International Drug Control Regime Research Articles

CONTROVERSIAL ANALYSIS OF CANNABIS RECLASSIFICATION: PERSPECTIVES IN A NARRATIVE REVIEW

Cannabis has a long and controversial tradition. A narrative review was conducted in 2024 with the aim of analyzing the discrepancies in the reclassification of cannabis for medical use and research in 2020. Indexed journals, scientific digital resources, reports from international organizations, States and expert opinions from institutions and scientists were critically examined. The results showed scientific evidence on risks and possible benefits, with a complex, biased, contradictory and inconclusive history. The damage to health and life led to its classification in an international regulatory legal framework, violated by drug trafficking and the patenting of molecules that do not meet the requirements as drugs, trivializing their abuse. After legalization, abuse, trafficking and harm increased, especially among young people. The pro-legalization environment of high-potency cannabis in a globalized world has decreased the perception of risk, even among health personnel, distorting communication. The thriving cannabis industry, with its sophisticated marketing, attracts young people. It was concluded that methodological and practical inconsistencies persist in research, weakening the international drug control regime. The benefits of reclassification are not evident; on the contrary, abuse, trafficking, physical and mental illness, indirect deaths and damage to the environment continue to increase, which could lead to the legalization of all drugs, threatening human health and survival.

The role of the United States in the formation and evolution of the international drug control regime

The article analyzes the role of United States in the development of the modern drug control regime. Several stages in the development of the international drug control regime can be distinguished: a) 1909-1960 b) 1961-2010 c) 2010 to the present. At each of these stages, the United States exerted influence on the international drug control regime, both by influencing resolutions and by leading by example in its drug control policies.

Racial and religious motives for drug criminalization

The world has a long-standing system of drug control intended to suppress the use of a range of psychoactive drugs on the basis that such use is very harmful both to the users themselves and to their social surroundings. This perception of harmfulness has a long medical history, but recent research indicates that many forms of illicit drug use are not more harmful than the use of alcohol and tobacco. This article analyzes the historical and normative background for the apparently exaggerated assessments of drug harms on which the regime of drug control is founded. Starting from the observation that the drugs that have been exempted from this criminalization regime are those that were integrated in European cultures during the early modern era whereas the drugs criminalized under this regime lack such a history of European acceptance, the article discusses racial and cultural (especially religious) prejudice as a foundation for the exaggerated perceptions of drug harms. It finds that such prejudice is well-attested in the historical literature and seems to have contributed substantially to the formation of the international drug control regime. In sum, this article argues that drug prohibition was first introduced in the early modern era on racial and religious grounds and that the influence of these prohibition motives can be traced, directly and indirectly, all the way to the present day. This influence may explain why the health risks associated with illicit drug use are still often exaggerated in contemporary drug harms research.

Afghanistan in International Opium Control Policy

In this article, we propose to discuss the causes of the illegal opium market in Afghanistan from a complementary perspective to those currently present in the literature, by focusing on the international policy of the drug control system established by the UN. Using historical and qualitative analysis, we interpret the UN international conventions that permit the legal production of opium in the world in light of relevant historical events. We conclude that the international drug control regime, by responding to the political and economic interests of the main actors of the legal opioid market, has contributed to Afghanistan becoming the world’s largest illegal producer of opium.

Tracing a path for opium gum from Mexico as a safe supply harm reduction measure for Canada

Historically, the poppy plant has had multiple uses including as a food product and with medical uses in pain relief; today it is most commonly known as the plant from which heroin is derived. The United Nations international drug control regime currently only allows legal poppy production for medical use in 19 countries. Although Mexico is the third largest illegal poppy producer in the world, no Latin American country is currently allowed to legally produce poppies. Meanwhile, the United States and Canada are experiencing an overdose crisis due in large part to the adulteration and substitution of heroin with fentanyl and its analogues, while the price of opium gum has dropped 80% in the last two years in poppy producing areas of Mexico. The prohibition of opium has wide ranging health and development impacts that bring up a moral imperative regarding the safe supply of diverse opium-based products –including opium gum and heroin– that urgently need to be explored and addressed. Opium gum can be used orally or smoked, reducing riskier modes of administration and possible fatal overdoses. This article discusses the political and legal possibilities of safely supplying opium gum and manually extracted heroin from Mexico to Canada as a public health, harm reduction and development policy.

Evaluating trends and stakeholders in the international drug control regime complex

This article examines the recent trends in international, in particular multilateral, drug policy and the implications of these changes for shifting alignments and coalitions of actors and stakeholders. It places these changes in the context of the system's historical developments and applies previously unutilised analyses of other international governance structures. It suggests that the the international drug control system is undergoing a long-term process of fragmentation and evolution towards a ‘regime complex’. In the short to medium term it suggests that exogenous challenges to the system remain somewhat limited. This is due to institutional battles over issue suzerainty and a limited funding incentive for other agencies to become involved. Instead, endogenous challenges and changes within the system represent the main avenues of adaptation. It continues on to suggest that in the longer term these endogenous changes will encourage and accelerate exogenous interactions with the system from other regimes and issue areas and thereby expand the terrain for cross-issue and cross-sectoral engagements. Thus, the short to medium term trends within drug control, while in some cases appearing to be in stasis or moving backwards, continue the overarching trend of regime fragmentation and shifting into an archetypal regime complex.

Smoke signals: The evolving status of cannabis under the international drug-control regime

Smoke signals: The evolving status of cannabis under the international drug-control regime

Solidarity in the wake of COVID-19: reimagining the International Health Regulations

Amid frenzied national responses to COVID-19, the world could soon reach a critical juncture to revisit and strengthen the International Health Regulations (IHR), the multilateral instrument that governs how 196 states and WHO collectively address the global spread of disease.1, 2 In many countries, IHR obligations that are vital to an effective pandemic response remain unfulfilled, and the instrument has been largely side-lined in the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest global health crisis in a century. It is time to reimagine the IHR as an instrument that will compel global solidarity and national action against the threat of emerging and re-emerging pathogens. We call on state parties to reform the IHR to improve supervision, international assistance, dispute resolution, and overall textual clarity.

No end in sight: the international drug control system once again baulks at the prospect of reform

Purpose In two separate sections the authors summarise the observations, use the insights to reflect on some of the propositions made in the book, and follow the appeal of one of the authors to civil society and academics to “help governments out of the drug policy dilemma that is now facing them”. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach The genre the authors follow here is ethnography and the material takes the form of reflective field notes. Since each author follows a particular set of interests the authors split the paper into two sections. There are no strong conclusions, safe that the concerns about the international drug control system were fully borne out by events on the floor. Findings The role of CSOs is critical in moving the process forward – but countries are likely to drift apart as the policy differences are becoming inrreconcilable. Research limitations/implications It is imperative to develop new models of cooperation in the management of psychactive substances. Practical implications This is in recognition that at national level just as much as at Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) and UN General Assembly Special Session the increased involvement of CSOs has been pivotal in shifting focus towards public health and human rights. This in turn has encouraged some nations to do the same in their domestic policies – and to stand up and say so in CND meetings. Social implications More involvement of academics and editorial teams in the design of sustainable policies and practices. Originality/value In a critical report on the CND the authors challenge the viability of the international drug control regime in view of the emerging differences between different member states. This is the first attempt in the drug policy literature to assess the durability of the drug control regime as it is faced by the fast paced transformation of cannabis into a recognised medicine and regulated recreational substance. If the appearance of agreement is maintained this is entirely for diplomatic reasons and organisational benefit. In reality, the system is breaking apart and new methods for regulating drugs are emerging.

States simply do not care: The failure of international securitisation of drug control in Afghanistan

The link between the world drug problem and securitisation has been predominantly established to argue that an existential threat discourse reinforces the international prohibitionist regime and makes it harder for alternative policy models to arise. This analysis is problematic for three main reasons. Firstly, it overestimates the current strength of the international drug control regime as a normative and regulatory system that prescribes state behaviour. Secondly, the current international regime does not inhibit policy reforms. While the international treaty system proves resistant to change, it is at the national and local levels where new drug policies arise. Moreover, these are generally not the draconian or emergency measures that successful securitisation would predict. Thirdly, the analysis so far misinterprets criminalisation or militarisation as evidence of securitisation. As the case of Afghanistan shows, securitisation attempts, such as those linking the Taliban and the illicit opium economy, may have reinforced the militarisation of drug control in Afghanistan, but did not elevate the illicit drug economy as an external threat or a top priority. While there have been short-lived spikes of attention and provincial level campaigns to eradicate poppy cultivation, these have never translated into a sustained structural effort to combat illicit drugs in Afghanistan. Even the latest push for militarisation, the US-led campaign of airstrikes on drug processing laboratories since November 2017, represents more a shift in counter-insurgency strategy than successful securitisation. While Afghanistan’s illicit drug economy has been politicised for several reasons, states are not convinced that this economy somehow represents an existential threat to their survival.

Legal Perspectives on Drug Trafficking

The two terms ‘trafficking’ and ‘personal consumption’ provide the conceptual framework for the international drug control regime. Neither term is defined. The principal disagreement behind the consensus reached on drug trafficking in the 1988 Convention was the extent to which conduct related to ‘personal consumption’ should fall within the scope of ‘drug trafficking’. This consensus left the scope of drug trafficking ambiguous and “elastic”, providing states with the freedom to abstain from criminalising acts for personal consumption where to do so would conflict with their constitution or the basic principles of their legal system, and the freedom to abstain from punishing such conduct where it is criminalised. Attempts at harmonisation regarding the notion of drug trafficking within the European Union underline a deep ambiguity regarding the scope of the term ‘personal consumption’, which is evident both within and beyond the European Union. In the law and/or practice of some jurisdictions, the notion of ‘social supply’ is clearly treated as belonging outside the scope of drug trafficking. Having explored the frustration of international and European efforts to clarify the legal parameters of the notion of drug trafficking, this chapter concludes that it is time to consider human rights law as providing a more robust and transparent legal framework for drug policy and outlines the foundations for its application in an emergent body of comparative law recognising recreational drug use as coming within the constitutionally protected realms of privacy, autonomy and free assembly.

The global drug prohibition regime: prospects for stability and change in an increasingly less prohibitionist world

In this article, we trace the operations of power, i.e., how different forms of power combine, compete and resist each other in the emergence, later evolution and the present dynamic of the international drug control regime (IDCR). We confirm the assumption that the prohibition in the IDCR, as well as other features of the system, has been the result of a series of political decisions taken by a specific group of powerful states at the center of global capitalist economy, and the USA as the system hegemon above all. The regime, we argue, however also betrays powerful inertia factors associated with institutional, structural and productive types of power that pose an obstacle to its transformation even when, in some respects, there exists convincing evidence that suggests other approaches would be more effective and less costly. In view of the current challenge to the IDCR’s core prohibitionist rationality which we align with an evolutionary change in the operation of compulsory power, in the conclusion we discuss how a change to the status quo may be steered to avoid the regime’s gradual obliteration.

‘The first dragon to slay’: unpacking Kenya’s war on drugs

Kenya faces the challenge of policing not only drug smuggling through its territory, but a sprawling local market dominated by heroin. The government is enthusiastically embracing the global ‘war on drugs’ discourse, propped by external actors’ assistance and insistence. Guided by these developments, this article analyses Kenya’s local war on drugs using ethnographic material from immersive fieldwork in Nairobi and Mombasa. The aim is to decode local political actors’ engagement in the international drug control regime and its impact on everyday perceptions of Kenyan state authority. As such, this article provides an alternative explanation of the mechanics of Kenyan drug markets and the role some government officials play in (controlling) them.

After the Grand Fracture: Scenarios for the Collapse of the International Drug Control Regime

AbstractInternational prohibitions create asymmetries; production and transshipment concentrate in relatively few places that bear the bulk of the negative externalities created by the illegal trade. These externalities fuel calls for altering the United Nations treaty framework and for individual nations to legalize outside of the framework. Analyses of the pros and cons of legalization usually adopt the perspective of a single nation acting in isolation. However, one nation’s legalization alters incentives for others to act, and not always in obvious ways. So the proper perspective is that of a dynamic game.The primary contribution of this paper is to make the case for analyzing legalization as a strategic game, but it also offers preliminary analysis for the case of cocaine. Tentative conclusions include:

Central challenges for Central Asia: addressing migrants' health in 2016.

With the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, 2016 should be a defining moment for global health and for the response to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic. Not only will the United Nations convene a high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS (acquired immune-deficiency syndrome) to re-commit to a global partnership to end the epidemic, the world will also be reviewing the international drug control regime and the implications it may have on the health of people who inject drugs (PWID), including the HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and tuberculosis (TB) epidemics. This should occur in the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on drugs, with the hope that it will provide the impetus to address these closely interlinked health issues that transcend national borders. Central Asia reflects the trans-border nature of the quadruple epidemic of drug use, HIV, HCV and TB.1 In Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, substantial parts of the population work abroad part of the year, mostly in the Russian Federation or Kazakhstan. Injecting drug use has boomed and persisted in the region over the past two decades. Migrants are often themselves PWID,2 and are vulnerable to infectious diseases through high-risk behaviours such as unprotected sex or sharing injection material.3 In addition, as they often face deportation on disclosing their health status, diagnoses are hidden and treatment is at times interrupted. When they return home, fear of being stigmatised or ignorance of their status can prevent them from seeking health care, placing them at higher risk of transmitting their diseases to their partners or family.4 Two major and immediate changes could make a difference in addressing the quadruple epidemic among migrants. First, the Central Asian countries should implement cross-border health packages for HIV and HCV, following the example of TB,5 to better control the spread of these epidemics among the migrant population. They should also recommend that the international community recognises migrants as a key HIV-affected population group to address this epidemic in all areas in the world with concentrations of migrant populations. These two changes need strong political commitment, regional collaboration and sustainable financial mechanisms to implement the urgently needed reforms and lower the burden of these four epidemics on migrants.

Drugs and Revolution in Iran: Islamic Devotion, Revolutionary Zeal and Republican Means

On 27 June 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini declared, ‘drugs are prohibited” and their trafficking, consumption and “promotion” were against the rules of Islam and could not take place in the Islamic Republic. This ruling, although informal in nature, sanctioned a swift re-direction of Iran's previous approach to narcotic drugs, both in terms of production and consumption. As had happened in 1955, Iran seemed ready to go back to a policy of total prohibition and eradication of opiates, this time under the banner of Islam rather than that of the international drug control regime. Drugs and the politics surrounding them have been a crucial, yet neglected, aspect of the history of modern Iran that have changed the nature of the state bolstering its capacity of social intervention, while hindering its legitimacy, in the Pahlavi, as in the republican, era. By moving on “from the analysis of the state to a concern with the actualities of social subordination”, this article attempts to interpret how social subordination and state coercion were practiced and defied in the making of punishment and welfare in the social body of Iran.

‘Concerned with the Health and Welfare of Mankind …’ The un Drug Conventions – A Suitable Legal Framework for the 21st Century?

The contribution analyses whether the un Drug Conventions still serve their original purpose, namely the furtherance of the health and welfare of mankind in the 21st century. To this end the contribution begins with an outline of how the un Drug Conventions aim to protect mankind’s health and welfare. On this basis it is inquired whether un Drug Conventions are somehow irreversibly imbued with a zero-tolerance approach that undermines the health and welfare of vulnerable groups on both ends of the supply chain respectively. Thus, with respect to the supply side the question is pursued whether the un Drug Conventions provisions on crop cultivation imperil the livelihoods of rural communities. With regard to the demand side it is examined whether the un Drug Conventions forestall the adoption of more liberal, i.e. non-punitive and health-oriented approaches towards illicit drug users. In a next step, the analysis turns to a long-standing and currently particularly prevalent criticism according to which the international drug control regime puts disproportionate pressure on so-called drug producing and drug transit States, while turning a blind eye on the so-called drug consuming States. In concluding, the contribution turns to the question how the international drug control system could be enhanced to better meet its proper goals of protecting mankind’s health and welfare.

Marijuana in the United States and the international drug control regime: Why what is promoted abroad is not applied at home

Marijuana in the United States and the international drug control regime: Why what is promoted abroad is not applied at home

Drugs, Violence, and the State

The article examines the relations among illicit drugs, violence, and the state, focusing on why certain drugs are prohibited whereas others are not. The moral concerns underlying prohibition and the stereotyping of drug users along racial and class lines historically and in the present are reviewed. One conclusion is that modern states use drug prohibition as a way of defining the moral and social boundaries of exclusion and inclusion. In this definition, medical treatment and public health considerations play an auxiliary role. Other conclusions are the inflexibility of the international drug control regime and the need to consider experiments in drug legalization. Inflexibility, economic globalization, and worldwide drug trafficking have perverse consequences, which vary with the institutional capacity of states. The rise of incarceration and other forms of violence are particularly evident in economically and socially marginal communities and where the authority of states is weakened by internal corruption and external conflict.

Psychoactive Substances and the English Language: “Drugs,” Discourses, and Public Policy

This article undertakes a historical ontology of psychoactive substances, or, in other words, an exploration of the philosophical and political nature of modern categories for plants and chemicals that alter consciousness. Drawing on the ideas of Michel Foucault and Ian Hacking and using the method of critical discourse analysis, I elucidate three distinct contemporary meanings of the English word “drug.” Further, I demonstrate how these meanings of “drug” map onto a modern stereotypology of psychoactive substances that informs public discourses and sustains an ideological drug war paradigm. I trace this paradigm through the generative metaphors of drugs as “malevolent agents” and “pathogens” in modern public discourses, and explore how these metaphors frame and support policy responses within the international drug control regime that are inconsistent with human rights. In so doing, I argue that the language we use to talk and think about “drugs” may not be ideal for crafting sound public policy.