I don't use CapsLock often but when I do, I feel it's important. Maybe you know this information and maybe you don't - I sure as shit didn't. Things in Red are important. I started digging around the USC (United States Code), which is the law of the land for all intensive purposes, because I noticed that the Title 21 authority for a drug consisted of drugs that have no recognized medical value for Schedule 1 classification. Yet, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4 clearly states that Cannabis has medical viability. Cancer.org is a branch of the National Health Institute, which is a government agency. So why the hell is marijuana a schedule 1, when it HAS to have no medical viability to be so? Keep reading. I discovered something interesting. First, I thought the DEA regulated Schedules. They do not. Article 21 of the USC does - but then.. it kinda doesn't... (Title 21 is also known as the Controlled Substance Act of 1970) Second, I discovered that the Attorney General (Eric Holder) can remove or add items to the schedules. Third, as an amendment to the second - I further discovered that the Attorney General cannot remove drugs or downgrade drugs on the Schedule without the consent of the United Nations. Now, not just the United Nations - but the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations along with summary medical judgement from the World Heath Organization. Marijuana isn't a Schedule 1 drug because our government says it should be - it is a schedule 1 drug because other governments say it should be. Here, let me piece it together for you. Title 21 U.S. Code § 811 - Authority and criteria for classification of substances (a) Rules and regulations of Attorney General; hearing The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule- Subsection (e) simply gives the Attorney General the ability to place any drug into any schedule as long as the drug is a precursor to an already scheduled drug. But, what the hell is section (d)? (d) International treaties, conventions, and protocols requiring control; procedures respecting changes in drug schedules of Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section b of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and b of this section. Sections (a) and b, in case you're wondering, are the sections detailing the abuse potential and medical viability studies. So, in essence - even if a drug is shown to be non-addictive and with medicinal viability, the Attorney General HAS to put it in the schedule outlined in other treaties. Let's continue. "(5) Nothing in the amendments made by the Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978 or the regulations or orders promulgated thereunder shall be construed to preclude requests by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Attorney General through the Secretary of State, pursuant to article 2 or other applicable provisions of the Convention, for review of scheduling decisions under such Convention, based on new or additional information. " What this basically says is, "Nothing The United States legislature does, through amendment to an Act of Congress, can circumvent the obligations of the United States to Article 2 of the Convention" So what is the "Convention"? FINAL ACT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE FOR THE ADOPTION OF A PROTOCOL ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES (1971) Vocab so you can follow along - "Council" means the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. "Commission" means the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the Council. The "Board" refers to the International Narcotics Control Board provided for in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. Here is what the "Commission" can do: Article 2 Paragraph 5 - "The Commission, taking into account the communication from the World Health Organization, whose assessments shall be determinative as to the medical and scientific matters, and bearing in mind the economic, social, legal, administrative and other factors it may consider relevant, may add the substance to Schedule I, II, II, or IV." So what, it's just the UN - they ain't got teeth, right? Article 2 Paragraph 7 - Any decision of the Commission taken pursuant to this article shall be communicated by the Secretary-General to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member State Parties to this Convention, to the World Health Organization and to the Board. Such decisions shall become fully effective with respect to each Party 180 days after the date of such communication..." This means, if the UN say's it's on a schedule - then as a member of the UN you better add it. Now, to be fair there is an "opt out" clause but it's only temporary, extreme circumstance and the member State has to give a shit load of reasons why they aren't listening to the UN. Here is the best part... Article 2 Paragraph 8 Section C - "The Council may confirm, alter or reverse the decision of the Commission. Notification of the Council's decision shall be transmitted to all States Members of the United Nation, to non-member State Parties to this Convention, to the Commission, to the World Health Organization and to the Board." This means, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations are the end-all be-all AUTHORITY on our DRUG LAWS in the USA. Here is the President of the ESC - <span>Martin Sajdik</span> Good luck trying to find out any real information on this guy. So who is the "Board" - well this is the board: "International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is an independent, quasi-judicial expert body established by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. INCB has 13 members, each elected by the Economic and Social Council for a period of five years.. Once they have been elected, INCB members serve impartially in their personal capacity, independently of Governments." "In discharging its mandate under the international drug control treaties, the Board maintains an ongoing dialogue with Governments through various means, such as regular consultations and country missions. That dialogue has been instrumental to the Board's efforts to assist Governments in complying with the provisions of the treaties" Read the second paragraph of this http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf - it should make you laugh, now that you know what you know. So, why do we have to be beholden to the U.N? Article VI of the Constitution - Treaties are included in the "law of the land" right along with the constitution. We have to stay beholden to them because the constitution demands it. Looks like we can stop buying into this bullshit Reagan/Nixon War on Drugs Red Herring. This shit started in the early 1900's and really solidified in 1961. Here are my sources. DEA Schedule http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml Cancer.gov http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4 USC 21 811 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811 ESC United Nations http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/index.shtml The Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html INCB https://www.incb.org/incb/en/about.html DOJ Letter http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf "The Convention" https://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1971_en.pdf
No, we do not. I personally believe that we should quit and turn the UN building in NYC into a giant marijuana museum and smoking center.
The USA doesn't have to stay in the U.N. but good luck fighting that battle - that's been raging since the League of Nations. I think the key principle here is that Article VI of the constitution beholds US Citizens to foreign treaties - but in this case that foreign treaty has replaced the will of the people with the judgement of a council. That's unconstitutional borderline treasonous. It really shows what the DEA is, a body which serves the Economic and Social Council of the U.N. not the American people. Our Controlled Substance Act isn't an Act of Congress, it's a hand me down law from a foreign body far removed from the will of the American people. As such, in my eyes it is a negated act due to it's infringement upon the people pursuant to Amendment XI of the constitution.
Are you sure you don't have it backwards? It's my impression the UN was pressured by the US to adopt our drug prohibitions, not the other way around. Also America wouldn't have to withdraw from the UN to get out from under the treaties we signed giving them authority, couldn't we just withdraw from the treaty or work to modify it?
Ed is right. The single convention on narcotic drugs came about because of pressure put on the UN and member states by the US government.
I haven't read over the UN Charter. I have finals this week lol. I was literally just looking over the drug schedules and it led me down that rabbit hole. The thing that triggered my interest the most is that the Attorney General is able to upgrade drugs, add drugs, etc. but when it comes to down grading the drugs he, through the Secretary of State, has to file with the U.N. and World Health Organization, which then reviews the downgrade or removal proposal and responds in turn. The Attorney General is just an officer of a presidential cabinet, and as such is beholden to the treaties and Acts made/passed by congress. Since the U.N. accord is a treaty made by congress and signed by the president, the Attorney General HAS to abide by it. In this case, he has to seek the approval of the U.N and WHO. As one of the citations indicates, the WHO is the ultimate medical authority on the viability and dependence potential for any psychotropic substance. This means our own Heath and Human Services dept. isn't able to make decisions concerning any drug - for us, specifically marijuana - which is originally what led me to this discovery. Because, cancer.gov which is a part of the National Institute of Health, a US regulatory body, sees Cannabis as medically viable and according to the CSA the drug HAS to have NO medical viability to remain in schedule. Ultimately, this means all these documentaries and protests are barking up the wrong tree for change. I would imagine to dissolve our membership in the U.N. would take an act of congress or at the least a suspension of obligations through executive order. The original U.N. Convention on Psychotropic Substances was passed in 1971 which is what defines the schedules - whereas the USA CSA (Controlled Substance Act) which incorporates these schedules wasn't passed until 1970. (Edit: Originally had 1978 here, that was incorrect) With the expressed clause that no "Amendment or regulatory law" is capable of circumventing the requirement for U.N. schedule review. At the same time, the "Board" which is the judicial compliance hand of the Economic and Social Council of the U.N. was originally formed in 1961. Which to me, indicates that these schedules and linkages were in process long before Nixon fired off his war on drugs. I have a strong feeling the U.N. is a whole lot more powerful than anyone thinks or then what we've popularly been led to believe. It doesn't really matter who strong armed who 70 years ago. What matters is what loop holes remain and what removal of powers has this bred over that period.
I hope this doesn't sound dick, because you and Ed may very well be right, but I've provided a crap load of excellent citations and references. If this is the case I would like to see where this comes from - if possible in primary source documentation. Knowing who to fight to salvage rights and privileges let alone maintain power within the citizenry to control their own government is far more important to a battle than simply having the will to fight.
^You did provide a crap load of cites. I'm not sure to what I said you're objecting to, is it the part about the US pressuring the UN to adopt our drug policies? I could be wrong because as time passes I get more forgetful and it was a long time ago. My old memories sometimes get garbled without telling me and although I think I remember correctly I've been wrong often enough to never be sure. But hold on a minute and I'll check it out. After looking for a few minutes I realized I don't care that much.
Haha, I know what you mean man. It's more just a food for thought post. I don't doubt the US pressured the UN, but after 70 years what does it matter if in the end the U.N. treaty limits the legislative power of our congress or regulatory power of our agencies? Which is what I was trying to show more than anything. At the same time if legal cannabis is not really up to the people then the direction of current activist efforts is somewhat for naught.
Weve told the U.N to gent bent when it cam to alot of other issues, including invading other countries. why not for weed?
You'd have to show me reports of this or budget allocations. I know that the popular thought is that the U.S. controls everyone and everything through economic and military might, but most of the U.S. corporations are owned by international interests. Much of what the U.S.A does or stands for has been legislated away. The citizens are in more debt than any other country in the world. So, who is profiting? The U.S. government? The people of the U.S? Or multinational corporations that have no respect for borders or the will of peoples? Do you have specific, recent, events or situations which show this as being the case? I'm not saying it isn't the case - but rather that's how I've thought about it too, because that's what people/media like to say or portray the U.S. and the U.N relationship as. When looking at the laws though - it seems fairly black and white as described above. But, who looks at laws? When was the last time you read a law, proposition or bill - not just took someone or some networks summary of the law or how things work as fact?
The UN just this year has failed to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons on his citizens and Russia from invading Ukraine. It won't do anything meaningful to stop countries from selling cannabis.
The UN could have closed down the Dutch Coffeeshops years ago if it had any resemblance of an organisation with an effective means of enforcing international law.
Thnx for taking the time to write all that but in the end the un is just another power authority over the federal government. Did anyone ever say a new world,order?
What is the UN doing to stop Uruguay selling weed to its citizens ? It's as obvious as day who is pushing the worldwide war on drugs and it ain't the UN, it's the same government/country leading the "war on terror". Sent from the back of a jihadist donkey...