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)
|