News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry. Parent comment

Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by jcranmer on Thursday December 27, 2018 @07:34PM (#18773916)
> Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work.

The US has signed up to a treaty that requires us to treat marijuana as an illegal controlled substance. That requires an explicit act of Congress to abrogate, and no court is going to find otherwise.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by dragonwriter on Friday December 28, 2018 @02:14PM (#18778771)
> The US has signed up to a treaty that requires us to treat marijuana as an illegal controlled substance. That requires an explicit act of Congress to abrogate, and no court is going to find otherwise.

It probably should, but you may be wrong about the weight of legal opinion: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/donald-trump-can-unila...

In any case, the relevant treaty is not self-executing, and there is no mechanism to force Congress to criminalize drugs if it chooses not to even without explicitly abrogating (or even the President unilaterally disavowing) the treaty. Foreign countries could try to bring a case against the US before the ICJ, but even if successful, that wouldn't actually force changes to domestic law.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by namlem on Friday December 28, 2018 @01:41PM (#18778573)
So are Canada and Uruguay. UN treaties are meaningless, they're purely for show.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by solidsnack9000 on Thursday December 27, 2018 @08:13PM (#18774108)
Which treaty is that?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by barry-cotter on Thursday December 27, 2018 @09:14PM (#18774383)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...

This was the first result for both “drugs treaty” and “Narcotics treaty”.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by solidsnack9000 on Saturday December 29, 2018 @08:46AM (#18783518)
Although the treaty does seem to be pretty clearly prohibitionist, there is some debate (covered under "Possession for personal use", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...) as to whether or not the treaty requires member states to prohibit possession for personal use.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by katbyte on Friday December 28, 2018 @03:54AM (#18775647)
Is canada not a signatory on that treaty then?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by fromthestart on Thursday December 27, 2018 @09:53PM (#18774555)
That page doesn't mention marijuana. I don't think marijuana is classified as a narcotic, despite the vagueness of the definition.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by jcranmer on Thursday December 27, 2018 @10:40PM (#18774737)
Cannabis is explicitly listed as a Schedule I drug on that page.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have exp... by Tsubasachan on Friday December 28, 2018 @04:48AM (#18775858)
We all know how much the US cares about upholding international treaties lol.
[ Parent | on HN ]