3 ms·

That was amended in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub..

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.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        I was directly quoting the 2nd paragraph of article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” no, i was misunderstanding the word “notwithstanding” in the clause to be an escape valve for the states, rather than as overruling the states. again, i’m not a lawyer. my point is that on an international level, and on a national level, the legal reforms of cannabis do appear to be well underway and nearly in full swing. and regardless, as i noted elsewhere, according to Congress, themselves: “Both Congress and the Administration have the ability to alter marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance.” https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204 and if UNODC is progressing as they are, it may only be a short matter of time before the weight shifts in favor of moving cannabis from Schedule I the US was at that point about a decade ago, but look now

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.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
      I was directly quoting the 2nd paragraph of article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” no, i was misunderstanding the word “notwithstanding” in the clause to be an escape valve for the states, rather than as overruling the states. again, i’m not a lawyer. my point is that on an international level, and on a national level, the legal reforms of cannabis do appear to be well underway and nearly in full swing. and regardless, as i noted elsewhere, according to Congress, themselves: “Both Congress and the Administration have the ability to alter marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance.” https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204 and if UNODC is progressing as they are, it may only be a short matter of time before the weight shifts in favor of moving cannabis from Schedule I the US was at that point about a decade ago, but look now