undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrezonant1y ago0 comments

Well the UN has already done that, moving it from Schedule IV to Schedule I. Note that the schedules are reversed in the UN's system.

So it appears that US rescheduling would bring drug policy closer into alignment with the UN than before.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/world/europe/cannabis-uni...

Now, there may be some procedural red tape to go through, but it would be odd for the UN to reject such a change when their own scheduling agrees with the change.

0 comments

RyanAdamas1y ago

That's under a different treaty. You're falling for the bamboozle.

This is the origin of what you're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...

Which is what this was based on: https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standard...

Which was the impetus for what you're talking about.

jjulius1y ago

Help me out here, because I'm genuinely trying to grok your point but, for whatever reason, it's not clicking for me. You originally stated:

>Reclassifying schedule 1 Drugs requires the approval of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the UN.

In response to the person above you in this comment chain, you then suggested that their understanding was wrong and that they're "falling for the bamboozle". I'm not sure how the NYT piece is false or a bamboozle, given that it clearly states:

>The vote by the Commission for Narcotic Drugs, which is based in Vienna and includes 53 member states, considered a series of recommendations from the World Health Organization on reclassifying cannabis and its derivatives.

So, at one point you say that the Commission for Narcotic Drugs needs to be the commission to approve the rescheduling, but when you're told that they did in fact do that, you then tell us that that's wrong. I would love to be steered in the right direction here, if you don't mind.

RyanAdamas1y ago

That's because you're intentionally missing the first point where I said that's under a different treaty. Probably because you aren't actually interested in learning the complexity of international drug laws, but simply buying into political nonsense.

Edit: It makes sense you think I'm being hostile by pointing out facts since that's what you took issue with to begin with.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsrezonant1y ago0 comments

Well the UN has already done that, moving it from Schedule IV to Schedule I. Note that the schedules are reversed in the UN's system.

So it appears that US rescheduling would bring drug policy closer into alignment with the UN than before.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/world/europe/cannabis-uni...

Now, there may be some procedural red tape to go through, but it would be odd for the UN to reject such a change when their own scheduling agrees with the change.

0 comments

RyanAdamas1y ago

That's under a different treaty. You're falling for the bamboozle.

This is the origin of what you're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...

Which is what this was based on: https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standard...

Which was the impetus for what you're talking about.

jjulius1y ago

Help me out here, because I'm genuinely trying to grok your point but, for whatever reason, it's not clicking for me. You originally stated:

>Reclassifying schedule 1 Drugs requires the approval of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the UN.

RyanAdamas1y ago

Edit: It makes sense you think I'm being hostile by pointing out facts since that's what you took issue with to begin with.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse