 The International Narcotics Control Board is a 13-member body that is responsible for monitoring the compliance with the International Drug Control Conventions. In its annual reports, the INCB speaks out against evidence-based harm reduction programmes against progressive drug policies, at the same time it praises government that would violate human rights. In its latest report, the INCB expressed concerns about two states, Washington and Colorado, that legalized the recreational use of marijuana. In a video interview, the head of the INCB explains why. What is the position of the International Narcotics Control Board about the legalization in Colorado and Washington of marijuana for recreational use? The position of INCB is very clear. We have no choice but to condemn the situation in those two American states. The government of the United States was requested to come to Vienna to our board session in November. We will see what will happen next year about some possible changes, we hope, which might happen on the federal level in order to bring into those two states the implementation of federal law. We have the possibility to propose to the ECOSOC and to the General Assembly of the United Nations a set of reactions or sanctions concerning the state, which does not respect the 1961 Convention. But is the INCB a real threat to cannabis reform in the US? Or is it the barking dog that never bites? At the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Denver, Colorado, we interviewed drug policy reform activists to comment. What was the reaction of the federal government? Because as far as I know, it's still illegal to use marijuana according to the federal law. So how will you resolve this? Well, it seems like the federal government has said that they will allow Colorado and Washington to move forward with their experiment, shall we call it, or it's not just an experiment, it's a new law. They will let them move forward as long as certain conditions are met, meaning that there aren't any guns being used in any way, that there isn't distribution to minors, that there isn't distribution out of state and so on. But generally, they've given the two states the opportunity to show that they can regulate responsibly, and that's the plan. There is a UN body called the International Narcotic Control Board, and they were very upset by seeing what's happening in Colorado and Washington, and I just saw an interview with the head of this institution that they will see if they can recommend any sanctions on the United States because of the state regulations. What would be your response or comment on this? America rarely follows international conventions, and I seriously doubt that they will take much heat to that one as well. You know, the United Nations is wrong on this issue. It's that simple. Marijuana prohibition causes underground violence. It causes more harm to society than marijuana does itself. And the UN needs to recognize this, and the people with the International Treaty needs to recognize this as well. But that's not a threat to us at all. I think just as Colorado had an obligation, and Washington had an obligation, our U.S. Congress and our President have an obligation to acknowledge the reality of marijuana in our lives. The reality is marijuana is here. People are using it. We can no longer trust the war on marijuana to fix this problem for us. The fact of the matter is that people use marijuana. We need to give them a safe place to buy it. And as much as we have an obligation here in Colorado to do that, the rest of the world has that obligation too, and that includes the UN. There is an international agency called the International Narcotic Control Board, and it condemned the two states in the U.S. that regulated marijuana. What would be your comment or respond to this? Well, ultimately marijuana is a objectively less harmful substance than alcohol. And if we have anyone in a position of authority who's unable to recognize that and is happy to consume alcohol or allow the consumption of alcohol while criminalizing a less harmful substance, I don't think their opinion is much worth respecting. We're seeing other countries really getting moving. Uruguay, obviously, Mexico is starting to really talk about this. Canada is really taking a harder look than in the last several years. So the United States has a chance to roll back the progress it previously hindered by leading as opposed to keeping others from leading. The difficulty with the United Nations is there are so many commissions and boards that are related with drug policy issues that these people have jobs. In the International Narcotics Control Board, they're basically the enforcement arm to make sure that your country is not exceeding what's needed for medical and scientific purposes. And we want reports of how many drugs you're producing and what they are and how many acres do you have planted in opium and poppy plants. And if we give these people jobs so they can still exist after the amendment of these conventions, then they can be working on, well, how many treatment programs does your country have? How many people are infected with HIV and what are you doing for them? How many opportunities do you give someone to make a mistake and still come back to life without ending up in prison? So if the United Nations organizations were doing those kind of things, instead of spreading zero tolerance from the top down, we would be in much better shape worldwide.