3 ms·

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 countr

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
- 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
    > so drugs don't incubate in certain countries and end up in others that’s a vast oversimplification, but sure > you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6 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

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

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
  > so drugs don't incubate in certain countries and end up in others that’s a vast oversimplification, but sure > you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6 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