Eric Holder Would Be 'Glad To Work With Congress' To Reschedule Marijuana

[RainDog]

81. No, he doesn't...but he does

...In addition to the 1961 Single Convention, two other international treaties have a direct bearing on international control of narcotics and psychotropic substances. These are the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which, enacted after an upsurge of drug use in the 1960s, added certain synthetic, prescription, and hallucinogenic drugs (including LSD) to the list of controlled substances. The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances was enacted in response to an increase in trafficking. The 1988 Convention required member countries, for the first time, to criminalize possession for personal consumption. Notably, the 1988 Convention did not specify how users were to be punished; only that ―possession, purchase or cultivation for personal consumption be made a criminal offense. The 1988 Convention specifically states that its implementation should be accompanied by prudence and is subject to each party’s ―constitutional principles and basic concepts of its legal system.

These three international treaties constitute the international law concerning the control of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The treaties are not ―self-executing, meaning that each country must enact laws implementing the treaties in their own jurisdictions. The Conventions are legally binding pursuant to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties—a country ―may not circumscribe its obligations under the treaties by enacting a conflicting domestic law. On the other hand, there is no international police force standing at the ready to force countries to fulfill their obligations. The INCB has no real power to enforce them: its powers are limited to ―quiet diplomacy, or ―blaming and shaming. In extreme cases, the INCB can recommend an embargo on all prescription medicines coming into or going out of a country. In our interview with former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Narcotics and current INCB member Melvyn Levitsky, he noted that this is ―not a strong provision, since, for humanitarian reasons, it is highly unlikely such a measure would ever be taken against a country.

http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/3_20072283-InternationalDrugControlTreaties.pdf

Since the U.S. was the nation behind the INCB treaties, however, you are asking the AG to ignore current federal and international legal standing for this nation (and thus the world - current UN agreement on this issue was under contention in the fall as nations set 10 year policy, so the conflict already exists for other states - and the UN is complaining - but their complaints have nothing really negative to back them up.)

It could be done, but I don't think this issue is important enough to the Obama Administration to take that sort of step - and I think they are rolling out any such changes cautiously, while watching CO and WA to see if the fears of social conservatives are founded.

But, yes, the reality is that many nations are ignoring this treaty - at least 11 of them, b/c they offer Sativex or, in the case of Uruguay, they have legalized mj - but under conditions of state control, not a free-for-all market - and they plan to sell internationally to Canada and Israel (two of the nations that offer Sativex for ms or a few other conditions - so they will also be in violation of international drug treaties when this happens. But no one is mentioning the reality that 10 nations currently sell marijuana as a mouth spray b/c it's a pharma product (and has had former Republican drug warriors lobbying for it - irony of life, but, well, not, huh, when money is to be made by Bayer, etc.)

However, if Holder rescheduled, the impact would be on granting access to med mj supplied by the fed. govt. for cannabis research and it would let the Drug Czar's office be able to talk about the issue w/o lying - which they have to do at this time.

But it would not make cannabis legal and would not change the current tension b/t state and federal law.

The way for that to happen is via the Democratic bill to move cannabis to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - so that it can be regulated like alcohol.

So if you want to do something as an activist in support of the issue, call your reps and tell them you support the Polis and Blumenaur bills that have not yet, afaik, gotten a hearing.