6 ms·

Utter bullshit. Reclassifying schedule 1 Drugs requires the approval of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the UN. Otherwise, they are just reclassifying it un

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.

sanderjd 2y ago
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?
- RyanAdamas 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotropic_Substances_Act_(United_States) 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_Prevention_and_Control_Act_of_1970 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.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    Thank you for the links! I'm hoping other knowledgeable people will also weigh in on this topic.
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    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.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    >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"?
    - RyanAdamas 2y ago
      "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.
byteknight 2y ago
Legitimate question: How is it nonsense if it is still treated, currently, as a S1? If this changes anything it's not nonsense.
- RyanAdamas 2y ago
  I answered your question in the other comment.
rezonant 2y ago
Well the UN has already done that, moving it from Schedule IV to Schedule I. Note that the schedules are reversed in the UN's system. 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-united-nations-drug-policy.html 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.
- RyanAdamas 2y ago
  That's under a different treaty. You're falling for the bamboozle. This is the origin of what you're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs 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-standards/controlled-substances/who-review-of-cannabis-and-cannabis-related-substances https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standard... Which was the impetus for what you're talking about.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    Help me out here, because I'm genuinely trying to grok your point but, for whatever reason, it's not clicking for me. You originally stated: >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.
    - 2y ago

sanderjd 2y ago

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?

RyanAdamas 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotropic_Substances_Act_(United_States) 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_Prevention_and_Control_Act_of_1970 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.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Thank you for the links! I'm hoping other knowledgeable people will also weigh in on this topic.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  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.
- jjulius 2y ago
  >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"?
  - RyanAdamas 2y ago
    "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.

byteknight 2y ago

Legitimate question: How is it nonsense if it is still treated, currently, as a S1? If this changes anything it's not nonsense.

RyanAdamas 2y ago
I answered your question in the other comment.

rezonant 2y ago

Well the UN has already done that, moving it from Schedule IV to Schedule I. Note that the schedules are reversed in the UN's system. 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-united-nations-drug-policy.html 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.

RyanAdamas 2y ago
That's under a different treaty. You're falling for the bamboozle. This is the origin of what you're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs 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-standards/controlled-substances/who-review-of-cannabis-and-cannabis-related-substances https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standard... Which was the impetus for what you're talking about.
- jjulius 2y ago
  Help me out here, because I'm genuinely trying to grok your point but, for whatever reason, it's not clicking for me. You originally stated: >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.
  - 2y ago