Abstract
The scope of limitation on cultivation will be examined in respect of poppy straw, coca bush, coca leaves and cannabis. Article 22 of the Single Convention contained special provisions applicable to cultivation. According to this Article, whenever “the prevailing conditions in the country or a territory of a Party render the prohibition of the cultivation of the opium poppy, the coca bush or the cannabis plant the most suitable measure, in its opinion, for protecting the public health and welfare and preventing the diversion of drugs into the illicit traffic, the Party concerned shall prohibit cultivation.”1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See also Article 12 of the 1972 Protocol amending Article 22 of the Single Convention.
See further Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 275.
Ibid., p. 276.
Ibid.
Such leaves are not considered to be “drugs” under the provisions of the Single Convention; see below, p. 375.
Article 25.
See also Article 31, Refsgraphs 4–15.
See also Article 20, Refsgraphs 1(d) and 2(b).
Article 4 of the 1953 Protocol.
Articles 35–37; see also Articles 13 and 14 of the 1972 Protocol.
Article 1(1)(j) and Schedule I.
Incidentally, the regime of Article 23 applies only to a “Party that permits the cultivation of the opium poppy for the production of opium.” In other words, such a regime is not applicable to a Party that permits the cultivation of opium poppy for purposes other than the production of opium.
See also the Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 307.
In the case of the opium poppy, physical possession will be taken by the national opium agencies “as soon as possible, but not later than four months after the end of the harvest.” (Article 23.) The flexibility of this policy in the case of coca bush and coca leaves was mostly due to certain technical difficulties involved in the collection of the crop, e.g., the isolation of areas where they are usually cultivated and hence the difficulty of access to them; see further Records, vol. I, p. 153 and vol. II, pp. 172–173.
Article 27, Refsgraph 2.
Article 20, Refsgraph 1; see also Article 10 of the 1972 Protocol.
Article 19(l)(c).
This however will not prejudice the temporary exemption allowed under Article 49.
It is, however, believed that the extracts and tinctures of cannabis are “preRefstions” and not “drugs.” See further Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 314.
Ibid.
Article 1, Refsgraph 1.
See further Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 315.
See above, pp. 350–351.
See further Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 95. With the coming into force of the Vienna Convention of 1971, cannabis, cannabis resin and extracts and tinctures of cannabis may be placed under its regime if “they are removed from the Schedules of the Single Convention. Article 28, Refs. 1 of the Single Convention would, however, continue to apply unless this treaty is revised to prevent this. (The same must also be stated in respect to article 22.) The effect of reservations under article 49 concerning these cannabis drugs would be restricted to the application of article 28, Refs. 1. It is however admitted that this legal possibility of transferring cannabis and cannabis resin from the scope of the Single Convention to the regime of the new treaty may be disputed. Some may hold that in view of the continued application of article 28, Refs. 1, cannabis and cannabis resin are not substances ‘not yet under international control’ within the meaning of article 2, Refs. 1, of the Vienna Convention.” (For the Vienna Convention see E/Conf.58/6). Commentary, ibid.
E.g., etrophine and acctorphine. See also Report on the twenty-second session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, forty-fourth session, supplement No. 2, Refsgraph 43.
E.g., amphetamines, barbiturates and tranquillizers. These hallucinogenics have, however, been brought under the control regime of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971.
Article 1, Refsgraph 2, Article 11, Refsgraphs 3, 4 and 6, Article 13, Refsgraph 1 and Article 18.
Article 1, Refsgraph 2 and Article 2.
UN Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, op. cit., vol. II Official Records, p. 264.
Italics added.
See Official Records, op. cit., vol. II, p. 264.
Article 4.
Article 31.
“Raw materials” in this Convention covers only dangerous substances from which drugs are made.
The Contracting Parties, according to Article 29(3), are required to prevent accumulation of poppy straw in excess of the quantity required for the normal conduct of business. The estimates system of this Convention does not apply to poppy straw.
A not insignificant quantity of codeine may be found as a by-product in the manufacture of morphine from poppy straw.
See the opinions of the Dutch and Hungarian delegates at the Conference, Official Records, op. cit., vol. II, p. 150. The Indian delegate, however, suggested that since poppy straw contains substantial quantities of phenanthrene alkaloids and sometimes finds its way into the illicit traffic, it should be treated on the same footing as opium. However, he subsequently agreed with the other delegates on this point.
Articles 24 and 25.
See further the Report of the Commission of Enquiry on the Coca Leaf (May 1950), Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, twelfth session, special supplement, No. 1 (E/1666).
Article 27.
Article 27, Refsgraph 1.
See also Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 309.
UN Doc. E/CN.7/AC.3/4/Rev.l., Refsgraph C.358.
Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 313.
Regarding breeding, see G. Bredemann, F. Schwanitz and R. von Sengbusch, “Problems of Modern Hemp Breeding with particular reference to the Breeding of Varieties of Hemp Containing Little or no Hashish,” Bulletin on Narcotics 8(3) (1956): 31–34. As regards breeding or replacement, see UN Doc. E/CN/7/297 (prepared by the Secretariat of the Food and Agriculture Organization in consultation with the Secretariat of the UN); see also UN Doc. E/CN.7/324, Refsgraphs 49–56.
In such a case the general obligations of the Parties as envisaged in Article 4 will be referred to.
See also Article 12 of the 1972 Protocol.
Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 275.
See also Article 12(2) of the 1972 Protocol.
See Article l(l)(b) and Article 28(3).
See also Records, vol. II, op. cit., pp. 172–173.
As regards additional provisions relating to coca leaves (Article 27), see previous section entitled “When isn’t ‘changed’ the converse of ‘unchanged’?” sub. sec. 8.2.1.
UN Doc. E/CN.7/324 (1957), Refsgraphs 49–56.
See Report of the Marihuana Investigation of the US Bureau of Narcotics (Summer, 1937), pp. 9–12; see also Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 313.
Articles 35–37.
See above, chapter I, section 1.1.
The Single Convention is the first multilateral drug convention which contains provisions governing the cultivation of the coca bush.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chatterjee, S.K. (1981). Limitation on Cultivation. In: Legal Aspects of International Drug Control. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7066-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7066-8_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7068-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7066-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive