By: The Fusionist
One issue raised by drug warriors about the legalization of marijuana in various U.S. states involves the United Nations drug-control treaties, especially the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This multilateral treaty requires the parties – including the United States – to ban a whole list of drugs, including cannabis. So the prohibitionists say that when Colorado, etc., legalize dope, this puts the United States in violation of the Convention.
The United States are (not “is”) a Union of states, so the question arises: How to reconcile compliance with the Convention with respect for federalism? The prohibitionists, including the bureaucrats at the International Narcotics Control Board, say that countries with a federal system must be held to observance of the Convention regardless of federalism considerations. Legalizers (including you-know-what magazine) say that the Convention allows for federalism and thus there’s no problem if Colorado, etc. choose to go their own way on marijuana.
In fact, the Convention seems to face both ways on federalism. On the one hand, Article 4 says member countries must “give effect to and carry out the provisions of this Convention within their own territories” without any mention of federalism. On the other hand, Article 35, while requiring member countries to adopt penal measures against drugs (including marijuana.), says that each member country’s responsibility in this regard is “[s]ubject to its [the country’s] constitutional limitations.”
The broad language of Article 4 does seem to militate against a country simply up and allowing legalization of any of the substances which are supposed to be banned. The federal government, with its responsibility for foreign affairs, would be in an awkward position explaining to the international community how our country remains committed to “carrying out” the cannabis ban “within [the United States’] own territories” even while many of the constituent parts of our federal Union are making it legal. This would be particularly awkward when the United States government was a leader in pressing for this drug Convention in the first place, rebuking other countries for their alleged softness in the prohibitionist cause.
On the other hand, the answer to this problem is not for the federal government to trample on our Constitution in order to please the United Nations – either with a tortuous reading of the Commerce Clause or under the guise of passing enforcement legislation under the treaty power. Even if we make the dubious assumption that the Supreme Court was right about Congress’ power to override federalism in the name of enforcing treaties, it’s not clear that the Supreme Court’s decision allows the complete abrogation of federalism to enforce this particular treaty. Since the penal article of the treaty, at the very least, allows us to respect our own “constitutional limitations,” it seems a bit circular to say that Congress has to pass penal legislation to stay in compliance with this article.
I’m sure President Trump stays awake nights contemplating this dilemma. So let me offer a suggestion – why not respect the rule of law like Bolivia did?
The Bolivian government was a party to the UN Narcotic Convention, and faced a similar problem to ours. Out of respect for the rights of indigenous peoples (which is kind of like federalist principles, if you think about it), Bolivia legalized the chewing of coca leaves by these peoples, apparently a traditional practice. But the Convention apparently required coca-leaf chewing to be criminalized.
Instead of doing fancy legal footwork to try and claim they were complying with the Convention, Bolivia pulled out of the Convention altogether, which Article 46 of the Convention allows. Then Bolivia re-ratified the Convention, but this time they attached a reservation that the indigenous practice of coca-leaf chewing could remain legal. Some countries, including the U.S., objected to this reservation, but there weren’t enough objections to make any legal difference, and Bolivia was accepted back into the Convention subject to its coca-leaf reservation.
(Fun fact: “socially liberal” Sweden was one of the countries which unsuccessfully objected to Bolivia’s coca-leaf reservation, declaring that “the ambition expressed in the convention is the successive prohibition also of traditional uses of drugs.”)
So let’s assume that President Trump’s drug-war zeal is stronger than his skepticism about multilateral treaties, and that he wants the U.S. to stay part of the UN Narcotic Drug Convention. All he needs to do is pull out of the Convention, and then ask the Senate to re-ratify with a reservation that lets us legalize marijuana.
Now, in such a case, I’d be cheering for the Senate to reject the treaty as a violation of U.S. sovereignty, not to mention dubious policy, but in that case Trump’s hands would be clean, he would have made clear his drug war bona fides without going full retard about it.
Citations:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Fourth Commandment and Fifth Commandment
“The UN Drug Control Conventions: A Primer”
“Bolivia Rejoins UN Drug Treaty, Sans Coca Ban”
“Does Marijuana Legalization Violate International Law?”
Catholic disclaimer:
“2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially…
“- the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc….
“2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.” (from the Catechism)
As the great St. Thomas Aquinas showed, the state is not bound to forbid all sins, and until recently, Catholics have not been prohibitionists. As for protecting the family from drugs, I would say that the state should step in only in cases of clear harm, like when someone’s abuse leads them to neglect their family responsibilities, but that the Church should intervene pastorally even earlier than this, to keep Catholics (or non-Catholic beneficiaries of Catholic charity) on the straight and narrow.
Comments
61 responses to “Why President Trump Should Follow The Rule Of Law Like Bolivia”
I wonder what the mechanics are for pulling out? Can the President do so with the ol’ pen and phone, or does the Senate/Congress need to approve? If the latter, it won’t happen anytime soon, unfortunately.
I think there’s a bit of a debate, but the Presidents have traditionally argued they can act unilaterally.
Here’s a Federalist Society paper on the ABM Treaty, published during the GW Bush Administration
Surprise twist ending: They argue the President can withdraw from the ABM Treaty without Congressional or Senate approval.
Why would any president pull out of that? There’s nothing more fun than paying governments all around the world to help us win an immoral and unwinnable war against private citizens.
I’m hoping the phrases “multilateral treaty” and “United Nations” will trigger him. Probably too much to hope.
I seriously doubt it. So far, all signs from Trump on the WOD are bad from a libertarian perspective. He did say something about letting the states decide on cannabis, but then there’s Sessions and all of the rhetoric about Mexicans bringing drugs, etc, etc. It overall looks bad for the drug war for the next 4 years. Then once the democrats have re-gained power, they’ll have thought of some reason to go all pro-drug war. Something, something, racists, winimz and chillins hardest hit.
I’m guessing compulsory “treatment” in lieu of prison, so they can boast of lowering the incarceration rate.
Or maybe not even that.
^this^ will be the Democrats solution. Except for that it will be pro-active deal. Something like ‘hey, dopers, we’ve created a safe space for you to use your drugs’. They tried this in Brazil, the people ran away, all of them.
Have you been looking at Hillary’s emails?
I’ve posted this several times, but it bears repeating. When I wonder why a government wouldn’t get rid of a disastrous policy or law, I always remember my Rand, (of the Ayn variety)
Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.
+1,000,000!!!!!
First time I’ve ever read an article with citations to Catholic doctrine and St. Thomas Aquinas (outside of the National Catholic Register). You are an original, Fusionist.
I was thinking that exact same thing.
It is important to be reminded from time to time that the War on Drugs is an international crusade. Though to what extent it was started by and continues to be led by the US, I’m not sure. But the fact that the whole world is mental on this issue is a kick in the nuts.
Yeppers. There is an entire layer of evil on top of the one we already have.
I assume other governments see the same thing in it that the US government does: a big opportunity to expand the police state, harvest revenue, and keep their people under their thumb. Drugs is an excuse; the payoff isn’t reduction in drug use – otherwise the drug war would have been abandoned long ago. The payoff is expansion of the Total State.
Depressingly accurate.
I’m sure that your loyal support as a tinpot dictator makes sack fulls of dollars mysteriously show up on your doorstep. What? You want the terrorists to win?
Except Portugal.
Oops. Already addressed below.
And that only slightly. Still “illegal”.
Fuck the UN.
Here is the Aquinas citation
“Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.”
But, would St. Augustine agree?
Hungry, hungry hippo.
Fantastic work, Eddie. And I even learned a few things!
That said, fuck the UN sideways. Time to evict those leeches and eliminate the treaties.
Trump’s going to evict them for the sake of nationalism. Then he’s going to invite them right back because terrorists and drugs.
Ditto, Eddie!
Fantastic submission.
How about just ignoring treaty? The rest of the world wouldn’t and couldn’t do a damn thing about it. I’d like to see the Trumpenator pull out unilaterally and spray liberty all over the UN’s face but that’s unlikely to happen.
The problem is that as a treaty member the US would be in a position to nag other countries (hypocritically of course) to wage their drug wars harder.
Once pulled out of the treaty, then the world would know there’s been a change in policy, if not toward full legalization at least away from an international prohibition bureaucracy.
I wonder how Portugal’s decriminalization of just about everything managed to jibe with this treaty.
The current head of the UN is the former PM of Portugal (António Guterres) who oversaw the drug-decriminalization there.
from (giggle) Marijuana.com
There were other reports that said that many UN members *bitched* extensively in 2001 when Portugal decrimmed, mainly arguing that they would be a crime & addict magnet and would cost other nations $$. It didn’t happen, and by 2006-8 or so most countries were ‘praising’ their efforts, while saying they were still too-radical for larger countries to enact.
“(*The treaties do not require nations to maintain criminal penalties on drug use.)”
Really? Here’s what’s in the 1961 Narcotic Drugs Convention:
“Article 36
“PENAL PROVISIONS [huh, huh]
“1. a) Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall adopt such measures as will
ensure that cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession,
offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever,
brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of drugs
contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and any other action which in the opinion of
such Party may be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, shall be punishable offences
when committed intentionally, and that serious offences shall be liable to adequate
punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty.
“b) Notwithstanding the preceding subparagraph, when abusers of drugs have committed
such offences, the Parties may provide, either as an alternative to conviction or punishment
or in addition to conviction or punishment, that such abusers shall undergo measures of
treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration in conformity with
paragraph 1 of article 38.”
So I guess 36(1)(b) would give countries an “out,” though what if the defendant won’t accept “treatment?”
abusers shall undergo measures of treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration
I could meet those with a simple form that you could sign if you got “busted” for drugs.
I note, also, that the loophole specifies “abusers” of drugs, which can easily be defined in a way that leaves pot arrests outside the requirement for treatment, etc.
If it were not for the United States, the WOD would just disappear for the most part. Most countries cannot afford it. They only do it because they’re getting US tax dollars to do it.
I guess we would still have Duterte. Jeff Sessions hardest hit.
I was trying to find a place in the article for this quote from the report of the International Narcotics Control Board:
“It is disturbing that, while many developing countries have been devoting their limited resources to eradicating cannabis plants and fighting trafficking in cannabis, certain developed countries have, at the same time, decided to tolerate the cultivation of, trade in and use of cannabis for purposes other than those provided for by the international drug control treaties.”
They seem worried that if the rich countries become more tolerant of marijuana, the poor countries may decide that they want to put “their limited resources” into something more constructive.
“The prohibitionists, including the bureaucrats at the International Narcotics Control Board, say that countries with a federal system must be held to observance of the Convention regardless of federalism considerations. Legalizers (including you-know-what magazine) say that the Convention allows for federalism and thus there’s no problem if Colorado, etc. choose to go their own way on marijuana.”
That is about as far as I got. The prohibitionists and the International Narcotics Control Board dont really have anything to say about it. The Constitution dictates the law of the land here. It is the supreme law of the land. No other law may contravene it. As for the legalizers saying that the convention allows for it, who the fuck cares what it allows? The convention has no say in the matter. Our government was never empowered by the Constitution to enter into this agreement.
I didn’t read about Bolivia but I know a thing or two about the place. No one there pays the slightest bit of attention to this convention or even Bolivian law. You can buy narcotics on the street there like you can buy soft drinks here and no one bats an eye.
The Constitution dictates the law of the land here. It is the supreme law of the land. No other law may contravene it.
Oh how I wish that were true.
It’s a nice thought, though.
You dont have to wish. It is true.
The problem of course is that thugs ignore it and get away with it because no one is willing to stand up to their bullying. Still, that possibility remains. The govt and everyone else knows that. That is why the statists want to disarm the people so very badly, to eliminate that possibility.
No matter what aspect of the rule of law is being discussed, no matter the importance of any inalienable right the most important issue, the leg that all other rights stand on, is outlined in the Second Amendment.
You are correct in the 2A. It provides teeth to the rest of the constitution. Where I live, and probably where you live, The second is alive and mostly well. The problem is that there are large portions of this country where the second has been effectively gutted. There has been an assault on the second since at least 1934 with the passage of the NFA.
Going back to the constitution, The ability of the legislatures to pass the NFA and then the having the courts uphold it was a major blow to our constitution. I don’t know if there is another law ever passed and upheld that is as blatantly unconstitutional as the NFA, yet here were are 80+ years later still burdened by it without nary a hope of it being abolished.
You’re right, Suthen.
The only problem is that the federal government lacks any authority to outlaw drugs if you take the Commerce Clause as written. SCOTUS put paid to that over 70 years ago. According to our new and improved Constitution, the feds have plenary authority over anything and everything that touches the economy directly or indirectly. Because limited enumerated powers.
You forgot this one: not touching the economy at all has an effect so they have authority over that as well. Not effecting is effecting.
I had hoped that Rand Paul’s effort to have hemp cultivation legalized would be successful. All that new rope could come in handy.
Dude, what are you even talking about? Hemp looks even more like marijuana than tomato plants! How do you expect our heroes in blue to keep this straight?
Shoot and ask questions later?
not touching the economy at all has an effect
Covered by “indirectly”, a word used in the infamous Wickard case.
“The prohibitionists and the International Narcotics Control Board dont really have anything to say about it. The Constitution dictates the law of the land here.”
Yes, the law is as you say, the *practice* is a bit different, I was suggesting practical ways to bring the practice closer to the law.
“practical ways to bring the practice closer to the law”
I thought I addressed that above regarding Pauls effort at restarting hemp cultivation.
Ha ha, I get it.
Geez, it’s only noon here and I am tired. Was right in the middle of a screwing party and got hungry. I made hamburgers and sat down here for a few minutes and I dont know if I can get back up. I should probably nap.
ఠ_ఠ
Well, I’m sure that screwing parties make you tired, and hungry.
The kind of screwing parties I like to attend usually are pretty hard on one’s appetite, for food that is.
I was hoping Eddie would bite on that.
Red oak y’all. Red oak. Brass screws. 40 of ’em.
I fashioned all of the parts for a night table to go in the newly refurbished guest room then spent an hour drilling all of the pilot holes. I started putting in the screws to assemble the thing and realized I hadn’t eaten today. After it is assembled the Wife and I will sit down, smash some tile with a hammer and do a tile mosaic on the shelves. The top one is already done, red background with a white fleur-de-lis. I think we are out of white tile so the bottom one will probably be green. Another day spent sanding and finishing and I can quit hearing about what needs to be done in the guest room.
If your wife is anything like mine, once the guest bedroom is done you start hearing about the Den. And once the den is done it’s gonna be time to start talking about the bathroom. And once the bathroom is done…
Home ownership is rewarding, but a real pain in the ass.
Same here. Start pulling on a loose thread and it never ends.
Tell me about it. The domino effect of home improvements can be irresistible, as whatever you just worked on makes everything around it look bad.
True story: We replaced the range in our kitchen a few houses back. The domino effect cut in, and less than a year later the entire house was gutted to the studs. Even the ceilings.
Sounds like some pretty good screwin’, it’s no wonder you’re plumb tuckered out.
Good work. I knew Glibertarians would have good comments, but I didn’t realize the commenters would be writing good pieces to comment on! Kudos to all. I may actually write a piece or two.
Nice article.