VN Boards Archive

[VN Boards Archive]

Welcome to the Vault Network forum archive.

This is not a complete archive, time didn't allot us the opportunity to properly backup the majority of the boards deemed "expendable". Most boards on this list have at least 20-40 pages archived (non-logged in pages, 15 topics per page).

Popular boards may have as many as 250 pages archived at 50 topics per page, while others deemed of historical signifigance may be archived in their entirety.

We may not agree with how the board shutdown was managed, but we've done what we could to preserve some of its history in lieu of that.

Please enjoy the archive.
~ Managers, Moderators, VIP's, and regular posters.

Author

Topic: A question for the OP lawyers

ineenia Posts: 5,191 Registered: Nov 1, '05 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 4,871 User ID: 1,090,042	Subject: A question for the OP lawyers
	The federal government on its own has no(constitutional) authority to enforce drug laws,but the authority was gained when "The Single Convention Treaty on Narcotic Drugs" was signed. The question is ,is it even possible for us to legalize pot with out nullifying or being in continual violation the whole treaty ? If we were in continual violation of the treaty would that open us up the lawsuits from other drug users claiming the authorty to regulate drugs had been abandon when we chose to willingly violate the treaty? -----signature----- If their stupidity didn't shelter them from the full shame of their actions,their would be alot more republican suicides.
	Link to this post
Taliesihne Title: Wind on the Deep Waters Posts: 36,223 Registered: Feb 19, '04 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 30,592 User ID: 896,469	Subject: A question for the OP lawyers
	Um, the history of drug laws predates the Treaty by like a hundred years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States The Fed Starts to stick it's nose in the early 1900's and it just progresses from there. We don't formally recognize international law, so there is no problem there re: lawsuits. If our domestic law changed to reflect something else, it wouldn't matter what international law said. The treaty also has no teeth. There wouldn't be serious consequences for ignoring it. And I would imagine that the legalization process would involve dealing with the teraty anyway. -----signature----- Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. -Roland Deschain, of Gilead
	Link to this post
ineenia Posts: 5,191 Registered: Nov 1, '05 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 4,871 User ID: 1,090,042	Subject: A question for the OP lawyers
	Up until 1961 the anti-pot laws were all state level laws.The fed was involved but compliance was voluntary at the state level. The federal governments sole authority to outlaw and to regulate drugs is because of the treaty I listed.I know we can break treaties that isn't the question.Can we break part of the treaty by legalizing pot and still use it as justification to enforce the other drugs laws the treaty makes possible. -----signature----- If their stupidity didn't shelter them from the full shame of their actions,their would be alot more republican suicides.
	Link to this post
Taliesihne Title: Wind on the Deep Waters Posts: 36,223 Registered: Feb 19, '04 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 30,592 User ID: 896,469	Subject: A question for the OP lawyers
	No, they were not. The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act passed in 1914 was the first Federal attempts at criminalization. This was followed by the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act in 1922 and the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930's, who then passed the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. I would recommend you check out Histories Hooked - Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way documentary series. It's chock full of good information on this stuff. -----signature----- Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. -Roland Deschain, of Gilead
	Link to this post
Yukishiro1 Posts: 38,362 Registered: Sep 20, '02 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 31,453 User ID: 718,633	Subject: A question for the OP lawyers
	ineenia posted: The federal government on its own has no(constitutional) authority to enforce drug laws,but the authority was gained when "The Single Convention Treaty on Narcotic Drugs" was signed. That doesn't make any sense. A treaty can't give the government powers it didn't previously constitutionally have. -----signature----- (none)
	Link to this post
Taliesihne Title: Wind on the Deep Waters Posts: 36,223 Registered: Feb 19, '04 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 30,592 User ID: 896,469	Subject: A question for the OP lawyers
	All it really did was provide the scheduling format. And it came along just in time, The Tax Stamp Act had just been ruled unconstitutional. Don't get hung up by the 'unconstitutional' angle though - SCOTUS ruled the Stamp act was illegal because the government never made those stamps available to the public. SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of the ability to criminalize recreational drug usage -----signature----- Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. -Roland Deschain, of Gilead
	Link to this post
IMHO Title: Official Outpost Greeter Posts: 30,884 Registered: Nov 1, '01 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 28,020 User ID: 490,177	Subject: A question for the OP lawyers
	Treaties... -----signature----- You're Right ~ Koneg He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
	Link to this post
ineenia Posts: 5,191 Registered: Nov 1, '05 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 4,871 User ID: 1,090,042	Subject: A question for the OP lawyers
	Yukishiro1 posted: ineenia posted: The federal government on its own has no(constitutional) authority to enforce drug laws,but the authority was gained when "The Single Convention Treaty on Narcotic Drugs" was signed. That doesn't make any sense. A treaty can't give the government powers it didn't previously constitutionally have. Article 6 of our constitution 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. -----signature----- If their stupidity didn't shelter them from the full shame of their actions,their would be alot more republican suicides.
	Link to this post
ineenia Posts: 5,191 Registered: Nov 1, '05 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 4,871 User ID: 1,090,042	Subject: A question for the OP lawyers
	oops.x2 I'll get back to you tali...you brought up one thing I wasn't aware of and I want to read about it first. -----signature----- If their stupidity didn't shelter them from the full shame of their actions,their would be alot more republican suicides.
	Link to this post