4 ms·
in fact, legalization of class A or B (schedule 1 and 2 in the USA) drugs would generally mean expulsion from the UN of that country for breach of the charter.
by grkvlt 6y ago
in fact, legalization of class A or B (schedule 1 and 2 in the USA) drugs would generally mean expulsion from the UN of that country for breach of the charter. that's why e.g. the Netherlands have only decriminalised certain drugs. technically they are still illegal. in fact, if Canada was a smaller, non Western/developed country, im sure they would not have legalised cannabis, and even so they definitely won't legalise wholedale trafficking etc. it seems the UN got a bit upset but couldn't do much? [0]
0. https://news.un.org/en/audio/2018/10/1023212 https://news.un.org/en/audio/2018/10/1023212
- dragonwriter 6y ago> in fact, legalization of class A or B (schedule 1 and 2 in the USA) drugs would generally mean expulsion from the UN of that country for breach of the charter No, it wouldn't. The UN Charter has nothing relevant. There are various drug conventions, but IIRC, all of them have denunciation provisions, and in any case there is no basis for the claim that either violation or denunciation of those conventions would result in expulsion from the UN. Violation, rather than denunciation, might result in a suit and adverse ruling in the ICJ by another aggrieved nation. Or it might not.
- nradov 6y agoGet real. The UN is never going to expel any member state regardless of which treaties they breach.
- Natsu 6y agoI think that depends on the circumstances. I saw quite a lot of "don't let the door hit you on the way out" sentiment over Brexit.
- randallsquared 6y agoTo be clear, you saw a lot of that regarding Brexit in the UN? If you meant from those in the EU, then that's a completely separate organization.
- tehjoker 6y agoYou say that as if the reason the UN and the world have a mostly unified drug policy isn't because of US strong arming.
- grkvlt 6y agook, these are all good points, perhaps i could have been clearer. how about this, which i think is a true statement based on my understanding; drugs (mostly cannabis) are usually only decriminalised, rather than legalised, due to treaty obligations within the un system. this makes canada (and uruguay) interesting cases, since both have actually legalised cannabis. sure, there won't be a un police action against them, and today i learned that denunciation is an option in the relevant treaty, rather than expulsion. but, there is a good reason (treaty obligations) why countries won't just 'legalise all the things' and have traditionally followed softer approaches.
- tehjoker 6y agoI think if the US left the treaty, everyone would breathe a sigh of relief and modify the treaty.
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoI don't know - both the UN and WHO are pushing for a more tolerant policy. At this point, it is merely focusing on decriminalizing possession and use, in no small part because of good results in some places. It isn't much of a jump to allow full legalisation in their charter. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/united-nations-world-health-organisation-drugs-decriminalised-a7818726.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/united-nations-wor...