When Who What Source
May 1933
Egypt
Notifies the Health Section about 5 preparations containing trace-amounts of Cannabis extracts marketed by Parke, Davis & Co. should be subjected to Article 10, C25.
OIHP (1935, p. 161)
October 1933 * Health Committee First meeting where the issue raised by Egypt is addressed. More precisions are asked to Egypt. OIHP (1935, p. 208)
28 May 1934
Egypt
Answers to the LoN’s Health Committee, providing details. Clarifies that the proposal is to extend controls to all preparations, not only the 5 notified in 1933.
OIHP (1935, p. 162)
12 June 1934
* Health Committee
Asks Egypt further information. Refers the case to OIHP’s Comité Permanent, attaching a detailed descriptive note –triggers mechanism for review under Article 10, C25.
OIHP (1934a, p. 23)
Summer 1934
† Comité Permanent
Refers back to the LoN, to undertake preliminary consultations among Governments asking whether the 5 preparations notified by Egypt were reported as liable to produce addiction in their countries.
OIHP (1934a, p. 23)
Germany, the Netherlands Express refusal of Egypt’s proposal. OIHP (1934b, p. 105)
* Secretariat’s Legal adviser Clarifies that the inclusion of preparations of Indian hemp under the controls of C25 is “perfectly legitimate” and depends only on the responsibility of the Health Committee’s decision, upon OIHP’s advice. OIHP (1935, pp. 162, 208)
8 Oct. 1934
* Health Section
Dr. ​​Ludwik W. Rajchman (director, Health Section) mentions at OIHP’s Comité Permanent that the proposal of Egypt entails a number of general problems, some “issues of principle.”
OIHP (1934a, p. 30)
12 Oct. 1934
† Comité Permanent
Considers a research made by British representative Dr. Morgan about Parke, Davis & Co.’s preparations, finding that “the only among these that is being exported in appreciable quantities to Egypt is the one called Composed Damiana Tablets” while the other preparations were not exported to Egypt by Parke-Davis, except the elixir, of which less than half a kilogram per year was exported. Regarding Demiana Tablets, the exports were of 3,358 bottles in 1932, 4,576 bottles in 1933, and 2,080 bottles from January to Septembre 1934 (100 tablets per bottle). It was noted that the interest in the tablets may instead have been due to their use as an aphrodisiac (unrelated to cannabis intoxication). The Comité decides that no further action is needed, except a possible future examination, should it be recognised as necessary.
OIHP (1934b, pp. 105–110)
Canada Express support for Egypt’s proposal; mentions “Mariuana cigarettes” as desirable to be placed under control. OIHP (1934b, pp. 105–110)
A dozen of Governments The preparations are unknown, and the elements put forward by Egypt seem doubtful due to the composition of the preparations and the presence of other harmful substances. OIHP (1934b, pp. 105–110)
27 Nov. 1934
* Health Committee
Requests more data to Governments. Decides the creation of a Sub-Committee on Cannabis.
OIHP (1934b, pp. 105–110)
14 Jan. 1935
* Council
Acknowledges the need for more research, takes note of the creation of the Sub-Committee.
84th session
4–5 March 1935
† CEP
Meets in Bern, issues the following recommendation: “The Committee of Experts is of the opinion that all preparations based on extracts and tinctures of Indian hemp are liable to give rise to similar abuse and to produce similar ill effects as the extract and tincture themselves; it recommends that they be subject to the provisions of the 1925 Convention, granting them, where appropriate, the benefit of Article 8 of the said Convention” (translation is of the author).
OIHP (1935, pp. 207–211, 163–164)
6 May 1935
† Commission de l’Opium
Approves the recommendation, as adopted by the CEP on 5 March.
OIHP (1935, pp. 157–165)
8 May 1935
† Comité Permanent
Approves the recommendation, as adopted by the Commission de l’Opium on 6 May.
OIHP (1935, pp. 157–165)
29 May 1935
* Sub-Committee on Cannabis
First meeting. Visibly unaware of the CEP recommendation, the Sub-Committee wonders about “the possible expediency of recommending a modification of, or an addition to, the existing conventions” because “The Sub-Committee did not go into the question of galenical preparations of Cannabis sativa but its attention was drawn to the fact that the present international conventions, in so far as internal control is concerned, establish a control for preparations of the resin of this drug, which is less strict than that prescribed for other drugs.”
LoN (1935a, p. 34)
7–14 Oct. 1935
* Health Committee
At its 22nd session, approves the recommendation adopted by the OIHP on 8 May, rephrasing it as follows: “preparations made from tincture or extract of Indian hemp may lead to the similar abuses and may produce similar ill-effects to those resulting from use of the tincture or extract of Indian hemp themselves, and consequently decides that these preparations shall be brought within the control of the 1925 Convention” (note that the rephrasing happened both in French and English languages).
LoN (1935c, pp. 5–6; 1936)
23 Jan. 1936 * Council At its 90th session (5th meeting), approves the recommendation, and decides to communicate it to States Parties to the C25, and for information to States Parties to the 1931 Convention. LoN, Journal Officiel, Feb. 1936
10 Sept. 1936 * Secretary General Shares Circular Letter C.L.161.1936.XI titled “Application of Article 10 of the Geneva Convention of 1925 to preparations based on Indian hemp Extract or Tincture” which included the wording from the Health Committee’s 22nd session, asking each Government “whether it would agree, so far it is concerned, to the inclusion of preparations made from Indian hempextract or tincture within the scope of the Convention. […] a formal acceptance is necessary in order to establish as between the High Contracting Parties the international obligations to which allusion is made in [Article 10, C25].” LoN (1936)
Fall 1937
32 Governments
Answer the Circular Letter agreeing on, or objecting to, the change. 25 countries accepted without reservation (some that accepted were not even Parties to the C25), 7 countries accepted only under specific conditions. All other non-respondent countries de facto did not accept the change.
LoN (1937)
16 Oct. 1937
* Health Section
Refers the objections and reservations received by countries to OIHP’s Comité Permanent for a new examination.
LoN (1937, p. 3)
27 Oct. 1937
* Health Committee
At its 26th session, notes the diverging opinions among Governments, and various reservations sent.
LoN (1937)
22 Sept. 1938
† CEP
Blames the Health Committee for altering the content of the recommendation, and reiterates the same recommendation as in 1935.
OIHP (1939)
Sept. 1938
* General Assembly
The LoN reduces its activities due to the tense geopolitical situation.
LoN (1938a)
17 Oct. 1938
† Commission de l’Opium
Approves the recommendation, as adopted by the CEP on 22 Septembre.
OIHP (1939)
22 Oct. 1938
† Comité Permanent
Approves the recommendation, as adopted by the Commission de l’Opium on 17 Octobre.
OIHP (1939)
10 Nov. 1938
† Comité Permanent
Shares the recommendation with the Health Committee.
LoN (1939a, p. 5)
9 May 1939
* Health Committee
At its 30th session, notes the recommendation transmitted by the OIHP in Novembre 1938, expresses the will to reach “unanimous assent” for any decision related to Indian hemp, and decides: “WHile maintaining the conclusions of the 22nd session […] declares however that such conclusions do not concern those preparations which can only be used externally”
LoN (1939a, p. 5)
23 May 1939
* Council
At its 105th session, approves the recommendation, and decides to communicate it to States Parties.
LoN (1939a)
12 July 1939
* Secretary General
Shares Circular Letter C.L.99.1939.XI titled “Application of Article 10 of the Geneva Convention of 1925 to preparations based on Indian hemp Extract or Tincture under reserve of certain exemptions”
LoN (1939a)
31 August 1939
Invasion of Poland and outbreak of the second world war.
Invasion of Poland and outbreak of the second world war.
31 Dec. 1939
* Advisory Committee on traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs
Circulates a “Revised list of drugs, preparations, and medicines coming under the international drug conventions” which lists: “Preparations made of extract or tincture of Indian hemp[1] [1] This clause applies to countries which have adopted the recommendation of the Health Committee of the LoN to place these products under control as well as extracts and tinctures […]. The Health Committee, in further recommendation […] stated that their conclusions, however, do not apply to those of the said preparations which are capable only of external use” and a list of 29 proprietary medicines of “extracts or tincture of Indian hemp base” (where, from the 5 preparations notified by Egypt, only the “Elixir Bromide and Chloral Compound” from Parke, Davis & Co. is listed) stating again in a footnote that “this clause applies to countries which have adopted the recommendation of the Health Committee of the League of Nations” and mentioning that “other preparations, however, are to be found in the market which fall under the Conventions but which are not included in the list,” and precisind that “all drugs, preparations or proprietary medicines mentioned in the list are not subject to an identical form of control […]; for instance, Indian hemp, its resin and its preparations are not covered by Chapter III, Article 4, [C25], but fall under chapters IV and V”
LoN (1939d, pp. 9, 28–29, 102–106)