The International agreements constitute the legal reference on Psychotropic Substances, where three conventions have drawn the legal framework for internationally prohibited.

The Single Convention for the year 1961 (amended by the protocol of 1972), which made the natural Psychotropic Substances, in particular under control.

Convention for the year 1971, which targets the industrial compounds such as diethyl acid (L S) amphetamines, buprenorphine and Benzodiazepine.

United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic for the year 1988, aimed at framing the penal system international cooperation concerning the combat the prohibited trade, as provided in the Convention, aims to control substances used in the manufacture called (Precursor chemicals), where some of these substances can be used in the chemicals industry on a large scale.

These three conventions are based on a system that classifies products according to their potential overconsumption or addiction, as well as its damage to the public health, and the substances have been distributed in four tables that take into consideration the potential risk of the product, and its medical advantage on the other hand, and the list of classifications that can be modified by a decision of The United Nations Commission, following a recommendation of the World Health Organization.

It can be said that what determines whether the product or psychotropic is its classification in the aforementioned list and not the other way around, it is even more confusing in this the point is that the expression (mentally influential) does not comply with the common definition at the present time, although the lists adopted by the conventions are imposed on the signatory country, they could add products to the classification.

When signing the abovementioned agreements, the signatory countries are obliged to only use any of the classified products for medical and scientific purposes, where Article 3/2 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in of 1988 states as follows:

Each country must take the necessary measures, within the framework of its domestic law, to criminalize the possession or cultivation for personal consumption.

As a result, the legislative discretion is relatively limited for these Member States, which explains the peculiar interpretation of the European legislative text for example. However the observed differences reflect the diversity of contexts and means of application rather than the different text of the law.

As a result, the efforts made in any country to combat could be considered to be in the interest of other countries as long as they had the same goal of limiting the spread of drug crimes and the goal of unifying the global drug phenomenon, which required the unification of the legislative basis on which the signatory countries were based To the three conventions, the International Board control monitors the application of the provisions of these conventions and it renders the opinion regarding the interpretation of legal texts and may invite States to develop their policy in this area in compliance with the evolution of drug offences.

Related posts