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 EnvironmentThe
1931 Geneva Narcotics Manufacturing and Distribution Limitation Convention /
1931 Bangkok Opium Smoking Agreement
The import
control system put in place following the 1925 Geneva Convention was only
partially effective, as drugs were simply transhipped through non-signatory
countries. In 1931, the League of Nations convened a further conference in
Geneva to place limits on the manufacture of cocaine, heroin and morphine, and
to control their distribution. The result of the conference was the Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and
Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs[1][30] (1931 Limitation Convention). In 1931,
Canada abandoned its policy of simply reacting to international drug control
efforts and began playing an active role in supporting U.S. efforts to expand
control at the source. Colonel Charles Henry Ludovic Sharman, Chief of the
Narcotics Division in the Department of Pensions and National Health, was the
principal architect of Canada’s domestic and international drug policy until
the 1960s. Canada, through Sharman, was heavily involved in the negotiations
leading up to the 1931 Limitation Convention.[2][31] A new player
also emerged from within the U.S. delegation: Harry J. Anslinger, first
Commissioner of the newly created Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a position he
would hold for 33 years. A firm believer in prohibition and the control of drug
supplies at the source, Anslinger is widely recognized as a prime mover in the
development of U.S. drug policy and, by extension, international drug control
into the early 1970s.[3][32] The
centrepiece of the 1931 Limitation Convention was the manufacturing limitation
system set out in Chapters II and III. Parties were required to provide the
PCOB with estimates of their national drug requirements for medical and
scientific purposes, and on the basis of those estimates, the PCOB would
calculate manufacturing limits for each signatory. A Drug Supervisory Body
(DSB) was created to administer the system. The Convention’s effectiveness was
seriously undermined by Article 26, which absolved states of any
responsibilities under the Convention for their colonies. Article 15 required
states to set up a “special administration” for national drug control, modelled
to some extent on the U.S. domestic control apparatus.[4][33] The
Convention came into force quickly because various countries and the League of
Nations thought it might provide a useful model for arms control negotiations.
The League even prepared a report explaining how the principles set out in the
1925 Geneva Convention and the Limitation Convention could be applied to
disarmament issues.[5][34] In late 1931,
another conference was held in Bangkok to address opium smoking in the Far
East. The treaty[6][35] it produced was weak, primarily
because the U.S. attended only as an observer and the European colonial powers
were unwilling to implement effective controls on opium use while there was
significant opium overproduction and smuggling. The fact that the U.S. strategy
of absolute prohibition had made little impact on opium trafficking and use in
the Philippines did not strengthen the U.S.’s hand in pushing for the elimination
of poppy cultivation. The key result of the Bangkok conference was that it
convinced the U.S. that a firmer approach was needed to combat raw material
production and illicit drug trafficking.[7][36] [1][30]
Done 13 July 1931; in force 9 July 1933. [2][31]
Giffen et al. (2000), page 483. [3][32]
See, for example, McAllister (2000), page 89-90; Bewley-Taylor (1999),
page 102-164; Bruun et al. (1975),
page 137-141; Inglis (1975), page 181-190. See also Harry J. Anslinger and Will
Oursler, “The War against the Murderers,” in William O. Walker III, ed., Drugs in the Western Hemisphere: An Odyssey
of Cultures in Conflict, Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc.,
1996. [4][33]
Anslinger would use this provision continually in the future as a way of
protecting his position and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from being altered
through reorganization. (McAllister
(2000), page 98, 108-109) [5][34]
Ibid., page 110-111. [6][35] Agreement for the Control of Opium Smoking in the Far East,
done 27 November 1931, in force 22 April 1937. [7][36]
Taylor (1969), page 275-279; McAllister (2000), page 106. |