USA peace treaty, huh?

[scottdav]

I learnt something very interested last night and thought i would share.

Part of the American peace treaty which other countries sign states that the country must not use cannabis as a form of medicine.

I found it incredible they go to such lengths to deny other countries an easy to grow medicine that can be used for hundreds of different conditions with 0 deaths and very minimal side effects compared to man made versions. After some more digging around i later found that the pharmaceutical industry in the US is worth 200 billion dollars a year.

A few have started to break the treaty with regards to this section now, but i still find it incredible they try to deny the use of a medicine that both saves lives and improves the quality of life for people.

Could this be a reason to why it is still illegal here due to our close bond?

[Shuvi Tupya]

scottdav said:

Could this be a reason to why it is still illegal here due to our close bond?

not sure, but in the US they are very much relaxing the marijuana laws and you can now buy it through government approved outlets in about 14 states, so far.

I do hope that we follow that trend!

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Shuvi Tupya said:

not sure, but in the US they are very much relaxing the marijuana laws and you can now buy it through government approved outlets in about 14 states, so far.

I do hope that we follow that trend!

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/QCZG3oRtSVw/Marijuana+Enthusiasts+Gather+Mass+Pot+Smoking/gYX7-Z8kX1k

And yes...that is a haze of weed, and not just a foggy morning

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Friday 4th March 19:25

[ErnestM]

scottdav said:

I learnt something very interested last night and thought i would share.

Part of the American peace treaty which other countries sign states that the country must not use cannabis as a form of medicine.

I found it incredible they go to such lengths to deny other countries an easy to grow medicine that can be used for hundreds of different conditions with 0 deaths and very minimal side effects compared to man made versions. After some more digging around i later found that the pharmaceutical industry in the US is worth 200 billion dollars a year.

A few have started to break the treaty with regards to this section now, but i still find it incredible they try to deny the use of a medicine that both saves lives and improves the quality of life for people.

Could this be a reason to why it is still illegal here due to our close bond?

Source?

[bigandclever]

scottdav said:

I learnt something very interested last night and thought i would share.

Part of the American peace treaty which other countries sign states that the country must not use cannabis as a form of medicine.

Can you share the source of this? Because it sounds a bit, well, wrong

[pokethepope]

scottdav said:

Could this be a reason to why it is still illegal here due to our close bond?

I know they like invading countries, but I don't think they would declare war with us just because we made weed legal.

[scottdav]

I think it was somewhere in here,
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-if-cannabis-cu...

No idea on the age of this but many leading experts of their fields and some very interesting content.

Shuvi Tupya said:

not sure, but in the US they are very much relaxing the marijuana laws and you can now buy it through government approved outlets in about 14 states, so far.

I do hope that we follow that trend!

State law yes but federal law no, the DEA still raid shops in states that have made it legal.

I don't think we should follow trends at all but come to our own decisions based on facts. One fact is that the cannabis industry is the fastest growing in the US and is already the #1 cash crop like it was before prohibition. With this country in the state it is i don't see why our goverment would turn down such an industry here.

I could write pages on the topic but will limit myself

[Derek Smith]

scottdav said:

Could this be a reason to why it is still illegal here due to our close bond?

When the yanks started their war on drugs this country was 'encouraged' to follow suit despite our rather good, for the time, record with drug abuse.

American has always been puritanical - hence prohibition. Despite the failure of that they still somehow believed that everything would be alright as long as they passed a law against it. Or, perhaps, the police, judges and politicians just wanted another source of income.

Drugs were given to registered drug addicts on prescription over here. There were still problems, many of them major, but nothing like nowdays, but we were not allowed to follow our own method.

We had signed up to a drugs convention some time after the war but had not really followed it. The Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971, went way beyond the convention.

It would be wrong to suggest that it was all sweetness and light then but I remember a lecture I had as a newish PC from a drugs unit officer who stated that most of their problems started with the Act. It was suggested that it would be substantially watered down because of its obvious flaws.

Still waiting.

If memory serves it was Harry Wilson, that fine example of a prime minister, one that many have followed, who agreed to the change in legislation, although it was passed in Heath's time. Wilson, despite all his leftish posturing, was in reality a centerist and, indeed, supported the Vietnam war, for no apparent reason. Can't think what he had in common with Nixon.

There was an awful lot in the papers at the time of the MoDA with regards to its efficacy. Many doctors came out against it but the papers were very right wing in the main with only the Mirror really taking a non-establishment stand. I'd been at art college and there were some students (and probably instructors) who depended on the scripts. The odd thing was that there were many more falling apart through alcohol.

I once was given an amphetamine-laced drink and it affected me quite badly. A friend took me out of the party and had to stop on Westminster Bridge for me to vomit. Earth has not anything to show more fair. A police officer came up, was told what had happened by my driver, who'd had a couple, and the police officer directed him to the hospital. I came down whilst wating to be seen - nothing changes - and so he took me home. I was still a bit off my head.

The following day my dad took me up to near the 24-hour chemist by Trafalgar Square and showed me the druggies shooting up in doorways and in the toilets. So there were still problems, as I said. But there were very few.

[ErnestM]

I would just like to see one "peace treaty" that forbad legalisation of cannabis as a prerequisite to ratification.

[Jimbeaux]

ErnestM said:

I would just like to see one "peace treaty" that forbad legalisation of cannabis as a prerequisite to ratification.

Don't hold your breath.

[Marf]

Worst "I smoke pot and am annoyed its illegal " thread ever.

[FunkyNige]

ErnestM said:

I would just like to see one "peace treaty" that forbad legalisation of cannabis as a prerequisite to ratification.

Bizaarely, Googling 'marijuana peace treat' has the third hit as this thread, but further down the list we have this -
http://www.drugtext.org/Various-general/opium-coca...

There's an awful lot in there, but the bit I think the OP is on about is this :

America's International efforts continued. After World War I, the British and U.S. governments proposed adding the Hague Convention to the Versailles Treaty. As a result, ratifying the peace treaty meant ratifying the Hague Convention and enacting a domestic law controlling narcotics. This incorporation led to the British Dangerous Drugs Act of 1920, an act often misattributed to a raging heroin epidemic in Britain. In the 1940s some Americans argued that the British system provided heroin to addicts and, by not relying on law enforcement, had almost eradicated the opiate problem. In fact, Britain had no problem to begin with. This argument serves as an interesting example of how the desperate need to solve the drug problem In the U.S. tends to create misperceptions of a foreign drug situation.

[scottdav]

Derek Smith said:

Intersting stuff

It was actually pushed through by a presidential advisor who retained the post until Nixon left. He was openly racist and used cannabis to scare people about Mexicans in many different ways, hence they used the Mexican term of marijuana. This also banned the production of hemp which wasn't known at the time. Pharmaceutical, cotton, tobacco, plastic and timber industries could all make more profit so bribes were also not out of the question at a time when a new machine which could harvest hemp much faster was invented.

Marf said:

Worst "I smoke pot and am annoyed its illegal " thread ever.

I do smoke it every few weeks yes, however it makes no odds being illegal to me as a freind grows for personal use and doesnt mind me having a little knowing i get it safe.

Anyway, back to the OP. The US government trying to deny the use of a medicine to people worldwide is wrong if indeed true which i believe it to be. The Canadian government admitted the only reason they had not made cannabis legal was because the US promised to shut the border and cease all trade.

[Oakey]

Shuvi Tupya said:

not sure, but in the US they are very much relaxing the marijuana laws and you can now buy it through government approved outlets in about 14 states, so far.

I do hope that we follow that trend!

Know who the biggest grower of Cannabis is in the UK?

A limtied company known as GW Pharma. They have authorisation from the Home Office to grow 30,000 plants a year. They even get to operate out of the governments top secret Porton Down facility.

GW Pharma take those plants and reduce it down to Cannabis Oil, then incorporate it into an oral spray.

Last year their turnover was £24million, with a profit of £23.5million

[bigandclever]

scottdav said:

Anyway, back to the OP. The US government trying to deny the use of a medicine to people worldwide is wrong if indeed true which i believe it to be.

So, show us the text, not some pro-gear video. Provide a link that the US "deny the use of a medicine to people worldwide".

[Jimbeaux]

scottdav said:

I do smoke it every few weeks yes, however it makes no odds being illegal to me as a freind grows for personal use and doesnt mind me having a little knowing i get it safe.

Anyway, back to the OP. The US government trying to deny the use of a medicine to people worldwide is wrong if indeed true which i believe it to be. The Canadian government admitted the only reason they had not made cannabis legal was because the US promised to shut the border and cease all trade.

Sorry, but this sounds rather tinfoilhat-ish. Especially the part about closing the border to trade.

[anonymous-user]

Everybody smokes pot here. I was pretty shocked tbh when I moved here to find how widespread pot use is. I have been at parties where I was the only person not toking.

[anonymous-user]

scottdav said:

The Canadian government admitted the only reason they had not made cannabis legal was because the US promised to shut the border and cease all trade.

Who in the Canadian government?? Sounds like apocryphal nonsense to me.

[elster]

So the USA are at war with themselves then?

I am not read up on this, but does that mean there is a restricted peace treaty to a lot of countries then, or just not bother?

[scottdav]

Ok, so maybe i'm gullible. I just desperately want to know this as in OP and PHers are the ones who tend to know stuff about stuff.

scottdav said:

i still find it incredible they try to deny the use of a medicine that both saves lives and improves the quality of life for people.

Anyone know? Who or why?

I know about gw pharmaceuticals but they only do a few things, even they make silly profits margins off a plant.