←back to thread

662 points JacobHenner | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.631s | source
Show context
RyanAdamas ◴[] No.40214560[source]
Utter bullshit. Reclassifying schedule 1 Drugs requires the approval of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the UN. Otherwise, they are just reclassifying it under an already reclassified treaty structure as a red herring.

The Psychotropic Substances Act modified the existing schedule, but left other acts in tact - those other acts are the ones being modified by this nonsense circus.

replies(3): >>40214665 #>>40214678 #>>40214825 #
sanderjd ◴[] No.40214678[source]
I'm quite ignorant about how international law and treaties interact with domestic policy. Could you educate me? What is the mechanism within US law by which this reclassification requires approval by that UN commission?
replies(1): >>40214775 #
1. RyanAdamas ◴[] No.40214775[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotropic_Substances_Act_(U... The above link is the Act that governs the USA's international obligations based on our treaty with the UN to schedule specific drugs and under those terms only allowed to reschedule Schedule 1 drugs with the approval of the UN; often after a review of the drugs medicinal purposes by the WHO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Drug_Abuse_Preve... The above is a "DEA" schedule of drug classifications that the government can play around with and bullshit us on. Many of Cannabis schedules have already been reduced based on specific compounds of THC under other treaties enacted before the 1978 alignment from above. These domestic rescheduling may have an affect on legal charges or banking, but cannot address the overarching classifier of Schedule 1 drugs which is the UN based on the 1st link.

replies(3): >>40214855 #>>40214979 #>>40215357 #
2. sanderjd ◴[] No.40214855[source]
Thank you for the links!

I'm hoping other knowledgeable people will also weigh in on this topic.

3. aidenn0 ◴[] No.40214979[source]
The 1961 convention, which as far as I know has not been contravened (w.r.t. cannabis) by the subsequent acts only bans non-medical (and non-scientific) uses of cannabis. Schedule IV would probably be sufficient to comply with the US's obligations there, and Schedule III certainly is.
4. jjulius ◴[] No.40215357[source]
>These domestic rescheduling may have an affect on legal charges or banking, but cannot address the overarching classifier of Schedule 1 drugs which is the UN based on the 1st link.

So, you're acknowledging that changes to legal charges, banking capabilities and so forth are benefits that come from this reclassification, but you're also calling this change "utter bullshit" and a "red herring"?

replies(1): >>40226167 #
5. RyanAdamas ◴[] No.40226167[source]
"may have an affect on legal charges" - for which there are many levied that don't directly correlate to a drug offense; such as the Texas cannabis tax stamp requirement. If you don't pay taxes on your illegal cannabis in Texas they can charge you with tax evasion. Making it federally "legal" in a certain context, may have an affect on states ability to make jackass laws like the Texas cannabis tax stamp law.

Banking, isn't necessarily limited by the UN treaties - but since huge amounts of cash are flowing into cannabis businesses that are unbanked, it means Wall Street is without a massive influx of investment capital and return opportunities. Allowing the DEA to make changes to a schedule may help remove domestic barriers so banks can capture what they don't directly control.