News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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?
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”.

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.
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?
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.
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.