Reply #6: I'd guess, since it's the UN and not the US, that they are trying to [View All]

[jobycom]

drum up opposition to legalizing it in other nations, or downplaying the dangers in the UK, specifically. There are a lot of international treaties involving MJ, and one nation bucking the ban or refusing to take it seriously affects a whole chain of agreements. It can weaken the trade of some nations, who may be subsidized to not sell it, or it could undermine US involvement in another country. Or it could just offend some nations who have extreme bans and cultural biases against the stuff. There are probably other treaties wrapped up in the bans, too. Maybe extradition treaties with Singapore require us to keep a ban on MJ.

That's why it's illegal still here, I think. Most Americans couldn't care less about MJ. I hate the stuff passionately, have never smoked it, will never smoke it legal or not, and will discourage my kids from smoking it, and even I don't think it should be illegal. But the international agreements involving the stuff are too complex to allow the laws to be changed.

If you were talking only about American politicians coming down against it, I'd say it was an effort to win the parent vote. But since you were talking about the UN, I think it's the international agreements they are worried about. They are trying to pressure Britain back into line. Think about it, too. If it's illegal in many places, and Britain legalizes it or just loosens up enforcement of the laws against it, that can cause an increase in crime in nations where it is still banned, as suppliers try to get more into Britain. In some countries, the control of the government over crime is already tenuous, and giving MJ suppliers a larger market could cause problems.

Not defending the ban. Just analyzing it.