United Nations Official Calls on U.S. Government to Challenge Legal Pot in Colorado and Washington


The head of the United Nations' International Narcotics Control Board is calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to legally challenge marijuana ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington. The AP reports that 

Raymond Yans says the approvals send "a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad." He hopes Attorney General Eric Holder "will take all the necessary measures" to ensure that marijuana possession and use remains illegal throughout the U.S.

The U.N. drafted an anti-drug treaty in 1961, called the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The U.S. is a signatory. According to the treaty, signatories may legalize cannabis for industrial and "horticultural" uses (hemp), but agree to "adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant." 

NEXT: Officer Indicted for Cracking Handcuffed Prisoner's Skull

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.

  1. Raymond Yans says the approvals send "a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad."

    You are busting my balls, Yans.

    1. Oh, hey, here's an idea, GO FUCK OFF UN. k thanks. The USA's "gov't" has been signing treaties like this without the real concent of the US citizens. I do not see the UN's treaty as valid, and if you don't like it UN, come at me bro. Try and take my pot, that me and my peers have deemed legal, you'll get a knife to the throat. Keep you're silly ass rules to ur silly ass UN, thanks!

  2. Don't worry, dunphy says the War on MJ is finished. This isn't going anywhere.

    1. He's more or less right. The War on MJ isn't 'finished', but this is a mortal wound.

    2. While in the long term I think he's right in the short term I think the DEA's still got quite a bit of fight left in it and short of somehow electing someone like Rand Paul in 2016 I don't see the Feds backing off trying to enforce the controlled substances act anytime soon.

      It will probably take another 20 years for Pot to become effectively decriminalized and probably a good 10 years after that for full legality.

      1. I also think local and state PD are going to continue to fight it, as will prison guard unions/private prison people.

        The money to made by legal pot does not exist right now, but the money made by illegal pot can and will be spent in droves.

        1. I wonder how much of the police-judicial-prison economy depend on pot specifically as opposed to drugs like meth, heroin, etc.? For example, any cop or judge or prosecutor getting kickbacks from the bigger players will see that cash dry up completely. Pot stolen from evidence lockers will be nearly worthless as "clean" (i.e. non-stolen) pot will be available in abundance.

          1. I wonder how much of the police-judicial-prison economy depend on pot specifically as opposed to drugs like meth, heroin, etc.?

            I can't recall the stats exactly, but marijuana is the vast bulk of arrests and seizures. Only a fraction of a percent of people use "hard" drugs, while double digits smoke the weed.

            And entire industry has been built around busting pot smokers and dealers.

          2. i believe i read somewhere that pot is 70% of cartels business, and by cartel im not just talking about the mexican cartel, but the USA cartel (cia) and other evil organizations in the us gov't, but i believe 70% is the number you're looking for =)

  3. You know what? I used to not even care about MJ legalization, but the fact that this ass hat sees fit to say what he said makes me want to smoke weed even HARDER.

    1. ^THIS^

      I haven't really had any desire to try pot despite the fact that I voted for Ammendment 64 in CO, but I think now as soon as a pot store opens up here I'm going to smoke a fatty and send a picture to this asshole with the caption "go fuck yourself you stupid fucking UN twat!"

  4. That is a face that just begs to be punched, or better yet, subjected to capriole

    1. The man clearly suffers from a terminal case of backpfeifengesicht.

  5. There are very few other people in the world whose opinions matter less than UN officials. I'd be more worried if the UN backed legalization...

    Hell, in Texas, if enough people found out today that the UN was against marijuana legalization, they might have it legalized by the end of the week.

    1. I agree. Let's push this angle.

    2. I'd agree with you, Ken, if anybody other than Obama, Rice, Clinton, Jarrett, etc. weren't in the White House.

      To that crowd, I think transnationalism is close to gospel. These are the people who thought a UN resolution was all they needed to go to war in Libya, after all.

      This is likely to be taken much more seriously by them than it deserves.

    3. Well, at least there should should be some entertainment value in watching Republicans try to explain why we should obey the UN. This time.

      1. Honestly, I think support for the drug war is stronger with the progressive left than it is with the right, generally.

        It isn't the Republicans who are trying to ban Happy Meals for the children and stuff like that.

        Being a Progressive is all about using the power of government to force people to stop doing stuff that's supposedly not in their own best interests. And to me, that's what support for the drug war is all about.

        I can run off a list of old school Republicans from way back, too, that supported marijuana decriminalization starting with William F. Buckley, et. al.

        Show me Progressives that think it's best when people are free to make choices for themselves without government interference, and then I'll start buying that the resistance to marijuana legalization is mostly coming from the right.

        I'm kinda looking forward to seeing Democrats argue out of one side of their mouths that people should be free to make choices like smoking marijuana--and then turn around and support Obama for some reason.

        1. There's a lot to this, I think. Back when pot was a counterculture thing, it was the Left that was all for it because tokers were Stickin' it to The Man. Now that the Left **is** The Man, they kinda like all that yummy power.

    4. Relevant or not, it is time everyone who has either worked for the UN or considered working for the UN during their idealistic youth be murdered in their sleep, their horses raped, their spouses fed to elk and their babies be impaled on pikes. Just absolutely sick of their tranze shit at this point.

      1. Pace David Boaz, I have two things to say to any would-be Tim McVeigh:

        1) UN

        2) 3 am

  6. Oh look, kleptocratic asshat wants kleptocracy to continue.

    1. Maybe if we let them dip their beak. Create a UN Recreational Drug Oversight Panel...

      1. Just the tip. Really.

      2. And then they would mandate pot use which of course they would impose an international tax on and declare forced pot use is a human right.

  7. Yans is Belgian, shouldn't he be expressing his concerns a little closer to home...like that country to the north of him?

    1. One of the great things about being the head of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board though is getting to push his authoritarian asshattery on people on the other side of the planet. I'm sure it must give him a colossal fucking chubby just thinking about it.

      1. Well, I doubt it's colossal, I mean, he's probably compensating for it with his little power trip. But point taken, and agreed.

    2. Belgium is pretty far down the decriminalization road too. I think that personal cultivation is pretty much OK there now.

  8. The U.N. drafted an anti-drug treaty in 1961, called the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The U.S. is a signatory

    Did Colorado and Washington sign?

    1. ON NATION, INDIVISIBLE, BITCHES!!! Don't make me go all LINCOLN on yo ass.


    2. More important, did the Senate ratify?

      1. In 1961?

        My guess is yes they did.

        1. I can't seem to find whether they did or not, but the treaty claims to bind even those nations that don't ratify it.

      2. It really doesn't matter. The government can't use treaties to pass laws that the Constitution doesn't give the power to ordinarily do

        1. Except, you know the Supreme Court already went over this a dozen times. It's perfectly valid for Congress to make a plant that be grown anywhere illegal.

    3. 1961? Was President John F. Kennedy responsible for the douchebaggery of this treaty?

  9. *gets popcorn for the head explosions when Team Red has to choose between the War on Drugs and siding with the UN*

    1. See Also : Team Blue vs Commerce Clause

      1. But who are we kidding really? Team Red will choose the War on Drugs, and Team Blue will choose the Commerce Clause. Both should create an actual conflict in ideas within the teams. But both teams are actually about power, and their rhetoric is just how they sell their power grabs to the rubes.

      2. A lot of lefties saw the Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Bill and were against it because it would be a gateway to segregation and abortion bans. I'm not kidding.

    2. *gets popcorn for the head explosions when Team Red has to choose between the War on Drugs and siding with the UN*

      Please note that the same dilemma applies to Team Blue.

      But Stormy didn't feel the need to say that.

      1. Naw, the UN is way more important to Team Blue than the WOD. Besides, the majority of them already had their youthful indiscretions and got away with panache, like Obama. Getting busted for dope is so gauche.

        1. Speaking of, what is the state of affairs of WOD type stuff in Czech-sylvania, from your perspective?

          1. Pretty laid back, Herr Doctor. Less laid back than it used to be 10-15 years ago but still pretty meh. There's something of the passive-aggresive Dobry Vojak Svejk mentality in this I think.

            1. And anti-authoritarian, for all their faults, the Czechs do have a health streak of anti-authoritarianism.

              1. I'm finding the same here. WOD stuff appears to be targeted towards mafia-types to keep them in Czech. -D

                I have much broader prescriptive authority here, and more meds that requires an RX in the States can be purchased either OTC or BTC, the local apteka just needs to notify me so I can chart accordingly. Much different than the US. MMJ is kinda stalled somewhat, but the strain recently developed "without the high" would also be a great addition to the formulary for patients who want that option.

                1. A while back I wrote about Motilium which is OTC in many countries and prescription here and many other countries, yet was never approved in the States.

                  I have the impression that docs have a lot more leeway with prescriptions here and that the WOD, such as it exists, is more like a mild skirmish.

                2. Yeah the WOD is more like a light skirmish here, especially in regards to MJ.

                  Docs here (and my inlaws are lousy with them) seem to have a lot more leeway in prescribing.

                  There are even things like Motilium, legal here and basically the rest of the world, but never FDA'd in US that I find amazingly ridiculous. Land of the free, home of the brave.


      2. Because Team blue responds to cognitive dissonance by refusing to acknowledge it, which isn't particularly entertaining. Team red responds to cognitive dissonance by screaming, which is entertaining.

        It's the same way that a couple screaming at each other in a restaurant is far more amusing then a couple being passive agressive is.

        1. I dunno, listening to Henry Waxman go apeshit about companies writing down their balance sheets because of Obamacare was pretty fun, as is Maxine Waters on just about any topic.

          And has Guam capsized yet?

          1. True, although I have trouble really enjoying Waxman's rants over the organ music that starts every time he enters the room.

    3. If I may be allowed to speak for my people, very few of us on "Team Red" give a rat's ass about pot. I would have no problem voting for legalization and I doubt that anyone my age (54) or younger would have a problem either. The War on Drugs is a colossal waste of money and human resources and therefore, nonsensical. Conservatives, of my ilk anyway, have learned that we cannot in one breath exclaim, "Don't tread on me" while firmly treading all over the right's of others.

      1. right's??? You should know that I just got out of the hospital and am heavily drugged.

        Which leads me to wonder which has higher social costs-illegal or legal drugs. I'm betting legal.

        1. You seem to be a minority among Team Red. At least judging by their Presidential nominee and runner-up.

  10. Just when I think Peak Punchable Face can't go higher, along comes Raymond Yans to prove me wrong.

    1. This guy takes the lifetime acievement award for punchable faces. What a douche.

    2. It's the hair that really puts him over the top of other notable punchables such as Dionne.

      1. Even with the hair, parts of that forehead go on for miles. I mean, Riccian in its extent.

      2. It's really the whole package: the hair, the glasses, the floppy jowels. I mean, just look at it. It's all soft and doughey, no chance of hurting your hand at all. I bet I could punch that face for hours and not have a single scratch on my knuckles.

      3. And let's not forget the barely-there pre-pubescent 'stache.

    3. I don't know, it sort of looks like he hit Peak Punchable a few years back, and then got his face punched a lot and now it's all just collapsed and sad.

      1. Yeha, he's let himself go.


      2. But look at the pathetic little fuzzball under his nose. Looks like a caterpillar crawled on his face and died.


  11. I wish we could kick the UN out of New York City. Such prime real estate, wasted on some sad attempt at world tyranny.

  12. Nice corduroy jacket, Chester The Molester.

    1. OT: Oh Saccharin Man, that reminds me, I still need some help describing the concept of "The Hipster Doofus" (they love this word and think it's a scream) to my new neighbours. The idea of "artisinal mayo" has been met with similar guffaws.

      They have a similar infestation of avant garde, artsy types, but they appear to be on the level and don't take themselves so serial and "tragically ironic and terminally hip".

      Also, I blame you for introducing them to Jezebel. The reactions have been...well, hilarity has ensued. -)

      Also on that note, those lovely FEMEN-sters are hard at work.


      1. you have a weird definition of SFW.

        Anyway, have you shown them Die Hipster yet?

        1. The nipples are blurred; did you want black boxes? Sorry for the misread though, operating under different standards now. -)

          Nope, thanks TAO! Die Hipster, HO!

      2. Is anything really needed beyond this? Or maybe this?

        "Hipster Doofus" though, in particular, just makes me think of Kramer. Because Elaine was always calling him a doofus, and there's at least one episode in which he's described as a hipster.

        1. That will more than suffice. The pumpkin hate probably won't fly too well though. -)

          1. The real problem is that Hipster Runoff is such a goldmine, but has so many words that might be tough for non-native speakers. "Lamestreamers." "Throwing up pumpkin pie after 24 pumpkin pie beers sounds vibey?" Etc. But hilarious.

        2. Look at this fucking hipster is my one stop shopping for some quality hipster hate.

          They set the bar that others simply follow.

          1. That shit hasn't even been updated in over 2 months. Die Hipster, while focused exclusively on NYC, is much more up-to-date.

            1. Ah crap. I forgot about Die Hipster.

              You are correct KK, they are superior to LATFH. Much more quality hate.

      3. "artisinal mayo"

        Purina Hipster Chow

    2. Chester The Molester

      He's Belgian. Goes without saying.

  13. "adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant."

    Leaves? Fuck that! I be smokin da budz!

    1. Besides, the only misuse of Cannabis is not enjoying it.

    2. If we legalize it then the traffic will no longer be illicit.

      1. Good point. And I can't think of a more appropriate use for the seedless flowers than smoking them, or possibly extracting their goodness into some sort of fatty substance. The UN can keep the leaves if they want.

  14. Raymond Yans says the approvals send "a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad."

    None of the articles I've seen specify what that message is. So, is this about marijuana's supposed health risks or is it about a centralized government being weakened?

    1. Authority says marijuana is bad, therefor it is bad. To legalize it is to admit that authority was wrong. That raises the question of what else authority has gotten wrong. Such questions shake the very foundation of governmental authority, because if authority has invested this much in keeping marijuana illegal, and been wrong the whole time, what else is it royally fucking up?

      There is no way the DEA or the feds will go down without a fight. A major fight. Because the legitimacy of their authority is at stake.

      1. get rid of them both durrr

  15. The only kind of force the UN is good at is when its soldiers force their dicks into African kids

    1. Well, what's the point of being a soldier if you don't get to do some raping and pillaging?

  16. I haven't looked into this, but on what grounds would DoJ challenge the Wash and CO laws? I'm pretty sure that states don't have to have the same criminal statutes as the feds.

    1. Several counts of Failure to Obey the United Nations.

    2. Supremacy Clause and the Controlled Substances Act.

      1. The Supremacy clause counts international treaties the same as Constitutional provisions, and that's where the gov't has its mandate to fuck the states.

        1. The government can't use the treaty process to give themselves power that would otherwise take a constitutional amendment

    3. Let me introduce you to my leetle friend, the Commerce Clause.

      1. That is what they use to justify the federal prohibition (wrongly), but I don't see how it could be used to invalidate the state laws. I think it is unprecedented for the feds to be able to force a state to have a particular law on the books. It would be a novel use of the Commerce Clause (pretty amazing that that is even possible at this point).

        1. I think it is unprecedented for the feds to be able to force a state to have a particular law on the books.

          21-year-old drinking age?

          1. They did not use the Commerce Clause to force Louisiana to raise the drinking age to 21 did they? I thought they threatened withholding highway funds. And wasn't that the same tact that was used against Alaska concerning less than 1 ounce of weed for personal use years ago?

            1. Yes, they forced many states to raise the drinking age by withholding highway funds.

              My point was that it's not unprecedented for the Feds to force a state to have a particular law on the books.

    4. They may not bother with trying to get the courts to overturn the laws on Constutitional grounds.

      Much quicker and cleaner to just yank their highway funding until they get back in line.

      1. I've thought about something RC. Why would it be limited to highway funds?

        Why would they not place restrictions on entitlement spending instead to get them to play ball under the fig leaf of "public health"? I was thinking about that "Fiscal Cliff" stuff and states being so dependent on all sorts of funding for health initiatives aside from Medicaid is quite enormous would likely make such funding attractive to place new regulatory strings.

      2. That's possible. But all the talk has been of Holder suing them. If they were goign to yank funds, then no need for a lawsuit.

      3. But that would take an act of Congress, and I don't think the political will is there.

  17. Does this globalist, prohibitionist sack of monkey shit not realize that nobody gives a fuck what he thinks?

    The only thing in the world more heinous and humiliating than being a high-ranking employee of the United Nations is being a serial killer who targets prepubescent girls on school playgrounds.

    1. And there are some enterprising souls who occupy both positions!

      1. Those are the TRUE heroes if global stability, peace, and justice. LONG LIVE THE UNITED NATIONS! WE'RE ALL TOGETHER IN THIS1

  18. ?adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant? (Article 28)

    One the operative terms, misuse, is not defined in the Convention. Since it is not defined, it really has no legal force. I'd guess that the intent was that it marijuana is used for its psychoactive properties outside of a medical situation, this is the "misuse" intended, but that bit can be thrown out because there is no definition.

    Article 49 does state the following:

    The use of cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be discontinued as soon as possible but in any case within twenty-five years from the coming into force of this Convention as provided in paragraph 1 of article 41.

    The other term, illicit traffic, is defined as follows:

    "Illicit traffic" means cultivation or trafficking in drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention. (p. 3)

    1. So, yes, Colorado and Washington's laws would probably violate the Convention, but who really cares (other than UN functionaries)? The issue shouldn't be the Convention, but what is right. And it raises real issues of sovereignty. Under the laws that actually apply in Washington and Colorado, there would be no "illicit traffic" since it would be legal and, ipso facto, licit. The "misuse" phrase is just a cover for some serious question begging: it's illegal because it is "misused" and any "misuse" is a use that has been deemed illegal.

      Seems like the Convention is a bad agreement that a sane U.S. policy would renounce (which is easy to do).

      1. Those laws can't violate the convention because (1) Colo. y Wash. are not signatories to the convention and (2) the Colo. law does not compel anyone to produce, distribute, or use marijuana.

    2. I would also argue that the Convention, by its explicit terms, applies to the "leaves" of the plant, and not to the sticky, sticky nugs.

      So, with a little tweak to clarify that they are intended to legalize only the tops, and in no circumstances should anyone smoke the leaves, they're in the clear.

  19. Fuck Raymond Yans. I don't tell him how to live; who the **** does he think he is.

  20. International treaties carry the weight of Constitutional law in the U.S., right? Methinks this provides an easy way for the current administration to slime its way out pf the legalization debate and continue to crack down.

    1. Only treaties ratified under the legitimate authority of the Constitution, and since the Constitution grants government no power to prohibit drugs, any treaty to which we are signatories which imposes restrictions upon the usage and/or possession of drugs is null and void in the United States.

      1. I don't mean to be rude, but I question whether your argument on this would impress the Supreme Court, which has approved all sorts of improper arrogations of power as being Constitutionally proper.

        1. I don't mean to be rude,

          Then what on earth are you doing here?

          1. Fuck off, T! We're all upstanding and courteous around here!

        2. Dude, I was talking about what's true according to the supreme law. What governments, national and transnational, actually do is obviously very different. I'm sure the Supreme Scrotum of the United States wouldn't give two shits about the Constitution if you asked them about drug prohibition.

  21. The head of the United Nations' International Narcotics Control Board[...]

    The... WHAT?

    Raymond Yans says the approvals send "a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad."

    Aborad? What broad? And who is she to worry?

    1. ANd what about, like, Democracy?

  22. What's the right message? "Fuck you, pay me?"

    1. Warty, I must thank you again for your mansplanations last night. There is no way to say this that doesn't sound ridiculous, so I will just say: I am now squatting like a motherfucker. Thank you!

      1. Just don't get him started on the dead lift...

      2. Now start doing it with a heavy bar on your back, and gradually make the bar heavier. And drink milk. Instant Ass(TM)!

  23. Mr. Yans sure is a buzzkill!

  24. From: http://abcnews.go.com/Internat.....Kvn_-TaJ2I

    "The INCB has no enforcement ability." This is the closest I've ever seen ABC news to saying "shut up bitch" to the UN.

  25. Before using the Supremacy Clause to browbeat the states, the administration needs to look at the other signatories of the Drugs Treaty. Under international law, if the other parties to a treaty don't observe its term, you can repudiate the treaty. Time to look at the records of the other signatories of the Drug Treaty and see if they have been 100% faithful in their compliance. If not, then it's time to repudiate the treaty and tell those hypocritical cosigners to have carnal relations with themselves.

    1. Or ignore it because its enforcement within the territories of the United States would be illegal. It's easier and righter.

      1. Wickard would beg to differ.

        1. That's even easier, since Wickard was counter to the Constitution.

          1. Counter to the plain language of the constitution, but perfectly consistent with how it has been interpreted.

            1. "Interpreted", of course, meaning "dictated out of existence." Courts, eh?

  26. alt text: prostitutes make me wear a shirt so they don't touch my bacne

    1. That's hilarious. He reminds me of a grown-up version of Kyle's cousin Kyle on South Park.

  27. we've ignored the UN's authoritah before. this will be nothing new. the war on MJ is over. state after state will legalize. the feds are at best going to do a LITTLE posturing and that's it. bipartisan efforts are already underway in congress to account for state legalization. Note: this did NOT happen under medical MJ. it's different. the naysayers will eventually have to accept this.

    oh, and from the name you TRUST MOST (Taser)... on-officer video cameras.

    the video is pretty cool

    and especially ( i remember some person ignorant of field tactics and officer safety saying that once the person dropped A gun, they were disarmed. you ALWAYS assume more than one gun_)

    video is cool and note the officer does NOT shoot the dog 🙂


    protecting officers from false complaints and protecting people from bad officers. evidence stored OFF SITE.


    tracks download of video, who views, etc. awesome

    1. DIAF

      1. Dude, there are enough times when Dunphy is actually being a clueless dick that you don't have to be mean when he is actually making a valid point.

        1. while the clueless dick times are rare, i enjoy the damning by faint praise

  28. Being a political genius is the easiest think in the world. Just disagree with anything the U N suggests. These guys give new meaning to the word "Numb Nuts".

  29. One size fits all one worlder's should mind their own business.

  30. What wrong message? That the people are sovereign, and when they say, "enough's enough," the government that derives its just powers from their consent had better listen and obey? THAT wrong message?

  31. So, who comes up with all that stuff?


  32. Oh, hey, here's an idea, GO FUCK OFF UN. k thanks. The USA's "gov't" has been signing treaties like this without the real concent of the US citizens. I do not see the UN's treaty as valid, and if you don't like it UN, come at me bro. Try and take my pot, that me and my peers have deemed legal, you'll get a knife to the throat. Keep you're silly ass rules to ur silly ass UN, thanks!

  33. Too bad Badnarik didn't win, so clowns like this wouldn't have an office.

  34. Oh, and tell your ron weasley lookin mother fucker to stay in the UN as well, ugly bastard, we don't need your rules, or else we would have stayed part of england you douchers.

  35. I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, this guy gets my vote in the Dwight Schrute lookalike contest.

  36. there is interesting ommisssions in the statement.
    mr Yann claims:

    According to the treaty, signatories may legalize cannabis for industrial and "horticultural" uses (hemp), but agree to "adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant."

    but art 4 of the treaty allows medicinal cannabis
    the treaty calls for a government agency (art.28/23) when a government allows medical cannabis.
    this is in fact what the netherlands have done. a government agency that issues licenses to produce mediclnal cannabis

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.