of a pyramid of power. They are best represented by a stepped pyramid. (See Genesis 11.)[/FONT]


    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Every empire has been founded in the name of – on behalf of – some version of a New World Order. Empires all have this in common: they are eventually replaced. There is nothing more defunct than a New World Order that has failed. Think "Ottoman Empire." Think "Thousand-Year Reich." Think "British Empire." Think "Soviet Union." [/FONT]


    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]When they are riding high, they seem unbeatable. What could possibly replace them? Most people cannot imagine anything. But there are always a few who can. They get together informally to help arrange the transition. Then they get together formally. They screen access to meetings. They set up a new inner ring.[/FONT]


    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In our day, the cry is "Next year, in Davos!" The best book on this is an insider's book, David Rothkopf's Superclass. It is not a conspiracy theory-type book. It is a "look how we've made it" book. It's a "top of the world, Ma!" book. He also sees that this superclass is vulnerable to changes outside of its control: in Asia, in the Third World. "We've made it" can become "we've lost it."[/FONT]


    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Count on it.[/FONT]


    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]You may not have time to read his book. You do have time to watch a couple of his videos. They are posted here.[/FONT]


    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In summary, here is his thesis. About 6,000 people, 94% male, average age 61, meet from time to time to set the agenda for the rest of us. Here is the central fact: about 30% of them attended one or more of about 20 elite universities.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Here, I want to focus on this final point: elite universities. Another book spoke of this, a book that became an instant pariah in the liberal Establishment: The Bell Curve. It was published in 1994.

    CONTINUE . . .
    [/FONT]
     
    #19 poncho, Nov 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2012
  20. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >That's the whole point. The US has given away its sovereignty, bit by bit and is continuing to do so.

    On the other hand, violating and breaking treaties is an American tradition. The US has broken several hundred treaties with it Indian People so there is nothing to worry about from the UN - "except our continually sending good money after bad."
     

Share This Page

Loading...