The linked article is interesting in its own regard and the issue of the so called war on drugs, but the article also rekindled an old paradox for me on how on one side we need international agreements to achieve a lot of things, but on the flip side such agreements do undermine local democracy in a very significant manner. So in the case of the article it seems all 192 UN members are have to keep prohibition in place unless you can get all 192 members to agree to a change. Which is an extremely high threshold for changing something. And it is not just the war on drugs that are hostage to such agreements, I mean fixing copyright and patent laws are an area where we in the free software field have to deal with overcoming the obstacles passed by international agreements and which even if you manage to champion the issue in a national election the fix is not easily implementable because it comes in conflict with agreed international commitments. Which obviously is not good, but on the other hand I don't think one can make a valid case for the world being a better place without any binding international agreements.