Republican bill to impose US Drug laws Globally

BluePlanet

The (Republican controlled) House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) -- even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they're carried out. The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

So basically that would mean if a US citizen visits Amsterdam or Portugal, and discusses smoking cannabis, they are commiting a Federal Offense and can be prosectued.

Whatever happened to those Libertarian values?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PeakOutput

BluePlanet wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

So basically that would mean if a US citizen visits Amsterdam or Portugal, and discusses smoking cannabis, they are commiting a Federal Offense and can be prosectued.

Whatever happened to those Libertarian values?

australia does this already, numerous countries do it already with paedophilia crimes.

agree with it in some cases but not in the case of drugs

matthew8

This isn't half as bad as Obama's crackdown on medical marijuana in California (which is legal).

Masked Man

BluePlanet wrote: »

So basically that would mean if a US citizen visits Amsterdam or Portugal, and discusses smoking cannabis, they are committing a Federal Offense and can be prosecuted.

No.

You might want to try reading past the first sentence.

BluePlanet

Masked Man wrote: »

No.

You might want to try reading past the first sentence.

You mean this bit?

The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA.

:rolleyes:

BluePlanet

matthew8 wrote: »

This isn't half as bad as Obama's crackdown on medical marijuana in California (which is legal).

Actually you are wrong.
It's far worse.
Why?
Because while the Obama admin is implementing existing federal laws, within the jursidiction of the US, the new law is going beyond that.
It extends jursidiction to apply to geography that the US does not own, and also makes it a crime to "discuss" violating existing federal laws on drugs.

So while Obama is doing something that I think is wrong and shameful, he is only applying existing law.
It's not an over-reach.

Masked Man

BluePlanet wrote: »

You mean this bit?

The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA.

:rolleyes:

No.

Try reading past the first paragraph now.

BluePlanet

So should we presume then that you are a supporter of the new law?
You haven't given you're opinion.
Just here to take a snipe at me without offering any reasoning of your own, your opinion?

Masked Man

No, I think it's a stupid law, but it doesn't make planning to do drugs while in another country illegal. It'd be illegal to plan such activities while still in America.

I doubt it'll be used to prosecute people who plan on doing drugs while going on holiday to Amsterdam. It'll be used to prosecute people like the ones mentioned in the article. At least common sense says it would, but there isn't much sense in introducing the bill in the first place, so who knows.

edit: by people mentioned in the article, i mean the people that wanted to move drugs from Columbia to a Saudi prince.

Overheal

This is just silly. It will never pass.

FreudianSlippers

Overheal wrote: »

This is just silly. It will never pass.

I want to believe that, but part of me just wonders

amen

you do realise that Ireland has a similar in relation to child pornography and sex with children? If you are an Irish citizen abroad and you break an Irish law in relation to these you can be prosecuted when you return (which is a good thing).

So why is the US law any different?

Overheal

amen wrote: »

you do realise that Ireland has a similar in relation to child pornography and sex with children? If you are an Irish citizen abroad and you break an Irish law in relation to these you can be prosecuted when you return (which is a good thing).

So why is the US law any different?

On paper not a whole lot, you are correct. But there's a big difference between smoking pot and raping a child.

This sounds like one of these laws that can swing in a really bad direction, targeting backpackers for eating a brownie in Holland. but is meant to be used against much larger targets like Colombian opiates or something.

jackiebaron

PeakOutput wrote: »

australia does this already, numerous countries do it already with paedophilia crimes.

agree with it in some cases but not in the case of drugs

Ummm....paedophaelia is illegal EVERYWHERE....as is murder, theft, assault and a variety of other transgressions. If it legal for me to have a glass of wine at the age of 16 in Germany or a shot of whiskey at the age of 18 in England ... both of which would put me in breach of the law in the the US then what is your point?

jackiebaron

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I want to believe that, but part of me just wonders

As far as I know it HAS passed.

FreudianSlippers

jackiebaron wrote: »

As far as I know it HAS passed.

Ah, how correct you are! Yikes :eek:

Chuck Stone

amen wrote: »

you do realise that Ireland has a similar in relation to child pornography and sex with children?

So why is the US law any different?

Can you really not tell the difference between an individual choosing to take a psychoactive substance and sexually abusing a child?

Oh lordy.

Victor

The article is somewhat fuzzy. One would have to examine the CSA and the proposed amendments to check that the suggested scenarios would actually be illegal. Importantly, much of the SCA probably only applies to the USA and the proposed bill can probably only be interpreted to apply to the USA. The wording probably isn't as strong as it looks.

Notably, it only refers to conspiracies by people (not, seemingly, residents as stated in the article) who are at the relevant time within the USA. It doesn't penalise people outside the USA. One can only be convicted of conspiracy, not the actual manufacture, posession, trafficking, sale, use, etc.

This seems to be the bill: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112hr313.pdf

jackiebaron wrote: »

As far as I know it HAS passed.

Based on the article, it has only passed the committee, not congress, nor the president.

hangon

It is like these people need to be seen to be trying to do something rather than actually do something effective.
Amsterdam has just banned high strenght THC even from the cafe's.
is the west merging into a place were that being correct is more important than interesting diversity?.

the World is just getting more and more boring IMO.

jackiebaron

amen wrote: »

you do realise that Ireland has a similar in relation to child pornography and sex with children? If you are an Irish citizen abroad and you break an Irish law in relation to these you can be prosecuted when you return (which is a good thing).

So why is the US law any different?

Maybe because child pornography is illegal EVERYWHERE for fcuk's sake!!! As is murder.
Drinking alcohol while under 21 in the US is illegal. In Germany it's not illegal. If a 20 year old American visits Germany and drinks beer, what law has he broken?
If a 20 year old American visits Germany (or ANY other country) and rapes a child, he HAS most definitely broken the law.

Trying to connect the two is absurd.

jackiebaron

Anyway this is one more dangerous precedent along the road to totalitarianism. You will soon be afoul of the law if you think about doing something. Thought-police anyone?

Who would actually benefit from such a law? Ask yourselves that. IMHO, pharmaceutical companies would benefit greatly as it would scare the bejeesus out of pensioners going to Canada to get cheaper prescription medication.

Overheal

hangon wrote: »

It is like these people need to be seen to be trying to do something rather than actually do something effective.

There's no uncertainty about that. Politicians spend the bulk of their time making symbolic gestures that (often intentionally) have no effect.

jackiebaron

I can't stress this enough but why is it the Controlled Substances Act only? I'm truly convinced it is to stop Americans going abroad for medication or (much cheaper) medical treatment.

Why don't they include other infractions like prostitution or nude sunbathing or driving on the autobahn or drinking in public or drinking when you're under 21?

hangon

Overheal wrote: »

There's no uncertainty about that. Politicians spend the bulk of their time making symbolic gestures that (often intentionally) have no effect.

watch this it is very short but the caption at the end says it all about the lot of them.:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-QNAwUdHUQ