| MathGeek |
08-27-2013 02:17 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
(Post 621840)
Legalization of cannabis at the federal level would require repeal of the Controlled Substances Act, which in turn would require the United States to withdraw from the international treaty known as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
This makes the question much bigger than "should marijuana be legal" and makes it necessary to consider bigger questions such as:
"Should the United States be unilaterally withdrawing from longstanding obligations under international treaties?"
I would hate for the US to set such an example, lest other nations start unilaterally withdrawing from their longstanding treaty obligations to the United States.
Is it wise to give other nations carte blanche to back out of their treaty obligations in matters such as trade, food safety, extradition, peace, environmental issues, arms inspections, nuclear reductions, etc.?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clampy
(Post 621849)
Cannabis could easily be rescheduled and probably de-scheduled With a executive order.
Once rescheduled it would not meet the priority of the controlled substances act. Effectively removing it and keeping the CSA in place and the treaties in place.
Rescheduling and making it a non priority for law enforcement. That would be a good start. If there is nothing in it for them like asset forfeiture and keeping bodies in the prison industrial complex they wouldn't even bother. That would be a big step forward.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
|
You might want to check your facts. Cannabis is a Schedule 1 substance, but making it legal for recreational use under the treaty is not as simple as de/rescheduling it. The treaty provisions explicitly require cannabis production, possession, and use all to be illegal, and the treaty provisions also explicitly require enforcement of prohibitions on cultivation.
It is possible that cannabis could be rescheduled for medical uses while complying with the treaty provisions, but this would require much more than an executive order, it would require cooperation and willingness from the Secretary for Health and Human Services, the DEA, the FDA, and the President. And even if rescheduled for medical uses, the binding treaty requires all cannabis cultivation to take place under the strict oversight of a single government agency, which takes possession and control of the entire crop every year. In the US, the National Institute for Drug Abuse fulfills that function.
Constitutional separation of powers and the due process clause do not permit the executive branch to abrogate treaties and laws passed by Congress to codify treaty provisions. Due process of both legislative and executive branches is necessary to put treaty provisions and laws in place, and due process of both legislative and executive branches is needed to change the law. Even so, it would still be unwise for the US to act unilaterally without reaching new agreements with international partners, since these partners reasonably expect the US to live up to duly agreed upon treaty stipulations.
If the US starts unilaterally breaking treaties due to popular (internal) opinion, other nations will think twice before complying with existing treaties and making new treaties. This could have a negative impact on trade, food safety, extradition, peace, environmental issues, arms inspections, nuclear reductions, etc. |