While following the news today, I heard that the German gov’t had to get Bagdad’s approval before storming their Berlin Embassy…the reason being that their embassy was considered Iraqi sovereign territory. That reminded me of the fact that all embassies are considered to be the sovereign territory of the country that owns them.
So this got me thinking…would it be legal to smoke cannabis inside the Netherlands’ embassy here in the U.S.? OK…I know that technically cannabis is still illegal in the Netherlands…but for the sake of this thread, let’s say that it’s legal there.
Since the confines of the embassy are considered to be Dutch territory, could one light up and smoke a cannabis cigarette there? And could the embassy open up a Cannabis coffeehouse there, allowing patrons to “get high” while on the premises? How far could one push the limits of the sovereign status of foreign embassies?
As stated in “Sex Drugs and Democracy” cannibus isn’t actually legal in Holland in any official sense, it’s just not policed. I’d doubt you could get any official to permit you to light up a doob in his office, but then again he may join you. Think of it like jaywalking, but more fun and less dangerous. Is it legal? No. Are you likely to get a bust for doing it? No.
If embassies were as “sovereign” as they are believed to be, then female circumcisions could be performed within their walls or adulterers could be put to death within their confines without the host country having any right to intervene. Clearly, there are limits to the “sovereignty” of embassies.
** zen101**…Yes, I’m aware that cannabis is still illegal in the Netherlands, as you’d know if you read my OP. Ah, so you’re a fan of Sex, Drugs & Democracy too? I’ve seen it several times & own a copy. It’s required viewing for friends who challenge my critiques of the U.S. I like them to get a glimpse of what real freedom is like!
** reprise**–I don’t know if it’s as cut & dried as you make it out to be. Just because there haven’t been any stonings or circumscisions performed inside an embassy is not any sort of proof against the sovereign status of foreign embassies. Between that and a little something called “diplomatic immunity”, I think that it would be difficult for a host country to regulate much of anything that occurs inside an embassy.
Does anyone have any concrete arguments to undermine a Dutch-style cannibis coffeehouse opening inside the Dutch Embassy in the U.S.?
The only thing I can think of, is that U.S. citizens are still under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. So it would probably be illegal for U.S. citizens to get high there…even if they’re technically out of U.S. jurisidicion there…
A major purpose of embassies is to improve relations between countries, not hurt them. Allowing practices within the embassy that are illegal in the host country could put a damper on said relations. The American government seems largely critical of the Netherlands’ approach to drugs. Letting people spark one up ‘on American soil’, as some would no doubt see it, would not help.
I happen to know that it’s common practice of some (perhaps most/all) embassies within Islamic countries to consume alcohol even though it’s strictly forbidden. Does this mean within the walls of Dutch embassies, people smoke up? I can’t say although I would suspect not…
It would still be illegal to bring cannabis into the US. They would have to do it with the diplomat’s bags. So any cannabis would be their personal stash. Their ambassador would set policy on what illegal items could be brought in to the US.
If they brought in enough to open a shop, the US would complain, and if needed, deport the diplomats. Diplomats are bound by the laws of the host country. Tthey can’t be prosecuted by the host country (unless their own country allows it), but they can be deported if they break host country laws.
During the prohibition era there were some embassies in Washington well known for their alcohol supply and they were frequented by many politicians and even by the Prsesident.
But an embassy is not considered absolutely as sovereign territory and there are limits.
What starfish said. Diplomats can be pressured by their own governments, but the worst the host government can do is deport them.
The most egregious example I can recall was in 1984, when folks at the Libyan embassy in London were apparently smoking hash and otherwise carousing. Somehow guns got involved, and a shot from the embassy killed a policewoman outside. At this point, most governments would recall their ambassador, or launch an investigation, apologize to the host government, etc.
Gaddafi being rather younger at the time, Libya wasn’t much interested in cooperating in any way with the British. So the government said, “We’re breaking diplomatic relations, and in four days this will no longer be an embassy.” The Libyan diplomats high-tailed it out of there, and for the next 15 years the US had an even stauncher ally in any action against Libya than they might have otherwise.
It should also be noted that diplomats do not have absolute immunity. Their immunity is at the pleasure of their own government, and may on rare occasions be waived.
There was a case a few years back where a Washington diplomat from a former Soviet country killed a girl while drunk driving. After his government buckled under the pressure to waive the immunity, he was convicted and sentenced to 7-21 years.