The INCB, the US and flexibility

At the 112th Session of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), which took place at the beginning of February 2015, the INCB warned the international community of the 'public health risks associated with the adoption of legislative and policy measures which are inconsistent with the provisions of the three United Nations drug control conventions'. In truth, the reference was probably directed less toward 'the international community' than to the United States of America, which has recently advocated the 'flexible interpretation' of the conventions. Ambassador William Brownfield heads up the US Bureau of International Narcotics Enforcement (INL), and has spoken repeatedly of the new global drug policy circumstances that necessitate a greater degree of flexibility with regard to the provisions of the drug control conventions. Brownfield argues that there must be tolerance between those at the extremities of the policy spectrum – those countries who have decided to regulate legal cannabis markets, for example, and those that are happy to continue executing citizens for involvement with the illicit drug trade. Brownfield believes the conventions can accommodate each of these positions: 'It's not the precise definition of the words (i.e. of the conventions),' he contends, 'it is the objectives behind the words'.

This enhanced tolerance that characterises the US discourse, it should be recalled, is not unrelated to the fact that the country is itself currently, and fundamentally, in breach of the international drug control conventions, which stipulate that the Parties to the treaties must restrict the use of drugs to medical and scientific uses across all territories under its authority. The US is exercising its newly favoured 'flexibility' by permitting some US states to establish legal cannabis regimes.

While this appears superficially to represent a positive development,one of the most significant problems with it is that the USseems to view itself as the arbiter of flexibility, expressing its discomfort at the Jamaican government's intention to decriminalise and regulate cannabis consumption. The US, while maintaining a straight diplomatic face and apparently without irony, reminded Jamaica of its legal obligations under the conventions. In addition, US officials claim that Jamaica's move is likely to increase illicit exports from the region, despite the fact that the island's government has restated its continued commitment to prevent trafficking. This dynamic interpretation is, it seems, perfectly capable of embracing one rule for the powerful and a different one for the rest.

It is not, however, this variable application of Brownfield's argument that troubles the INCB, which is more concerned with ensuring that the 'prohibitionist' element of the convention remains intact, and that there is no consumption of scheduled drugs for pleasure, meditation, relaxation, philosophical exploration and the like. The US position, likewise, seeks no expansion in the types of behaviours that might be permitted by the conventions. And yet it is precisely this prohibitive principle of the drug control system that has become untenable in the context of a historically restless modern consciousness – though neither the INCB nor Ambassador Brownfield appear willing or able to engage with it.

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