6 ms·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotropic_Substances_Act_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotropic_Substances_Act_(U... The above link is the
by 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 agoThank you for the links! I'm hoping other knowledgeable people will also weigh in on this topic.
- aidenn0 2y agoThe 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.