So the INCB came out with strongly worded statements against Uruguay and its marijuana legalization, but instead of cowering and giving in…
Uruguay President to defend legal marijuana at UN
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay (AP) â€” A spokesman for Uruguay’s President Jose Mujica said he will deliver a major speech defending the country’s marijuana licensing plan at the United Nations General Assembly next month.
Oh, and the Norwegian Green Party is calling for state marijuana production, plus decriminalization of other drugs.
Things have got to be a little uncomfortable in UN circles.
The US govt doesn’t want a debate in the UN anymore than it wants one in congress about the war on drugs because as long as they can keep all the debate away from a body that can change he game all that gets done is more debate.
Oh, boy. In a good way, I can say “I told you so!”.
I said a few years back that the South American nations, sick and tired of having been on the short, sharp and sh*tty end of the drug prohibition stick, would rebel, and they have. First Bolivia, now Uruguay. My money on who’s next is Brasil.
Push is (finally) coming to shove, in a way that unmistakeably ‘sends a message’ to the prohibs, who thought they were the only ones who could do the sending, and who felt they could ignore the ‘feedback’ from the victims of their insane policies.
Well, now it’s more than ‘feedback’; it’s blowback, and it’s been a long time coming. The SA nations are saying “Basta!”…and this time, the prohib world had better listen.
There is a score to settle, and I will buy tar and feathers for them all.
Colorado has lots of beetle killed trees. They would make great rails for riding tarred and feathered prohibicites out of town on.
Do you think the Middle East and Central Asia will be next? You’ve got to know those people are tired of war and terrorism . . . they’re tired of Americans, the U.N. and Europe going over there because some Afghan poppy and Turkish hash etc blew up an American embassy or 3, bombed a train and a buss, or flew some planes into buildings and killed troops. Whatever happened to Iran’s talk about decriminalization . . . will her new president really be as liberal as they say? What about Africa? Surely eyes can still see Guinea Bissau and the assassination of her president over some European cocaine . . . especially with the massive American troop draw ups in Africa. Uruguay is a shimmering hope for future nations.
On the nature of the War on Terror in Africa
(just one of many web sites . . . I first heard about it from a U.S. soldier who’s unit was going to Stanland, but part of he unit was going to Africa for the same deployment . . . leaves many???)
Another ‘back’ word I’d apply is backlash: “an abrupt, strong or violent adverse reaction, as to a political or social situation or development”. I’d say its time, and well past time for some.
The wheels are coming off the Prohibition Bus. The Bullies at the INCB are scurrying like the rats they are, only to find that no one is afraid of them.
With regards to the Norwegian green party, they were interviewed by a (ignorant) journalist from Aftenposten that was looking for headlines for the online paper, and hash is the best word to get click on the news article :/
Why give a speech defending your country’s plan to relegalize cannabis? We’re not the ones that need to be defensive. I’d devote your speech to condemning the UN for its support of the drug war’s systematic violations of basic human rights.
Whatâ€™s frightening is that human rights laws, as designated by the UN in the Geneva conventions and elsewhere, are a relatively new thing. Rights laws didnâ€™t enter into international law until after the Nazi defeat, when it became obvious laws needed to change. Human rights, as a natural right, is virtually absent from national and international discussions prior to WWII. The first international criminal court (ICC) wasnâ€™t established until 1998, and didnâ€™t conclude its first human rights case until 2012.
As we get further away from the war on fascism, the impetus for human rights fades. People forget. The old agendas return. Nations create a faÃ§ade wherein they portray themselves as incapable of doing wrong, even though the drug war is the closest thing weâ€™ve had to the inquisitions since the demise of that evil institution. Defeating prohibition will advance human rights throughout the world. With indisputable bravery, little Ecuador leads the way.
Then shouldnâ€™t the people press the ICC to condemn the cause and effect of the law (terrorism, genocide, regimes, guerillas, civil war, organized crime etc)? If the U.S. can sue an inanimate object (like a hotel), then surely the people can sue laws that automatically create negative cause and effect. All drug laws, be it the CSA or the U.N. Single Laws are the physical bodies of the drug black market and the market kills and wages war and funds war . . . to remove the drug laws is to remove the drug black market, hence physical body . . . the laws are the vessels of the drug black market. Or we can take it a step further: those in office, be it America, England, Russia or the U.N. etc, know the drug laws automatically create drug money and drug money automatically funds crimes and wars and attacks and this knowledge (a knowledge also based on previous examples i.e. Columbia, Mexico, Compton, 9/11 etc) creates intent . . . the intent of the drug law holders/overseers/enforcers was to create crime, murder, war, gang violence, terrorism, recession (since the War on Narco-Terror after 9/11 is a multi trillion dollar expose) . . . the intentions can be proven based on the knowledge of the negative consequences, and the willingness to allow them to happen.
ICC litigation is long and expensive. It deals with specific members of governments as defendants, people like General Pinochet.
There are other problems bringing human rights cases before the ICC. One is that the U.S. and a few other heavyweights like Russia and China havenâ€™t signed most of the new human rights treaties or agreements. Just signing an agreement is pointless if Congress doesnâ€™t ratify the treaty and incorporate the laws into the U.S. Code. As a result, the ICC canâ€™t get the cooperation of the U.S. to turn over it torture criminals.
The UN will sometimes set up a special tribunal that takes cases that have failed to be adjudicated by a host country due to politics, corruption, or new evidence. The UN recently accepted a lawsuit dealing with the Kent State massacre in Ohio. The UN action is a result of recent forensics exposing a covert culprit who was on the scene.
Ecuador? Did you mean Uruguay or did I miss a significant event?
It sure doesn’t look like “they” are going to be able to figure out how to pay off SeÃ±or Mujica. The man is a total lunatic and normal currencies are meaningless to him.
Thanks, Duncan, I meant Uruguay.
Is the UN losing its appeal?
on the bedpost overnight…