Talk:Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 15, 2005.
WikiProject Drug Policy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Drug Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Drug Policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cannabis (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Talk:Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs/Table of contents

Comments on featured article candidacy[edit]

I am preparing Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to be a featured article candidate. Please let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks, Rad Racer | Talk 15:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK here's my list:
  1. find a replacement for that godawful b&w newsprint image.
  2. medical and recreational use needs some expanding, or a link to another article more sufficient.
  3. penal provisions is a bit brief better, but still seems brief
  4. although Schedule IV is the most important, we should be NPOV and list them numerically, and explain them numerically.
  5. limitations section seems a bit too terse, i'd want it beefed up a paragraph or two, theres lots of concepts that can be broadened in there. EXCELLENT! this covers most of my why?'s
  6. legal commentary/ammendments are too short to deserve their own sections, perhaps they can be expanded or merged into another section?
  7. related treaties, could you perhaps specify what they were designed to fix/target?
most of my complaints stem from too brief summaries per sections. A little more writing and it will pass, its starting to look damn fine!  ALKIVAR™ 18:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I tried Google Image search but couldn't turn up anything better than the UNODC newsprint photo. Is there another place I can look? Medical and recreational use, as well as penal provisions, will nequire more research, since I'm fairly ignorant about those aspects. I put Schedule IV first because I was concerned people would get confused as to which category is the most-restricted; do you think that would be a problem if it were re-ordered? Hmm, the limitations section could include some info about constitutional loopholes. The Amendments section and Commentary section can be merged into the History section. Related treaties, I may have fixed since you wrote the critique, but let me know if you have more suggestions. I emailed Cindy Fazey asking for her advice too. I will move this discussion to Talk:Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Thanks, Rad Racer | Talk 18:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My impression of the Single Convention is that it represnts three natural herb or plant species as if they might pose, almost, a smallpox-like risk to human health. Laurel Bush 10:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Regulation of Cannabis Section[edit]

There's a bit of inaccurate, or at least out of date, information here. "NIDA administers a contract with the University of Mississippi to grow a 1.5 acre (6,000 m²) crop of cannabis every other year; that supply comprises the only licit source of cannabis for medical and research purposes in the United States." -Medical marijuana has been legalized in several states, e.g., California and New Jersey, and there are several thousand legal grow operations across the country. "Hemp cultivation is theoretically legal in the United States, but tight Drug Enforcement Administration restrictions would likely make it unprofitable." -There are several profitable hemp farms and hemp clothing stores in my town in northern California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.50.64 (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Drug abuse[edit]

I note from the article "The Single Convention unambiguously condemns drug abuse". I wonder: does it attempt itself to define such abuse? Laurel Bush 16:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

SonicSynergy's response[edit]

Well, the treaty does not really taken a firm stand on what is or isn't drug abuse, since it is more focused on the supply side than the demand side of the equation.
The U.S. and other organic illicit drug importers did not really want the treaty to focus directly on drug possession and use. They wanted the drugs to be kept from entering their borders illicitly to begin with, which could happen if any nation had loose controls. So, the treaty does not focus on defining the difference between use and abuse (that's left for the medical professionals to decide). Instead, the treaty is all about setting up systems of quotas, estimates, reports, prescriptions, etc. to keep any large quantities of drugs from slipping out of the sole control of doctors and pharmacists, who presumably could be trusted to dispense them for good, and not for evil.
The bottom line is, the Single Convention was focused on minimizing drug addiction by limiting production and distribution to medical uses (legitimate medical uses being determined by medical professionals, who have the power to write prescriptions, subject to whatever additional limitations the state sets in place). If you could get a prescription, then it counted as a legitimate use. For instance, if a person can get a prescription for smoking weed because his doctor says it helps him relax, makes him happy, and thus benefits him medically, then the treaty has no problem with that.
There is only one safety valve included, in which the doctors' authority to dispense these drugs at will could be overrided. That is when (1) the World Health Organization, based on scientific and medical criteria, finds that a drug meets the Schedule IV criteria of high potential for abuse and no redeeming medical use, and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs places it in Schedule IV; and (2) The doctors are prescribing these Schedule IV drugs in such an out-of-control way that it threatens the public health. In that case, the state is allowed to prohibit all use except for very limited scientific and medical research.
I have re-worded the article slightly. Please let me know if you have some more specific advice as to how to improve it. Thanks,

SonicSynergy 04:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the Bulletin on Narcotic Drugs[edit]

Drug abuse is the consumption of a drug apart from medical need or in unnecessary quantities. Its nature and significance may be considered from two points of view: one relates to the interaction between the drug and the individual, the other to the interaction between drug abuse and society. The first viewpoint is concerned with drug dependence and the interplay between the pharmacodynamic actions of the drug and the physiological and psychological status of the individual. The second - the interaction between drug abuse and society - is concerned with the interplay of a wide range of conditions, environmental, sociological, and economic[1].

Treatybox[edit]

If anyone creates a treatybox, some relevant info is:

SonicSynergy 18:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/

Article 28[edit]

3. The Parties shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant. - Article 28

I would be quite interested in finding out what the Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says about how this should be interpreted. 24.54.208.177 22:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

More arrest pics[edit]

More arrest pics are needed, so we aren't using the same one for both this article and United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. 24.54.208.177 00:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Signatory vs. Non-signatory[edit]

It might be interesting to link this article to lists of countries who have ratified SCND and of those who have not.

Alchohol[edit]

Anyone know how they define this so that cigarettes and alcohol do not fall within the scope of the convention?

That's easy. They simply don't define a set of criteria for automatic inclusion into the categories. That way, only those substances deemed harmful to major investors get added as they become problems. So, just like every other law about substance abuse that was purchased by the tobacco and alcohol industries, T&A remain unscheduled. Damncrackmonkey (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

i think you are all abunch of morons...  get high!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, we all do. Not a single person I know that doesn't drink alchohol, smoke cigarets use illicit drugs or at least caffeine. The thing is that some drugs have a bad reputation, some do not. I imagine eventually all drug prohibition will get repealed, but for that the UN needs to be weakened. Meaning the US needs to be weakened. I think if the United States was less in control of the world maybe there would be an end to prohibition. That would be nice, as far more people die in the war on drugs then do by using the drugs. Any drugs. This article isn't to blame. But it does need a criticism section. -Lollipopfop

I think that this article badly lacks information as to criticism of this convention. The convention is often used by governments as a reason not to legalize cannabis usage, or for some governments to criticize other governments for "laxist" policies (i.e. de facto legalization of some drugs, such as in the Netherlands). As a result, groups who push for the legalization of certain drugs, such as cannabis, or for policies more directed towards education and less towards repression, criticize the convention. According to them, the convention takes power away from democratically elected governments, and gives it to international bureaucracies, and to commissions where members of foreign governments, motivated by different ideologies or social outlook, can force policies. David.Monniaux 05:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

exactly, the article NEEDS criticism, as all laws, conventions and regulations ARE to be debated by individuals, organizations and institutions. Regardless what you think about drug legalization or prohibition, you OUGHT to be NPOV in all articles. Regards, Critto

Heh, good luck. You're going to take down the whole concept of organic chemistry. Be a real cold day in hell before that happens.--68.255.93.228 17:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly how will organic chemistry suffer if drug laws were repealed? That makes no sense.
uh? What does this relate to? What does organic chemistry has to do with this convention? The fact that a drug is chemically dangerous doesn't mean that it should be prohibited, since prohibition belongs to the realm of LAW, not Chemistry, and the law may be altered accordingly to the political views of the lawmakers. Critto


I think this is a great article but could be improved by more global (i.e. non-US) material. For instance, what explains the turn around in SE Asia from resistance to law to the hardline? As an Australian, I constantly hear (Muslim) Indonesia being criticised for its harsh anti-drug stance, but this seems to have been forced on it under US pressure.--Jack Upland 06:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

necessary?[edit]

Is the Proposed denunciation section necessary at all? The organization itself isn't that notable to begin with it. I'm going to delete it for now, but if anyone has any objections by all means feel free to revert as you see fit. 147.70.154.192 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence[edit]

I quote: "The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is the international treaty against illicit manufacture and trafficking of narcotic drugs that forms the bedrock of the global drug control regime." What is the global drug control regime? Who wrote this propaganda?

Above not signed.
It could have said "INTERNATIONAL CONTROL MACHINERY", as this is the text in the actual treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.159.46 (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That opening sentence does look very biased. Also, it makes no real sense. How does manufacture and trafficking come to be illicit except by creation of law or convention such as that which the article is about? No drug manufacture or trade is naturally or inherently illicit.
Perhaps this would make more sense:

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is an international agreement to prohibit production of and trade in specific drugs except under licence for specific purposes, such as medical treatment and research.

Laurel Bush (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC).

Move hidden text to talk[edit]

I moved the following to talk:

<!--[[Image:Bulletin 1966-01-01 1 page002 img004 large.gif|thumb|225px|right|Alhaji Muhammed Ngileruma ([[Nigeria]]) signs the Final Act as Mr. C.W.A. Schurmann ([[Netherlands]]), President of the Plenipotentiary Conference for the Adoption of the Single Convention, looks on.]]-->
<!-- Unsourced image removed: [[Image:Anslinger.jpg|frame|right|U.S. Federal Commissioner of Narcotics [[Harry Anslinger]] remarked in 1953, "It is obviously most desirable to revise these international agreements, one of which dates back to 1912, and to incorporate them if possible into a single agreement".]] -->
<!--Source: http://www.drugusers.info/modules/news/print.php?storyid=22 and http://www.soros.org/initiatives/ihrd/news/cnd_20030414?skin=printable-->k

It makes the article difficult to edit. Inclusionist (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

Link #1 and #2 are dead.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.223.161.154 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are the signatories?[edit]

Not all members of UNODC are signatories to the treaty. But it appears they are listed as such. Could we get the actual list of signatories? I can add it in, I found the actual list on the UNODC site (ref #2 is out of date) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.159.46 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is all I could find:
420MuNkEy (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Schedules of Drugs Section[edit]

"*Schedule I – The substance is liable to similar abuse and productive of similar ill effects as the drugs already in Schedule I or Schedule II, or is convertible into a drug.

  • Schedule II – The substance is liable to similar abuse and productive of similar ill effects as the drugs already in Schedule I or Schedule II, or is convertible into a drug."
Should these two be exactly the same? Jenova20 10:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Introductory section[edit]

This article mentions "As noted below, its major effects included updating the Paris Convention of 13 July 1931 to include...". However, that is the only reference I can find to it being called the Paris Convention. The treaty was signed in Geneva, and the text of the treaty fails to mention Paris at all, but I don't feel qualified to change it, because I'm not sure what it should be. -John 134.184.132.201 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Undue tag, due to Bolivia, Uruguay[edit]

Major issues not covered: Exceptions (non-research, non-medical) , e.g. http://www.wola.org/commentary/bolivia_officially_returns_as_a_party_to_the_1961_single_convention_on_narcotic_drugs and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/13/uruguay-marijuana-united-nations_n_4442077.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular - impact of Uruguay's recent action. (HuffPo probably not the best of sources for this…) --Elvey (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)