For
advert-free site
go to www.palad.org.uk
The Misuse of Drugs Act, and the UN Conventions it
is based upon, fail to regulate against the misuse of
drugs partly because they fail to define what is a
drug. The Misuse of Drugs Act ignores Home Office
guidance that "we must continue referring to
alcohol, tobacco and caffeine as drugs" in their
appropriately named publication 'Let's Get Real'. The
UN Conventions ignore the UN's International Drug
Control Program definition that say "This
description [of 'drugs'] covers alcohol and
tobacco" instead saying that
""Psychotropic substance" means any
substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural
material in Schedule I, II, Ill or IV" - a
tautology. www.incb.org/e/conv/1971/index.htm
United Nations International Drug
Control Programme:
"What are drugs?
A very basic question but one that needs to be
clarified. For, if we start thinking of drugs as just
the substances that cause problems or are abused by
people we know, then we are likely to ignore other
substances that, for one reason or another, are not
thought of as drugs by our immediate communities. A
psychoactive substance is any substance people take
to change either the way they feel, think, or behave.
This description covers alcohol and tobacco as well
as other natural and manufactured drugs".
www.undcp.org/youthnet/pdf/handbook_what_are_drugs.pdf
United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime:
"A psychoactive substance is any substance that
people take to change either the way they feel,
think, or behave. This includes alcohol and tobacco
as well as natural and manufactured drugs".
www.undcp.org/odccp/drug_demand_abuse.html
World Health Organisation:
"A drug is any chemical entity or mixture of
entities, other than those required for the
maintenance of normal health (food), the
administration of which alters biological function
and possibly structure. This definition would exclude
food, water and oxygen, and endocrine substances in
amounts required for the maintenance of normal
health. This definition includes both legal drugs
(caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, pharmaceutical drugs)
and illegal drugs."
http://www.dare.org.nz/foundation.html
UN's 'Unification of Conventions on
Narcotic Drugs', Definitions, Part 1, 4 (see end page
also):
"By defining the drugs to be covered as
drugs of addiction: "product . . . capable of
producing addiction or . . . convertible into a drug
capable of producing addiction" (article 11,
paragraph 6, 1931 Convention); "drugs . . .
capable of producing addiction" (preamble of the
1948 Protocol); "drug . . . capable of producing
addiction or of conversion into a product capable of
producing addiction" (article 1, paragraph 2 of
the 1948 Protocol)."
www.odccp.org/odccp/bulletin/bulletin_1950-01-01_2_page006.html
British Pharmacological Society:
"What is a drug?
The word 'drug' has a range of meanings. Not only
does it refer to medicines with beneficial
therapeutic effects such as paracetamol, penicillin
and insulin, it can also mean everyday substances
such as caffeine, nicotine and alcohol. Drugs also
include illegal substances, such as cannabis, heroin
and cocaine".
www.bps.ac.uk/whpharmacology.html
NHS:
"The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
defines substance misuse as
"a condition which may cause an individual to
experience social, psychological, physical or legal
problems related to intoxication and / or regular
excessive consumption, and / or dependence, as a
consequence of their use of drugs or other chemical
substances".
This definition covers all types of substance misuse
whether related to addiction or one-off use, and is
focused on problems rather than types of drugs.
It’s worth remembering that drugs such as
alcohol and tobacco can fit into this definition
quite readily!"
www.nhsplus.nhs.uk/your_health/submisuse.asp
Home Office/DPAS, p.40, 'Let's Get
Real - communicating with the public about drugs':
"in the interests of encouraging a rational
debate and combating knee-jerk prejudice, we need to
continue referring to alcohol, tobacco and caffeine
as drugs".
www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/DPASPublications/1033750738/1033751391.pdf
Department for Education and Skills
- Drugs: Guidance for schools:
" 'DRUGS' refers to ALL
DRUGS including MEDICINES, VOLATILE SUBSTANCES,
ALCOHOL and TOBACCO "
www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations2/08/docs/Drugs%20guidanc.for%20schools.d.pdf
Government's '10 Year Strategy for
Tackling Drug Misuse':
"legally obtainable substances such as alcohol,
tobacco … should … be addressed …
within the strategy".
www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm39/3945/strategy.htm
BBC Newsround:
"What are drugs?
A drug is something that affects your
body.
Not all drugs are illegal. Drugs like cannabis,
ecstasy and cocaine are illegal. Other drugs which
are against the law include speed, heroin, LSD and
magic mushrooms.
But many are legal like alcohol, headache tablets,
cigarettes and glue".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/uk/drugs/newsid_1609000/1609624.stm
United Nations International Drug
Control Programme:
"DRUG:
(i) A term of varied usage. In medicine, it refers to
any substance with the potential to prevent or cure
disease or enhance physical or mental welfare; in
pharmacology it means any chemical agent that alters
the biochemical or physiological processes of tissues
or organisms.
(ii) In the context of international drug control,
'drug' means any of the substances in Schedule I and
II of the 1961 Convention, whether natural or
synthetic.
Usage of the term 'illicit drug' should be avoided,
as it is the manufacture, distribution, use etc. of a
drug which is illicit, but not the substance
itself".
www.undcp.org/odccp/report_1998-10-01_1_page027.html
UN 1971 Convention
on Psychotropic substances - Article 1, USE OF TERMS:
"(e)
"Psychotropic substance" means any
substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural
material in Schedule I, II, III or IV."
www.incb.org/e/conv/1971/index.htm
Advisory Council on
the Misuse of Drugs report 'Government Drugs Policy:
Is it Working?':
"9. Legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol,
are responsible for far greater damage both to
individual health and to the social fabric in general
than illegal ones".
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31802.htm
UN's
'Unification of Conventions on Narcotic Drugs',
Definitions, Part II):
Part II - CONSIDERATION OF TERMS FOR ADDICTION-FORMING
DRUGS, AND THE TEXT OF OTHER DEFINITIONS
Many attempts have been made to use some single
term or fairly short expression to name or delimit
the drugs requiring international control.
Chief of these are: (1) dangerous drugs; (2)
narcotic drugs; narcotics; (3) habit-forming drugs;
(4) stupefiants (French); (5) opiates; (6)
drugs capable of producing toxicomania, or
narcomania; (7) addiction-forming drugs; drugs of
addiction; (8) "the drugs" (specified); (9)
the substances specified.
1. Dangerous drugs
Used in: ( a) title of the "Advisory
Committee on Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous
Drugs" of the League of Nations; ( b)
resolution of the Tenth Assembly of the League of
Nations which called for the 1931 Conference; ( c)
title of the 1936 Conference and Convention; ( d)
often in national legislation.
This term conveys nothing as to why certain drugs
are dangerous in such a way as to require
international control. It has the advantage of
possibly being applicable to drugs that are dangerous
only because convertible into addiction-forming
drugs. Its use in national legislation sometimes
extends beyond the drugs under international control.
2. Narcotic drugs
Used in ( a) the title of the Conference
and Convention of 1931, and in the preamble; ( b)
article 1 of the 1936 Convention, which defines the
term, for the purposes of that Convention, as meaning
"the drugs and substances" to which
provisions of the 191s2, 1925, and 1931 Conventions
"are now or hereafter may be applicable"; (
c) in legislation of the. United States; ( d)
in the title "Commission on Narcotic
Drugs"; ( e) generally as the translation
of the French term "stupefiants," ( f)
generally in discussions as the English term for
drugs of the type, frequently shortened to
"narcotics."
The term "narcotic drugs" has been used
so much to cover the drugs to which the Conventions
are primarily applicable, that it has acquired this
special meaning. In general language
"narcotic" means having certain
sense-deadening effects, and such drugs as
scopolamine and even the barbiturates may also be
called narcotic. Webster's Dictionary gives
belladonna, as well as opium, as an example of a
narcotic drug. The Shorter Oxford
Dictionary gives for the adjective merely
"Having the effect of inducing stupor, sleep, or
insensibility," and for the substantive,
"Med. A substance which when swallowed, inhaled,
or injected into the system induces drowsiness;
sleep, stupefaction, or insensibility, according to
its strength and the amount taken."
Nevertheless, in a suitable context, the special
meaning - drugs that are subject to control because
of immediate or threatened addiction effects - is
usually clear.
Sometimes the term "narcotic" may be
considered too restrictive. At its second session the
Commission on Narcotic Drugs deleted
"narcotic" from the draft of the protocol
that was then under examination. The feeling seemed
to be that if the general meaning were understood,
then sense-deadening effects would have to be proved
for any drug that it was desired to put under
control, while a special definition might likewise
tie the hands of the control authorities. This
decision in no way halted the use of "narcotic
drugs" and "narcotics" as the usual
terms in the discussions of the Commission.
Perhaps more attention should be given the short
form "narcotics "("narcotic"
as a noun). In the proper context, this is understood
throughout the English-speaking world as signifying
the addiction-forming drugs that require control.
"Narkotik "(plural
"narkotiki") is also the Russian term.
Moreover the term is a combining form (narcotism,
narcomania, etc.), and this is true even for other
languages. French for example has
"narcomanie" in fairly common use although
the term "stup?fiants" is preferred for the
addiction-forming drugs themselves. There are many
advantages in the use of the short, simple term
"narcotics ."
3. Habit-forming drugs
In the effort to be more precise in regard to the
nature of the drugs concerned, the term
"habit-forming" has often been used in
discussions. The term is far too weak, since habits
may be formed for all sorts of drugs, some even
harmless or nearly so. This has been recognized to
the extent that "habit-forming" is often
combined with one of the other terms, so that we find
references to "dangerous habit-forming
drugs" and to "habit-forming narcotic
drugs."
4. Stup?fiants (French);
stupefacients (English)
The French term "stup?fiant''seems to have
given more general satisfaction than the English
"narcotic drug," or "narcotic" as
an adjective. "Stup?fiant" has been defined
as a poison which has sedative properties, produces
euphoria, and is habit-forming. It has been suggested
that the English equivalent would require
"dangerous habit-forming narcotic drug."
French-English dictionaries give
"stupefacient" and "stupefactive"
as English equivalents of "stup?fiant."
Peculiarly enough, these English terms have not been
used in the Conventions nor even in discussions. They
are, in fact, not very common words in comparison to
"narcotic." This, however, might even be an
advantage: "stupefacient" could be adopted
as exactly equivalent to the French
"stup?fiant," for the purposes of a
Convention, without doing any violence to common
speech. Both "stupefacient" and
"stup?fiant" can be used as either
adjective or noun.
"'Estupefacientes"' has been the Spanish
term used in translations of the Conventions.
"Stup?fiant" (as also "narcotic
drug") was rejected at the 1931 Conference as a
general term for all the drugs covered, in part
because of the difficulty of framing a good
definition, but chiefly because it was felt that the
term should not be stretched to cover drugs requiring
control merely because of convertibility into true
"stup?fiants." This difficulty arises with
most terms but should not prevent the use of some
simple word or phrase for the drugs which make the
control necessary and which require a regime of
complete control.
A keener objection can be made that
"stupefacient "and "stup?fiant "are
terms relating to the stupefying action of the drugs,
whereas the addicts use them for other reasons, and
cocaine, heroin, even morphine do not stupefy those
who take them for addiction purposes. All discussion
tends to point out that it is the addiction
effects which make it necessary to control these
drugs, and presumably definitions and terms should
relate to these addiction effects.
5. Opiates
United States law has adopted "opiates"
as a general term to cover synthetic drugs brought
under the Federal narcotics laws, the test being
"addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining
liabilities similar to morphine or cocaine." The
term has some historical justification, and was also
used by the cartel of European manufacturers (1930
and some years thereafter) for their
"international agreement on opiates." It
possibly has the advantage that it is not likely to
be misused carelessly for drugs not acutally under
the law. However, it does not seem especially
suitable for drugs requiring international control.
It emphasizes sleep-inducing and pain-relieving
properties by the implied relation to opium, at least
as much as addiction-forming properties. Moreover, it
seems inappropriate for drugs acting like cocaine or
cannabis rather than opium. In such cases even the
type of addiction is different. Of course
"opiates" is quite suitable as a term
comprising opium itself, all the manufactured
narcotic drugs obtained from opium ,preparations
of opium, etc., but not as a general term for the
drugs under international control.
6. Drugs capable of producing
toxicomania
This expression has generally been used in French
( susceptible d&rsquoengendrer la toxicomanie)in
place of "capable of producing addiction."
In a few cases it has also been used in the English
version, e.g.,by the Health Committee of the
League of Nations in recommending control over
benzoylmorphine and other esters of morphine, and
dilaudid.
Drugs liable to produce narcomania
This is a more restricted version of the same
idea, and seems to merit more consideration than it
has had hitherto. "Narcomanie" may also be
used in French as a more specific term than the
general "toxicomanie." The term is
practically the same in Russian also
("narkomaniya"). The chief objection from
the point of view of our present examination is that
"drugs liable to produce narcomania" is a
somewhat cumbersome phrase, more nearly a definition
than a simple term of convenience.
"Narcomania" is to be understood as a
morbid craving for the "narcotic." It has
the disadvantage that it has occasionally been used
in the sense of a mania produced by a narcotic.
7. Addiction-forming drugs; drugs
of addiction
The present tendency is to define drugs to be
covered in the future as those "capable of
producing addiction or of conversion into drugs
capable of producing addiction" (see part I, A,
4). "Addiction-forming drugs" may well be
used as a shorter form of "drugs capable of
producing addiction", probably preferable to
"narcotic drugs" or
"stupefacients", and certainly more
definite than "dangerous drugs". Like the
last term, "drugs of addiction" might
possibly be taken to include some drugs "capable
of conversion into drugs capable of producing
addiction", as well as the drugs primarily
"capable of producing addiction", if it is
necessary to cover "convertible" drugs in
the general provisions.
The term "addiction-forming drugs" is
the one generally used throughout this document.
While not as short as "narcotics" or
"stupefacients" its meaning is definite
without requiring a special definition, and in
particular it focuses attention on the fact that the
drugs that have to be controlled are not, basically,
those that narcotize or stupefy but those that create
addiction. Of course, thebaine and ecgonine are not
in themselves addiction-forming and codeine and
dionine only feebly so; but such drugs are taken
under control because of their relationship to the
true addiction-forming drugs.
The social aspect of addiction should be
considered dominant in this connexion. The medical
definition of "addiction", according to
some authorities, requires physical withdrawal
symptoms, as a distinction from
"habituation", which then is said to imply
only psychic craving. For the purposes of this
document harmful habit-forming drugs which are
socially dangerous and create intense pyschic
"addiction" are included in
"addiction-forming drugs".
8. "The drugs"
(specified)
The 1931 Conference abandoned the attempt to
choose a more specific term, and simply stated,
before enumerating them, "The term 'the drugs'
shall denote the following drugs whether partly
manufactured or completely refined".
This is generally referred to as a definition,
"for the purposes of the Convention"; but
properly speaking it is merely the statement of an
abbreviation: "the drugs" is simply used as
a short form for "the drugs specified in article
1, paragraph 2."
In the 1948 Protocol the term "drugs" is
used in its ordinary sense; qualified by other words
when necessary; and the reference to "the
drugs" of the 1931 Convention in article 1 of
the Protocol is given in full as "the drugs
specified in article 1, paragraph 2, of the said
Convention.''
Although the special sense of "the
drugs" was a convenience for the 1931
Convention, it was a limitation of a well-known term,
and has possibly had the unfortunate result of
suggesting that only manufactured substances can be
drugs.
There is surely a question whether the convenience
of such a short term as "the drugs"
overbalances all objections to using it in a special
abbreviated sense throughout a convention. (The
French text of the 1931 Convention retains quotation
marks for "drogues" throughout, as a mark
of the restricted sense.) Especially for the new
single convention it would seem almost as simple to
devote a particular article to the enumeration or
definition of the drugs to be covered by a certain
regime, and then to refer to "the drugs
specified in article . . .", or even, for short,
to "the drugs of article . . .", (or
"the drugs of annex..."). By properly
qualifying the term "drugs" whenever it is
used, no definition or statement of a special sense
is necessary. The word by itself then retains its
full meaning and will cover crude drugs such as
opium, coca leaves, and cannabis, as well as
manufactured drugs.
9. The "substances"
specified
The term "substances" has been used a
number of times in the conventions. Any particular
meaning has been given in each instance by qualifying
words, without any general restriction to a
particular sense, as for "the drugs" in the
1931 Convention. For example, article 4 of the 1925
Convention states, "The provisions of the
present chapter apply to the following
substances" (which are then listed); articles 5
and 6 do not then refer merely to "the
substances" but use the full explanatory phrase,
"the substances to which this chapter
applies".
There seems to be no advantage in using
"substances" in lieu of "drugs",
but the word is needed in some cases for substances
that may or may not be drugs, as in article 18 of the
1931 Convention, which refers to drugs
"converted into non-narcotic substances".
A use which at first appears odd occurs in the
1936 Convention, which after defining "narcotic
drugs" to mean "the drugs and
substances" to which provision of preceding
Conventions "are now or hereafter may be
applicable", in its article 10 says that
"Any narcotic drugs as well as any substances
and instruments intended for the commission of any of
the offences referred to in article 2 shall be liable
to seizure and confiscation". Here the word
"substances" is modified by the phrase
"intended for the commission of any of the
offences re- ferred to in article 2", and does
not refer to narcotic or prohibited substances
(already included in the term "narcotic
drugs"), but to such things as laboratory
reagents used for illicit manufacture, etc.
It must be noted that if "drugs" is used
in a specialized sense without qualifying words, it
cannot be used otherwise in. the same Convention, and
"substances", or some other term, has to be
substituted for the general sense.
Part III APPRAISAL OF
STATUS AND CONTENT OF DEFINITIONS
1. Methods of specifying the drugs concerned
Three methods may be suggested:
- Enumeration of the drugs already under the
conventions; then use of these (or some of
them) as exemplars, other drugs to be
controlled in the future to be those
"liable to similar abuse and productive
of similar ill-effects". This is,
generally speaking, what has formerly been
done. It must of course be clear that
"similar" is not to imply
"similar in all respects" but
"similar with respect to the problems of
addiction". This being the case it would
seem better to define in terms of addiction
effects in the first place. However, the
restrictive phrase will be further considered
a little later (see 2 ( a) following).
- Enumeration of the drugs already under the
conventions, then a definition or statement
of the drugs that may be brought under
control in the future, in terms of addiction
effects. The drugs already under control
would serve as examples of the addiction
effects, but not in limiting others to
"similar" or "the same"
effects. The precise purport of the term
"addiction" would be left to the
experts of the World Health Organization, in
accordance with the procedure which would be
set out for bringing any drug under control,
and of course with the drugs already
controlled as examples.
See the Historical and Technical
Study of the 1931 Convention, p. 176,
footnote 1.
- The substances to be subject to control might
first be referred to in the preamble in a
general way, in terms of addiction effects.
That is, the intention would be expressed of
controlling the dangerous addiction-forming
drugs, together with other substances which
it is necessary to control in order to
prevent the abuse of drugs. This would be a
statement of purpose and an indication to the
World Health Organization in regard to future
decisions. The approach in the text of the
convention would be pragmatic-the drugs
within the scope of the new unified
convention would be those already under the
control of existing conventions plus those
that may be added by the procedure for
putting additional drugs under control (with
the possibility also of dropping control if
it becomes no longer necessary in a
particular case). An article of the new
convention could provide for an annex
containing a list of the drugs already under
control, and also provide that this list
could be re-issued by the International
Control Authority from time to time, with
such additions and deletions as may be
necessary. This would be preferable to
enumerating the drugs at length in the
convention. Other articles would establish
the procedure for putting additional drugs
under control, or freeing any from further
control. Here it should not be necessary to define
the drugs nor their effects, nor such terms
as "addiction". It should be
sufficient to provide for a decision by
experts that it is necessary, desirable, and
practicable to put a certain drug, or a
certain chemical class of drugs, under
control, in accordance with the purpose of
the convention (or that it is no longer
necessary, desirable, and practicable to keep
the drug under control, in case of dropping
control in a particular case). Some procedure
should be established for the presentation of
any possible objections to the particular
extension of control under consideration. How
a committee of experts should be constituted
for such a decision, whether its decision
should be binding unless specifically
rejected by the Governments, and similar
questions, are matters for further
consideration. The pragmatic point here is
that the procedure for putting
additional drugs under control would replace
the binding definition of what such drugs
might be.
The phraseology comes from article 14 of the
1912 Convention.
2. Restrictive or defining phrases
- ''Liable to similar abuse and productive
of similar ill-effects" (1925
Convention)
The different
addiction-forming drugs produce different
effects, and in particular cannabis does not
produce the same type of addiction as
morphine or cocaine. Therefore, when the
exemplars do not include any cannabis drug,
it is rather doubtful whether the phrase
quoted will properly cover new drugs having
an effect like cannabis. This situation
occurs in the 1948 Protocol, where the
language is strengthened to "liable to
the same kind of abuse and productive of the
same kind of harmful effects as the drugs
specified in article 1, paragraph 2" of
the 1931 Convention. The drugs there
specified do not include any cannabis, drug.
On the other hand, paragraph 2 of article 1
of the 1948 Protocol apparently does not bind
the World Health Organization to this
restriction. On the contrary, the World
Health Organization need only find that
"the drug in question is capable of
producing addiction or of conversion into a
product capable of producing addiction".
Of course, in "similar
ill-effects" or "the same kind of
harmful effects", there is no intention
to say that the symptoms produced by various
drugs are alike. The phrase must be
understood in relation to addiction; but
there may still be some uncertainty of
meaning even when cannabis (or "Indian
hemp") is one of the drugs stated as
exemplars. The possibility should not be
excluded that some new dangerous drug will
become known or be created, which needs to be
controlled but which can scarcely be said to
have the same kind of effects as those now
under control, and possibly not even
"similar" or "like"
ill-effects, unless the term used is rather
liberally construed. It would seem to be much
better to define the drugs to be covered in
terms of addiction effects.
Nevertheless, the formula of "similar
ill-effects" does have one advantage. It
provides an easy way out of the problem of
"convertible" drugs or substances,
inasmuch as any such substances to which
control may be applied in the future will
include, and at the same time be limited to,
those presenting dangers similar to the
dangers of codeine, thebaine, and ecgonine.
It may be doubted if this is a very
satisfactory way out of the difficulty, as
the problem of "convertible"
substances is not defined at all, but rather
concealed by attributing abuse and
ill-effects to such substances as thebaine
and ecgonine. This consideration simply means
that in changing to a formula based on
addiction effects some provision will have to
be made for control over a few closely
related substances that are not in themselves
directly addiction-forming.
- "A drug which is or may be used for
medical or scientific purposes" (1948
Protocol)
This phrase serves one good
purpose; namely, it keeps the problem
substantially within the ambit of the medical
and pharmaceutical professions, and
manufacture for medical purposes.
A further reason for its insertion perhaps
was that if a dangerous habit-forming
narcotic has no other use than for addiction
purposes, it should simply be outlawed,
whereas the 1931 Convention provides for
control and limitation of manufacture.
However, the new single convention may
well provide for outlawing dangerous drugs
that are useless or nearly so, or that can be
replaced by others not so dangerous. This was
nearly decided on in the case of heroin in
1931. Moreover, the uselessness of a drug
must not prevent a decision being taken in
regard to it.
Four possibilities may be considered.
- Innumerable variations of synthetics are
possible. Among those closely related to
amidone, for example, may be some of no
medical value but having strong
addiction-forming properties. If no barriers
are set up, unscrupulous manufacturers may
turn out such products. It may be said that
no Government will sanction the production of
an obviously dangerous addiction-forming
narcotic that has no legitimate use.
Doubtless this is true, but medical use or
uselessness should not be the only criterion
for establishing international control. This
should be based also, in fact mainly, on
addiction effects. Moreover there are three
other possibilities which are more nearly on
the borderline.
- The possibility of the production of a
medically useless drug or substance which
some may consider extremely dangerous while
others hold it to be harmless or nearly so.
Such a drug might be consumed merely for
pleasure and claimed to be completely or
virtually harmless. Now that the possibility
of control is extended over all sorts of
synthetic products, and is no longer, limited
to "products obtained from any of the
phenanthrene alkaloids of opium or from the
ecgonine alkaloids of coca leaves", it
is scarcely possible any longer to prohibit
"trade in or manufacture for trade"
merely on the ground of no medical or
scientific value, as in article 11 of the
1931 Convention. Dangerous addiction effects
will have to be proved, but medical
uselessness must not stop the investigation.
- A non-manufactured drug-a vegetable product
-might be produced incidentally to some other
reason for cultivating the plant, and might
be useless medically as a drug, but
addiction-producing. This is very nearly the
case with cannabis, which may even be
declared to be useless medically, as was
proposed at the third session of the
Commission on Narcotic Drugs.
- A synthetic chemical product might be made
for some wholly different purpose, not be
offered as a drug at all and be useless and
worse than useless medically, but be capable
of causing addiction if consumed. Control
might offer a difficult problem in such a
case, but the possibility of a necessary
control should not be excluded.
All such
problems have to be settled with regard to
the danger of addiction, whether or not the
drug has any medical use.
- "Any drug (or substance) capable of
causing addiction or of conversion into a
product capable of causing addiction"
There
is a tendency toward the adoption of this or
similar language to define the drugs to be
covered by the convention. Sometimes
"capable of causing or sustaining
addiction" is used. The whole phrase,
particularly in the "conversion"
part, may then be too inclusive. Even
"capable of causing addiction" may
be thought by some to be too broad. This
depends largely upon just what is meant by
addiction. It is suggested that this ought to
be left to the experts of the World Health
Organization, to be considered in direct
connection with any particular drug submitted
for the decision. However, as an indication
to the World Health Organization, the
language could be strengthened restrictively,
if considered necessary, in either of two
ways. Instead of simply
"addiction", reference could be
made to "dangerous addiction", or
instead of "capable of causing
addiction", the phrase might be,
"liable to cause addiction".
The second part of the definition,
regarding conversion, needs more
consideration. With the manifold
possibilities of synthetics in mind, a
conference may well hesitate to extend
control to allsubstances (or to "anysubstance")
merely "capable of conversion" into
an addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining
drug. In general, control over an otherwise
harmless substance, in its licit use,
should be asserted only at the moment it is
purchased or brought into a factory for
conversion into an addiction-forming drug;
and even this-in such a case-would be only an
accounting control. Special provisions
covering illicit manufacture could be
inserted in the chapter on illicit traffic.
In the 1931 Conference there was much
discussion as to how codeine, in particular,
should be brought under control. It was
admitted that control over codeine was
necessary, but there was no agreement that it
causes addiction. Convertibility into
dangerous "habit-forming" drugs was
made the criterion. Actually, five important
factors were involved: (i) codeine is
obtained, directly or indirectly, from opium,
which itself requires full control; (ii)
codeine is mostly made synthetically from
morphine, which requires full control and
accounting; (iii) codeine even has some
addiction-forming properties, although these
are admittedly feeble; (iv) codeine has
definite addiction-sustaining liabilities;
(v) codeine is convertible into
addiction-forming drugs. Moreover, all the
other "convertible" substances then
considered were obtained from opium or coca
leaves, so that there was then no real danger
of spreading control too far. There is
therefore scarcely any precedent here for
establishing convertibility alone as
justifying international control over every
substance "capable of conversion"
into an addiction-forming drug. On the other
hand, several additional factors, equally
with the possibility of conversion, may
justify some degree of control. The real
question in each case is this: is control necessaryfor
a particular substance when it is not
addiction-forming itself but related in some
way to a dangerous addiction-forming drug?
It is certainly the drugs causing (or
liable to cause) dangerous addiction, which
primarily need to be controlled. Anything
further, such as control over convertible
substances, is secondary, and only for the
purpose of enforcing the primary control.
This being the case, it should be possible
to define the scope of the convention (at
least as regards the preamble) by referring
primarily to the dangerous addiction-forming
drugs. Other drugs and substances that may
require some degree of control should not be
"all" addiction-sustaining drugs,
"any" substance capable of
conversion, etc., but should be those other
drugs and substances that it is necessaryto
control in order to enforce control or
prohibition of the dangerous
addiction-forming drugs.
The statement of the scope of the
convention should therefore refer to the
dangerous addiction-forming drugs, together
with the other substances that it is
necessary to control in order to prevent the
abuse of drugs.
As regards details, when the problem is
wholly within the field of those who produce
and dispense the legal narcotics-the
pharmaceutical manufacturers and the
pharmaceutical and medical professions-it is
relatively simple. Even if some innocuous
drug should be placed under control it could
be handled along with the narcotics and the
control would probably not be too onerous.
Also the case of an addiction-forming drug
converted to some non-narcotic substance
(such as coca leaves made into flavouring
extract) should not cause too much
difficulty. It will probably be agreed that
anyone desiring to manufacture from narcotic
materials will have to observe controls until
the materials are made harmless.
It seems that the difficulties may arise
not in regard to where control may end, but
where it should begin.
We might adopt the principle that when
control has once been applied, it shall
continue over substances obtained from that
material until it is clearly no longer
necessary.
With regard to asserting control, we might
accept this principle:
Full control shall be applied only when
the fundamental structure of an
addiction-forming drug is present or has been
created.
In the case of synthetics this would mean
that control -beyond a mere accounting of
materials-will only apply when the structure
of the compound has been built up to the
point where chemical experts can say that the
fundamental structure of the
addiction-forming drug is present. If any
further provisions are necessary to close
possible leaks and gaps they could be
inserted in the chapter on illicit traffic.
www.odccp.org/odccp/bulletin/bulletin_1950-01-01_2_page006.html
