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.
So it appears that US rescheduling would bring drug policy closer into alignment with the UN than before.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/world/europe/cannabis-uni...
Now, there may be some procedural red tape to go through, but it would be odd for the UN to reject such a change when their own scheduling agrees with the change.
This is the origin of what you're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
Which is what this was based on: https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standard...
Which was the impetus for what you're talking about.
>Reclassifying schedule 1 Drugs requires the approval of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the UN.
In response to the person above you in this comment chain, you then suggested that their understanding was wrong and that they're "falling for the bamboozle". I'm not sure how the NYT piece is false or a bamboozle, given that it clearly states:
>The vote by the Commission for Narcotic Drugs, which is based in Vienna and includes 53 member states, considered a series of recommendations from the World Health Organization on reclassifying cannabis and its derivatives.
So, at one point you say that the Commission for Narcotic Drugs needs to be the commission to approve the rescheduling, but when you're told that they did in fact do that, you then tell us that that's wrong. I would love to be steered in the right direction here, if you don't mind.
Edit: It makes sense you think I'm being hostile by pointing out facts since that's what you took issue with to begin with.
Edit: It's not that I think you're being hostile by pointing out facts, it's that you're telling me I am "intentionally missing the point", which is not true, and you then said that I'm not interested in learning about complex drug laws and would rather buy into political nonsense. Call it what you want - hostility, being an asshole, whatever - but it's certainly not helpful nor productive.
Clearly, there are lines being blurred here. In your first post, you said that a specific commission was responsible for changing the classification, and hey - that commission actually did do that, regardless of whether or not it was under a different treaty. Because there are multiple treaties, this is a very complex issue and it should be crystal clear that I'm having trouble sorting it out (I even said as much in my first response). That's why I'm asking you to help explain it to me, and instead of saying, "Sure bud, lemme help," you're trying to paint me as some kind of ignorant asshole. And I never "took issue" with anything, I just highlighted that it was confusing.
Good for you for understanding it! I don't, hence my ask.
Edit 2: And I usually try not to do this, but it seems like I'm not the only person who is confused here. Your comment got downvoted to the point that it turned grey, while my initial response asking for clarification has four upvotes as of the time of me writing this. Seems to me like there are other people who aren't understanding your point.