The future of the international drug control system and national drug prohibitions

Abstract

A major impediment to any nation abandoning the policy of drug prohibition has been the fact that international drug treaties to which the majority of United Nations (UN) member states are signatory prohibit the non-medical use of amphetamines, cannabis, cocaine and heroin. The future of these treaties is now uncertain because of decisions by Uruguay, eight US states and Canada to legalize cannabis use. This paper: (1) provides a brief account of the international drug control treaties; (2) outlines the major criticisms of the treaties; (3) analyses critically proposals for treaty reform; and (4) provides a personal view on policies that nation states could adopt to minimize the harms from the use of cannabis, party drugs and hallucinogens, opioids, stimulants and new psychoactive substances. It is argued that: a major risk of cannabis legalization in the United States is promotion of heavy use and increased harm by a weakly regulated industry; some cautious national experiments with the regulation of party drugs and hallucinogens would be informative; a strong case remains for prohibiting the nonmedical use of opioids while mitigating the adverse effects that this policy has on opioid-dependent people; stimulant legalization will probably increase problem use but prohibition is difficult to enforce, highlighting the urgency of finding better ways to reduce demand for these drugs and respond to problem users; and that it is unclear what the best approach is to reducing possible harms that may arise from the use of new psychoactive substances.

Variation in cannabis potency and prices in a newly legal market: evidence from 30 million cannabis sales in Washington state

“…As Hall notes [1], the international drug control system has been increasingly criticized as drug markets expanded and became more dangerous [2]. After heroin was prohibited in Australia in 1953, overdose deaths increased 55-fold between 1964 and 1997 [3].…”

“…Hall [1] describes the international drug control treaties as under assault, notes how hard they are to reform and suggests that they may become dead letters as signatories openly flout them. He then offers his views as to what policies a single nation should pursue once freed of treaty constraints.…”

“…Hall [1] describes what 'good' drug policy would be if public health sensibilities ruled, but politics is the art of the possible. The legalization advocates who wrote the propositions that set the architecture of cannabis legalization in eight US states did not design a scheme that maximizes public health.…”

From failed global drug prohibition to regulating the drug market

“…As Hall notes , the international drug control system has been increasingly criticized as drug markets expanded and became more dangerous . After heroin was prohibited in Australia in 1953, overdose deaths increased 55‐fold between 1964 and 1997 .…”

The international drug conventions continue to provide a flexible framework to address the drug problem

“…The paper by Hall outlines some major criticisms of the international drug control treaties, particularly its use in justifying draconian enforcement policies. Hall's analysis of a number of radical proposals for reform concludes by identifying the challenges of treaty change as a main obstacle to implementing some of these proposals.…”