In 1923 the Government of South Africa proposed to the League of Nations Advisory Committee on Traffic in Opium and Dangerous Drugs that Indian hemp ("the whole or any portion of the plants C. Indica and C. Sativa") should be treated as one of the habit-forming drugs and included in the international convention. When this proposal was discussed at the 6th Conference of the Advisory Committee in August 1924, the British delegate suggested that governments should be asked to furnish the League with information about production, use and traffic in the drug so that the question could be further considered at the Advisory Committee's meeting in 1925. A general enquiry was circulated by the Secretariat in August 1924.

4. The Annex to this paper contains an extract from the main Egyptian statement. The matter was referred to a sub-committee consisting of doctors, professors and persons with ministerial or administrative experience in public health. hospital or pharmaceutical service drawn from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Dominican Republic, Egypt. France. Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland. Spain. Switzerland, U.S.A. Eventually all but 3 members reported in favour of complete prohibition of the production and use of cannabis resin, the delegates of Great Britain, Netherlands and India abstained, the first out of uncertainty whether there was a potential medical value in the resin. The Indian delegate offered co-operation in measures to control international traffic but emphasised "serious difficulties in confining the use of hemp drugs to medical and scientific purposes; for example, there are social and religious customs which naturally have to be considered, and there is the doubt whether the total prohibition of drugs easily prepared from a wild growing plant could in practice be made effective".

5. The Sub-Committee's report was adopted and another sub-committee (consisting of representatives of Belgium, Egypt, France, British Empire, India, Siam, Turkey and Uruguay) was invited to prepare draft provisions for incorporation in the new convention. This group's proposals were adopted on 14^th February 1925 virtually without discussion. As embodied in the International Opium Convention ( 19th February 1925) these

(i) defined Indian hemp as "the dried flowering or fruiting tops of the pistillate plant cannabis sativa 1. from which the resin has not been extracted, under whatever name may be designated in commerce"; and

(ii) required contracting parties

(c) "to prohibit the export of the resin obtained from Indian hemp and the ordinary preparations of which the resin forms the base (such as hashish, esrar, chiras, djamba) to countries which have prohibited their use, and, in cases where export is permitted, to require the production of a special import certificate issued by the Government of the importing country stating that the importation is approved for the purposes specified in the certificate" (these had to be medical or scientific) and that the resin or preparation will not be re-exported;

(d) "to exercise an effective control of such a nature as to prevent the illicit international traffic in Indian hemp and especially in the resin" (article 11).

6. A report prepared in August 1925 for the Advisors Committee on Traffic in Opium after enquiries of governments about the South African proposal of 1923, indicated replies as follows:

Argentine, Bulgaria, Canada, Australia. Esthonia, Finland, Great Britain (controlled as poison), Hungary, Monaco. Italy, Latsia. Norway. (The restrictions appeared, in most cases, to limit sale to prescription only).

Only the reply from Portugal claimed experience of the harmfulness of the drug (in Mozambique). A large number of countries (including most of those represented on Sub-Committee F had not sent replies to the Advisory Committee's enquiry by August 1925.

7. In the decade after 1925 the Advisory Committee moved towards systematic collection of standardised annual reports from governments on administrative measures, and of information about illicit traffic. Little attention was paid to Indian hemp until 1933 when the Committee's report mentioned that

"while a taste for Indian Hemp products appears to be prevalent mainly among the Asiatic and African peoples, it is not by any means confined to them. A smuggling trade in cigarettes containing Indian hemp ("marihuana" cigarettes) appears to have sprung up between the U.S.A., where it grows as a wild plant freely and Canada. It may well be that, as the control over the Opium and coca derivatives makes it more and more difficult to obtain them recourse will be increasingly had to Indian hemp for addiction purposes, and it is important that the trade in Indian hemp and its products should be closely watched'-.

8. This apprehension led the Committee in 1935 to make a special review of the Indian hemp situation. A detailed memorandum by the U.S.A. revealed a widespread of habitual use of marihuana and "the alarming influence of addiction to Indian hemp on the development of criminality"; some 34 out of 46 States had legislated to suppress marihuana traffic. France reported on intensive measures to repress the traffic from Syria. Egypt drew attention to the inadequacy of the 1925 Convention, stressed that hashish had no therapeutic or industrial value and pressed for new provisions to prevent cultivation of Indian hemp with due regard to the special difficulties of certain countries. India said it could not change its policy, under which the moderate use of raw opium and hemp drugs was tolerated, while every measure was taken to prevent abuse. Ganja and bhang were connected with social and religious customs; and prohibition had been tried without success. Poland and Switzerland pointed out that "there was no thorough study available of Indian hemp particularly from the medical and scientific standpoint''. The Committee accordingly decided, on the proposal of the Polish delegate, to set up a Sub-Committee on Indian hemp, composed of representatives of Canada, Egypt. Spain, U.S.A. (who was made chairman), France, U.K., India, Mexico, Netherlands, and Poland with a medical assessor. "to study the whole problem of Indian hemp. The Sub-Committee might appeal in the course of its investigations for the co-operation of experts, doctors, and others who are duly qualified in the matter of Indian hemp and who have had local experience either in Africa or in Asia or in America. By way of preparation for the work of the Sub-Committee, the Committee requested the Secretariat, on the proposal of the Swiss delegate, to prepare a bibliography of all the literature relating to Indian hemp, and in the probable event of no complete and authoritative work on the question being available. to consider the possibility of publishing, at some future date, a memorandum on the Indian hemp problem bringing up to date the existing information on the subject, particularly from the medical and scientific standpoint".

9. At its first meeting in 1935 the Sub-Committee discussed bibliography and the development of chemical tests for cannabinoids, and decided to invite the collaboration of 6 experts in simplifying nomenclature and in determining whether, and in which forms the drug was habit-forming and what treatment might be appropriate. The Secretariat was asked to consider possible improvements in the convention and to arrange for studies of the cause and effect of Indian hemp abuse.

10. In 1936 the Sub-Committee reviewed information presented by the assessor, Dr. Bouquet (whose contribution was particularly commended) and Dr. Treadway. Its report included the following statements:

"As to the effects of the abuse of cannabis, the Sub-Committee found that the information before it still leaves much to be desired. The Sub-Committee recommends that effort be made to procure further information concerning cannabis addiction in respect of:

(1) Physiological effects.

(2) Psychological effects

(3) Psychopathic effects (dementia)

(4) Addictive properties (withdrawal symptoms)

(5) Relation to crime.

Information in regard to insanity resulting from the use of cannabis and in regard to the relation between cannabis addiction and crime was informally presented, which leads the Sub-Committee to the conclusion that it would be advisable to collect all information on these subjects available throughout the world.... The question was raised in the Sub-Committee of the relation possibly existing between Indian hemp addiction and addiction to other drugs. One may ask whether Indian hemp addicts deprived of hashish have or have not a tendency to become victims of other drugs and whether there is or is not a relation between these two addictions. The question is whether to fear that the eradication of one evil may lead to the rise of another...."

11. In 1938 the Sub-Committee (joined by Dr. Bouquet) was provided with a variety of scientific papers and reports (including information about the United States Marihuana Tax Act 1937) and summed up its progress as follows:

"The Sub-Committee points out that, as a result of the investigations made up to the present time, progress has been made in respect of the chemical identification of cannabis and information has been collected on other phases of the problem while at the same time certain points still require clarification, especially in connection with the physiogical and psychological and psychopathic effects of cannabis and with the relationships between hashish addiction and insanity and between cannabis addiction and addiction to other drugs, especially heroin."

There were no further meetings of the Advisory Committee or the Sub-Committee on Indian Hemp.

12. At its first session in 1946 the Commission decided not to appoint a subcommittee on Indian hemp as the Advisory Committee had before. The Commission's report mentioned that

"Some medical opinion in the United States and in Mexico had been advanced that marihuana did not offer any real danger, and had little influence on criminal behaviour. Indeed, the Mexican physicians were of the opinion that its use had no ill effect on the health of the user. The representative Of Mexico wondered whether in these circumstances too strict restrictions on the use of this plant, the production of which was in fact prohibited in Mexico would not result in its replacement by alcohol, which might have worse results. The representative of the United States did not share this point of view and quoted a number of concrete examples, proving thc relationship between the use of marihuana and crime. He considered the recent report of certain United States physicians on the subject to have been extremely dangerous. These physicians had had, in fact, a very limited field of observation as they had carried out their studies in a penal settlement.... The representative of India considered that the effect of cannabis in his country depended generally on the natural and psychological predisposition of the individual. On the whole Indians were moderate in their use of ganja and bhang. The same phenomena had been observed in Egypt. This country had nevertheless limited the quantity of cannabis indica as well as other narcotic drugs that could be prescribed by physicians for medicinal purposes".

14. From 1949-1952 the Commission concentrated on preparation of a new international convention. In 1953 it noted that new restrictions on cannabis had been imposed in France. Algeria, Morocco. Tunisia and Egypt; agreed that as suggested by W.H.O. the term "cannabis" should be substituted for "Indian hemp": and requested the Secretariat to carry out surveys of the problem in various countries and studies (1) to find alternative fibre-producing crops without harmful resin (with the Food and Agriculture Organisation) and (2) of the physical and mental effects of cannabis (through W.H.O.).

15. In 1954 the Commission was advised by the W.H.O. Expert Committee on Drugs Liable to Produce Addiction that cannabis preparations no longer served any useful medical purpose and were practically obsolete. The Commission recommended ECOSOC to urge governments to explore discontinuing their use as quickly as possible. Replies to this ECOSOC exhortation later showed that many governments were non-committal about the need for any positive action.

16. In 1955 the Commission received reports on the cannabis situation in six countries in South Africa. It was also provided with a report by Dr. P. O. Wolff (formerly Chief, Addiction Producing Drugs Section of W.H.O.) on the "Physical and Mental Effects of Cannabis" which affirmed that

"It is important to realise that not only is marihuana smoking per se a danger but that its use eventually leads the smoker to turn to intravenous heroin injections" and concluded that "cannabis constitutes a dangerous drug from every point of view, whether physical, mental, social or criminological". At the same session the Commission provisionally decided to include cannabis in Schedule IV of the projected new convention.

17. In 1957 the Commission received reports on the problem in Angola, Brazil, India, Morocco, Costa Rica, Egypt. Italy and Pakistan, and requested surveys in Nepal and Lebanon. The representative of W.H.O. reaffirmed that cannabis did not possess any therapeutic value. The Commission adopted a resolution calling on governments to abolish legal consumption of cannabis and to promote research.

18. In 1958 reports were presented on the cannabis situation in Burma and Lebanon. Brazil reported that use of maconha had spread to nearly all social classes and contributed to crime. India reported that the Indian Pharmacopoeia Committee believed cannabis to have definite clinical value, but its use was declining because of the instability of the active principle and more stable preparations were being sought. The All-India Narcotics Conference in 1956 had recommended steps towards the total prohibition of ganja and bhang by 1959 and 1961.

20. At its sixteenth session in 1961 the Commission was informed that the press in the Netherlands had featured comments by professional persons that cannabis addiction was no worse than alcoholism. The report recorded that

"The Observer of INTERPOL said that cannabis intoxication was known to produce aggressiveness. The representative of W.H.O. drew attention to the opinion of the W.H.O. Expert Committee which was still valid that 'cannabis abuse comes definitely under the terms of its definition of addiction'. There was also the added danger that cannabis abuse is very likely to be a forerunner of addiction to more dangerous addicting drugs. The Commission recalled that it had agreed that cannabis abuse was a form of drug addiction and emphasised that any publicity to the contrary was misleading and dangerous".

The W.H.O. representative stated that

"it was not yet known what component of cannabis was addiction producing, and it was therefore not possible to assess quantitatively its addiction producing properties".

22. In the plenary discussions the value of cannabis and its dangers were discussed in general terms. Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands drew attention to the use of galenical preparations. Yugoslavia expressed fear that industrial use would be restricted. The League of Arab States asserted that in the Middle East hashish was preferred to other narcotics. Ghana, with support from Brazil, said that cannabis produced anti-social behaviour which was a threat to the whole community and should be controlled as strictly as opium. Venezuela reported that cannabis was a "grave social danger". The U.S.A. pointed out that although cannabis might be merely habit-forming it was very often "only a stepping stone to heroin addiction". India maintained that cannabis products were less noxious than heroin, and cannabis addiction, like alcoholism, did not constitute a serious social problem in that country where marihuana-smoking did not lead on to the taking of heroin. France and the United Kingdom indicated that the cannabis problem was of little concern in their countries and were concerned that national governments should be free to decide on complete prohibition within their own discretion, the form of control recommended by W H.O.

23. After further discussion of the general scheme of control and the problems of cannabis it was decided

(i) to maintain 4 schedules for control purposes with freedom to Parties to decide in their own discretion whether to prohibit the handling of drugs listed in Schedule IV;

(ii) to include in the preamble to the Convention an over-riding limitation to restrict the use of scheduled drugs for medical and scientific purposes;

(iii) to include transitional provisions allowing countries like India and Pakistan to authorise non-medical use of cannabis for a period of 25 years:

(iv) to exclude the leaves of the cannabis plant from the scope of the Convention, except for an obligation in general terms (Article 28(3) that "the Parties shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leases of the cannabis plant",

24. A Technical Committee which worked upon the selection of drugs for the schedules adopted the following criteria for putting substances in Schedule IV:-

(a) having strong addiction-producing properties or a liability to abuse not off-set by therapeutic advantages which cannot be afforded by some other drugs; and/or

(b) complete deletion from general medical practice is desirable because of the risk to public health.

On this basis the Conference agreed that cannabis as well as cannabis resin should be included (with heroin, desomorphine and ketobemidone) in the 4th Schedule, Sweden pointing up the conclusion by stressing that heroin was strongly addiction-producing but not abused by many people, whereas cannabis was used by a large number but was not in itself strongly addiction-producing. The final text of article 3(5) gives effect to these criteria in the words

"particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects and . . . such liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages not possessed by substances other than drugs in Schedule IV".

In other words the presence of cannabis in Schedule IV is to be explained by its wide abuse and its obsolescence in medical practice rather than by its intrinsic danger.

25. In 1963 and 1965 the Commission reviewed its attitude to cannabis in the light of further publicity, casting doubt on the dangers of the drug. The representative of W.H.O., commenting on the definition adopted by the Expert Committee for dependence of cannabis-type, said that

"while the definition of a type of dependence. was confined to its medical aspects, the socio-economic characteristics and implications should not be overlooked. Thus, the anxiety of the distortion of perception which were among the effects of the drug might lead to the disruption of interpersonal relationships, and abuse of the drug to criminal behaviour".

26. The Commission stated its position as follows It "recognised that the situation differed from one country to another. While cannabis must be subject to the same type of control at the international level, there was perhaps a need to adjust the strictness of control at the national level.

There could be no question but that cannabis presented a danger to society, although more and more people were attempting to cast doubt on the necessity of controlling this substance. The Commission reiterated-the view that cannabis, the drug that moved most in international traffic, should be fully subject to international control. Under the 1961 Convention, it was indeed subject to the strictest regime of control. Governments should act accordingly, therefore, and while there might be some variations in the type of national control, the principle as such could not be called in question".

27. At its twenty second session in 1968, the Commission's attention was once more drawn to publicity campaigns in favour of legalising or tolerating the use of cannabis for non-medical purposes. The representative of INTERPOL reported that at its recent Annual Conference it had adopted a strongly worded resolution concerning the need to combat the use of cannabis. On the initiative of the U.S.A., France, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan, Mexico and U.A.R., the Commission decided to recommend the following draft resolution for adoption by ECOSOC:

"The abuse of cannabis and the continuing need for strict control

The Economic and Social Council

Recalling that the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, obliges Parties to place cannabis under strict controls to prevent its abuse.

Considering that the problem of the traffic and abuse of cannabis remains serious in many areas where it has long been encountered,

Observing that the traffic and abuse of cannabis appears to be spreading to areas where it has not heretofore been encountered,

Noting that considerable publicity has been given to unauthoritative statements minimizing the harmful effects of cannabis and advocating that its use be permitted for non-medical purposes,

Recognizing that cannabis is known inter alia to distort perception of time and space, modify mood and impair judgment, which may result in unpredictable behaviour, violence and adverse effects on health, and that it may be associated with the abuse of other drugs such as LSD, stimulants and heroin,

Convinced that inefficient controls over, apathy towards and lack of public awareness of the dangers of cannabis and its continued abuse contribute to drug dependence, create law enforcement problems, and injure national health, safety and welfare,

1. Recommends that all countries concerned increase their efforts to eradicate the abuse and illicit traffic in cannabis;

2. Further recommends that governments should promote research and advance additional medical and sociological information regarding cannabis, and effectively deal with publicity which advocates legalization or tolerance of the non-medical use of cannabis as a harmless drug."

28. In its Final Report published in November 1967 the Board stated

"The abuse of cannabis is more widespread than that of any substance under international control. It is also the substance about which for the time being the Board has the least information, as it is only since the entry into force of the Single Convention that governments have been obliged to furni7sh complete stafistical data on cannabis . . .

. . . the Board feels it should repeat thc caveat which it included in its report for 1965, namely that opposition to the control of cannabis is contrary to the advice of scientific and medical authorities of international repute and contrary to the policy reaffirmed by the international community of States at the Plenipotentiary Conference which drafted the Single Convention of 1961. This conference in fact classified cannabis amongst the particularly dangerous substances and recommended that governments should impose a general prohibition on its production, distribution and consumption, even for medical purposes. It is worth recalling that this decision was taken by a conference of 74 delegates whose members included many experts familiar with all aspects of the narcotics problem".

"Hashish, prepared in various forms, is used principally in the following ways:

(a) In the form of a paste made from the resin obtained from the crushed leaves and flowers, which is mixed with sugar and cooked with butter and aromatic substances and is used to make sweets, confectionery, etc.; known in Egypt by the names of mansul, maagun and garawish.

(b) Cut into small fragments, it is mixed with tobacco for smoking in cigarettes.

(c) The Indian hemp is simply smoked in special hookahs, called gozah.

We must next consider the effects which are produced by the use of hashish and distinguished between:

(1) Acute hashishism

(2) Chronic hashishism

Acute hashishism occurs when the consumer uses hashish irregularly.

Let us study the effects of this intoxication: taken in small doses, hashish at first produces an agreeable inebriation, a sensation of well being and a desire to smile; the mind is stimulated. A slightly stronger dose brings a feeling of oppression and discomfort. There follows a kind of hilarious and noisy delirium in persons of a cheerful disposition, but the delirium takes a violent form in persons of violent character. It should be noted that behaviour under the influence of the delirium is always related to the character of the individual. This state of inebriation or delirium is followed by slumber, which is usually peaceful but sometimes broken by nightmares. The awakening is not unpleasant; there is a slight feeling of fatigue, but it soon passes.

Hashish absorbed in large doses produces a serious delirium and strong physical agitation; it predisposes to acts of violence and produces a characteristic strident laugh. This condition is followed by a veritable stupor, which cannot be called sleep. Great fatigue is felt on awakening, and the feeling of depression may last for several days.

The habitual use of hashish brings on chronic hashishism, which is more serious than acute hashishism.

The countenance of the addict becomes gloomy, his eye is wild and the expression of his face is stupid. He is silent; has no muscular power; suffers from physical ailments, heart troubles, digestive troubles, etc.; his intellectual faculties gradually weaken and the whole organism decays. The addict very frequently becomes neurasthenic and, eventually, insane.

In general, the absorption of hashish produces hallucinations, illusions as to time and place, fits of trembling, and convulsions.

A person under the influence of hashish presents symptoms very similar to those of hysteria.

From the therapeutic point of view, science has not made much use of hashish with good results. It has, however, been administered with some success in certain cases of delirium tremens.

Taken thus occasionally and in small doses, hashish perhaps does not offer much danger, but there is always the risk that once a person begins to take it he will continue. He acquires the habit and becomes addicted to the drug, and, once this has happened, it is very difficult to escape. Notwithstanding the humiliations and penalties inflicted on addicts in Egypt they always return to their vice. They are known as "hashashees", which is a term of reproach in our country, and they are regarded as useless derelicts.

Chronic hashishism is extremely serious, since hashish is a toxic substance, a poison against which no effective antidote is known....

In view of the great danger involved by the consumption of hashish, special measures have been taken by the Egyptian Government. In 1884 the cultivation of this plant was forbidden. Measures were taken to prevent the production and importation of cannabis indica.

The following quantities were seized by the Customs Administration:

The following quantities were seized by the Coastguards Administration:

I have no information regarding the quantities seized by the police.

The illicit use of hashish is the principal cause of most of the cases of insanity occurring in Egypt. In support of this contention, it may be observed that there are three times as many cases of mental alienation among men as among women, and it is an established fact that men are much more addicted to hashish than women. (In Europe, on the contrary, it is significant that a greater proportion of cases of insanity occur among women than among men).

Generally speaking, the proportion of cases of insanity caused by the use of hashish varies from 30-60 per cent of the total number of cases occurring in Egypt....

I do not see why we should wait until 1925 to take a decision on this question since a large number of countries have pronounced in favour of my proposal.

I earnestly beg all the delegates to give this question their best attention, for I know the mentality of Oriental peoples, and I am afraid that it will be said that the question was not dealt with because it did not affect the safety of the Europeans....

Moreover, I am sure that, if we take a decision regarding opium and the drugs mentioned in the Schedule of the Advisory Committee, without adding hashish, the latter will soon replace the other narcotics and will then become a terrible menace to the whole world. It seems to me that it is better to prevent a disease than to cure it...."

                    Back to Reefer Madness Museum Page #1