Canada needs permission from the UN before they legalize marijuana

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by dabs710, Jan 8, 2016.

  1. #1 dabs710, Jan 8, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2016
    Canada Needs Permission From International Treaties to Legalize Marijuana, Says New PM Justin Trudeau

    \t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat do you think this is, America?

    \t\t\t\t\tEd Krayewski Jan. 7, 2016 3:01 pm


    https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/07/canada-needs-pe...


    Justin
    Trudeau, the Liberal prime minister who won last October's elections in
    Canada against the Conservative Stephen Harper, who was seeking a third
    term, ran in part on a promise to legalize marijuana, and said he was
    going to "get started on that right away," signaling a departure from the Harper administration's anti-pot stance.
    Now, Trudeau's said his efforts have hit a snag-international
    treaties. They were, uh, there during the election campaign, even if
    they were left unmentioned by the candidate himself.

    The Canadian Press reports:


    The Liberal government will have to do substantial work on the
    international stage before it can follow through on Prime Minister
    Justin Trudeau's promise to legalize marijuana, new documents suggest.

    That work will have to include figuring out how Canada would comply
    with three international treaties to which the country is a party, all
    of which criminalize the possession and production of marijuana.

    Trudeau's plan to legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana
    is already proving a complicated and controversial undertaking on the
    domestic front, in part because it requires working with the provinces.

    Internationally, says a briefing note prepared for the prime
    minister, Canada will also have to find a way to essentially tell the
    world how it plans to conform to its treaty obligations.


    \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t\t


    \t\t\t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t
    \t\t
    \t\tThe treaties-the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and (because,
    hey, what's in a name, two more), the Convention on Psychotropic
    Substances and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in
    Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances-date back to the 60s, 70s,
    and
    80s. Canada made a reservation to the second treaty, about permitting
    the use of peyote for magical or religious rites by "small, clearly
    determined groups," mimicking a U.S. one.

    A similar argument came up in the United States a couple of years
    ago, when some critics of marijuana legalization in Colorado and
    Washington insisted these international treaties required the federal
    government to prevent legalization, a spurious argument Jacob Sullum demolished:


    Under our federalist system… states have no obligation to punish
    every activity that Congress chooses to treat as a crime. The Supreme
    Court has said,
    based on a dubious reading of the power to regulate interstate
    commerce, that the federal government may continue to enforce its own
    ban on marijuana in states that take a different approach. But that does
    not mean the feds can compel states to help, let alone force them to
    enact their own bans…

    Even
    if treaties could override federalism, the agreements [critics cite] do
    not purport to do so. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
    says compliance is subject to "constitutional limitations" and
    undertaken with "due regard to [signatories'] constitutional, legal and
    administrative
    systems." The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988
    Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
    Substances contain similar provisions.


    The federalist approach taken in the United States by advocates of
    marijuana legalization, which has brought or is bringing recreational
    marijuana into the legal market in four states plus Washington, D.C.,
    and allowed a plethora of local jurisdictions to do the same, as well as
    for states to try more restrictive than legal, but no longer totally
    prohibitionist, approaches, like legalizing medical marijuana or small
    amounts of the non-medical stuff.

    In Canada, as The Press mentioned, Trudeau is
    facing difficulty with the provinces. A former Liberal prime minister,
    Jean Chretien, flirted with a bill to decriminalize marijuana in 2003.
    It was concern from the United States, not concern about international
    treaty
    obligations, that helped kill that effort. And while marijuana
    legalization was thought to be driving young people to the polls, unlike
    in the U.S., the provinces themselves haven't made much of an effort to
    legalize marijuana.

    They have a different constitutional
    structure in Canada. Maybe Trudeau can ask permission from the Queen? He
    can tell her because it's 2015 2016, that's why.
     
  2. So much for "sovereign countries". This should give "world government" conspiracy theorists much more ammo. Seems like we need permission for everything from the UN "peacekeepers", who are "keeping the peace" by enforcing marijuana prohibition globally. What have they done to "keep the peace" or "helped out" in any recent wars and global conflicts? These guys are jokers, it's too bad they're still recognized as some useful force... when they do nothing but make most problems overall worse. I guess that's their goal.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Should we ask mom as well if we could legalize weed?
     
  4. fuck the UN..
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Yea this is dumb. He has no balls to stand up and do whats right, those treaties dont mean anything.
     
  6. Come and get me
    I'm sick of working anyways
     
  7. do it Canada us will follow
     


  8. did Washington D.C. get permission to legalize? how about Uraguay, Portugal ( have all drugs legal) what about the countries who are getting ready to legalize? Mexico Columbia, Chile to name a few more
     
  9. F him, we all knew it was going to be too good to be true kind of campaign like any other politician that will say whatever to get popular support. Even if its illegal, I'm not stopping anytime soon.
     
  10. So according to the information I've gathered be original patients of the Canadian medical marijuana program sued the government for more rights and won so from what I've gathered it means that in six months the Canadian government will not renew their current medical marijuana laws because of Monopoly that Canadian dispensaries have as an outcome legal marijuana will be available to obtain at any grocery store where cigarettes are sold if anybody else has more and especially accurate information please feel free to add it
     
  11. #11 Senseimillan, Feb 26, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 26, 2016


    So right now (current law) Patients are NOT allowed to grow their own. The court deemed this to be bullshit, and gave the feds 6 months to write new laws that allow patients to grow their own meds. So in 6 months, prescribed patients SHOULD be able to grow legally after registering with the new program that will be started, etc.


    That "any grocery store where cigarettes are sold" possibility will not happen until the feds can legalize, restrict, and manage cannabis on a recreational level (which is what Trudeau is talking about).
     
  12. I was listening to something on edge radio station and they were saying that if they let the current policy deliberately laps it would make it an open decriminalized market?
     


  13. Naw, because if they let this lapse the only people affected would be prescribed medical marijuana patients, because those are the only stakeholders the legislation was written for. If he let it lapse, medical patients could grow an unlimited supply, legally. Right now it`s anybody`s guess what new rules and restrictions will be put in place for patients.


    But again, if they allowed it to lapse, It would still be listed as a Schedule II substance. What Trudeau COULD do is use this MMPR opportunity to REMOVE Cannabis from the controlled substances act, which would effectively decriminalize it. But then it'd be a wild wild west, with no oversight at all. So realistically the feds will amend the act or remove it altogether.


    The rest of Canada is going to have to wait a bit longer to grow their own most likely.
     
  14. Special Session of the General Assembly UNGASS 2016
    The UN General Assembly will hold a Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs in 2016. This Special Session will be an important milestone in achieving the goals set in the policy document of 2009 "Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem", which defined action to be taken by Member States as well as goals to be achieved by 2019.
     
  15. Special Session of the General Assembly UNGASS 2016
    The UN General Assembly will hold a Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs in 2016. This Special Session will be an important milestone in achieving the goals set in the policy document of 2009 "Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem", which defined action to be taken by Member States as well as goals to be achieved by 2019.
     
  16. Sorry man but you're wrong.. kind of. If it lapses, medical marijuana patients instantly become criminals again as 'Marihuana' is a schedule II.
     
  17. Ugh, I really hope that the UN decides to end the prohibition of cannabis, and soon. All prohibition has ever done is cause so much harm and suffering, spawned drug wars and given profits to the black market. If it was never made illegal, countries wouldn't have so many people incarcerated for extremely minor offences such as possession of less than an ounce of marijuana... My boyfriend was handcuffed and nearly arrested for having weed on him. Luckily though, he had his medical green card which allows him to carry it legally. Still, a humiliating experience over a freaking plant. :/
     
  18. We backed out of the drought treaties without any real repercussions, why would this be any different? It's just a convenient excuse for why their taking so long, when the real reason is Justin is fighting for total government control and distribution for the most tax profits where as the activists/politicians/everyone else wants freedom and the right to grown their own or at least get it from a trustworthy caretaker and not Big Pharma or Lawblaws.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Oh a politician who can't come through on his promises? Shocking..
     

Share This Page