DRUG SCHEDULING—SCIENCE AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
It is important to draw a distinction between classification of drugs at a national level and their scheduling as per the international conventions. The scheduling of drugs is based on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) states that its purpose is to ‘codify internationally applicable control measures in order to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes and to prevent their diversion into illicit channels’[1]. On the other hand, classification of drugs (medicines) in pharmacology is based on either their chemical structure or their intended purpose [2].
In his paper Professor Kalant emphasizes the point that ‘no matter how good the knowledge base, and no matter what method of classification is used, drug classification always includes both objective and subjective elements, and therefore can never be exclusively a scientific procedure’[3].
The World Health Organization (WHO) and its Expert Committee on Drug Dependence [4,5] has played a central role in the international drug control system and makes recommendations to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in scheduling of a compound. A critical review of a psychoactive substance is conducted by the committee in any one of the following cases: (a) based on a notification to the 1961 or 1971 convention concerning its scheduling, (b) a request from the CND, (c) if a pre-review has recommended a critical re-examination and (d) information that the substance poses a risk and has little therapeutic usefulness. In the preparation of critical review of a substance, the WHO Secretariat assembles data on several issues that include its identification, general pharmacology, toxicology including adverse reactions, epidemiology of its abuse, its abuse/dependence potential, nature and magnitude of public health problems, therapeutic and industrial use, production, international trade, illicit manufacture and illicit traffic, current national and international controls and their impact [6]. After the review, in certain cases, drugs have also been put into a lower schedule requiring lesser degree of control.
Laws are also influenced by prevailing practices and popular opinions that are often put forth through advocacy. Advocacy efforts have been made by organizations such as the International Drug Policy Consortium—a global network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and professional networks that specialize on issues related to the production and use of controlled drugs [7]. They have suggested that the WHO should obtain a more prominent mandate [comparable to those of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the UNODC] in identifying and responding to the threats to public health that are linked to drug use and addiction consistent with scientific evidence and the human rights and development standards and priorities as laid down in the UN Charter.
To elaborate upon the issues in this article, we would like to cite an example from India wherein the law related to drug control has been influenced by prevailing and traditional practices. There are three cannabis preparations available in India and of increasing potency—‘bhang’ (leaves of the cannabis plant), ‘ganja’ (the flowering tops) and ‘charas’ (resinous exudates). The use of bhang has been linked to religious rituals and medicinal use and has cultural sanction. Bhang has been kept outside the purview of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act, 1985), the legislation to control consumption and sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in India based on agreement of multiple stakeholders [8,9]. The NDPS Act defines ‘cannabis’ as charas, ganja or any mixture containing these.
Lastly, it is important to remember that classification of drugs is important as it acts as a ready reference point for the judiciary to ensure regulatory control and also sometimes fulfil the objective of bringing people into treatment. The NDPS Act in India has a provision according to which people charged with offences involving a small quantity (defined by experts) of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances are provided with immunity by law if they opt for treatment [8]. In fact, following the NDPS Act, the attention of the government was drawn to lack of availability of treatment centres in the country and this resulted in the provision of funding for treatment centres by the central government.
To conclude, the laws should be such that there is decriminalization of the user and penalty for the trafficker. Control of addictive substances should aim at reducing availability and supply, especially for young people, while allowing exemption of their use for medical and scientific purpose.
Declaration of interests
None.
