4 ms·

Good luck; it's scheduled under US Treaty with the UN and governed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. >>"Th

Good luck; it's scheduled under US Treaty with the UN and governed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. >>"The CND is mandated to decide on the scope of control of substances under the three international drug control conventions (1961, 1971 and 1988 Conventions)." https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/index.html https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/index.html

rippercushions 4y ago
The US was the main driver behind those treaties. Amending, formally pulling out or just straight up ignoring them is mildly embarrassing, but in no way a showstopper.
- chatterhead 4y ago
  It was not. UK/EU were large factors since it was an extension of the agreements made during the League of Nation formation. The original UN secretary notes indicate specifically this is true; especially since INTERPOL was created for drug policing in the first place. The US has been EU/UKs oppression outlet for far too long.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
Well, they just voted on cannabis reforms recommended by the WHO two years ago, and the votes seemed to be split nearly 50-50. Article 23 of the 1961 Convention will allow the eventual teatotalling minority to maintain their stricter controls while allowing the remainder of the Parties to operate without contradiction to their constitutional obligations, vis-a-vis legalization of non-therapeutic adult use of cannabis.
- chatterhead 4y ago
  That was amended in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub... The UN has the final say. "A similar process is followed in deleting a drug from the Schedules or transferring a drug between Schedules. For instance, at its 33rd meeting, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended transferring tetrahydrocannabinol to Schedule IV of the Convention, citing its medical uses and low abuse potential.[17] However, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs has declined to vote on whether to follow the WHO recommendation and reschedule tetrahydrocannabinol."
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    From your 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.” Do you have a reference link to the amendment that you are claiming nullifies this? Or are you claiming that Article 23 was amended such that Party states cannot be selectively stricter than the Convention?
    - 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/
        chatterhead 4y ago
        The treaty isn't about prosecuting crimes its about adhering to international drug policy so drugs don't incubate in certain countries and end up in others. In this way, the UN does have regulatory input. It's all "voluntary"; we can always withdraw from the treaty or ignore it. Yes, you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6. It's literally saying Treaties trump state laws and is directing judges to adhere to Federal laws and Treaties over the state laws and Constitutions which conflict with that.
grecy 4y ago
How did Canada and other countries manage to do it federally?
- chatterhead 4y ago
  I don't know about Canada's Constitution or laws; the USA has Article 6 that specifically makes Treaties the law of the land. Did Canada change the schedule of cannabis or just simply create a legal framework for possession, sale and decriminalization? Scheduling is the authority of the CND of the UN. If they didn't reschedule it perhaps that's a loophole they exploited; maybe the US can do the same, maybe our laws or Article 6 prevents us; not sure. Good question.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    Canada was chastised by the UN for not having a reporting mechanism in place to make drug reports to the UN. Apparently they are just flagrantly failing to comply with general portions of the Convention.

rippercushions 4y ago

The US was the main driver behind those treaties. Amending, formally pulling out or just straight up ignoring them is mildly embarrassing, but in no way a showstopper.

chatterhead 4y ago
It was not. UK/EU were large factors since it was an extension of the agreements made during the League of Nation formation. The original UN secretary notes indicate specifically this is true; especially since INTERPOL was created for drug policing in the first place. The US has been EU/UKs oppression outlet for far too long.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago

Well, they just voted on cannabis reforms recommended by the WHO two years ago, and the votes seemed to be split nearly 50-50. Article 23 of the 1961 Convention will allow the eventual teatotalling minority to maintain their stricter controls while allowing the remainder of the Parties to operate without contradiction to their constitutional obligations, vis-a-vis legalization of non-therapeutic adult use of cannabis.

chatterhead 4y ago
That was amended in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub... The UN has the final say. "A similar process is followed in deleting a drug from the Schedules or transferring a drug between Schedules. For instance, at its 33rd meeting, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended transferring tetrahydrocannabinol to Schedule IV of the Convention, citing its medical uses and low abuse potential.[17] However, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs has declined to vote on whether to follow the WHO recommendation and reschedule tetrahydrocannabinol."
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  From your 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.” Do you have a reference link to the amendment that you are claiming nullifies this? Or are you claiming that Article 23 was amended such that Party states cannot be selectively stricter than the Convention?
  - 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/
      - chatterhead 4y ago
        The treaty isn't about prosecuting crimes its about adhering to international drug policy so drugs don't incubate in certain countries and end up in others. In this way, the UN does have regulatory input. It's all "voluntary"; we can always withdraw from the treaty or ignore it. Yes, you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6. It's literally saying Treaties trump state laws and is directing judges to adhere to Federal laws and Treaties over the state laws and Constitutions which conflict with that.

grecy 4y ago

How did Canada and other countries manage to do it federally?

chatterhead 4y ago
I don't know about Canada's Constitution or laws; the USA has Article 6 that specifically makes Treaties the law of the land. Did Canada change the schedule of cannabis or just simply create a legal framework for possession, sale and decriminalization? Scheduling is the authority of the CND of the UN. If they didn't reschedule it perhaps that's a loophole they exploited; maybe the US can do the same, maybe our laws or Article 6 prevents us; not sure. Good question.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  Canada was chastised by the UN for not having a reporting mechanism in place to make drug reports to the UN. Apparently they are just flagrantly failing to comply with general portions of the Convention.