An Anti-Drug Treaty Cannot Authorize the Feds to Make States Ban Marijuana

Last week, as Mike Riggs noted a few days ago, the president of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Raymond Yans, argued that the U.S. government's treaty obligations preclude Colorado and Washington from legalizing marijuana. Responding to passage of Colorado's Amendment 64 and Washington's Initiative 502, Yans said "these developments are in violation of the international drug control treaties." That does not appear to be true, and even if it were the U.S. Constitution would bar the federal government from forcing states to ban marijuana.

In a November 15 press release from the INCB, Yans claims the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, adopted in 1961 and amended in 1972, requires the U.S. government to override the drug policy choices made by voters in Colorado and Washington:

The limiting of the use of cannabis to medical and scientific purposes is laid out in the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which was agreed to by 185 States, who by  consensus decided to place cannabis under control and limit its use to  medical purposes....

For the international drug control system to function effectively, to achieve its aim of ensuring availability of drugs for medical purposes while preventing their abuse, the conventions must be universally adhered to and implemented by all States. In this regard, Mr. Yans stressed that national laws, policies and practices in drug abuse prevention and control should be fully aligned with the conventions. He further emphasized that States Parties have an obligation under the Conventions to ensure their full compliance with the conventions within their entire territory, including federated states and/or provinces.

Mr. Yans recognized the commitment of the Government of the United States to resolve the contradiction between the federal and state levels in the implementation of that country's obligations under the drug control conventions. The INCB President requested the Government of the United States to 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. 

The "necessary measures" Yans is demanding are clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution's Supremacy Clause says "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." But it is also clear, as Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars note in Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, that "the Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws." Hence a treaty that purported to require such legal subjugation would not be "under the authority of the United States," and any act of Congress aimed at dictating state drug laws would not be "made in pursuance" of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says a signatory's obligation to enact criminal penalties for the nonmedical production, possession, and distribution of marijuana is "subject to its constitutional limitations." Patrick Gallahue of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program says:

The penal provisions of the '61 convention includes the caveat: "subject to the constitutional limitations of a Party, its legal system and domestic law." How does that interact with the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"?...

There is an argument that [America's] unique situation regarding states' rights allows one of these states to do this [i.e., legalize marijuana without violating the treaty]. 

Gallahue adds that "there is always the option for the United States to withdraw from the '61 convention and re-enter with reservations," as Bolivia recently did so it could legalize the traditional use of coca. But even if that never happens, and even if Yans' reading of the treaty is correct, the federal government simply does not have the authority to do what he wants. 

Addendum: For a thorough and incisive critique of the view that international treaties can expand the legislative powers of Congress beyond those enumerated by the Constitution (an idea that the Supreme Court endorsed in the 1920 case Missouri v. Holland), see this 2005 Harvard Law Review article by Georgetown law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.

[Thanks to Bruce Majors for the link to the INCB press release.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    You forgot the "fuck you, that's why" clause that allows the federal government to do anything it pleases.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Free Society||

    'Interstate commerce is affected by his sarcasm, have the man arrested.'

  • Sevo||

    The INCB:
    "Our Mission
    The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is the independent and quasi-judicial monitoring body for the implementation of the United Nations international drug control conventions"
    http://www.incb.org/

    IOWs, bureaucrats dedicated to keeping their jobs going forever.
    Get these guys some brooms and send them to the shore when the tide comes in.

  • Humason||

    Remind me again how Eurocrats are so much better than Americans on drug issues.

  • ||

    On the whole, they are not. Locally, in most of Euro-landia, local pols tend to be better about not fucking with people WRT drug issues, Tulpa.

    UKR-landia is anywhere from great to mediocre comparing oblast to oblast, and appears to be a policy of selective enforcement.

  • Humason||

    Does the selectiveness of that enforcement involve cops/prosecutors discovering rubles in their hands?

  • Lewisite||

    "Does the selectiveness of that enforcement involve cops/prosecutors discovering rubles in their hands?"

    Before you condescend to that method of extortion, let’s assume it is still somewhat preferable to imprisonment + property & money seizure, and years of unproductive court time spent retrieving seized property and monies with little hope of success. At least open bribery for all of its disgusting properties, would still be just slightly more honest about the true intent of the interaction in the first place. Seizure ~= extortion.

  • ||

    Does the selectiveness of that enforcement involve cops/prosecutors discovering rubles in their hands?

    Rubles would be an insult and you would get a well-deserved ass kicking for your trouble, especially if your politsija is a rabid UKR national (yes, you do have to be somewhat careful what language you use depending on where you are in the country). Also, it's still technically illegal to take rubles out of Russia.

    Hryvnia is the national currency here, and if one was inclined to engage in bribery (the lubricant to honest commerce in a grey market), you would use either Euros or USD's (best option), though the CAD is looked upon favourably as a reserve currency.

    (cont)

  • ||

    (cont)

    The selectivity is moreso based on the type and class of drug, as some "illicit" narcotics are definitely frowned upon culturally (heroin), whereas others are more tolerated socially. MJ is something of a special case, as it has been explained to me, since it can be grown locally in UKR's rather fertile farmlands, and mafia types like to keep that aspect of that market to minimum and discourage shipment from one oblast to another, so they can import/manufacture other drugs in its place, which is why it is the most commonly busted drug nationally. The rule of thumb is the larger the district and its principle city, the more likely drug customs activity (and mafia's) is going to be. The eastern and northern border with Russia and the northern border with Belarus is more particular with customs enforcement than the western borders with Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary are. Romania is somewhat touchy because of land disputes with western Moldavia (Transnistria specifically, is pretty much held by UKR for Russia), so they keep a pretty watchful eye on that border as well.

    Kiev (or Kyiv, if you're picky), not surprisingly, is probably the worst, but I'll know more after I get registered with the Ministry of Health in Kiev next week and get briefed further on the most major recent health trends and RX'ing policies. The most commonly abused drug is alcohol according to the most current Ministry of Health data.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    But even if that never happens, and even if Yans' reading of the treaty is correct, the federal government simply does not have the authority to do what he wants.

    Orly? I think you're forgetting about a certain Commerce Clause. The feds have the authority to do anything.

    It's like Ned Flanders and the Bible: He does all of it, even the parts that contradict the other parts.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Right!
    Cuz it's interstate. Even if it isn't.
    And commerce. Even if ain't.

  • Aresen||

    That face is SO punchable.

    The only thing better would be subjecting it to capriole.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The only thing better would be subjecting it to capriole.

    With a hoof covered in the detritus of the barnyard.

  • TheSpiteHouse||

    My, my. I agree with you gentlemen 100% on this matter.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Remember this the next time some Euro-weenie screeches BOOOOSH! at you. Odds are they have absolutely no idea how the American system of government works.

  • ||

    Yet, Americans are in a rush to adopt Euro-style democracy, governance, and a great many of their fiscal and medical policies. And, yes, the Euros hate them some GWB something feirce, and have had a BOOOOOSH hurled my way a couple of times by (not surprisingly) Briton expats.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But even if that never happens, and even if Yans' reading of the treaty is correct, the federal government simply does not have the authority to do what he wants.

    Since when has a lack of authority prevented the federal government from doing the bidding of fascist busybodies?

  • Humason||

    We better do as they say unless we want an invasion of CO and WA by the blue helmets.

  • ||

    BLUE DAWN. Avenge me!!!!!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Avenge what? Will the UN troops try to surrender us to death? Smother us in resolutions of concern? Will they try and diddle little boys like they did in Africa?

  • Aloysious||

    c. the diddling thing.

  • JeremyR||

    They also spread diseases, like in Haiti (someplace in the Caribbean at least)

  • anon||

    We better do as they say unless we want an invasion of CO and WA by the blue helmets.

    Funny enough, there are probably more armed citizens in Colorado alone then there are armed UN forces.

  • Humason||

    Even when the blue helmets are armed, they usually don't have any ammunition.

  • ||

    And the blue helmets usually stand aside and watch if violence occurs in their vicinity.

    Somehow I don't think U.N. PeaceBreakers are gonna enter WA or CO and start arresting people, much less expect that to go well for them.

  • ||

    Lot of people in WA with firearms too, especially once you leave the Seattle area.

  • Humason||

    With Dunphy manning the barricades, we don't have to worry about WA surrendering.

  • Jerry on the road||

    In most other countries treaty law does overrule constitutional law.

  • robc||

    Good thing we arent most other countries.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Most other countries aren't "most other countries." They prefer their constitutions to international law demands from Belgian bureaucrats.

  • SIV||

    Chief Justice Roberts will fix that.

  • Humason||

    Not this treaty, since it expressly states that it doesn't override signatories' constitutions.

  • seguin||

    Which is why other countries suck.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The treaty itself allows for "denunciation" - a legal term meaning "so long, suckers, I'm outta here." The other countries will recognize the denunciation.

    That's what Bolivia did so as to allow its Indian population to chew coca leaves.

    If there's conflicts between internal US law and the treaty, all Obama has to do is send in a denunciation.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I can just hear Obama:

    Let me be clear, legalization is an interesting idea, that I'd be in favor of trying on a limited basis, but the truth is that our treaty obligations preclude it. [half laugh] We'd be in violation of international law, and we can't do that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm impressed at how the Bolivians dealt with this issue within the rule of law, rather than simply doing what most governments would have done, which is ignore the law while pretending to enforce it. Or collect protection money from the indians.

  • Xenocles||

    If there's conflicts between internal US law and the treaty, all Obama has to do is send in a denunciation.

    Maybe he can have it delivered via flying pig. Give me a few minutes and I'll squeeze one out.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    All I said was that it's all he *has* to do if he's worried about conflicts with treaty obligations. Of course, that won't stop him from concern-trolling about the treaty. Just pointing out that he could always go the Bolivian route (which is awesome, may I say).

  • flye||

    Belgians? We're supposed to listen to Belgians now?!? If they want to talk beer, or the proper fries-to-mayonnaise ratio, I'm all ears. But otherwise, no.

  • robc||

    I will listen to Belgian brewers, when it comes to beer, but not regular Belgian citizens, who have basically ignored some of the best beer in the world in favor of drinking Stella.

    Insanely awesome styles were dying in Belgium until Americans started buying them.

  • anon||

    ho have basically ignored some of the best beer in the world in favor of drinking Stella.

    Fucking brits too. I can't believe how popular this piss water they call beer is in Europe.

  • robc||

    I cant believe how popular Budweiser is in Europe.

  • anon||

    At least Budweiser makes sense. It's the "American" beer. Hell, on a hot summer day I'll drink a few if they're ice cold.

    Stella is just .... ew. I'd rather not drink.

  • robc||

    But why would a german or a brit drink Budweiser?

  • anon||

    I imagine there are people in Britain and Germany that look up to American culture and try to emulate that by drinking Bud.

  • ||

    partially because they aren't drawn into the real reason a lot of people in the US don't drink it- snobbery and hipsterism.

  • ||

    Or it might have something to do with the fact that I'd rather suck piss directly from your dick than be forced to endure the watered down, tasteless swill that is Budweiser.

  • Humason||

    FDA, please respond to Dunphy with your indecent propositions by email from now on, mmm-kay?

  • SIV||

    American Exceptionalism...in the Art of Brewing

  • robc||

    On a hot summer day, I prefer a saison.

  • ||

    I cant believe how popular Budweiser is in Europe.

    FIFY

  • SIV||

    It's the King of Beers.

  • flye||

    Several years ago when I was in Brussels it seemed like Leffe was the popular choice. It hasn't yet been ruined by InBev.

  • ||

    The "proper fries-to-mayonnaise ratio" is 1:0. You speak blasphemy, sir!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    In fact, the one ban I'm all in favor of is making mayo illegal. Fuck that nasty shit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Even if it were the U.S. Constitution would bar the federal government from forcing states to ban marijuana."

    Article VI says the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties are the supreme law of the land. That seems to say that whatever treaties we've signed supersede whatever the states want to do.

    Regardless, it look like decriminalization for personal use is at best controversial under the treaty:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....rsonal_use

    Treaty obligations potentially being used as a means to impose international will on us is an excellent reason to be skeptical of any proposed UN treaty.

  • Humason||

    That seems to say that whatever treaties we've signed supersede whatever the states want to do.

    The Supremacy Clause only means that state laws that conflict with those three things are nullified. Lack of a state law does not violate the supremacy clause.

    One could argue that the taxation/licensing regimes and in WA, the assignment of the LCB to sell MJ, constitute positive law and *may* cause supremacy clause issues. But a full blown repeal wouldn't.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Lack of a state law does not violate the supremacy clause."

    You're saying that if a treaty makes something illegal and the states have a law making it legal, the supremacy clause doesn't apply?

    Help me understand why.

    I want to believe, but I remain skeptical that passing an initiative at the state level is going to be all it takes to make cannabis, for purposes of criminal prosecution, like alcohol.

  • Humason||

    Help me understand why.

    Seriously?

    You don't need a law to make something legal. In the absence of a relevant law, the thing is legal.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Federal law makes it illegal.

  • Xenocles||

    And the federal police forces are free to enforce their laws.

  • ||

    we don't HAVE true federal police forces. the FBI, DEA, etc. are limited scope investigative agencies that are, to a large extent, prohibited from even making summary arrests. they are not cops.

    that makes us rather unique, on the international scale.

  • Xenocles||

    I'll defer to your judgement on this subject, Dunphy, but surely you'll admit the distinction is a subtle one.

  • Humason||

    They're limited-scope because they can only enforce federal law... but post-Wickard/Raich, the feds have de facto police power. So they are police.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    True dat. Feds ALWAYS have a local make the arrest (if they're minding their p's and q's). The term "United States" in federal statutes typically means "Washington, DC, although in the Internal Revenue Code it has over 100 different meanings. In at least one place the term "United States" means China.

    Tip: when construing a statute, the word "includes" means "includes only". If they mean "includes but not limited to", they'll say so.

  • Humason||

    Which has nothing to do with the state law.

    The UN belgie is claiming that even allowing a state to not make it illegal is a violation of the treaty.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And just because the implications of that make me sick to my stomach--doesn't mean he's wrong.

  • robc||

    Yes, he is wrong.

    A treaty cant force a state to pass a law. The federal law meets the treaty.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is the question whether a treaty can force a state to pass a law?

    Or is the question whether a state can ignore a treaty?

  • Humason||

    The state isn't a signatory to the treaty. The treaty in question places burdens only on signatory governments, not on individuals or other organizations.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    States (American ones) are countries.

  • ant1sthenes||

    The supremacy clause applies insofar as the feds can independently investigate and prosecute. They can't compel the state to assist them.

  • robc||

    There is no such thing as a law making something legal.

    The lack of a law makes it legal.

    The treaty cant make the state governments pass a law. The federal law is applicable (but duh, we know that already).

  • ||

    You're saying that if a treaty makes something illegal and the states have a law making it legal, the supremacy clause doesn't apply?

    If an existing state drug law is repealed, that means that the state is silent on the useage of that drug, and thus will not enforce the non-laws.

    The feds and international police forces could still try to prohibit the uses of such drugs in that state, but they couldn't expect the state to help them with that enforcement.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's the DEA that's gone in and shut all those medical marijuana dispensaries down.

    They're going to need to let people grow their own at home. Because the feds are just going to keep busting dispensaries and growers to the point that legalization doesn't really matter. Especially if local law enforcement continues to bust people for illicit sales--like they're moonshiners.

  • anon||

    I don't even understand the propensity of bureaucrats to have pot criminalized.

    Generally speaking, people that smoke (lots) of pot are less productive, which reduces the amount of hours they want/are willing to work, which gives some other unemployed asshole the opportunity for a job, thereby "reducing" unemployment. You'd think that after four years of shit employment, they would want this.

    Whatever. Legalization is inevitable; prohibition will end eventually, just a matter of time.

  • robc||

    I don't even understand the propensity of bureaucrats to have pot criminalized.

    To prevent Negroes from sleeping with their white daughters.

    Thats it. Replace Negro with Chinaman and youve got the reason for criminalizing heroin.

  • anon||

    I should accept your supposition, but I sincerely find it hard to believe anyone really thinks that there's a link between pot and the skin color of whoever their daughter is fucking; mostly because if the parents were worried about who their kids are fucking they'd *never* send them to college.

  • robc||

    Go back and read the comments from legislators at the time the laws orginally passed.

    Im being nice.

  • ||

    yea. exactly.

    PJ ORourke does a nice riff on this where he quotes some anti-drug propaganda and tells the reader to replace "drugs are" with the N-word "are" and it fits perfectly.

    the WOD, much like the gun control has strong roots in racism

  • SIV||

    Cocaine improves a Negro's pistol marksmanship. I read it in The New York Times

  • TheSpiteHouse||

    Holy crap. Good find.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I don't even understand the propensity of bureaucrats to have pot criminalized."

    There are people in power who generate hundreds of billions of dollars through law enforcement--at the local, state, and federal level--because marijuana is illegal.

    Count in all the prison guards who make money incarcerating offenders at all levels; all the revenue used to provide for probation officers, locally, etc.

    How much money goes to companies that arm SWAT teams and further militarize our police forces? How much money does asset forfeiture generate for law enforcement?

    There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, and if you think the UAW was interested in using the government to guaranteed its own cash flow by way of GM, how do you think all of those vested interests feel about having their revenue sources taken away?

    There's no way they're going down without a fight. These initiatives may have been an inflection point, but this is just the beginning--and recreational legalization hasn't really happened yet.

    As the great John Wooden once said, "Never mistake activity for achievement". What we've seen so far is a lot of activity--and no achievement whatsoever.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    And don't forget the mandatory rehab industry.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And let's not forget all the money and equipment that goes to places like Mexico and Colombia.

    Somebody somewhere gets to cash those checks!

  • np||

    While the Feds cannot force state governments to act, especially on something that contradicts state laws, the Fed still retains its own power to pursue criminalizing various acts on its own with its own marshals, agents and agencies, and the DOJ through the Commerce Clause.

    Since the Supremacy clause puts treaties on equal footing as federal and constitutional laws, it's possible they could still satisfy treaties and still remaining "constitutional" by bypassing the state agencies

    However, on this particular issue, it might be possible Dear Leader may use this as an opportunity to show how nice he is somehow...

  • Humason||

    Ask Orville Faubus about the feds not having the power to force state authorities to do what they'd rather not.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "However, on this particular issue, it might be possible Dear Leader may use this as an opportunity to show how nice he is somehow..."

    Between October of 2011 and October of 2012, the Obama Administration shut down 600 medical marijuana dispensaries in California alone.

    Unless Obama has a Paul on the road to Damascus moment, there's no reason to think Obama will stop persecuting recreational dispensaries--even while he's presently in the act of persecuting medical dispensaries...

    I don't think a lot of people really appreciate the fact that neither Barack Obama nor most of the other people who run our federal government really care about or respect what the people of Washington or Colorado want.

    They just don't.

  • Skyhawk||

    "I don't think a lot of people really appreciate the fact that neither Barack Obama nor most of the other people who run our federal government really care about or respect what the people want."
    FTFY

  • Ken Shultz||

    They don't.

    In more than one way, too.

    They don't respect what we want in terms of the fact that if they did--they'd leave us free to choose for ourselves...

    And they don't respect what we vote for one way or the other either--not really.

    Obama was elected becasue people were sick of the Iraq War--not because they wanted ObmaCare. Obama doesn't give a shit what we want. If you don't want to buy health insurance, he's gonna sic the IRS on you--that's how much Obama cares about what you want.

    You want to be free to smoke marijuana recreationally--so you voted an initiative into state law? Barack Obama and the Honey Badger both don't give a shit. We'll never change things for the better through the ballot box.

    Never.

    Sometimes we can vote for someone who is less awful, but that's about it.

  • ||

    oh, what utter rubbish

    ". We'll never change things for the better through the ballot box."

    we've been doing this through the ballot box and especially citizen initatives for decades - from anti racial preferences, to pro gun rights, to pro drug usage etc.

    people will be free to smoke recreational MJ in WA, in a few weeks. the war on MJ is effectively over here.

    barack obama aint doing shit about it

  • Ken Shultz||

    Anti-racial preferences didn't change through the ballot box. Those were inflicted on states by way of the national guard in some cases.

    I hope you're right about Barack Obama not doing shit about it--and I hope I'm wrong. But there isn't anything I've seen about Barack Obama that makes me think he's going watch people make such choices for themselves and take it lying down. He may not target the users--he's not doing that in California.

    ...but why should we expect Barack Obama to treat recreational dispensaries in Colorado better than he treats medical dispensaries in California?

    California passed an initiative, too! Obama doesn't give a shit.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Mr. Yans can take his opinion and shove it up his Belgian ass. What's he going to do, send some Fourth Reich eurocrat goons to Colorado to help the DEA harass innocent pot smokers?

    -jcr

  • Robert S||

    As I Coloradan, I live in hope.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    He won't have to. Our own Fed gov't will send the DEA and FBI. There's no reason to think they won't.

  • Humason||

    The logistics of that are going to be very difficult for the feds. DEA/FBI don't have the manpower to subjugate two heavily populated states.

  • ||

    they have neither the manpower nor the will. this is entirely different from medical MJ (see: big pharma and their influence there).

    the war on MJ is over. the feds aint doing jackshit in WA except for a little posturing

  • DRM||

    And, of course, the current administration is so adverse to enlarging the government payroll, and the House is controlled by a party that would stop him from hiring more DEA agents.

  • AdamJ||

    Can we remind the UN that we are their largest donor and to STFU?

  • Humason||

    Better yet, tell them that we need a new arena for the Islanders and are eminent domaining their headquarters. And suggest they move to someplace more in line with their governance philosophy, such as Pyongyang.

  • iggy||

    Since when does the UN care that we're their largest donor? European bureaucrats have been trying to obliterate national sovereignty for decades and they don't care how big the nation they're violating happens to be.

  • seguin||

    TAXING POWAH!

    - Johnnie "C-J" Roberts

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    What do our fearless leaders have to say about this?

    Given that I'm the suspicious and cynical sort, I'd be inclined to think that Obama & Co. would be inclined to go along with this shit, especially as it might provide an easier path to other shit they want, like gun control, more taxes, etc., etc.

  • ||

    "I don't even understand the propensity of bureaucrats to have pot criminalized."

    One major party is openly theocratic, the other one generally goes along with the theocratic party on drug issues to try to not lose too badly among such voters.

    Hell, I live in Hawaii with 90% Democrats in the legislature, and pot still is illegal (though our LP is going to push for legalization this session).

  • ||

    i used to be a cop in hawaii, a heavily democratic state. i hope you are not operating under the false notion that democratic politicians are ANY better on the war on drugs than repubs. because, on average, they are no better.

    and HI is so adamant about destroying MJ grows, that it's one of the few places where pot prices have been seriously affected, and imo many people who use crystal meth, etc. started doing it based on MJ prices getting out of control and looking for an alternative.

    that's what i heard when i worked undercover, from other users i hung out with

  • Humason||

    I imagine the geographic isolation "helps" with drug enforcement. If PA, for example, tried to stamp out MJ grows it would be pointless, since the grow ops in WV and OH, etc would be unaffected and land transportation across the state line is fairly low risk. Transportation to HI from elsewhere requires going through a maritime port or an airport, requiring a run through the Coast Guard/Border Patrol/TSA gauntlet.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    We need to reject the Social Conservatives in Hawaii. And the bicycle riders.

  • ||

    From the actual politicians I've known from working at the HI state legislature, I'd say the D politicians are slightly better on average than the R politicians, but not by much, or else HI would have been the first state to legalize weed.

  • ||

    i been saying it befores, i be sayin it agains, this election signalled the end of the Era of MJ Prohibition. the feds know it. there will be some sputtering and some grandstanding vis a vis WA and CO but that's about it. more states will follow

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Correction:

    "to achieve its aim of ensuring availability of drugs for medical purposes while preventing their abuse"

    should have actually read:

    "to achieve its aim of preventing availability of drugs for medical purposes while ensuring their abuse"

  • DWC||

    The absurdity of grown up people believing that others have any right or business whatsoever telling others what they may or may not ingest is mind boggling to me. How does anyone in their right mind support this asinine notion? The entire world is fucked up beyond comprehension when people take such a proposition for granted.

  • ||

    I find it interesting that the bigggest "The War is Over" is Dunphy.

    As noted abobe. I don't see how what CO and WA did runs afoul of the treaty obligations. The DEA and FBI still have the power and the authority, through federal law, to enforce those treaty obligations.

    States are not required to have the same criminal laws as the feds. The feds can't say, "you have to define aggrivated assault this way." States can't enforce federal law. Didn't fucking Arizona get spanked for tyring to to that with immigration.

    But all this is predicated on a legal system as we know it. SCOTUS can and will come up with novel interpretations to satify thier statist proclivities, those fucks.

    But if Dunphy is right, I'll soon get to smoke a big blunt and remind everyone of that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think the UN guy is saying more or less the same thing you're saying--just with a different opinion on the implications.

    He's trying to urge the president to use federal law enforcement to uphold our treaty obligations.

  • AdamJ||

    And I'm urging the Prez to tell the UN to STFU and go worry about Europe or Gaza or Africa. That's right you little shits, we don't have to listen to you, so go work on fixing Africa (little knot here, you work on that Russ).

    In my dreams.

  • waaminn||

    Thats pretty crazy when you think about it dude.

    www.Max-Privacy.tk

  • sohbet||

    very super blogos thanks admin sohbet & sohbet odaları

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement