Reference:
LEBAUX, Valerie. Cannabis and Cannabinoids under the United Nations Drug Control Conventions. In; CARLINI, et. Al. Cannabis sativa L. e Substâncias Canabinóides em Medicina. Brasília – DF: Secretaria Nacional Antidrogas, 2004. p.103-115.
ABSTRACT
Cannabis control regime
The legal definition of Cannabis is gíven by article I in the 1961 Single Convention.
“Cannabis” means theflowering or fruitíng tops of the Cannabis plantfroco which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated. The definition of the Single Convention covers ali forms of Cannabis plant, no matter whether they are considered to be different species or varieties. States have to prohibit the cultivation of the Cannabis plant, if in the country or territory of the Party, “…the prevailing conditions…render the prohibition of the Cannabis plant the
most suitable measure in its opinion for protecting the public heaith and welfare and preventing the diversion of drugs into the illicit traffic… ” (Single Convention, A 22, para 1).
Cannabis and Cannabis resin appear in Schedule IV of the 1961 Single Convention including the most dangerous narcotic substances, which are “particularly harmful and addictive with no appreciable compensatory therapeutic properties”. The three UN Conventions require parties to establish as criminal offences under law the possession, purchase or cultivation of controlled drugs including Cannabis for the purpose of non-medical personal consumption.
Tetra-hydrocannabinol control regime
Tetra-hydrocannabinol is included in schedule I of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic substances and Delta 9 THCs is classified in schedule II. In 1990, on recommendation of the WHO committee of experts, dronabinol – an isomer of Delta 9 THCs – has been transferred froco schedule I to schedule II in order that it can be prescribed as a medicine used when the classic treatment for nausea caused by the chemotherapy for cancers fails, and also to treat anorexia frequently associated to the loss of weight by people suffering AIDS.
In 2004, a new reclassification of dronabinol/Delta 9 THC and of all its isomers is being considered from schedule II (substances susceptible of abuse constituting a serious risk for the public health and whose therapeutic value is weah to average) to schedule IV of the 1971 Convention (substances susceptible of abuse constituting a weak rish but non negligible for the public health and whose therapeutic value
is weak to big).
Discrepancies in the implementation of the UN Conventions
Ineffective enforcement.
Many national law enforcement agencies give de facto priority to the prosecutions of personal users of Cannabis. The cases have the advantage of easy proof, no strong defense, case of conviction and hence high statistical success rates. But this diverts resources from the more important and difficult cases (e.g. organized cultivation prosecutions and asset forfeiture cases), and tends to overload the criminal justice and penitentiary systems.
Lach of enforcement of illicit cultivation laves, either by choice or by default.
In developed countries, enforcement can be lax in some countries by choice, because of the high proportion of illicit use in the population and due to the perception that Cannabis products are not “as harmful” – as the other drugs included in Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention – to justify the scarce and expensive resources of criminal justice systems.
In developíng countries, illicit cultivation penalties and sanctions are typically higher but prosecutions are often not brought to court, e.g. because of unwillingness to prosecute rural farmers and workers, physical danger to law enforcement agencies seizing remoce cultívations in often hostile territory or lach offlexible criminal procedures. With the ongoing evolution, some producing countries could prefer to posítíon themselves to become Lhe first supplier to any legalized European marhets rather than implementing effective interdiction programmes. This can lead to such expansion of domestic illicit production that national cereal crop self-sufficiency is eroded.
