HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » United Nations Says Chang...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:54 AM

United Nations Says Changing U.S. Marijuana Laws Violate International Drug Conventions

Source: The Guardian

By Alan Travis, The Guardian
Tuesday, March 5, 2013 9:57 EST

Cannabis decriminalisation measures across the United States, including the medical use of marijuana in California, have been sharply criticised by the United Nations, which has warned Washington they violate the international drug conventions.

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), which polices the drug treaties, has also warned about the growing public health threat from the “unprecedented surge” in “legal highs” and called for concerted global action to curb the growing trade.

Launching its annual report in London, Raymond Yans, the INCB president, said that the successful ballots in Colorado and Washington to legalise the use of cannabis for recreational purposes and the fact that Massachusetts had recently become the 18th state to allow the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes violate the international drug conventions.

“They also undermine the humanitarian aims of the drug control system and are a threat to public health and wellbeing,” said Yans. He claimed that so-called “medicinal use” initiatives were little more than “a back-door to legalisation for recreational use”.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/05/united-nations-says-changing-u-s-marijuana-laws-violate-international-drug-conventions/

87 replies, 10191 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 87 replies Author Time Post
Reply United Nations Says Changing U.S. Marijuana Laws Violate International Drug Conventions (Original post)
Purveyor Mar 2013 OP
WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #1
Purveyor Mar 2013 #8
WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #10
Downtown Hound Mar 2013 #2
Scuba Mar 2013 #3
Ezlivin Mar 2013 #4
LiberalFighter Mar 2013 #38
Puzzledtraveller Mar 2013 #53
bluedigger Mar 2013 #5
Dustlawyer Mar 2013 #7
Enrique Mar 2013 #21
Bashaer Mar 2013 #39
cyberswede Mar 2013 #41
christx30 Mar 2013 #42
Bashaer Mar 2013 #49
OGKush Mar 2013 #73
christx30 Mar 2013 #75
OGKush Mar 2013 #77
christx30 Mar 2013 #78
OGKush Mar 2013 #80
ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #81
iandhr Mar 2013 #50
JDPriestly Mar 2013 #6
xtraxritical Mar 2013 #25
ConcernedCanuk Mar 2013 #28
xtraxritical Mar 2013 #72
AAO Mar 2013 #34
ConcernedCanuk Mar 2013 #74
AAO Mar 2013 #85
socialindependocrat Mar 2013 #9
EC Mar 2013 #11
roxy1234 Mar 2013 #46
green for victory Mar 2013 #52
RainDog Mar 2013 #47
arcane1 Mar 2013 #12
maindawg Mar 2013 #13
AAO Mar 2013 #35
silverweb Mar 2013 #43
Comrade Grumpy Mar 2013 #62
Revanchist Mar 2013 #67
guyton Mar 2013 #14
ConcernedCanuk Mar 2013 #30
AAO Mar 2013 #36
ConcernedCanuk Mar 2013 #64
AAO Mar 2013 #65
happyslug Mar 2013 #69
AAO Mar 2013 #83
happyslug Mar 2013 #84
Trillo Mar 2013 #15
SCVDem Mar 2013 #16
maindawg Mar 2013 #17
GoneFishin Mar 2013 #18
felix_numinous Mar 2013 #19
ConcernedCanuk Mar 2013 #31
AAO Mar 2013 #37
Enrique Mar 2013 #20
marble falls Mar 2013 #23
Matariki Mar 2013 #22
AAO Mar 2013 #40
John2 Mar 2013 #24
think Mar 2013 #26
TheMadMonk Mar 2013 #27
GoneFishin Mar 2013 #32
Ter Mar 2013 #29
loudsue Mar 2013 #86
AAO Mar 2013 #33
freshwest Mar 2013 #44
Comrade Grumpy Mar 2013 #45
RainDog Mar 2013 #48
Canuckistanian Mar 2013 #51
Kurska Mar 2013 #54
Tempest Mar 2013 #55
blackspade Mar 2013 #56
Fresh_Start Mar 2013 #57
green for victory Mar 2013 #60
truedelphi Mar 2013 #63
Buffalo Bull Mar 2013 #58
DRoseDARs Mar 2013 #59
GreenTea Mar 2013 #61
FiveGoodMen Mar 2013 #66
Purveyor Mar 2013 #71
Uncle Joe Mar 2013 #82
bemildred Mar 2013 #68
hack89 Mar 2013 #70
Kalidurga Mar 2013 #76
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #79
Quantess Mar 2013 #87

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:56 AM

1. FYI

Source says "The Guardian," but link is to Raw Story.

(/board nanny)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:12 PM

8. RawStory has permission to post Guardian articles not unlike ABC posting AP articles. Here is

the direct link to Guardian if it makes you feel better:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/05/relaxation-cannabis-laws-us-un

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:13 PM

10. Aaaaahhhh...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:57 AM

2. Oh well. Too bad for the U.N. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:59 AM

3. That should make American conservatives want to legalize it.

After all, they hate everything the UN stands for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:04 PM

4. But if Obama backs legalization

their heads will explode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezlivin (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:14 PM

38. What else can be done to help explode their heads?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezlivin (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:10 PM

53. The republicans I know favor legalization

To be honest, this admnistration has not been over friendly to the pro legal movement or even medicinal use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:07 PM

5. Oh, teh irony!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:08 PM

7. Exactly what I was thinking!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:45 PM

21. yes this will cause some confusion

or maybe they will urge Obama to help the UN overturn U.S. state laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #21)


Response to Bashaer (Reply #39)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:23 PM

41. Bwahahhahaaa!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bashaer (Reply #39)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:25 PM

42. There are people

On both sides of the spectrum that want to limit or control individual choices. It all just depends on the issue. Conservatives want to limit abortion and gay marriage on religions.
This is a discussion on the role of government in everyday life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #42)


Response to christx30 (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:26 PM

73. If conservatives want to limit abortion and gay marriage,

 

Then what issues would you say liberals/progressives want to limit or control in relation to individual choices?

Please enlighten me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OGKush (Reply #73)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:11 AM

75. Check out the

threads on this very site about Bloomberg's policies. There are many cheerleaders on all kinds of policy decisions that micromanage people's lives. Then come back here and disagree with me. It's ok. I'll wait.
And like I said... all parts of the political landscape want to control others.
Except for me. Someone can stand in the middle of the road naked for all I care. As long as they don't make me late for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #75)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:33 AM

77. I can't argue with you at all. N/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OGKush (Reply #77)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:34 PM

78. Each side

Wants to limit freedom in little ways. They couch it in terms of "protecting traditional marriage" or "encouraging healthy lifestyles".
But just remember: it is about control. They think you're stupid. They think that you can't be trusted to handle your own life. Their faith in a God or in some elected official trumps you controlling your life.
I'm not 100% on either side. I support gay marriage and reproductive rights. I am opposed to strict gun control (some things like background checks are warranted and a good idea). I am pro legalization. I am a live-and-let-live person. I won't harm anyone. I trust a person until they give me a reason to not trust them. All I ask is that you leave me alone to live and allow me to make my own mistakes.
I don't want to be "handled" or micromanaged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #78)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 01:13 PM

80. Exactly. I don't want people telling me what is good for me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OGKush (Reply #73)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 01:49 PM

81. Soda size, drugs, and guns seem to be the most common.

Some want to limit violent media, such as video games, but they seem to be a much smaller group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:04 PM

50. Your right

This should be fun to watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:08 PM

6. Using alcohol can kill you.

I have not yet heard of a death from using marijuana.

Why isn't alcohol on the UN's naughty list?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:54 PM

25. Drug cartels are now funding the UN since we don't pay what we're supposed to.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:18 PM

28. Big tax bucks on booze

 

.
.
.

hard to tax something you can grow in your backyard

OH

ever consider why the USA started the "war on drugs"??

when prohibition ended - there was nothing much for the Hoover gang to do!

ponder it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:22 PM

72. BTW Nixon installed the first "drug czar" and he created the "war on drugs".

 

I mean the terms, themselves. You're right about Hoover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:08 PM

34. Why is MJ still a schedule 1 drug, and why is alcohol not on ANY schedule?

 

Until they can explain that, I will remain an angry pothead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #34)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:05 PM

74. As I said in another post in this thread - taxes

 

.
.
.

In Canada, taxes account for around 80% of the price of booze.

same for cigarettes

If the gov't succeeds in encouraging people to stop smoking and drinking -

they will lose Billions of dollars in tax income

how can they tax something ya can grow in your backyard??

,nuther thing

mj is better for your health than either booze or cigarettes

Social Security would take a hit from people living longer . .

AND

if the nation starts smokin' up the evil weed . .

who's gonna support all their wars??

smokers ain't fighters

get too mellow . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #74)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:39 AM

85. They can't tax what you grow in your backyard.

 

But they will likely zone MJ out of residential areas as you don't want little kiddies running accross it. Also, why should I go to all the expense and trouble when I can go to the local MJ store and pick up some Alaskan Thunderfuck? You won't see me working out in the garden.

I can see trying some experiments with grow lights inside, but my staple supplies would be coming from the local, dependable, muti-variety MJ store. I think the taxes collected would be a good thing. Now all the stoners can help reduce the deficit too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:12 PM

9. What goes on in the U.S. stays in the U.S. - Tough shit U.N.

As long as we don't export, what the heck.

We did a lot of "Respect for Women" seminars at work in the U.S.
which were quite successful but when we went to the U.K. to
promote the seminars they didn't see the need because they had
no problems over there.

If we are limited in our country's evolution by less progressive
countries we'll be living in the dark ages for hundreds of years to come.

Our mental evolution takes long enough as it is. Next we'll have to listen
to the middle-east tell us that we can't wear sleeveless t-shirts over here!

Aren't we the ones who are supposed to set an example for the rest of the world?
They can evolve with us or choose not - but they can't tell us how to vote and
what laws we decide to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:19 PM

11. What about Spain and Portgegul where it's already legal? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:48 PM

46. Right on

 

And what about the Netherlands where it is legal for recreational use? The UN better mind their own business this is the American people speaking on an issue that concerns Americans only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roxy1234 (Reply #46)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:09 PM

52. it's not legal, just tolerated

 

Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fines. Coffee shops are also technically illegal but are flourishing nonetheless. However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.

This is because the Dutch Ministry of Justice applies a gedoogbeleid (tolerance policy) with regard to the category "soft drugs": an official set of guidelines telling public prosecutors under which circumstances offenders should not be prosecuted. This is a more official version of a common practice in other European countries wherin law enforcement sets priorities regarding offenses on which it is important enough to spend limited resources.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:51 PM

47. Portugal decriminalized, not legalized.

big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:20 PM

13. I must have missed

their condemnation of Portugal, Geneva, Iran, North Korea, Nepal,Pakistan, Spain, Switzerland, and Urugway.Why is Cannabis illegal at all?
A smear campain. Racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

Background

For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600′s, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900′s.

America’s first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law “ordering” all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other “must grow” laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp — try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements – rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp “plantations” (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maindawg (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:11 PM

35. Because Portugal, Geneva, Iran, North Korea, Nepal,Pakistan, Spain, Switzerland, and Uruguay

 

DON'T try to enlist other countries to cooperate in the destruction of cannabis and punish them if they don't.

We are two faced, or maybe even 1000 faced when it comes to our interaction with other nations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maindawg (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:28 PM

43. Exactly.

I missed it, too.

I do, however, remember reading how some of those places cut drug-related crime radically after legalization. My guess is that the spokesman here is a Bolton acolyte -- you know, the kind that believes the United Nations exists only at the pleasure of the United States to serve U.S. interests (including the DEA's hard-line policies).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maindawg (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:52 PM

62. Read their reports. The INCB criticizes anybody who deviates from prohibitionist orthodoxy.

That's their job. They don't like the Dutch cannabis cafes, they don't like safe injection sites, they don't like decriminalization, and they sure as hell don't like legalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maindawg (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 06:53 PM

67. From the New Maine Times:

There is evidence that one of the leading newspaper owners of the day, William Randolph Hearst, actively campaigned to criminalize marijuana. Not because he feared its effects, however. Hearst owned huge tracts of redwood forests in Northern California and wanted to use his trees for newsprint. To make that work, he had to somehow undercut the price of hemp, which was a much cheaper and more sustainable source for paper. Hearst had friends in high places, including presidents and governors, and his newspaper's tirade against hemp won the day.

[link:http://www.newmainetimes.org/articles/2011/04/26/marijuana-legalization-other-green-debate/|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:21 PM

14. international law

Yeah, we've signed treaties that require us to prosecute torture and war-crimes cases as well.

Doesn't seem like we pay any attention to those "quaint" old documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guyton (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:21 PM

30. "we've signed treaties" - oh wow that should do it . .

 

.
.
.

how many treaties have the USAmerican people honored?

ask a native . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #30)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:13 PM

36. We gave warm blankets to the natives of the old west. Good quality too.

 

How they picked up the small pox, we;ll never know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:22 PM

64. I know all about that

 

.
.
.

And did YOU know about the tragedy in Iraq with the USA spreading depleted Uranium all over their country?

400 percent increase in defects in newborn babies since Desert Storm (Bush1)

how much more can we expect with the effects of the USA's "Shock and Awe" thing?(Bush2)

Depleted Uranium had been banned for 60 years, USA failed to sign the agreement

and are poisoning nations on a regular basis

same old

same old

(sigh)

and Jeb is thinking of stepping in? (That'd be Bush3)

our World has a problem

USA comes to mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #64)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 05:13 PM

65. Of course I know all that - and another Bush will be president over my dead body

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 08:33 PM

69. The only report of giving small pox blankets to Native Americas was by a BRITISH GENERAL

General Amherst made that recommendation in the 1760s. It appears Americans OPPOSED the plan, for most knew how Small Pox Spread, and that it spread rapidly between Native American and White populations.

A Young American Officer on The Staff of General Amherst, by the name of George Washington, would later make the US Army the first Army in the world 100% vaccinated against Small Pox. Washington knew Amherst (who was by the Revolution Commander in Chief of the entire British Army, but remain in Britain for the duration of the Revolution) and suspected he would try it against US Forces thus his insistence to vaccinate all soldiers.

I get sick and tired of the Small Pox allegations against Americans, the only evidence of it being done was by British Troops, and that Americans OPPOSED the policy (and the policy died for lack of volunteers to handle the blankets).

As to treaties with the Native Americans, several are still enforced. No new treaties were entered into after 1867, but pre-existing treaties are still the law of the land

Parts of the Laramie Treaty of 1868 is still enforce by terms of a 1980 US Supreme Court Decision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_(1868)

Other treaties are still in forced. Most reservations are set by Treaty,

Paper that these Treaties, even of old, are still valid:
http://thorpe.ou.edu/cohen/3cohen33.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 05:08 PM

83. I would love that to be true!

 

But do you really think America would admit to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #83)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:11 AM

84. Small Pox was highly contagious, you had problem with people taking in their own family members..

Transmission occurs through inhalation of airborne variola virus, usually droplets expressed from the oral, nasal, or pharyngeal mucosa of an infected person. It is transmitted from one person to another primarily through prolonged face-to-face contact with an infected person, usually within a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m), but can also be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects (fomites) such as bedding or clothing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Transmission

Notice, Small Pox can be spread not only by being within six feet of someone that has it, but by touching bedding and due to the high rate of death tied in with it, Small Pox was the most fear disease of the time period. When Small pox broke out in a town, no one would go to the town for months afterward. People would refuse to take in their relatives who had it (including parents and children). It was THAT feared, thus the lack of records is mostly due to the inability to find anyone who was willing to handle those blankets, other then to burn them (and then quickly to minimize contacts).

One of the rules regarding the sick in Von Steuben's blue book (The book he wrote on how the US army units were to be formed and to fight) including boiling the sheets and burning the straw of the bed the sick had laid it (Notice this was almost 100 years before the concept of germs and how disease spread was accepted by medical doctors). The reason for the rule, was NO one wanted to sleep in that bed without confidence they would NOT get what the soldier who had been in the bed had.

Thus it is probably near zero the number of times blankets with Small Pox were given to the Indians, not from any care for the Indians, but the fear WHITES had when it came to small pox.

Side note: When the US Army did a study on Germ Warfare in the 1960s, it was determined the only time where it would be worth the effort is if the US Army was retreating down a Peninsula, to be evacuated when the Army reached the end of the Peninsula. Other then in that special circumstances, germs would spread not only among the troops of the other side, but one's own troops and without the ability to evacuate ALL of the troops they was no way the Germs would NOT do as much harm to US troops as to any enemy troops (Thus the US and the Soviet Union agreed to ban germ warfare in the early 1970s, both had determined it would cause more harm to the side that launched the germs then the side the germs were aimed at).

In many ways, earlier armies either accepted the same concept thus it was rare to see Germ Warfare used even in earlier times. Some exceptions, but in many ways the exceptions proved the rule. One was the Germans use of Anthrax on Romanian horses during WWI, At the time of the Germ Attack, it was an inactive front AND the actual germs were NOT used on the troops or their horses on the front lines but back in Romanian where the horses were being raised and then purchased for use by the Romanian Army. It increased the cost of horses for Romanian, but had little affect on their ability to fight on the front lines.

In the Middle ages, dead cattle and other animals (and other obnoxious material) were thrown into designed cities by the besiegers, but these seem to be more in the line of harassment then an attempt to spread disease among the city inhabitants. The reason was the same as with small pox Blankets, no one wanted to handle the disease animals unless they were sure it would NOT affect them (and when that was the case, it had little chance of spreading disease on the other side).

Thus the use of germs to kill people have been rare in history, more spoked of then actually done (and then spoke of more when it hit an enemy, as such diseases were know to do even when NOT spread by "blankets").

Now, during the Siege of Ft Pitt in 1763, two blankets from the Small Pox Hospital were given to the besieging Native Americans. Again British Army Officials AND during Military operations, but no direct evidence that the blankets lead to any small pox among the Native Americans (The Native Americans did come down with small pox, but so did the civilians and soldiers in Fort Pitt, the "Siege" of Ft Pitt was NOT a battle where both sides continued to fire on each other, both sides waited in "safe areas" (The Fort for the British and Americans, the deep woods less then a mile away from the fort for the Native Americans). Both sides then sent patrols and even traders, to trade and talk to the other side. The Native America plan was to block any relief column, the British and Americans plan was to hold out till the relief column arrived. Thus you could go days without any fighting, in fact days where both sides traded with each other. Thus the two blankets MAY have spread small pox, but given how small pox is spread, it most likely occurred during one of the exchange of words during negotiations or trade then from the blankets.

Small Pox at Ft. Pitt:
http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt
http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Biosecurity_course_folder/readings/fenn.html
http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html

Most of the above, take the little evidence we have and try to make it bigger then what it appears to be. Amherst hated American Indians is quite clear, but did he ordered Small Pox Blankets to be given out? During the Siege of Ft Pitt blankets were given out, but while it is possible to get Small Pox from infected blankets, you more likely spread it by coming near a person who already has it (i.e. spread by contact with an infected person NOT his blanket, i.e. get small pox from the person who gave you the blanket NOT the blanket itself).

Here is column on the actual nature of the Siege of Fort Pitt, and that little fighting occurred, there were NOT enough soldiers in Ft Pitt to break out and go over the Mountains to get supplies AND hold the fort. Thus the Commander of Ft Pitt had two choices, stay till relieve or abandon Ft Pitt. He decided to stay, which forced the Native Americans to maintain blocking positions. Thus both sides could NOT force the other out, thus little fighting but a lot of skirmishes between the sides:.

http://www.brooklineconnection.com/history/Facts/FortPitt.html

Now, the Siege of Fort Pitt took place in 1763, just six years earlier you had the Siege of Fort William Henry, an actual siege by the French of a British fort. During that Siege something similar to Ft Pitt occurred. During the siege the garrison surrendered to the French, and as part of the agreement to surrender the British Garrison were permitted to leave. The Native Americans claimed they had NOT been able to get enough booty under the terms of Surrender and thus attacked the British and Americans as they vacated the fort.

The French (in one of the few times when such massacres occurred when French Marines were around) tried to contain their allies, but the Massacre killed a lot of Americans and British. In many ways it was the last flash for the Native Americas east of the Hudson, for it their rush for booty (and scalps, mostly to sell to the French in Montreal) they dug up the bodies in the cemetery. The problem was the Cemetery contained bodies of people who died in a recent Small Pox Epidemic and they Native Americans contaminated themselves from the bodies they dug up. Thus small pox spread throughout the Native American tribes in New England and present day Quebec, that were allied with the French. This Epidemic killed off so many Native Americans in the area that they cease to be a factor in the French and Indian War from that point forward AND had NOT recovered enough to be that big of a problem during the Revolution.

After this debacle (In 1757) by the Native Americans in New England, Native America resistance to the westward movement of Americans shifted from New England to Ohio and the Mid West. This was due to how massive the kill off was due to this Small Pox epidemic. Upstate New York (Controlled by the Iroquois, allied to the British) remained quiet from a British and American point of view (The Iroquois gladly attacked the French) for the duration of the French and Indian war. While the Peace Treaty was NOT signed till 1763, it was over in North America by 1759 when Wolfe took Quebec, Montreal fell the following year, 1760. New England would remain quiet during the subsequent Pontiac Rebellion in 1763 (Which the Iroquois did NOT participate in).

Notice, it is clear how the Small Pox spread to the Native American Populations, it was by direct contact with people who had died of the disease, NOT they clothes or blankets. On the other hand, while it was known that direct contact spread small pox (and by direct contact I included being within six feet of a person who has small pox, even if that person is NOT yet showing the symptoms), blankets were suspected to spread the disease but blankets were NOT as affective a vector as just standing a person with small pox near the person you wanted to get small pox.

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

During the Revolution, the Iroquois would see the destruction of their confederation, the Mohawks Seneca, Onondaga and Cayuga sided with the British, the Tuscarora and the Oneida sided with the colonists, thus leading some of the meanest battles in history (the Battle of Oriskey was noted for having one of the highest percentage of participates in the battle as a percentage of the total population of the area).

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

Allegations of small pox being spread during the Revolution were made (And at least one attempt seems to be by sending among the American Population two people with small pox. a more effective vector then sending blankets) but again the fear of the disease interfered with any effort to use it as a weapon.

Please note, I suspect some Americans on the Frontier would have spread small pox, if they were convinced it would NOT cause a back lash among the White population. The problem was such a backlash was not only foreseeable, but in many ways expected and for that reason alone, Americans on the Frontier would have OPPOSES the spread of Small Pox, but blankets or personal vectors. Thus I have to reject these reports as more speculation by officers, who would have loved to do it, but could NOT get their enlisted ranks (and their Civilian traders) to have anything to do with the plan, more due to their own fear of Small Pox then any respect for Native Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:25 PM

15. I'm always amazed at how these "disclosures" occur after the fact.

Should our schools be teaching us that our laws cannot be changed, and that our ancestor's constitution has been superseded?

Hemp is similar to marijuana, but without appreciable amounts of THC (the psychoactive). The seeds' oil has a nearly ideal Omega6 to 3 ratio, AND the seeds allegedly contain ALL the amino acids required for human nutrition (something they missed telling us about in human nutrition classes). For vegetarians, that would make it nearly a perfect protein source. When served as a meal historically, the seeds were allegedly called "gruel", and it was considered one of the cheapest foods. But then, FDR got sucked into the Marijuana madness, and the controlled substances act of 1970 put a nail in the coffin of that food source.

H.R.499 would remove marijuana from the U.S.'s scheduled drug list, which would in turn, allow the growing of hemp, as well as stop the federal interference in states' laws in regards to medical marijuana or legalized 'recreational' marijuana. In California, the feds have been closing down dispensary after dispensary.

I've wondered if one of the reasons marijuana is still illegal is due to the fact that if people grew hemp for food, if that ends too big of a dependence on corporate supplied food.

The damn plant is practically a perfect food. Instead, we have UN(?) prohibition, and loads of hungry people around the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:26 PM

16. How much illegal liquor is coming ashore?

When it's just a little more money to be legit, why bootleg?

The domestic Cannabis crop is of such high quality that imports will be relegated to boutique status. Just like very fine wines.

When America goes legal, the smugglers will need to move to something with a bigger profit margin.


Look for these people like Raymond Yans to have their fingers in big Pharmas pockets!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:30 PM

18. There must be a back story to this which we are not hearing yet.

With all of the bullshit that is going down inside and outside of U.S. borders THIS is what
they are worried about? Some US citizens getting stoned? I smell bullcrap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:31 PM

19. Didn't international drug policy start in the US?

I'm still looking this up on the google. I think if changes were made on a Federal level, then it would not be as much as a problem to them... The War on Drugs sure created a monster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:24 PM

31. well doh!

 

.
.
.

if'n young males were allowed the evil weed

they wouldn't get too many recruits to slaughter people all over the globe

ya think??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:14 PM

37. DING DING DING!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:41 PM

20. Raymond Yanz, Narc of the Earth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:49 PM

23. He looks like John Bolton's drug rehabed younger brother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:48 PM

22. I wouldn't be a bit surprised

to find out that The International Narcotics Control Board is influenced by criminal organizations that profit heavily from marijuana being illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:16 PM

40. Yeah, "Criminals In America" for one.

 

CIA for the acronym confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:54 PM

24. just because one person or a group

 

of people say the sky is falling doesn't make them correct. There is more and more data, that disputes these claims and that is why laws against the use of marijuana is being lifted. When was these International drug conventions convened and who were the experts invited? And where does this governance come from? I have a distaste for tyranny, no matter where it comes from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:59 PM

26. The legal system here on earth

could use some fine tuning......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:02 PM

27. Let's be paranoid. US feds, "convince" UN to raise issue, giving US Feds "permission"...

 

...to crack down on state behaviour.

All courtesy of the cotton pickin' South.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:33 PM

32. Yeah. I have heard the black helicopter nonsense too.

But in this case I still smell baloney because the story doesn't hang together. If the smoking of pot by people in Colorado was such a huge international catastrophy then there should be a hell of a lot more screaming about the US forming strategic partnerships with poppy growing drug lords in Afghanistan. But no, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:19 PM

29. This won't be popular here, but fuck the UN

 

I always hated that pseudo government. Pull out now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 03:58 PM

86. I like the UN, but this is not the role it should be playing.

Trying to over-rule majority rule in the USA is not what our constitution was written for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:40 PM

33. aahhhhhhh... SHADAPPPPP!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:28 PM

44. Perhaps a consideration of the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence will help:

...Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Since then, it has come to be considered a major statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Annotated_text_of_the_Declaration

The Declaration of Independence is not the United States Constitution, which was written years after it, nor did it list of treaties, but the Conclusion of the Declaration specifically does allow contracting alliances....

Americans and many people of the world have been inspired by that statement in their desire to enlarge human rights. How treaties will be enforced or not enforced, can certainly be argued. The UN charter appears to be more of a suggestion for standards of behavior voluntarily carried out and only the treaty states can decide. There may be actions that can be acted upon, but only with a majority agreeing to take action. I don't know what action the UN could take against the USA for not going along with them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty#Role_of_the_United_Nations

Some Americans will define recreational drug use as part of their unalienable Right to the pursuit of Happiness. That's the logic here, no matter what anyone says about drug use, medicinal or recreational.

BTW, I do not partake nor do I plan on doing so. I can't afford recreation. I voted for legalization since I've had engrained in me since childhood the concepts listed above that allows for individuals to live in diverse ways.

But I don't agree with any pursuit of Happiness that harms others or takes away their unalienable Right to their pursuit of Happiness, such as expecting others to deal with any person's crazymaking, abuse, smoke or whatever from what they want to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:40 PM

45. This is the INCB. It's their job to hector countries that want to reform drug laws.

Totally unsurprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:56 PM

48. Removing cannabis from the controlled substances act is the way to go

that way, other nations can deal with it as they like, and states here can deal with it as they like as well... and any state that keeps the old laws will lose out.

To me, the change in cannabis laws is THE watershed to begin to change humankind's relationship to the earth in regard to energy sources, consumption and on and on.

Hemp cars, hemp fuel, hemp insulation - moving toward eco-friendly products involving issues of energy MUST include legalization of hemp and "marijuana."

The only people who want cannabis to be illegal are those who will take an economic hit from the same.. i.e. the alcoholic bev. industry, the cotton industry, the petrol industry... THEY are the ones (including European concerns) who stand to lose something.

Everyone else stands to gain by overturning the racist law that is cannabis prohibition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:06 PM

51. Did they get on Portugal's case when Portugal decriminalized drugs?

Or how about The Netherlands allowing open sales of marijuana in cafés?

I don't remember the heavy hand of the UN in those cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:10 PM

54. The UN is nothing but toothless pomp and circumstance where tyrants outvote democracies.

I could not care less what the UN has to say about anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:12 PM

55. I'm starting to see the conservative's point about the UN. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:13 PM

56. Is there a formal study that supports this claim?

Or is this another unsupported bullshit declaration by a UN official?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:15 PM

57. oh no's...the conservatives are going to get so confused

the UN agrees with them about marijuana....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #57)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:30 PM

60. the UN agrees with them- and Eric Holder

 

Come on, there are plenty of drug warriors on both sides.

Biden created the fracking drug czar FFS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #57)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:01 PM

63. Many conservatives are for legalisation -


IT IS NOT A LEFT WING, RIGHT WING ISSUE.

You have "liberal" Pres Obama being opposed to legalization, and letting Eric Holder's DOJ trample people who are following the law in their states. However, up and coming Democrats like Gavin Newsome, Lt Gov of Calif., are very much into legalization.



Many conservatives are very much into states' rights, especially when an issue is put before voters and given a mandate to go ahead! And some conservatives opposed the legalizing of marijuana until one of their family members used it and beat back cancer.

I think as more and more people become aware of how healing the substance is, and how the oils can cure cancer, it will catch on even more. But already, various polls show that over 60% of all Americans want it de-criminalized or legalized!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:20 PM

58. medical marijuana



I have take six month routines of Ribatol, Interferon and the last time Incivik was added.
The first time i took these drugs i went from 214 to 165 i was in danger of being dismissed . I broke N.Y. law and finished the 6th month at 175.
The next two times the weight loss was less dramatic and thus other side effects of the drugs were lessened, do to my repeated violation of N.Y. state laws.

The absurdity of placing a normally law abiding citizen in that position is jaw dropping. Also keep in mind you are sending a very sick adult out to buy from , where ever it can be had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:26 PM

59. "a threat to public health and safety" unlike the cholera outbreak YOU caused and refuse to fix.

Some days the UN makes it hard to be a supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:44 PM

61. The hard-dring drunk Raymond Yans should go fuck himself!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 06:35 PM

66. Never thought I'd say this, but FUCK THE UN!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #66)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 09:11 PM

71. Had I been around, I would have said the same thing in 1948...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #66)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:17 PM

82. I agree with you, having thought highly of the UN in the past, they don't trump democracy

and self rule at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 06:55 PM

68. So?

When did we care about agreements with the UN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 09:00 PM

70. Too fucking bad. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:42 AM

76. Did all the genocides stop???

I mean they must have if the UN has time to condemn something that never killed anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:38 PM

79. Well, then let them send the lads in the powder blue helmets to enforce

the drug laws here then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 05:19 PM

87. Something is not right about this.

Sounds like ulterior motives are in play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread