Imperfect international treaties interpreted flexibly are likely to be better than no treaties

Imperfect international drug control treaties that are implemented intelligently and humanely are more likely to reduce drug-related harm than no international treaties. My commentators seem to agree that the future of the international drug control system is put at risk by the legalization of recreational cannabis use. They differ on whether this a good thing. Bewley-Taylor 1 sees benefits in nations exploring ‘legally grounded’ alternatives to the treaties. He acknowledges that Canada's behaviour towards the treaties is important, because it is a G7 nation with a long history of respecting international law. He argues against Canada withdrawing from the treaties after legalizing cannabis. He suggests it consider forming alliances with like-minded states to develop a treaty that would regulate the international trade in cannabis. This still runs the risk of encouraging more states to ignore the treaties. Wodak 2 welcomes the breakdown of an international drug control system that he sees as ‘broken beyond repair’. He doubts that new treaties can be negotiated and so argues that nations should move unilaterally towards regulated systems of drug supply. He offers few details on how this may happen, apart from decriminalizing all drug use and allowing experiments with the regulated sale of less harmful illicit drugs that are acceptable to drug users and the community. His call for regulated drug markets sounds most plausible for cannabis; it is much less plausible, or politically feasible, for the opioids, given recent disastrous US experiences with liberal opioid prescribing 3, 4. Caulkins 5 argues that we risk replacing an imperfect international system with a much worse option: no international drug treaties. He sketches how this could create a 21st-century version of the 19th-century international opium trade in which Britain and the United States facilitated the opium trade in China. Critics of the treaties need to be reminded that they developed from opium treaties that were an imperfect attempt to reduce the illicit international trade in opium 6. Caulkins’ arguments for preserving the treaties are rarely heard above the loud chorus of scholars who want to abolish them. I agree that flawed treaties are better than no treaties. That is why I argued for a continuation of the system while mitigating its adverse effects on those who use illicit drugs. I also agree with Carpentier et al. 7 that the drug treaties do not justify the draconian polices that some states have implemented in their name. I welcome statements by United Nations agencies [United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) and International Narcotics Control Board (INCB)] that compulsory addiction treatment, capital punishment of drug offenders and the extra-judicial murder of drug users in the Philippines are not required by the treaties. Nonetheless, until recently the international system was slow to condemn egregiously inhumane national drug policies. It has also been slow to support policies that reduce drug-related harm such as methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), needle and syringe programmes (NSP) and heroin-assisted treatment. It is encouraging that UN agencies now support diversion, NSP and methadone treatment. Stronger UN advocacy for public health-orientated interpretations of the treaties is essential if we are to avoid the international system falling into disuse. None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.