The Expert Committee meets in Bern

On 4 and 5 March 1935, in Bern, Switzerland, the same six European men that had been attending every previous CEP meeting reconvened to address the issue raised by Egypt (OIHP, 1935, pp. 161–165, 207–209). Three observers joined:
Three questions were asked to CEP Experts:
“a. Are all preparations based on an extract or tincture of Indian hemp liable to lead to similar abuse and produce similar ill-effects as [a pure extract or tincture]; or b. At the least, those of which the content in the above-mentioned substance exceeds a particular upper threshold, and c. What is, in this case, such an upper threshold?” (OIHP, 1935, p. 208, own translation)
It is notable that the CEP remarked the manoeuvres of the Egyptian government: their concerns about increased, massive imports of these preparations, and widespread use in Egypt, was not reflected in the statistics (OIHP, 1935, p. 162) and, pharmacologically, the potential for harm was clearly not primarily related to Cannabis extracts “because of the little quantities of hashish they contain, and the associated presence of toxic substances” (OIHP, 1935, p. 163). Henri Carrière reported that the five preparations were “so to speak, unknown” by the delegates from Australia, Belgium, British India, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Tunisia and the United States.[9] Germany and the Netherlands had opposed straightforward Egypt’s proposal, but Canada had expressed support (OIHP, 1934b, p. 105) out of concern for the “mariuana cigarettes” sold on its territory (LoN, 1933, pp. 11–13; 1935a, p. 20; OIHP, 1934b, p. 106).
Among the Experts, only the rapporteur, Knaffl-Lenz, clearly favoured placing all Cannabis -containing preparations under control. He found it illogical that “hashish preparations be treated differently than opium or cocaine preparations” (OIHP, 1935, p. 208, author’s translation ). LoN’s representative Wasserberg eventually joined him, asking however for the establishment of a maximum threshold of extract above which the preparations would fall under control. The proposal was quickly dismissed by the Experts, which recognized that
“no method currently exists allowing to ascertain the content in extract or in tincture of a preparation, and also that it is not possible to measure the activity of an Indian hemp extract which, besides, is rather uneven” (OIHP, 1935, pp. 208–209, author’s translation).
The minutes of, and correspondence surrounding the meeting suggest that no additional documentation or bibliographical support was relied upon –unlike the LoN’s Sub-Committee on Cannabis , created three months later, which would consult many knowledgeable experts, compile much information, and even commission research on various aspects of the plant (CND, 1965; Kozma, 2011b; LoN, 1935a). The Sub-Committee did not provide input to the CEP meetings since it first met in May 1935 (LoN, 1935a, p. 32).
Uncomfortable with the whole process, but willing to move forwards, the Experts agreed on a consensual option proposed by Wasserberg of the LoN Health Section, as middleground: the CEP would recommend placingCannabis preparations under control generally, while keeping “the benefit of Article 8” allowing to later exempt specific ones from international control on a case-by-case basis. It was argued, among others, that control over Cannabis -containing preparations would reduce the likelihood of them being used as carriers for more harmful compounds.

After the review: confusion and reservations

The CEP’s recommendation still had to go through OIHP’s Comité Permanent in May 1935 –first, Commission de l’Opium, then plenary– before being considered at the LoN’s Health Committee in October 1936 (LoN, 1935c, pp. 5–6). Because “it is a matter of course that the opinions of the [OIHP] are confirmed by the Health Committee” (OIHP, 1933, p. 62,author’s translation ), the recommendation was agreed on (LoN, 1937), and then again at the Council of the LoN (90th meeting, 5th seance, 23 January 1936).
Surprisingly, the LoN’s Sub-Committee on Cannabis, which started its works on 29 May 1935, seemed to be totally unaware of the entire process going on under the C25 (LoN, 1935a, p. 34).
After the multi-approval procedure of the CEP recommendations, the C25 mandated the Secretariat of the LoN to “communicate the said recommendation to the Contracting Parties” but, contrary to today’s drug control treaties –where the scheduling changes agreed on take effect upon notification, worldwide– the C25 leaved the option for each country to accept or not the placement of a new drug or preparation under control. The recommendations of the CEP, consequently, had legal effect only “between the Contracting Parties who have accepted [them]” (LoN, 1925).
On 10 September 1936 (LoN, 1936) a Circular Letter was sent to the 52 countries party to the C25 at the time (LoN, 1935a, pp. 7–8, 38–39), among which Argentina, Canada, Mexico, the USSR, Peru, and others. Nonetheless, notable countries had not, and never ratified the C25, like the USA (Leinwand, 1971, p. 415; LoN, 1935a, p. 38; McAllister, 2000) or China (LoN, 1935a, p. 39; UNODC, 2008, p. 53).
But even among the 52 Parties, the “formal acceptance” of the CEP’s recommendation“necessary in order to establish as between the High Contracting Parties the international obligations to which allusion is made” (LoN, 1936) remained scarce. One year after the notification, 25 countries had accepted the placement under control,[10] 20 were silent, and seven governments had expressed direct reservations: Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway wished to exempt a number of specific proprietary formulations manufactured in their country, and Germany, Portugal, and Sweden wished for all topicals to be exempted (LoN, 1937, p. 2). This was leaving the change without effect in two dozens of ratifying countries, such as Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Finland, Luxemburg, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay, Yugoslavia, and colonial empires like France and the UK. In addition to all the non-Parties, this was de facto making the change null even for the Parties that had accepted it. Dr Carrère had anticipated that as soon as he had heard of Egypt’s request, in 1934 (OIHP, 1934, p. 23)
At its 26th Session, in November 1937, the Health Committee noted that these feedback “must be taken into consideration, with a view to the possibility of so modifying the Health Committee’s decision of October 1935,” with the goal of securing “unanimous and unconditional acceptance” (LoN, 1937, p. 2). Noting that “it would be impossible to exempt from the Convention a group of preparations described in such a vague manner” (LoN, 1937, p. 3), the Health Committee seconded the question to the OIHP, again, for further consideration.

1938: A second review at the verge of War

Less archives of the second CEP meeting are available. It was convened on 22 September 1938 in Bern, again, under the chairmanship of the “observer” Dr Carrière. For once, the cast had changed: Carrière’s fellow countryman Emil Bürgi was absent for health reasons (Ledermann, 2005; OIHP, 1939, p. 2), and Marc Tiffeneau, another Frenchman, replaced Pr. Perrot (LoN, 1938b, p. 2; Table 2). Carrière relates about this second review of preparations containing extract or tincture ofCannabis :
“…the Experts maintained their previous decision, that is, these preparations should be placed under control, except corn-removers, even if these preparations are obtained directly from Indian hemp in natural form or its resin, without having gone through an extract or tincture.
The Experts motivated this decision, as the previous, by the fact that, to date, no certain method exists to determine the content in extract or tincture of Indian hemp –or, to say it better, in the active principle of Indian hemp, which is cannabinol– of a preparation.” (LoN, 1938b, pp. 2–3)
This time, the works of the LoN’s Sub-Committee on Cannabis had been shared and received by the OIHP, and in particular, the studies of Dr. Bouquet (Tunis) Dr. de Myttenaere (Brussels) related to “the value of Beam’s reaction for the detection of cannabinol and […] a method for the assay of this substance” (LoN, 1935a, p. 7) which were a focus of the CEP’s interest. But because the method had only been published in LoN document, not in the literature, the Experts refused to refer to it: instead, they expressed the conviction that the assay would certainly be considered in a future CEP meeting (OIHP, 1939).
The CEP never reconvened. Anyways, while cannabinol is indeed an active compound present in Cannabis , it is not the one that Egypt and most parties involved probably had in mind: cannabinol does not cause the effects that characterise the use of Cannabis products, but dronabinol (∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol), a substance that was only identified three decades after later (Mechoulam and Hanuš, 2000).