|Own your ow legal marijuana business||
Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry
|Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy|
|Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs|
|Volume 3 - Public Policy Options|
Chapter 19 - The International Legal Environment
U.S. interest in international drug control grew substantially following the Spanish-American War, which led to its acquisition of the Philippines in 1898. The acquisition brought with it what the American administration perceived as a serious problem: a government-run opium supply monopoly. Under the guidance of the new Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines, Charles Henry Brent, the monopoly was shut down. Yet smuggling continued, and Brent, who regarded the opium issue as a moral question and use of the drug as “a social vice … a crime,” persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to support holding an international meeting in Shanghai to remedy what was clearly a regional problem.
1909, the International Opium Commission met in Shanghai, with Brent as its
president. However, because the participants did not have the necessary
plenipotentiary powers to conclude a treaty, the result was simply a collection
of facts and a set of non-binding recommendations. In the discussions on the
Commission’s terms of reference, one question that arose was whether
drug-related medical issues, such as addiction and its treatment, should be
considered; the proposal was defeated (by a majority of one) because it was
felt that there was insufficient medical expertise present at the meeting. This set a telling precedent: most
subsequent drug meetings would be attended predominantly by diplomats and civil
servants, with little significant input from medical experts.
negotiations during the Commission’s meetings laid the groundwork for future
conferences. The U.S., aggressively represented by Hamilton Wright, tried to
persuade the colonial powers to support a narrow definition of “legitimate use”
of opium, under which any non-medical or non-scientific use–by Western medical
and scientific standards–would be considered illicit. The colonial powers
advocated a softer approach, which would permit “quasi-medical use”. In the
final wording of Resolution 3, the Commission concluded “that the use of
opium in any form otherwise than for medical purposes is held by almost every
participating country to be a matter for prohibition or for careful regulation; and that each country in the administration
of its system or regulation purports to be aiming, as opportunity offers, at
progressively increasing stringency” (emphasis as in original).
The Commission was, in fact, far from “international”. The focus was on China’s opium problems–five of the nine resolutions mentioned China by name–and the U.S. and Britain dominated the discussions. The U.S. was pushing for prohibition and felt that China needed assistance with its domestic opium problems. Britain worked to protect its lucrative Indian opium trade, arguing that curbing such trade would be useless until China brought its domestic production under control.
Underlying the U.S. delegation’s hard-line stance at the Shanghai meeting were key domestic political and economic goals that would also colour later negotiations. It was assumed that if other countries controlled their own opium production and exports, the U.S. would not be burdened with the task, because the poppy and the coca leaf had never been grown in appreciable quantities in North America. Furthermore, international agreements calling on countries to take drastic internal measures provided ammunition for Brent and Wright, who were pressuring the U.S. government to develop stringent domestic drug control laws.
Lowes, P.D. (1966) The Genesis of
International Narcotics Control. Geneva: Droz, page 102.
Bewley-Taylor, D.R. (1999) The
United States and International Drug Control. page 19.
The Commission included all the colonial powers in the region – Britain,
France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal and Russia – and China, Siam
[now Thailand], Persia [now Iran], Italy and Austria-Hungary. (McAllister (2000), page 28)
Bruun et al. (1975), page 11;
Lowes (1966), page 187-188.
Walker III, William O., (1991) Opium
and Foreign Policy: The Anglo-American Search for Order in Asia, 1912-1954,
Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, page 16-17; Lowes
(1966), page 152-153.
Musto (1999), page 36-37.
Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
Major Studies of Drug and Drug Policy
Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding - The Report of the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Licit and Illicit Drugs
Short History of the Marijuana Laws
The Drug Hang-Up
Congressional Transcripts of the Hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
Frequently Asked Questions About Drugs
Basic Facts About the Drug War
Charts and Graphs about Drugs
Information on Alcohol
Guide to Heroin - Frequently Asked Questions About Heroin
LSD, Mescaline, and Psychedelics
Drugs and Driving
Children and Drugs
Drug Abuse Treatment Resource List
American Society for Action on Pain
Let Us Pay Taxes
Marijuana Business News
Reefer Madness Collection
Medical Marijuana Throughout History
Drug Legalization Debate
Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition
Marijuana, the First 12,000 Years
DEA Ruling on Medical Marijuana
Legal References on Drugs
GAO Documents on Drugs
Response to the Drug Enforcement Agency
|Drug Information Articles|
Taking a drug test:
How To Pass A Drug Test
Beat Drug Test
Pass Drug Test
Drug Screening Tests
Drug Addiction Treatment