1/7 Scheduling - Intro
- Benjamin-Alexandre Jeanroy
- Apr 27, 2016
- 5 min read
International scheduling is defined by the Transnational Institute as “the classification of a substance within a graded system of controls and restrictions, or ‘schedules.’” (TNI, 2014a) In international law, the process must be undertaken for a specific substance to be included within the international drug control framework. It further determines the intensity and the type of control upon which a product is being subjected.
Before we start on this topic, we must understand that cultural and historical social norms have deeply impacted the way we consider what a “drug” is. Similarly, geopolitical power relations and the history of global trade have “indelibly marked our understanding of intoxicating substances and their management.” (TNI, 2014a) The most obvious example being, the exclusion from the current International Drug Control Regime (IDCR) scheduling process of alcohol, coffee and tobacco, which were culturally accepted drugs in the West at the time and ended up not being defined as such by the drafters of the international control successive conventions. (Horwood, 2010)
These “Big Three” drugs (Courtwright, 2001) have in the past, “amassed so much socioeconomic power and exposure that they became impervious to most attempts at prohibition.” (Umana, 2012) The same cannot be said of other traditionally used plant-based substances coming from other parts of the world, such as the khat (1), the kava (2), the betel (3) or the coca (4), which are all currently under international scheduling. In this regard, it could easily be argued that both Ideologies and religious fanaticism have contributed to the rise of certain substances over others. Felipe Umana (2012) reminds us that “Christian Europe, for instance, successfully banned coffee and the psychoactive cactus plant peyote for some time due to their Muslim and “pagan” origins, respectively. Wine, prevalent in Christian rites, remained untouched.” (Umana, 2012)
Let us also remind the dubious and racist reasons behind the prohibition of opium, cannabis and cocaine in the U.S., as these substances were respectively and predominantly used - at first - among ethnic minorities and economically impoverished communities.Today, we look upon the ban of these substances and are comforted in our scientific certitude that it has been done so for valid, empirical, health-related reasons. Few things could be further from the truth. Often viewed as a technical problem, the issue of scheduling nevertheless lies “at the core of the functioning of the international drug control system.” (TNI, 2014a)
The 1931 Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs (also called the “Limitation Convention”) was the earliest international treaties to include the concept of scheduling (Bewley-Taylor & Jelsma, 2012a, pp. 73-74). Today, all substances officially deemed to be strictly regulated - and theoretically only available to different extents for medical and scientific purposes - are classified under one of the three acting U.N. drug control conventions. However, few observers of the current IDCR recognize - for different reasons - that this system is actually working properly. Several studies have argued that it would be necessary to reconsider the way we classify drugs, and to this extent, better integrate the harm-related components of specific substances.
Today, it could be argued that the ways we currently schedule illicit drugs “do not adequately take into account the scientific and empirical evidence for proper scheduling, relying on anachronistic, ideological standards for classification and draconian legal penalties.” (Umana, 2012) This does not only make the development of more humane and health-oriented drug policies more complicates, but sustains “antiquated norms that have not stood the test of time.” (Ibid.)
The issue here is not to say that currently illicit drugs do not cause harms, but that if we are serious about wanting to reduce the harms caused by these substances, we ought to understand them better than the international scheduling system currently does. This form of categorization has further led to severe (un)expected turnout. Indeed, aside from undermining the credibility of such high-level process, worldwide traditional and cultural uses have been dreadfully impacted.
The example of ketamine which we will describe in this set of articles can help us understand how the process can be diverted for political and ideological reasons, notwithstanding the effect that such scheduling would have on the availability of a drug for legitimate purposes. The article on tobacco on the other hand, will intend to show us what could, and what should not be done if we intend to review international classification processes. In later parts, we will have a look to the promising Lancet classification process, which has notably been developed by the brilliant Dr. David Nutt, in order to better take into account the potential harms caused by specific substances. Finally, we will intend to critically analyze the concept of classification itself, and get a sneak peak at what could be the future of drugs.
(1) From the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, the khat is a a flowering plant containing a monoamine alkaloid called cathinone, an amphetamine-like stimulant, and which the chewing use can be traced back to thousands of years. The substance has been under scheduling since 1980.
(2) From the Western Pacific, the roots of the kava are used to produce a drink with sedative anesthetic, and entheogenic properties. Its active ingredients are called kavalactones and are primarily consumed to relax without disrupting mental clarity.
(3) From Asia, the betel is the leaf of a vine which is valued both as a mild stimulant and for its medicinal properties.
(4) From South America, the coca play a traditional role in the ancestral Andean cultures while it is mostly known worldwide for its psychoactive alkaloid, cocaine. The alkaloid content of coca leaves is nonetheless low, between 0.25% and 0.77%. This means that chewing the leaves or drinking coca tea does not produce the high people experience with cocaine. The coca leaf is listed on Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention
(Bewley-Taylor & Jelsma, 2012a) D. Bewley-Taylor & M. Jelsma, “Regime change: Re-visiting the 1961 single convention on narcotic drugs”, International Journal of Drug Policy, 23 (1), pp. 72–81, 2012.
(Courtwright, 2001) D. T. Courtwright, Forces of Habit: Drugs and the Making of the Modern World, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2001.
(Horwood, 2010) G. Horwood, “TNI expert seminar on the classification of controlled substances”, Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, 2010, http://www.tni.org/files/100304Final%20Expert%20Seminar%20Report.pdf, Accessed: 25/01/16.
(OAS, 2012) Organization of American States, Scenario For The Drug Problem In The Americas 2013-2025 by the Scenario Team appointed by the Organization of American States under the mandate given to the OAS by the Heads of Government of Member States, Meeting at the 2012 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena De Indias, www.oas.org/documents/eng/press/Scenarios_Report.PDF, Accessed: 29/10/15.
(TNI, 2014a) C. Hallam, D. Bewley-Taylor & M. Jelsma, “Scheduling in the international drug control system”, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies, No. 25, The Transnational Institute, June 2014, https://www.tni.org/files/download/dlr25_0.pdf, Accessed: 30/01/16.
(Umana, 2012) F. Umana, "Our Unscientific Drug Control Regime", Foreign Policy In Focus, September 19, 2012, http://fpif.org/our_unscientific_drug_control_regime/, accessed: 29/10/15.
Comments