There may be earlier examples of globalism than the one I’m presenting. Anti-slavery for instance. But these are the first globalist rules that I’m aware of that nearly every nation in the world has, through treaties, subscribed to.

Let us start with who got the ball rolling.

Beginning in an era of morally tainted racism and colonial trade wars, prohibition-based drug control grew to international proportions at the insistence of the United States. America and the colonial powers were confronted with the effects of drug addiction and abuse at home, but rather than address both demand – the socio-medical nature of such problems – and supply, they focused uniquely on the latter and attempted to stem the flow of drugs into their territories. In doing so, they earned political capital back home and shifted the cost and burden of drug control to predominantly Asian and Latin American developing countries with no cultural inclination or resources to take on such an intrusive task – and no economic or military power to refuse what was imposed on them. The Western control advocates’ prohibition focus also stimulated the growth and development of the global illicit drug trade. And ironically, the system has had very little overall success in controlling the supply of drugs at the source. Nonetheless, supply-oriented activists largely achieved their goal of creating a prohibition-based international drug control system.

So the system isn’t working, but it has its advantages. It makes vassals of other nations. Eventually the United States becomes a vassal to the treaty makers and enforcers. But we will get to that.

What was the first effort in the series? The 1909 Shanghai Conference.

U.S. interest in international drug control increased significantly following the Spanish-American War, which led to the U.S. acquiring the Philippines in 1898.() With the country came what was perceived by the American administration to be a serious problem: a government-run opium supply monopoly. Under the guidance of the newly installed Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines, Charles Henry Brent, the monopoly was suppressed, but smuggling continued and Brent convinced President Theodore Roosevelt to support the organization of an international meeting in Shanghai to address what was clearly a regional problem.()

In February 1909, the International Opium Commission() met in Shanghai with Brent as President of the meeting, but because the participants did not have the necessary plenipotentiary powers to conclude a treaty, the result was simply fact-finding and a set of non-binding recommendations (see Table I).() In discussing the terms of reference for the Commission, a key question was whether medically-related drug matters, such as addiction and treatment, should be considered; the proposal was defeated (by a majority of one) based on the belief that sufficient medical expertise was not represented at the meeting.() This set a significant precedent: most future drug meetings would be attended predominantly by diplomats and civil servants, without significant input from medical experts.

Did you get that? It was not about solving a medical problem. It was about power and control. Diplomats and civil servants.

Time passed. Treaties were adopted and then in 1961 the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was adopted. Did you notice “UN”? That stands for United Nations. And to think I once thought that the John Birchers were nuts about the UN.

As of February 2015, the Single Convention has 185 state parties. The Holy See plus all member states of the United Nations are state parties, with the exception of Chad, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa, South Sudan, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

Now here is where Globalism starts getting good.

Since the Single Convention is not self-executing, Parties must pass laws to carry out its provisions, and the UNODC works with countries’ legislatures to ensure compliance. As a result, most of the national drug statutes in the UNODC’s legal library share a high degree of conformity with the Single Convention and its supplementary treaties, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.[citation needed]

==

Russian Minister of Interior Affairs Boris Gryzlov told the State Duma that “total prohibition” of illicit drug use was “not the government’s own initiative…but rather the result of our responsibility to implement the UN drug conventions of 1961, 1971, and 1988.”

==

The Single Convention has been used as the basis for the standardization of national drug-control laws. In particular, the United States’ Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the United Kingdom’s Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 were designed to fulfill treaty obligations.[citation needed] Both Acts include analogous schemes of drug Scheduling, along with similar procedures for adding, removing, and transferring drugs among the Schedules.

You will note that alcohol, a psychotropic drug of abuse, is not included in the treaty. Why? After The United States’ disastrous experience with Alcohol Prohibition there was no chance that America was going to go for that. And if America didn’t sign on the UN couldn’t make the treaty work.

So now we have one leetle problem in the US for this global treaty. The US is ending cannabis prohibition on a State by State basis. Now laws for the medical use of cannabis are not too much of a problem. But recreational sales? That is a BIG problem.

The Globalists at The Brookings Institution discuss the problem. This was back in 2014 when only two States, Colorado and Washington, had legalized recreational use. So what is the problem (according to the Globalists)?

It’s a problem because we’re straining the limits of an international drug control regime that most participants, including the United States, have long understood to be quite strict. It is true that there is flexibility built into this regime, but if you push that flexibility too far, the question becomes: Will treaty partners in this regime and other regimes start to become opportunistic about their own flexibility? That’s something the United States should think about soberly as it works through marijuana policy.

So there is no Drug Prohibition Amendment to the Constitution you say? The Globalists will tell you that the treaty takes precedence.

They hint obliquely at the missing Drug Prohibition Amendment.

…if you want to push domestic policy right now in a direction more respectful of the drug treaties, you would have to do things in domestic law that would be either very difficult or politically toxic. For example, there was a call in some quarters to have the Justice Department bring a lawsuit establishing that the federal Controlled Substances Act, which bans marijuana, preempts the states’ regimes. But doing that would essentially only upend the states’ marijuana rules without restoring their criminal prohibitions of marijuana. In other words, a legal victory on those grounds—which, by the way, is not assured—would require the federal government to take on a much broader enforcement portfolio with regard to marijuana, something it lacks the resources and political appetite to do.

Got that? The Federal Government, like the UN, is limited in the resources it can bring to bear to enforce Globalism if local jurisdictions do not cooperate.

I think that is a general rule. Alcohol Prohibition collapsed when the States stopped enforcing it. Globalism in the US will fail when enough States stop enforcing it. It wouldn’t hurt to have Trump as President. But that is not necessary. Start movements in your State to keep your State from submitting. And amusingly enough it looks like, come this November, California will not be submitting. Too funny, eh?

Share