>[Biden] will also ask the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the attorney general to review how the drug is scheduled under current federal law.
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)."
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.
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.
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.
"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."
“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?
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.
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.
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:
Article 6 of the US Constitution means that ratified treaties pre-empt state law. It has nothing to do with federal law. See Ware v. Hylton (1796) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Treaties that conflict with federal law are null and void; Congress has to pass legislation if they want to make any such conflicting requirements effective. The same applies to treaties that attempt to restrict constitutional rights: such provisions have no force nor can Congress enact them. That would require an amendment.
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.
>[Biden] will also ask the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the attorney general to review how the drug is scheduled under current federal law.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-pardons-marijuana-decri...
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
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.
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.
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.
That was amended in the 70s.
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."
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?
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_Agai...
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/
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.
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
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
Article 6 of the US Constitution means that ratified treaties pre-empt state law. It has nothing to do with federal law. See Ware v. Hylton (1796) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Treaties that conflict with federal law are null and void; Congress has to pass legislation if they want to make any such conflicting requirements effective. The same applies to treaties that attempt to restrict constitutional rights: such provisions have no force nor can Congress enact them. That would require an amendment.
How did Canada and other countries manage to do it federally?
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.
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.
> Mr Biden, a Democrat, said he will call upon all state governors to issue their own marijuana pardons.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166964