International Drugs Policy

Question 1

Us dominance of drugs policy

Answer 1

Emphasis in prohibition/sobriety. Us is an enforcer of UN drug conventions. If a developing country needs aid must qualify, and follow UN drugs law. Put lots of pressure on international organisations. Don’t allow maintenance drugs but EU does.

Question 2

UN development of policy

Answer 2

Started following ww2 single convention to close loop holes. Aim to tighten control of licit market. Shift from regulation to prohibition. Vegan certification of aid. No way to actually enforce.

Question 3

1961 single convention on Narcotics

Answer 3

Protect health and welfare of humankind. See addiction of serious evil, only other one to mention evil is human trafficking. Doesn’t demand prohibition but encourages it. Limits use to medical and scientific use. 95% of countries follow. Doesn’t discriminate between recreation and addiction even though 90% of users aren’t addicts.

Question 4

Nutt 2007 drugs harm index

Answer 4

Calculated harm for each drug. Alcohol and tobacco are among the highest. Found legal classification wasn’t related to actual harm.

Question 5

1971 convention on psychotropic substances

Answer 5

Added new synthetic drugs like LSD, amphetamines and barbiturates to the single convention.

Question 6

1988 convention against illicit trade in drugs and psychotropic substances

Answer 6

Identified drug trafficking as a threat to the nation. Requires state to make personal use illegal unless it is against their constitution. Incorporated US law enforcement into UN law eg assets seizure and online tracking.

Question 7

1988 general assembly

Answer 7

Reaffirmed drugs as a threat and the desire for a drugs free world. Aims were not achieved on timeline (2008) WHO already reaching a more realistic stance. Focusing on harm reduction and HIV avoidance.

Question 8

Decriminalisation for personal use

Answer 8

De jure legal written into legal code.
De facto legal not legal but a general agreement.
Justified in different ways.

Question 9

Netherlands

Answer 9

Coffee shop system, de facto legal. Sourced illegally, no VAT, 250m from schools no ads. Safe space to avoid criminalisation of users.

Question 10

Spain

Answer 10

De facto legal. Non profit cannabis clubs. No licence needed, grow at home, no ads allowed.

Question 11

Washington

Answer 11

Regulated private companies De jure legal. 3 licences per company to avoid a monopoly. Very high tax, no home growth. Clear THC labels. Can advertise.

Question 12

Canada

Answer 12

Legalised 2018, regulated private companies with licences. De jure legal. 4 plants allowed at home. Limited ads. Hasn’t removed prior convictions.