This is a great step in the right direction. Hopefully this is laying the groundwork for federal decriminalization.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-pardons-marijuana-decri...
>>"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 has been EU/UKs oppression outlet for far too long.
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.
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."
“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?
Broader authority rests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Agai...
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.”
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.
“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
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.
Apparently they are just flagrantly failing to comply with general portions of the Convention.