Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : GET THE U.S. OUT of The U.N NOW! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (27)	3/13/2002 9:06:59 AM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 411

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said he believed it was the first time that Annan had called Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory "illegal." Israel's U.N. Ambassador Yehuda Lancry said it was "not a new development," noting that Sharon has envisioned a Palestinian state and Israel entered a process in 1993 to end its occupation. But he stressed "we have to negotiate it." MOre AT .... washingtonpost.com

To: craig crawford who wrote (27)	3/15/2002 10:19:36 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 411

UN treaty 'no bar' to easing drug laws Alan Travis Tuesday August 28, 2001 A reform of Britain's drug laws could be introduced without the government breaching its international obligations under UN drug control conventions, according to a legal study published today. The research shows there is no obstacle in international law to ending the criminalisation of cannabis possession or low level drug dealing among friends. The conclusions of the study, entitled European Drug Laws: the Room for Manoeuvre, are important because opponents of drug law reform have argued that Britain could not liberalise its drug laws even if it wanted to because it would breach the UN treaty. The French government has accused the Netherlands of being a "narco state" because it tolerates cannabis possession and small scale supply - technically criminal offences. The study, published by the charity Drugscope, is part of a follow-up to the Police Foundation inquiry into Britain's drugs laws. It showed that the penalties in this country are severe compared with six other European states. Britain's maximum prison sentence of seven years for possession of class A drugs such as heroin and five years for possession of cannabis, contrasts with a maximum of just one year for both classes of drug in France and the Netherlands. Personal use of these drugs in Italy and Spain is not even illegal. The findings may influence the inquiry by the Commons' home affairs committee into the future of the drugs laws, and in the evaluation of a six-month experiment by Lambeth police, in south London, which involved not prosecuting for cannabis possession. The study, which was edited by Nicholas Dorn and Alison Jamieson, said that European practice showed there was room for manoeuvre under the three main UN conventions on illicit drugs ratified by more than 150 countries. It concluded that there was nothing in the conventions requiring Britain to use the criminal law exclusively to control personal drug possession. It would be possible to introduce civil drug offences - dealt with like parking fines - alongside the criminal law, allowing a choice of action against the offence. Local authorities rather than the police might impose the fines. The study also said that there was a case for making available a civil law alternative with regard to "social supply" - especially to deal with the increasing number of cases involving home grown cannabis. Roger Howard, chief executive of Drugscope, said: "This study dispels the view that we are tied rigidly by the UN conventions and shows we have considerable flexibility within them to radically modernise our drugs laws. "The government needs to decide if allowing otherwise law abiding citizens to get caught up in the criminal justice system for possessing cannabis, is a proportionate response in the 21st century." society.guardian.co.uk