63 percent of Americans agree legal pot is a state’s rights issue

[Playinghardball]

Obama's other option on pot: Legalize it for everyone?

With half or more Americans now favoring legalizing marijuana, President Obama has one bold option that few experts are talking about: Raising the white flag and ending the federal war on pot.

To be sure, many legal experts believe the US Department of Justice instead is preparing to block new regulatory schemes passed by voters last month in Washington and Colorado that legalize and regulate the selling, possession, and use of marijuana. One option is to invoke Article 6 of the Constitution, which says federal law is "the supreme law of the land."

But despite the constraints of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act in which Congress cemented its stance that marijuana is highly dangerous and has no legitimate medical use, the Obama administration does have legal authority to relabel marijuana as either a less dangerous drug or, as Washington and Colorado have done, classify it alongside alcohol as a legal drug. Such a move could partially or wholly end federal marijuana oversight.

"Maybe this will be the moment when the feds are prepared to revisit marijuana prohibition," says Josh Meisel, co-director of the Humboldt Institute for Interdisciplinary Marijuana Research in California. "At the federal level … I could see a scenario of marijuana regulation" ending.

The Christian Science Monitor (http://s.tt/1wjTW)

[Le Taz Hot]

1. There is now NO reason

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Obama and the Democrats should be supporting this money pit resulting in utter failure that is this War on (Some) Drugs. They can't justify it fiscally, scientifically or politically. They have NO cover now. Let's see what the Administration and the Democrats do with it.

[Recursion]

2. There are obligations to UN treaties

The US Government doesn't exactly have the liberty to ignore which laws and treaties it will follow, unfortunately.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. Can you be specific?

ETA: Specifics regarding UN treaties.

[Recursion]

4. The main instrument is the 1988 UNCAITNDPS

United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

This is the UN schedule. Cannabis is Schedule I.

[Scuba]

6. You need to be more specific about how legalization, as other countries have done, violates.

[Recursion]

9. As article 3 says

Subject to its constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system, each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention.

As a practical matter, what this means is LatAm countries may stop remitting seized drug money to us.

[green for victory]

11. which countries legalized?

it hasn't been "legal" even in Amsterdam-just small amounts tolerated. Growers are raided often

[Scuba]

19. Portugal for one.

[randome]

22. They decriminalized. Not legalized.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. This was enacted in 1990

and was largely pushed by the Bush (I) Administration. It was nothing more than a political move which merely took the War on Drugs on an international scale. And as an incentive for voting with us, we sent aid. Finally, and let's be real here, we're the U.S. and what the U.S. wants, the U.S. almost always gets in the U.N.

The Schedule I placement was enacted by none other than Richard Nixon (he had to coerce Congress -- and did -- to enable the President to set Schedule levels). He had commissioned a study to establish the great harm caused by cannabis. To his dismay, the commission came back with exactly the opposite conclusion. This pissed off Nixon which is where the Schedule I comes from.

The UN Scheduling is nothing more than an extension of this policy and, with many more up-to-date studies confirming the original commissions' conclusion, there is virtually NO reason cannabis should remain a Schedule I substance.

[Recursion]

10. I agree. But the solution is to change that, not to simply ignore the treaty (nt)

[Le Taz Hot]

14. Then let's change it.

If they want to keep the other substances in place, I could live with that. But let's take cannabis out of the equation as the Schedule I prohibition can no longer be justified.

[Recursion]

18. Write to Secretary Clinton. Quito is in the spring

If there's a time to do it, it's then.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Right.

And a Centrist Democrat is going to listen? Pressure needs to come from within the country and I think we can see that with the poll the OP provided. Those numbers aren't going to go down anytime soon and the pols are only going to be able to ignore that reality for so long. They live and die by the polls and sooner or later, they'll have to come around -- including the Centrist Democrats.

[BlueCaliDem]

23. We should also write all our congresscritters, from Rep to Senator to President so that they know

we know about it and we want it changed.

It's ridiculous to label Cannabis as a Schedule I substance. The stuff is harmless and it does more good than bad for us unwashed masses in so many ways - unlike cigarette tobacco and alcohol!

[Recursion]

26. Wait til RJR and Brown & Williamson get their hands on it

It won't be nearly so innocuous if it's commercialized

[BlueCaliDem]

27. You're right, although pure MJ is a natural product

and natural products cannot be patented. Sure, they can add some stuff to it (like they do with *tobacco) and patent that blend, but who wants their pure MJ sullied with?

It's a no-win for those mega-corporations.

MJ is perfect as is, and needs no "blending".

[Recursion]

12. Also, the Single Convention was in '61, under that arch-conservative JFK (nt)

[Le Taz Hot]

17. And in 2012,

we've much more scientific data that negates the reasons cannabis should be on the list in the first place. It's time to move to a more sane and scientifically justifiable update to the current treaty. Just because "it's the way it is" doesn't mean it's the way it should remain.

[green for victory]

13. better have a little chit-chat with Joey "Drug Warrior" Biden

He created the Drug Czar after all

Joe Biden's Awful Record on Drug Policy

Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about).

Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act...

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/aug/24/joe_bidens_awful_record_drug_pol

As chairman of the International Narcotics Control Caucus, Biden wrote the laws that created the U.S. "Drug Czar", who oversees and coordinates national drug control policy. In April 2003, he introduced the controversial Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, also known as the RAVE Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_biden

[Le Taz Hot]

20. I'm aware of Biden's role

as well as his participation in getting Clarence Thomas on the SC by suppressing testimony. Don't even get me started on Biden.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. Thank you for this.

Now, at least, I know why the DoJ has been enforcing law against MJ.

This is the first time I've heard of this, and yet it's been around since 1988.

Our 4th Estate is seriously dropping the ball here, not informing the electorate but merely pitting the people against the U.S. Gov't. I guess they're merely doing their part in keeping the people divided. It makes it easier for corporations to control us.

[Recursion]

16. My fiancee is a foreign service officer who currently does drug policy with the UN

(Yes, she hates it.) That's the only reason I even know about it, because her counterparts from other countries have been sending her nastygrams about it.

[BlueCaliDem]

24. You're a lucky

guy/gal to have such a knowledgeable fiancee. Thanks so much for this information. Now we need to get to work on it by contacting our congresscritters and president, and perhaps shoot e-mails to CurrentTV and the evening lineup on MSNBC (forget other corporate media - they knew about this and did nothing to inform us!).

[TheKentuckian]

29. You do understand that we don't have to allow any UN sanction?

We've done far worse, they'll be aight.

In fact, no one will fight it at all. The UN will fold like a cheap tent on the issue and follow suite without US resources footing the bill and leading the charge.

It as irrelevant as a practical matter but a possibly sticky objection for some. Not me, I know it is bullshit we shoved into the mix anyway.

[green for victory]

5. here

United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Illicit_Traffic_in_Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances

FWIW the Netherlands is a signatory

[Le Taz Hot]

8. Please see reply #7

[hobbit709]

25. Which treaties were pushed hard by the US to start with.

Blame Harry J. Anslinger for that.

[WillyT]

28. HUGE K & R !!!