Is the INCB taking Pot Shots at the United States?

The INCB President Dr Lochan Naidoo has spoken out once more on the issue of the legalisation of nonmedical cannabis use, following his remarks at the INCB's 111th Session last month. In an interview with Reuters, he argued that 'legalisation for recreational use is definitely not the right way to go'. Oregon and Alaska recently voted to permit such use of the drug, with Washington State and Colorado legalised in 2012. Dr Naidoo also raised the question of 'damage to the brain' caused by cannabis, adding that he was 'not sure how well people are going to be able to protect their children'.

He went on to remind the US federal government of its obligations under the 1961 Single Convention under which cannabis is controlled, which include the commitment to implement the treaty in all of its territories (this would include US states). Replying to the interviewer's question as to whether this meant that the US is now in breach of the drug control conventions, Dr Naidoo stopped short of a full condemnation, suggesting that it was 'not fully in compliance', but was attempting to return to full compliance – a response that contrasted with the much stronger line taken with Uruguay when it too announced its legalisation of cannabis.

It is not entirely clear, however, in what these 'attempts' consist: the US position has repeatedly been articulated by William Brownfield, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, and involves primarily a flexible interpretation of the international drug control treaties. In short, it is argued that they permit sufficient 'wiggle-room' to accommodate the difference between the federal government and a number of US states over the cannabis issue.

While some commentators have welcomed this new US stance, it is of doubtful medium term value: an equivalent flexibility does not appear to extend to other countries (such as Bolivia), and it is being deployed as a part of broader strategy to defend the 'integrity' of the conventions: i.e., to resist any pressures toward treaty revision. In the longer run, some revisions to the conventions are required if the system is to adjust itself to the momentous changes that the world has seen since 1961. At the deeper level, then, what divides the INCB from the US remains less significant than what unites them, and the INCB is firing blanks.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.