Search results

This chapter explores the historical context of drug control in the United States, the ongoing regulation of the cannabis market at the State level and the role of the United States in the international negotiations related to the United Nations General Assembly Special Sessions (UNGASS) on drugs in 1998 and 2016. We continue by analysing the position, allies and activities of the United States before and during UNGASS 2016 to provide an understanding of possible scenarios related to the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action review to take place via a High-level Ministerial Segment within the 2019 Commission on Narcotic Drugs meeting. While US drug policy is not expected to positively shift in the next few years, State-level regulation of cannabis is expected to continue and create pressure from below.

This paper aims to analyse the fundamental principles of the main international conventions against use of drug and to verify if it would be preferable to let European Member States adopt specific measures according to own needs at a national level.

The research uses a comparative approach by examining the different national legislations in respect of the discipline of the international conventions for finding analogies and differences between them.

The research has discovered a wide variation in the criteria for triggering a legislative response and in the penalties for non-compliance. Nevertheless, there seems to be a trend towards countries focusing on penalising supply rather than possession of these substances.

To maintain a common international level in fighting against the use and commerce of drug to enforce the effectiveness of national regulations.

The achievement of a high level of health protection, well-being and social cohesion to prevent and reduce drug use, dependence and drug-related damage to health and society.

To ensure a high level of security for the general public by taking action against drug production, cross-border trafficking in drugs and the diversion of chemical precursors used in drug production, as well as by intensifying preventive action against drug-related crime through effective cooperation, embedded in a joint approach.

This is a fast-moving area of law, which continues to evolve for the different new substances being introduced in international drug traffic, so different solutions to the problem can be found by national legislators who need to be coordinated at an international level.

This paper analyses the international regime of rules, principles and standards designed to reduce the risk of money laundering in the international financial system. The international anti‐money‐laundering regime ranges from a variety of soft law (non‐binding) principles and rules that involve voluntary cooperative arrangements among states that have evolved in recent years, to a more specific legal framework that binds an increasing number of major states. In particular, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and its member states have played a crucial role in developing international norms and rules that require financial institutions to adopt minimum levels of transparency and disclosure to prevent financial crime. The FATF has focused its anti‐money‐laundering efforts on financial institutions because of the ease with which criminal groups have used financial institutions to transmit the proceeds of their illicit activities and because of the threat that money laundering poses to the systemic stability of financial systems.

The Swiss drug policy once was very progressive in the 1990s when the harm related to drug use was most visible to the public. Failure of repression opened the room for more innovative harm reduction approaches. In 2008, the four-pillar model including the legal basis for substitution and heroin-assisted treatment of opioid use disorders as well as for other harm reduction facilities was approved by the population that had learned about the success of these measures. Less violence, better health outcomes among people who use drugs and less stigma supported the change of attitudes in the population towards a public health-based approach when dealing with drug use. Switzerland first received heavy criticism for the autonomous policy change at the international level while it is nowadays often cited as best practice example for dealing with people with an opioid use disorder. Otherwise, the country has usually been quiet in drug policy discussions at the UN level. Nevertheless, Switzerland’s reappointment to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the central drug policy-making body within the United Nations for a period of four years starting in 2018 is promising, given their unblemished recommendation for human rights-based drug policies including the abolition of the death penalty for drug offences, among other things. Alongside cannabis policy changes at the international level, Switzerland witnessed an unexpected development in cannabis availability and sales. However, the country is still rather conservative with regard to current cannabis policies, although cannabis with less than 1% of THC can be sold legally and the possession of up to 10 g will be followed by a fine only, if at all. Switzerland is open to experiment with new regulations but only if the law allows for that. To conclude, the strong sense of connectedness with the international community may support Switzerland’s next steps towards public health and evidence-based harm reduction.

“Cannabis” and “cannabis resin” are derived from the Cannabis plant, used as herbal medications, in traditional medicine and as active pharmaceutical ingredients. Since 1961, they have been listed in Schedule IV, the most restrictive category of the single convention on narcotic drugs. The process to scientifically review and reschedule them was launched by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 2 December 2016; it survived a number of hindrances until finally being submitted to a delayed and sui generis vote by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs on 2 December 2020, withdrawing “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” from Schedule IV.

To evaluate WHO’s scheduling recommendations, the process leading to the Commission vote and subsequent implications at global, national and patient/clinician levels. Narrative account of the four-year proceedings; review of the practical implications of both rejected and accepted recommendations.

The process was historically unprecedented, of political relevance to both medical Cannabis and evidence-based scheduling generally. Procedural barriers hampered the appropriate involvement of civil society stakeholders. The landscape resulting from accepted and rejected recommendations allow countries to continue creating decentralised, non-uniform systems for access to and availability of “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” for medical purposes.

Perspective of accredited observers; highlight of institutional issues and the lay of the land; contrast of stakeholders’ interpretations and engagement.

This chapter reviews the history of civil society engagement on drug policy at the UN. Despite the challenging beginnings characterised by small numbers of civil society attendees at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, coupled with government mistrust, in the last two decades, civil society representatives have made visible progress in advocating for policy reform and changing the terms of the debate.

Efforts by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the lead up to, as well as during the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS), best illustrate this increase in impact and engagement. Reform-orientated civil society strategised heavily on how to bring ‘comprehensive, diverse, balanced, and inclusive’ representation to the UNGASS and achieved this through the Civil Society Task Force, which was carefully balanced in terms of geographic, gender and ideological diversity, and included nine representatives from affected populations, including people who use drugs, people in recovery from drug use disorders, families, youth, farmers of crops deemed illicit, harm reduction, prevention, access to controlled medicines and criminal justice.

The 2016 UNGASS saw the fruition of greater civil society engagement. Eleven speakers were chosen to speak in the forum showcasing the calibre and diversity of civil society representatives. They made powerful, at times poignant statements and pleas for better, more compassionate treatment of people who use drugs, farmers of crops deemed illicit, as well as respect for human rights, sustainable livelihoods and the need to approach the issue through a public health and human rights lens.

The chapter concludes with the finding that reform-orientated civil society had a significant impact on the UNGASS – both on the gains in the Outcome Document and at the actual event, while noting that the most impactful ways to influence has nonetheless been through reform advocacy efforts outside of the official civil society mechanisms. Civil society engagement remains a serious challenge. International solidarity and global networking remain a central part of the drug policy reform movement’s strategy to advocate for change at the national, regional and global levels.

In Europe, the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic are the countries increasingly portrayed as having the most ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’, or even ‘radical’ drugs policies in Europe. In a post-United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 2016 period and with the 2019 UN target date approaching, the EU and these countries within are bound to play a key role in the definition of an international drug policy for the next decade. This chapter analyses how the perceptions of these countries match against the drugs legislations and how they fit into the overall EU drug policy approach.

Following the trend in the world over and on the African continent, the Parliament of Ghana passed a new law in 2020, the Narcotics Control Commission Act (Act 1019) that eased the legal restrictions on cannabis cultivation and use, subject to obtaining license from the relevant authority/authorities. This paper aims to examine the implications of Ghana’s decision to legalise the cultivation of cannabis for industrial purposes for the production of fibre and for medicinal purposes.

The author adopted the qualitative analysis critical review methodology in sourcing information from peer-reviewed articles, coupled with the author’s own professional knowledge, background and training, to critically analyse and review the reasons behind Ghana’s decision to legalise cannabis cultivation and the implications such a major policy change/shift.

It was found that, while the law mentions industrial and medicinal purposes for the legalisation of cannabis, the real reason, at least in the immediate term, is mainly economic. This agrees with those of other African countries that have legalised cannabis cultivation but appears to contrast with those of Europe and America.

This research is limited to Ghana and the few African countries that have legalised cannabis cultivation so far. The main reason for the legalisation (economic benefits) may also change in the future when the economics of scale turn in the favour of the country. Therefore, Ghana’s case may not represent the case of all countries legalising cannabis cultivation.

The research implication of this paper is that it brings to the world the law on cannabis cultivation in Ghana. It provides a professional and scientific position paper on Ghana’s drug law regime regarding cannabis, thus, serving as a useful reference literature to the academic and research community on the topic. More importantly, it discusses the implications of such major policy change from an objective perspective, unravelling the real reason behind the State’s decision to legalise the cultivation of cannabis in Ghana.

This paper will bring to the fore the other consequences of Ghana’s cannabis cultivation legalisation policy change, which little attention has been devoted to so far.

This paper, apart from reference to other published texts on the topic, which have been duly acknowledged, represents the sole work of the author. It has not been produced anywhere or by anyone else either in Ghana or elsewhere.