The UN’s cannabis criticism of the USA

The UN’s Cannabis Criticism: A Case of Decentralization

Recently, the UN had the audacity to criticize the US government for allowing states to legalize cannabis. But who are they to dictate how a sovereign nation should regulate an installation? The UN’s criticism reeks of centralized power and arrogance. It is a continuation of the same narrative that led to the failed war on drugs and cannabis prohibition.

It’s not enough to end Prohibition in the United States alone. The whole world needs to realize that these drug deals are part of a larger system of oppression that undermines individual freedom. Decentralization and diversity of opinion are key to ensuring that everyone can exercise their rights without being subject to the will of a few.

In this article, we will delve deeper into the flaws in the UN criticism and make the case for a world where power is shared and accountable to the people. It is time to defy centralized power and embrace a society that values ​​individual freedom and diverse opinions.

The United Nations (UN) has criticized the US for its approach to legalizing cannabis. The UN’s International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) argues that the federal government is failing in its obligations under the 1961 Single Convention by allowing states within the country to legalize marijuana. The report states: “In states with a federal structure, a particular question may arise as to whether the federal government can be held accountable when a federated entity implements legalization that violates the conventions while the federal government has no authority to do so compel federated entity to fulfill treaty obligations.”

According to the 1961 treaty, member states “must implement and implement the provisions of this Convention in their own territory”. The Convention states that “a treaty is binding on each party in respect of its entire territory, unless a different intention is implied or otherwise specified in the treaty”.

However, the INCB has regularly criticized countries for allowing enactments to legalize cannabis because of their obligations under the 1961 Single Convention to Maintain Prohibition. The practical implications of this analysis are unclear, as other UN member states such as Canada and Uruguay have legalized marijuana for adult use at the federal level, in clear violation of the treaty, with no discernible consequences from the international organization.

But the INCB relies on the six-decade-old treaty provision to imply that the U.S. is evading its obligation to comply by allowing states to legalize recreational marijuana without taking enforcement action.

The INCB said that easier decriminalization of possession without allowing sale “may be considered compatible with the Conventions provided it respects the obligation to limit the use of drugs to medical and scientific purposes and provided that she remains within certain limits set by the conventions.”

Aside from the legality of cannabis reform under international law, the Board raised a number of criticisms against nations that have allowed legalization and against marijuana use in general.

The INCB argued that the “growing availability and potency of cannabis products available in the illicit markets pose an increasing health risk”. The approval and expansion of legal cannabis businesses has “contributed to the normalization and trivialization of cannabis use and, consequently, to a reduced perception of harm associated with cannabis use.”

The board claimed that “criminal organizations associated with large-scale illicit production and trafficking have benefited from the growing demand for cannabis.” It states: “This trend poses a growing challenge to the international community, particularly to States parties to international drug control conventions, which stipulate that, subject to the provisions of those conventions, all drug use must be limited to medical and scientific purposes and that any use contrary to the provisions of the Conventions should be treated as a ‘criminal offence’.”

The INCB acknowledged that various countries have attempted to justify marijuana reform in part by arguing that the policy changes support the convention’s stated goals of promoting health and safety and “human rights principles such as the right to liberty, privacy and personal autonomy. However, the board largely responded by dismissing the arguments.

According to the INCB, full legalization of adult use “is contrary to the obligations of drug control conventions.” The board claimed that “one can observe that legalization has not been successful in overcoming the drug problems that have arisen in legalization areas and worldwide. Cannabis use is still higher in these jurisdictions than others, and the prevalence of use appears to be increasing faster than in non-legalizing jurisdictions, with tangible health consequences.”

While it is unclear what the practical implications of the INCB’s analysis are, it is noteworthy that the international organization relies on the six-decade-old treaty provision to imply that the US is evading its duty to comply by requiring States allow legalization of recreational marijuana without taking enforcement action.

Drug prohibition is not about the drugs themselves, but about the behavior associated with drugs. The idea that drugs can be illegal is flawed because it assumes the government has the right to control what you do to your own mind and body. In reality, the drug ban is a declaration that you do not own the rights to your own consciousness.

Let’s be clear: drug prohibition is about you, not the drugs. It is a means for the government to control your behavior and limit your freedom. This is the most subtle form of tyranny on the planet.

The War on Drugs has incarcerated millions of people, disproportionately affected communities of color and has done little to curb drug use. Instead, it has created a black market controlled by violent criminal organizations. The violence and corruption associated with drug prohibition far outweighs any potential harm that drug use could cause.

As long as individuals do not harm others or violate their rights, they should be able to make their own choices about drug use. Government’s role should be to provide education and resources to help individuals make informed decisions, rather than enforcing punitive and repressive laws.

In the words of journalist Johann Hari, “The opposite of addiction is not sobriety, but human connection.” The solution to drug use and addiction is no longer prohibition, but a society that strengthens human connections, mental health resources, and strategies for Prioritize harm reduction.

It is time to reframe the conversation about drug use and to recognize that prohibiting drugs is not about the drugs themselves, but about our fundamental right to personal responsibility and personal freedom.

The UN’s criticism of the US approach to cannabis legalization is just another example of the overly audacious nature of centralized power. The idea that a group of unelected officials can dictate the fate of individuals is a clear violation of individual liberty. It’s time for “ununited nations” when it comes to international agreements that restrict individual liberties. We just have to unite to maximize the freedom of individuals worldwide. We cannot allow billionaires, corporations, or unelected officials to dictate the lives of the masses.

The time of freedom is now. We need to break away from the narrative we’ve been fed too long. We must claim our right to think, choose and live as we see fit. Drug prohibition is just one example of the most subtle form of tyranny on the planet. It’s time to realize that drugs cannot be illegal, only our behavior around them. Let us take responsibility for our minds and bodies and demand that our individual freedoms be respected.

THE UN AND WEED, READ MORE…

WHY DO UN MEMBER STATES WARN ABOUT RECREATIONAL WEEDS?