The arrogance of the UN's Mr. Arlacchi is overwhelming. He admits that he is talking about "exchanges of information" rather than actual drug trafficking. He complains that "the [drug] issue is treated in the opposite view as it should be." Well, who is he, or the UN, to decide how any issue "should" be treated? That is for people to decide on their own, based on all the facts - on free "exchanges of information".

Mr. Arlacchi clearly doesn't understand what freedom of speech, as protected by the U.S.'s First Amendment, is all about. Unfortunately, many U.S. congressmen don't seem to understand either, because ideas like Mr. Arlucci have made their way into several proposed new laws: the "Methamphetamine Antiproliferation Act", a similar "Ecstacy Antiproliferation Act", and even proposed revisions to the Bankruptcy Act. These provisions would make it illegal, among other things, to "teach or demonstrate" the "manufacture of a controlled substance", or to place links on any internet site to a site which does so.

I am confident that any such provision would be overturned by the Supreme Court eventually, but not before a lot of useful material will have been removed from the internet, by scaring either the sources of the information or their internet service providers (ISPs), or costing them big bucks in legal fees. Which of course is the whole aim of the authors of these laws.
:
I don't believe that Mr. Arlacchi's "Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention" has any power, on its own, to grant "universal jurisdiction" to any governments over these matters. This may be a cry of desperation from a man and an agency who know that the world is passing them by and making them obsolete. Let us hope so. This is not about the UN "taking over" a function that would be legitimate if done by one country, but rather about an attempt to implement a policy that would be illegitimate no matter who was behind it.