Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

UN has moved to stop resticting it's use for medicinal purposes, but it is still banned for private consumption. As a signatory to the UN drugs convention, US has voted againsy decriminalisation.

This is a clumsy summary, ANAL

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1079132



Welp, Canada has ignored that convention and has yet to receive the first or final steps of a UN response: a strongly worded letter.

Safe to say we can all ignore that treaty with impunity.

edit: Oh and the sky didn’t fall either. If anything, the opposite: marijuana isn’t a cool edgy thing anymore. You just do it if you want to, or don’t if you don’t.

The black market still exists, but prices have cratered, so assuming black market demand is unchanged (it’s probably lower), the criminal element has shrunk in size.


Canada does a lot of things.


Mostly resource extraction and real estate financial engineering. Increasingly the latter.


Without tone of voice, it’s hard to tell if you’re doing sarcastic finger quotes on the internet.

I wouldn’t call using the office of the privacy commissioner as cover for CSIS “resource extraction” or “financial engineering”, but I’ll give them credit, they are quite good at playing dumb.


That convention (alongside virtually every other UN convention or resoultion) is unenforceable and can be ignored with no consequences whatsoever.


Your comment implies the US is somehow bound to this agreement for the making of federal laws. This is not the case and never has been.


I do not inderstand what you are arguing against.

Are you saying US is not a signatory to the convention?

Are you saying that US is not bound by international agreements, treaties and contracts that it has signed up to, of it's own accord?

Are you saying that US can leave the agreement at any time? (I beleive it can)

Or are you saying that is US breaks the obligations it signed up to, the UN cannot hold it accountable?


The US is a signatory, but there is nothing in US law that makes being a signatory binding for the creation, amendment, or repeal of any US law. In fact, the opposite is true: the US explicitly maintains sovereignty for its domestic laws in the face of all UN agreements. It doesn’t need to leave the agreement.

In general the US, as the world dominant cultural, military and economic power, signs agreements to bind others, not themselves.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: