¹ The history of the use of narcotics and the efforts, domestic and international, to control this use are clearly and concisely set out in International Control of Narcotic Drugs (New York: United Nations, 1965) particularly at 11–12 and 25–30. For a recent survey of the narcotic control situation before the international conventions and the forces that led to international narcotics control, see Lowes, P. D., The Genesis of International Narcotics Control (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1966).Google Scholar

² 8 L.N.T.S. 188.

³ International Opium Convention signed at Geneva on February 19, 1925, 81 L.N.T.S. 317, [1928] Can. T.S. No. 4; Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs signed at Geneva on July 13, 1931, 139 L.N.T.S. 301, [1932] Can. T.S. No. 7; Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs signed at Geneva on June 26, 1936, 198 L.N.T.S. 299, [1939] Can. T.S. No. 12; Protocol amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs concluded at The Hague on January 23, 1912, at Geneva on February il, 1925, and February 19, 1925, and July 13, 1931, at Bangkok on November 27, 1931, and at Geneva on June 26, 1936, signed at Lake Success, New York on December 11, 1946, 12 U.N.T.S. 179, [1946] Can. T.S. No. 50; Protocol signed at Paris on November 19, 1948, bringing under international control drugs outside the scope of the convention of July 13, 1931, for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York, December 11, 1946, 44 U.N.T.S. 277, [1948] Can. T.S. No. 34; Protocol for Limiting and Regulating the Cultivation of the Poppy Plant, the Production of, International and Wholesale Trade in, and Use of Opium, signed at New York on June 23, 1953, 456 U.N.T.S. 3; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs signed at New York on March 30, 1961, 520 U.N.T.S. 204, [1964] Can. T.S. No. 30.

⁴ Agreement concerning the Suppression of the Manufacture of, Internal Trade in and Use of, Prepared Opium, signed at Geneva on February 11, 1925 51 L.N.T.S. 337; Agreement concerning the Suppression of Opium-Smoking, signed at Bangkok on November 27, 1931, 177 L.N.T.S. 373.

⁵ For analysis of this point and the 1953 Protocol and Single Convention, see Gregg, R. W., “The United Nations and the Opium Problem,” (1964) 13 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Bevans, C. I., “International Conventions in the Field of Narcotic Drugs,” (1963) 37 Temple L.Q. 41 Google Scholar; Gregg, R. W., “Politics of International Drug Control,” (1963) 49 A.B.A.J. 176 Google Scholar; “Suppression of Illicit Narcotic Drug Traffic Through International Cooperation,” a symposium, (1961) 37 Notre Dame Lawyer 106; Anslinger, H. J., “Implementation of Treaty Obligations in Regulating the Traffic in Narcotic Drugs,” (1959) 8 Am. Univ. L.R. 113 Google Scholar; Ansley, N., “International Efforts to Control Narcotics,” (1959) 50 J. Crim. L. 105 Google Scholar; Gregg, R. W., “Single Convention for Narcotic Drugs,” (1961) 16 Food Drug and Cosmetic L.J. 187.Google Scholar

⁶ The personal and criminal problems resulting from the use of narcotics are dealt with in great detail in O’Donnell, J. A. and Ball, J. C. (eds.), Narcotic Addiction (New York: Harper and Row, 1966),Google Scholar in particular Mill, J. on “The World of Needle Park,” at 17–23,Google Scholar Lichtenstein, P. M. on “Narcotic Addiction,” at 23–34,Google Scholar and Finestone, H. on “Narcotics and Criminality,” at 141–64Google Scholar; Harms, E. (ed.), Drug Addiction in Youth (New York: Pergamon Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Drug Addiction: Crime or Disease?, Interim and Final Reports of the Joint Committee of the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association on Narcotic Drugs (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966); Livingston, , Narcotic Drug Addiction Problems (U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 1050, 1958)Google Scholar; Hoch, P. H. and Zubin, J. (eds.), Problems of Addiction and Habituation (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1958),Google Scholar in particular Radoon, S. “Narcotic Bondage: A General Theory of the Dependence on Narcotic Drugs,” at 27–36 Google Scholar; Silberman, M., Aspects of Drug Addiction (London: Royal London Prisoners’ Aid Society, 1967).Google Scholar

The last work deals with the reports of the British Interdepartmental Committee on Drug Addiction appointed by the Minister of Health in 1958 under the chairmanship of Lord Brain. Silberman points out that:

In its 1961 report, the Interdepartmental Committee adopted the following definitions of factors characteristic of addiction:

“Drug addiction is a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced by repeated consumption of a drug (natural or synthetic); its characteristics include:

• 1.

  1. an overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means;

• 2

  2 2. a tendency to increase the dose, though some patients may remain indefinitely on a stationary dose;

• 3.

  3. a psychological and physical dependence on the effects of the drug;

• 4.

  4. the appearance of a characteristic abstinence syndrome in a subject from whom the drug is withdrawn;

• 5.

  5. an effect detrimental to the individual and to society.”

⁷ The difficulty of law enforcement is related colourfully in Siragusa, C., The Trail of the Poppy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall, Inc., 1966).Google Scholar

^8. This is the approach of Britain and many western nations: see Lindesmith, A. R., The Addict and the Law 162-88 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; and Schur, E. M., Narcotic Addiction in Britain and America 69-164 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963).Google Scholar

^9. This is the present position in the United States and Canada. See the books referred to in supra note 8 and Eldridge, W. B., Narcotics and the Law (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed. revised, 1967).Google Scholar

¹⁰ This government monopoly is established in, among others, Macao and the Netherlands East Indies. See Lindesmith, op. cit. supra note 8, at 189–221.

^11. See Gregg, R. W., “The United Nations and the Opium Problem,” op. cit. supra note 5, at 99–103.Google Scholar For an excellent analysis of the pre-1945 period, see Renborg, B. A., International Drug Control (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1947).Google Scholar

^12. See Swacker, F. W., “Control of Narcotic Drugs and United Nations Technical Assistance,” (1960) 46 A.B.A.J. 182 Google Scholar; International Control of Narcotic Drugs 39–41 (New York: United Nations, 1965).

^13. 8L.N.T.S. 188.

^14. 81 L.N.T.S. 317, [1928] Can. T.S. No. 4.

¹⁵ This was the name given to the Board by the 1925 convention. As the years passed and the Board changed in character, it first added “Opium” to its name, calling itself the Permanent Central Opium Board and then, in view of the importance of the synethetic narcotic drugs (drugs not derived from opium), the Board decided to change “Opium” to “Narcotics” and called itself the Permanent Central Narcotics Board.

¹⁶ 139 L.N.T.S. 3d, [1932] Can. T.S. No. 7.

¹⁷ Report by the Fifth Committee to the Twelfth Assembly, L.N. Doc. A. 65. 1931. V.

¹⁸ Renborgj, B. A. International Drug Control 10-13 (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1947).Google Scholar

¹⁹ 51 L.N.T.S. 337.

²⁰ 177 L.N.T.S. 373.

²¹ 198 L.N.T.S. 299, [1939] Can. T.S. No. 12.

²² See Starke, J. G., “The Convention of 1936 for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs,” (1937) 31 Am. J. Int’l. L. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The article is reprinted in Starke, J. G., Studies in International Law 31–50 (London: Butterworths, 1965).Google Scholar In the reprint, Starke appends notes discussing the 1936 convention in the light of the later agreements in the field. Particular attention is given to the impact of the Single Convention on the 1936 convention. Primarily, Starke’s concern is the convention’s contribution to international criminal law.

²³ For the operation of the Economic and Social Council, see Bowett, D. W., The Law of International Institutions 50–61 (London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1965).Google Scholar

²⁴ See Economic and Social Council, Official Records, First Year, First Session, at 117.

²⁵ Quoted from International Control of Narcotic Drugs 17 (New York: United Nations, 1965).

²⁶ 12 U.N.T.S. 179, [1946] Can. T.S. No. 50.

²⁷ 44 U.N.T.S. 277, [1948] Can. T.S. No. 34.

²⁸ See Gregg, R. W., “The United Nations and the Opium Problem,” (1964) 13 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 96, at 99–103. Google Scholar The proposed interim agreement is to be found in U.N. Doc. E/GN. 7/199 and the report of the committee in U.N. Doc. E/ CN. 7/188.

²⁹ U.N. Doc. E/NT/8. This convention is extremely well analyzed by Gregg in “The United Nations and the Opium Problem,” supra note 5. My thoughts on it are drawn, for the most part, from his able work.

³⁰ 520 U.N.T.S. 204, [1964] Can. T.S. No. 30.

³¹ For a very detailed analysis of the Single Convention and its advances, see Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1965, U.N. Publication E/OB/21, November 1965.

³² 520 U.N.T.S. 408.

³³ 520 U.N.T.S. 414.

³⁴ In its most recent report, the Board comments as follows: “The beneficial effects of this treaty (the 1925 Convention), coupled with those of the 1931 Convention, have been consolidated in subsequent years, with the result that diversion of licitly manufactured drugs into the illicit traffic has now, with only occasional and relatively minor exceptions, been virtually eliminated.” Final Report of the Permanent Central Narcotics Board and Drug Supervisory Body, U.N. Publication E/OB/23-E/DSB/25, November 1967, at 17.

³⁵ Op. cit. supra note 31, paragraph 132. The point is re-emphasized in the Final Report, ibid., 31–33.

³⁶ See International Control of Narcotic Drugs, 35-38 (New York: United Nations, 1965).

³⁷ Supra note 12.