7 ms·

Weed is scheduled by Congress, the agencies can only add substances to the schedules temporarily for "public health reasons" and there's some weed derived stuff

Weed is scheduled by Congress, the agencies can only add substances to the schedules temporarily for "public health reasons" and there's some weed derived stuff or analogues that have been added that way but marihuana in and of itself is illegal because congress passed a law saying it's illegal: the CSA, 21 U.S. Code § 812 (c) The CSA allows for schedules to be updated and republished annually but agencies can only recommend, the authority to remove something that's scheduled by Congress is only held by Congress.

infamouscow 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
- pvarangot 4y ago
  That's wrong, the CSA allows for the executive to temporarily change schedules and only for a matter of safety. The spirit of that part of the law is actually adding more substances and not removing substances that are on the law.
- chatterhead 4y ago
  This is not correct. Schedule 1 drugs require UN approval to downgrade; at least according to treaty. The US Congress can pass a law, but they can't undo a treaty they signed only in-part; else the UN has legal standing to contend their unilateral scheduling.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    Treaties are not permanent, they can be withdrawn or terminated. Also the UN isn't nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is. A substantial amount of the UN's power comes from the USA. Other UN members can pass laws to keep cannabis illegal. There's no reason for the UN to create friction for POTUS on this. But even if there is friction, ask yourself what exactly can the rest of the UN do to stop POTUS. Not many UN member states are in a position to simultaneously care about the UN cannabis treaties and pose sanction threats to the USA.
    - chatterhead 4y ago
      The UN can file a complaint and have an injunction imposed by the Supreme Court to stop the Executive Order/Law. Would love to see the front page of the NYTimes as the UN stops the Dem Prez from limiting drug schedules. That would be very eye opening for the liberal media and what all these climate change treaties are going to be like and hopefully will be an example as to WHY people fought the Kyoto Protocols.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        From your earlier Wikipedia link: “As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries: 4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction. 5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.”
        chatterhead 4y ago
        What you are listing is specifically the "Penal Provisions" which are suggestions as the UN doesn't have the right to prosecute drug violations in member countries. They do, however, according to Article 6 of the Constitution (which makes all Treaties the law of the land), the right to challenge the rescheduling of drugs which conflict with treaties. Broader authority rests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Illicit_Traffic_in_Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Agai...
        9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        Correct, if UN can’t directly punish or require punishment of a citizen for possession of cannabis, then it is moot, pragmatically speaking. But yet, incorrect generalization of Article 6 of the US Constitution: “Supreme Law of the Land … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/ edit: may I remind you that approximately half or more of the states have legalized possession of cannabis, at this point

infamouscow 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...

pvarangot 4y ago
That's wrong, the CSA allows for the executive to temporarily change schedules and only for a matter of safety. The spirit of that part of the law is actually adding more substances and not removing substances that are on the law.
chatterhead 4y ago
This is not correct. Schedule 1 drugs require UN approval to downgrade; at least according to treaty. The US Congress can pass a law, but they can't undo a treaty they signed only in-part; else the UN has legal standing to contend their unilateral scheduling.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  Treaties are not permanent, they can be withdrawn or terminated. Also the UN isn't nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is. A substantial amount of the UN's power comes from the USA. Other UN members can pass laws to keep cannabis illegal. There's no reason for the UN to create friction for POTUS on this. But even if there is friction, ask yourself what exactly can the rest of the UN do to stop POTUS. Not many UN member states are in a position to simultaneously care about the UN cannabis treaties and pose sanction threats to the USA.
  - chatterhead 4y ago
    The UN can file a complaint and have an injunction imposed by the Supreme Court to stop the Executive Order/Law. Would love to see the front page of the NYTimes as the UN stops the Dem Prez from limiting drug schedules. That would be very eye opening for the liberal media and what all these climate change treaties are going to be like and hopefully will be an example as to WHY people fought the Kyoto Protocols.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
      From your earlier Wikipedia link: “As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries: 4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction. 5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.”
      - chatterhead 4y ago
        What you are listing is specifically the "Penal Provisions" which are suggestions as the UN doesn't have the right to prosecute drug violations in member countries. They do, however, according to Article 6 of the Constitution (which makes all Treaties the law of the land), the right to challenge the rescheduling of drugs which conflict with treaties. Broader authority rests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Illicit_Traffic_in_Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Agai...
        9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        Correct, if UN can’t directly punish or require punishment of a citizen for possession of cannabis, then it is moot, pragmatically speaking. But yet, incorrect generalization of Article 6 of the US Constitution: “Supreme Law of the Land … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/ edit: may I remind you that approximately half or more of the states have legalized possession of cannabis, at this point