Article 21 bis, which was added to the Treaty by a 1971 amendment, gives the INCB more enforcement powers by allowing it to deduct from a country`s cannabis, opium and coca production quota the quantities it finds to have been produced in that country and imported in illicit trade. This could be due to the fact that the illegal production or diversion of legally produced opium for illegal purposes is not controlled. [22] In this way, the INCB can essentially punish a drug-exporting country that does not control its illicit trade by imposing an economic sanction on its medical narcotics industry. (15) The provisions of this Article are without prejudice to the provisions of international agreements which restrict the control which may be exercised by one of the Parties over drugs in transit. For reasons of reasoning, let us assume that narcotics contracts and the processes associated with them (identification of deviant behaviors, random testing of drugs in urine, and counting of pills) are effective in identifying abusers and dissidents, thereby reducing the inappropriate use of prescription drugs. This can be beneficial for the patient and society. If the patient abuses, the source of harmful drugs is limited, which can reduce the risk of unintentional overdose. At the community level, it may also be beneficial to disrupt the prescription drug pipeline for non-medical users. These assumptions of benefits will allow us to examine the ethical issues raised by these treaties. 1. If a Party or a country or territory has become a major centre of illicit cultivation, manufacture or production without interference with the application of the provisions of the Convention, or if there is evidence of a serious risk that it will become a significant place of illicit cultivation, production or production, drug trafficking or consumption, the Commission has the right: to propose to the Government concerned the opening of consultations. Subject to the right of the Committee to draw the attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to the matter referred to in point (d), the Committee shall treat as confidential a request for information and explanation from a Government or a proposal for consultations and consultations held with a Government under this subparagraph.
5. In order to limit the use and distribution of drugs to an appropriate quantity necessary for medical and scientific purposes and to ensure their availability for those purposes, the Committee shall confirm the estimates, including additional estimates, as soon as possible or may modify those estimates with the consent of the government concerned. In the event of disagreement between the Government and the Board of Directors, the latter shall have the right to prepare, transmit and publish its own estimates, including additional estimates. Obvious violation of opioid contracts can occur for reasons other than abuse or distraction. A patient who has real pain may be denied effective analgesia if the terms of the contract are violated for other reasons. The painkiller could accidentally fall into the toilet. A patient may experience a severe pain attack on a weekend and need to take extra doses of painkillers to avoid a trip to an emergency room – and as a result, have an inaccurate number of pills. As a result, widespread use and enforcement of narcotics contracts may expose some patients to a low risk of abuse and an increased risk of undertreated pain. Physicians should be flexible in dealing with ”breaches” of these contracts. Given that cannabis is a hallucinogen (although some deny this), the commentary speculates that mescaline, psilocybin, tetrahydrocannabinol and LSD may have been considered sufficiently similar to cannabis to be regulated under the Single Convention; However, it seems that the fact that the powerful hallucinogens, whose abuse has spread in recent years, have not been placed under international drug control is not the result of legal reasons, but of the opinion of Governments that a regime other than that of the Single Convention would be more appropriate. This other regime was introduced by the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The scope of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances may include all medicinal products which are not already under international control if the World Health Organisation determines that: in cases which it deems appropriate, and either in addition to or in place of the measures referred to in Article 14(1) and (2), may recommend to the competent organs of the United Nations and to the specialised agencies: provide technical or financial assistance, or both, to the Government to support its efforts to fulfil its obligations under this Convention, including those set forth or referred to in articles 2, 35, 38 and 38 bis.
Enter the narcotics contract. A narcotics contract is a treatment agreement signed by the patient and clinician that sets out the expectations of a patient using these high-risk drugs. Common contractual elements include: The impact of narcotics contracts on the patient-physician relationship has not been fully studied. Many patients are aware of the recent increase in prescription drug abuse and recognize the importance of preventing abuse and distraction. If designed as a tool to ensure the safety of the individual patient and society, contracts can be considered acceptable even by patients who have a very low risk of abuse. If a Party considers it desirable in its action against illicit drug trafficking, taking due account of its constitutional, legal and administrative systems and, if it so wishes, with the technical advice of the Council or the specialized agencies, it shall encourage establishment in the region in consultation with other interested Parties. Agreements providing for the establishment of regional centres for scientific research and education to combat problems arising from illicit drug use and trafficking. Nevertheless, the results of implementation vary considerably from nation to nation.
For example, the Netherlands and the United States are both parties to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, but have applied the Treaty differently. In the United States, the federal implementation of the Single Convention (known as the Controlled Substances Act) criminalizes the possession of even small amounts of narcotics, including marijuana. Some American commentators have argued that even if Congress wants to promote national drug reform, its hands are tied because the courts are obligated by international law to implement the treaty (which, of course, criminalizes production, sale, use, and possession). Recognizing the competence of the United Nations in the field of drug control and wishing the relevant international bodies to be part of that organization, when considering both the potential benefits and burdens of drug contracts, it can be concluded that their use is justified for patients at high risk of abuse or diversion. .