Truth Seeker
New Member
Activists have been working for years to reform state and local marijuana laws throughout the nation through decriminalization, implementation of medical marijuana laws and, most recently, attempts at legalizing marijuana. Many opponents, and even some activists, argue that marijuana must be rescheduled at the federal level before state-level legalization.
Since the Controlled Substances Act was implemented in the 70's, there have been multiple attempts to reschedule marijuana at the federal level, which have each been denied after excessive delays. After the most recent denial of a rescheduling petition, a lawsuit challenging the classification of marijuana in Schedule I will finally be heard before the Circuit Court in Washington D.C. on October 16, 2012.
Americans for Safe Access, the organization which filed the lawsuit, claims that the scheduling of marijuana in Schedule I is "politically motivated decision-making."
"Medical marijuana patients are finally getting their day in court," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group. "This is a rare opportunity for patients to confront politically motivated decision-making with scientific evidence of marijuana's medical efficacy," continued Elford. "What's at stake in this case is nothing less than our country's scientific integrity and the imminent needs of millions of patients."
While it is hard to say how the court may rule on this complex issue, there is one area that is rarely, if ever, discussed regarding rescheduling marijuana: international treaties and how they relate to our domestic laws. Two key documents to the discussion are:
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs — a 1961 international treaty (amended in 1972) that attempted to make the legal controls on a variety of drugs standard among all the signatories. Under this treaty, cannabis is specifically bound by the restrictions of all drugs found in Schedule I, with additional restrictions specific to cannabis also listed.
The Controlled Substances Act — a federal law of the United States that was implemented in order to comply with the various international treaties, including the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The Controlled Substances Act categorizes each controlled substance into five categories, with Schedule I being the most restrictive category. Cannabis was placed in Schedule I in order to comply with the treaty.
To summarize the complicated situation, at least as I understand it, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was not self-executing, which means that each country that signed the treaty still had to establish laws to comply with the terms of the treaty. In the United States, the Controlled Substances Act was the result.
With passage of the Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. Attorney General was granted the authority to schedule, reschedule or remove a drug from scheduling (who has delegated that authority to the Drug Enforcement Agency). Further, each state within the United States also established laws controlling drugs using a similar scheduling framework (many simply adopted the federal standards within their state statutes, while others have some differences).
The question that arises from this very complicated situation is: "Can the federal government simultaneously comply with the treaty as required and reschedule marijuana removing it from Schedule I?" The answer appears to be "no." The treaty specifically states:
6. In addition to the measures of control applicable to all drugs in Schedule I, opium is subject to the provisions of article 19, paragraph 1, subparagraph f), and of articles 21 bis, 23 and 24, the coca leaf to those of articles 26 and 27 and cannabis to those of article 28.
Either the treaty would need to be modified or cannabis must remain in Schedule I in order to comply with the treaty. The only other option would be to remove ourselves from the treaty, but the United States was a major player in passing the treaty AND ensuring that cannabis was strictly regulated under its terms, so that is unlikely.
But that isn't the end of the discussion, because the treaty allows for cannabis cultivation under Article 28 by a party to the treaty, with certain restrictions. The restrictions are the same restrictions applied to opium cultivation and are found in Article 23.
Article 23
NATIONAL OPIUM AGENCIES
1. A Party that permits the cultivation of the opium poppy for the production of opium shall establish, if it has not already done so, and maintain, one or more government agencies (hereafter in this article referred to as the Agency) to carry out the functions required under this article.
2. Each such Party shall apply the following provisions to the cultivation of the opium poppy for the production of opium and to opium:
a) The Agency shall designate the areas in which, and the plots of land on which, cultivation of the opium poppy for the purpose of producing opium shall be permitted.
b) Only cultivators licensed by the Agency shall be authorized to engage in such cultivation.
c) Each licence[sic] shall specify the extent of the land on which the cultivation is permitted.
d) All cultivators of the opium poppy shall be required to deliver their total crops of opium to the Agency. The Agency shall purchase and take physical possession of such crops as soon as possible, but not later than four months after the end of the harvest.
e) The Agency shall, in respect of opium, have the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading and maintaining stocks other than those held by manufacturers of opium alkaloids, medicinal opium or opium preparations. Parties need not extend this exclusive right to medicinal opium and opium preparations.
3. The governmental functions referred to in paragraph 2 shall be discharged by a single government agency if the constitution of the Party concerned permits it.
To conclude, this means that a country that is a signatory to the treaty cannot reschedule marijuana out of Schedule I and remain incompliance with the treaty, but they CAN cultivate and produce marijuana and still remain in compliance with the treaty.
The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2012 will be testing this theory, if it wins the election this November. Paul Stanford, author and co-chief petitioner for the measure, often explains that it was written to be upheld in federal court.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: examiner.com
Author: Jennifer Alexander
Contact: About Examiner.com Passionate, local writers | Examiner.com
Website: Why the federal government will not reschedule marijuana - Portland cannabis | Examiner.com
Since the Controlled Substances Act was implemented in the 70's, there have been multiple attempts to reschedule marijuana at the federal level, which have each been denied after excessive delays. After the most recent denial of a rescheduling petition, a lawsuit challenging the classification of marijuana in Schedule I will finally be heard before the Circuit Court in Washington D.C. on October 16, 2012.
Americans for Safe Access, the organization which filed the lawsuit, claims that the scheduling of marijuana in Schedule I is "politically motivated decision-making."
"Medical marijuana patients are finally getting their day in court," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group. "This is a rare opportunity for patients to confront politically motivated decision-making with scientific evidence of marijuana's medical efficacy," continued Elford. "What's at stake in this case is nothing less than our country's scientific integrity and the imminent needs of millions of patients."
While it is hard to say how the court may rule on this complex issue, there is one area that is rarely, if ever, discussed regarding rescheduling marijuana: international treaties and how they relate to our domestic laws. Two key documents to the discussion are:
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs — a 1961 international treaty (amended in 1972) that attempted to make the legal controls on a variety of drugs standard among all the signatories. Under this treaty, cannabis is specifically bound by the restrictions of all drugs found in Schedule I, with additional restrictions specific to cannabis also listed.
The Controlled Substances Act — a federal law of the United States that was implemented in order to comply with the various international treaties, including the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The Controlled Substances Act categorizes each controlled substance into five categories, with Schedule I being the most restrictive category. Cannabis was placed in Schedule I in order to comply with the treaty.
To summarize the complicated situation, at least as I understand it, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was not self-executing, which means that each country that signed the treaty still had to establish laws to comply with the terms of the treaty. In the United States, the Controlled Substances Act was the result.
With passage of the Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. Attorney General was granted the authority to schedule, reschedule or remove a drug from scheduling (who has delegated that authority to the Drug Enforcement Agency). Further, each state within the United States also established laws controlling drugs using a similar scheduling framework (many simply adopted the federal standards within their state statutes, while others have some differences).
The question that arises from this very complicated situation is: "Can the federal government simultaneously comply with the treaty as required and reschedule marijuana removing it from Schedule I?" The answer appears to be "no." The treaty specifically states:
6. In addition to the measures of control applicable to all drugs in Schedule I, opium is subject to the provisions of article 19, paragraph 1, subparagraph f), and of articles 21 bis, 23 and 24, the coca leaf to those of articles 26 and 27 and cannabis to those of article 28.
Either the treaty would need to be modified or cannabis must remain in Schedule I in order to comply with the treaty. The only other option would be to remove ourselves from the treaty, but the United States was a major player in passing the treaty AND ensuring that cannabis was strictly regulated under its terms, so that is unlikely.
But that isn't the end of the discussion, because the treaty allows for cannabis cultivation under Article 28 by a party to the treaty, with certain restrictions. The restrictions are the same restrictions applied to opium cultivation and are found in Article 23.
Article 23
NATIONAL OPIUM AGENCIES
1. A Party that permits the cultivation of the opium poppy for the production of opium shall establish, if it has not already done so, and maintain, one or more government agencies (hereafter in this article referred to as the Agency) to carry out the functions required under this article.
2. Each such Party shall apply the following provisions to the cultivation of the opium poppy for the production of opium and to opium:
a) The Agency shall designate the areas in which, and the plots of land on which, cultivation of the opium poppy for the purpose of producing opium shall be permitted.
b) Only cultivators licensed by the Agency shall be authorized to engage in such cultivation.
c) Each licence[sic] shall specify the extent of the land on which the cultivation is permitted.
d) All cultivators of the opium poppy shall be required to deliver their total crops of opium to the Agency. The Agency shall purchase and take physical possession of such crops as soon as possible, but not later than four months after the end of the harvest.
e) The Agency shall, in respect of opium, have the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading and maintaining stocks other than those held by manufacturers of opium alkaloids, medicinal opium or opium preparations. Parties need not extend this exclusive right to medicinal opium and opium preparations.
3. The governmental functions referred to in paragraph 2 shall be discharged by a single government agency if the constitution of the Party concerned permits it.
To conclude, this means that a country that is a signatory to the treaty cannot reschedule marijuana out of Schedule I and remain incompliance with the treaty, but they CAN cultivate and produce marijuana and still remain in compliance with the treaty.
The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2012 will be testing this theory, if it wins the election this November. Paul Stanford, author and co-chief petitioner for the measure, often explains that it was written to be upheld in federal court.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: examiner.com
Author: Jennifer Alexander
Contact: About Examiner.com Passionate, local writers | Examiner.com
Website: Why the federal government will not reschedule marijuana - Portland cannabis | Examiner.com
