The following selections have been taken verbatim from the 1961 Report of the sixteenth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. At that time, Harry Anslinger, Commissioner of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Narcotics, did everything in his power, by exerting pressure on the American delegation of the UN Commission on Narcotics, to make member nations accept an international Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As may be seen from the ensuing documents, his efforts proved largely successful. Not only did most member nations (with the notable exception of India) adopt restrictive laws concerning marihuana, but numerous scientific reports concerning the antibiotic properties of the plant were given the most cavalier consideration and were rejected.

THE QUESTION OF CANNABIS

Note by the Secretary-General

The Economic and Social Council in resolution 730 E (XXVIII) invited the World Health Organization to prepare, in the light of recent research on the subject, a report on the use of cannabis for the extraction of useful drugs, particularly of the antibotic type, and if possible to make the report available in time for the fifteenth session (April/May 1960) of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

The report of the World Health Organization was received on 21 November 1960. In accordance with the above resolution of the Council, the Secretary-General distributed the report as document E/CONF.34/5 to the countries and organizations participating in the United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, with a view to a possible modification of the provisions of the Single Convention in order to permit the use of cannabis for the extraction of useful drugs.

The report entitled "The merits of Antibiotic Substances obtainable from • . . Cannabis Sativa" is attached hereto.

The Merits of Antibiotic Substances Obtainable from Cannabis Sativa

The following facts emerge from the available literature.
(1-7)

Substances with antibacterial activity, the structure of which has been determined, can be extracted from this plant. They have a very low solubility (not actually specified) in water, but can be more readily dissolved in alkali or alcohol. They have no action on any Gram-negative species tested, but inhibit the growth of staphylococci, streptococci and other Gram-positive organisims in a concentration of the order of 1 in 100,000. There is a similar action on the tubercle bacillus. It has also been shown that the action is bactericidal and not merely bacteriostatic. This action is much diminished by organic matter, even broth reduces it as compared with peptone water, and blood reduces it by 99 per cent. The effect of pH has also been studied.

Application of extracts has an analgesic effect accompanied by local anaesthesia and sometimes irritation. Therapeutic effects are claimed for many kinds of use. These include treatment of ulcerative conditions of the mouth, dental caries, herpes and thrush, of otitis media, sinusitis, and furunculosis of the nose and ear, of infected wounds, burns and bedsores, and of cracked nipples for the prevention of staphylococcal mastitis. Good effects have been seen in tuberculosis fistulas, and the longest account of clinical uses (3) refers to a paper in which a systemic action from oral administration of cannabis seeds has been claimed in tuberculosis. This could not be verified in guinea pigs.

Information of several kinds which would help in assessing the value of this antibiotic is lacking. No experiments are reported on its effects on isolated mammalian cells. A substance with the beneficial local actions claimed should be innocuous to leucocytes and to tissue cultures of other types of cell. The fact that it has an analgesic effect suggests that it may not be altogether innocuous, and in any case the mechanism of this effect needs to be ascertained.

Secondly, none of the available reports on clinical use appears to refer to a properly conducted trial with adequate controls. Information about the nature of the infection is lacking in most of them; these reports would be more convincing if the antibiotic had been found effective in infections due to sensitive bacteria and ineffective when they are resistant.

Thirdly, it would appear that these studies, which have been going on for several years, have not carried enough conviction to induce a material production of this substance on a commercial scale.

Even if the clinical reports in the publications under survey are to be fully credited, it still remains to be decided whether they illustrate a curative action not obtainable by other and more orthodox means. The fact of success in an infection resistant to penicillin is not sufficient evidence of this since there are many other antibiotics active against Gram-positive bacteria which are effective alternatives. For example, neomycin and bacitracin are much more active in this respect than the antibacterial substances isolated from the cannabis plant; they have a negligible local toxicity, and have been used with great success as local applications to surfaces infected with staphylococci and streptococci. It would be very surprising if a direct comparison between them and the cannabis substances in question did not show that their action, especially if they were used together, was superior.

It is, therefore, concluded that at present the case has not been proved in favor of making cannabis available for the extraction of therapeutic substances, particularly with antibiotic properties equal or superior to those obtainable otherwise.

As regards the question of therapeutic usefulness of Cannabis sativa and substances extracted therefrom, the opinion expressed in the third report of the WHO Expert Committee on Addiction-Producing Drugs (8) remains unchanged. Cannabis preparations are practically obsolete and there is no justification for their medical use.

This conclusion does not affect the opinion of the Expert Committee on Addiction-Producing Drugs as expressed in its 10th report.(9) The prohibition or restriction of the medical use of a drug representing a particularly high danger to the community should continue to be recommended by the international organs concerned, but should not be mandatory.

Geneva, 18 November 1960

References

1. Ferenczy, L., Graoza, L. & Jakobey, I. (1958) Nat urwissenschaf ten, 45, 188.

2. Kabelik, J. (1957) Pharmazie, 12, 439.

3. Krejci, Z. (1958) Pharmazie, 13, 155.

4. Krejci, Z., Horak, M. & Santavy, F. (1959) Pharmazie, 14, 349.

5. Martinec, T., & Felkiova, M. (1959) Pharmazie, 14, 276, 279.

6. Schultz, O. & Haffner, G. (1958) Arch. Pharm. (Weinheim) 291, 391.

7. Schultz, O. & Haffner, G. (1959) Z. Naturforsch. B. 14, 98.

8. Wld Hlth Org. techn. Rep. Ser., 1952, 57, 11.

9. Wld 111th Org. techn. Rep. Ser., 1960, 188, 14.

THE QUESTION OF CANNABIS (INCLUDING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON CANNABIS)1

Medical Use of Cannabis

175. The Economic and Social Council on the basis of the opinion of the WHO Expert Committee on Addiction-producing drugs that medical use of cannabis was practically obsolete and that such use was no longer justified,2 and as proposed by the Commission, recommended in resolution 548 F I (XVIII) that governments explore the possibility of discontinuing the medical use of cannabis drugs. The Third Draft of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs prepared by the Commission3 consequently prohibited the medical use of cannabis except in certain.systems of indigenous medicine. At its fourteenth session, however, the Commission heard that recent research tended to show that cannabis might contain medically useful substances. At the suggestion of the Commission, therefore, the Economic and Social Council in resolution 730 E (XXVIII) asked WHO to prepare, in the light of recent research in several countries, a report on the use of cannabis for the extraction of useful drugs, particularly of the antibiotic type. The report, entitled "The merits of Antibiotic Substances obtainable from Cannabis Sativa,"4 was presented by the WHO .to the Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which met in New York January—March 1961 and where it served its primary purpose in helping the Conference to draft provisions concerning cannabis drugs in the 1961 Convention.5 It was noted that the 1961 Convention as adopted by the Conference permitted the medical use of cannabis drugs subject to the same controls as other drugs in schedule I of the Convention. Cannabis and cannabis resin, however, were included in schedule IV of the Convention, which meant that the prohibition of their medical use was recommended. Extracts and tinctures of cannabis were not included in schedule IV but only in schedule I, and therefore their prohibition was not recommended.

176. As regards extracts and tinctures of cannabis, the question was raised whether, in view of article 2 of the 1961 Convention providing that preparations containing drugs were subject to the same control as the drug which they contain,6 such extracts and tinctures should not be considered to be cannabis preparations and thus subject to the recommendation of prohibition, which would apply to such preparations by virtue of the inclusion of cannabis in schedule IV. It was explained that in the 1961 Convention cannabis extract and tincture were considered as separate drugs and not as cannabis preparations.

177. The Commission learned that in India experts who had been consulted by the Government were of the opinion that the medical use of cannabis should continue in certain cases of indigenous systems of medicine. The Indian Pharmacopoeia Committee also desired to retain cannabis drugs. Cannabis was also used as a sedative in India.

178. The representative of the United Arab Republic informed the Commission that as a result of the recommendation of the Economic and Social Council (Resolution 548 F I (XVIII) ) the importation and medical use of cannabis drugs and preparations containing cannabis had been stopped in the Egyptian Province, and stocks had been confiscated and destroyed.

The Cannabis Situation in General and in Individual Countries and Territories

179. At its fifteenth session the Commission had received the last four of twenty-four studies of the cannabis situation in individual countries and territories.7 It had been suggested that with the completion of these country surveys it would be advisable to summarize the results.8 The Commission had before it a document9 bringing up to date the developments of various aspects of the cannabis problem and setting out some important conclusions which had emerged from the country surveys and from other official information available to the Secretariat. An annex to the document contained a summary of the twenty-four country surveys.

180. The Commission noted that the summary corroborated some of the conclusions drawn by the Commission on earlier occasions. For instance, there was very little evidence that crops grown for industrial purposes were a source of illicit use of or traffic in cannabis. Wild growth appeared to be a source of illicit traffic in and consumption of cannabis in several countries. Though still used extensively in the Ayurvedic, Unani, and Tibbi systems of medicine of the Indian-Pakistani subcontinent, cannabis drugs were seldom used in "western" medicine today. Legal non-medical use was now confined to the Indian-Pakistani sub-continent, where consumption was subject to strict control and the policy was to prohibit such use as soon as possible. The volume of the illicit traffic had remained high, over 670 tons of cannabis having been reported seized during 1959. While seizures were reported from every continent, a large part of the illicit traffic was domestic or between countries with common frontiers.

181. The Commission was informed that in Greece cannabis was grown illicitly on a small scale and also grew wild, particularly in the northern provinces. However, a large part of the cannabis illegally used in Greece came from Lebanon.

182. The observer for Ghana informed the Commission that in his country cannabis was the most widely misused drug, there was no known case of addiction to manufactured drugs, and that whereas cannabis had formerly mostly been smuggled into the country by sailors, it was now also illicitly cultivated.

183. The Commission noticed in particular that the consumption of cannabis is widespread in Africa. It recalled the social danger of acute cannabis intoxication and referred, among other sources, to the declaration made by the Portuguese permanent representative before the United Nations Security Councill° during its consideration of the recent troubles that had occurred in Angola. He had expressed his opinion that the assailants had taken stimulants, in particular strong doses of cannabis "which created in them a state of aggressiveness and irresponsibility that led to their acts of savagery."

184. The French representative reported the existence of a natural drug, "somorona," on which a communication had been sent to the Academy of Madagascar.11 The drug is a vascular cryptogam of the Lycopodium genus, used alone or in conjunction with cannabis (Rongony) in order to make the person taking it "brave, unaffected by danger, able to overcome fatigue, and conquer fear." "Somorona" is also administered to fighting cocks and bulls, and to dogs used for boar-hunting. It was considered that the governments of African countries, and that of Madagascar, should be asked to co-operate by reporting any such natural substances having mental effects, so that studies could be undertaken which might possibly lead to the discovery of medicaments of value in psychiatric treatment in particular.

185. In answer to a question regarding the various uses of bhang12 in India, the Commission was referred to the Survey of the Cannabis Situation in India which contained a detailed account of such uses.13 While the leaves of the cannabis plant when not accompanied by the tops had been excluded from the rigid regime applicable to cannabis under the 1961 Convention, and would be subject to only a general obligation of parties to prevent the abuse of and illicit traffic in such leaves, they were in fact subject to certain controls in India as regards limits of possession and purchase; they were prohibited in some states, and in other states the legal amount which an individual was allowed to have in his possession was strictly limited. Consumption of cannabis was greatly decreasing in India.

Scientific Research on Methods of Identification of Cannabis

186. The Commission reviewed the progress made during the previous year in the United Nations programme on cannabis research14 which had been carried out in accordance with resolution 8 (XIV).

187. Since the beginning of the programme, the authorities of Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Morocco, Sweden, and the United Kingdom had sent samples of cannabis to the United Nations Laboratory. Assistance had also been given by the Geneva Botanical Gardens and the University of Geneva who had provided samples. Although the Laboratory had given priority in accordance with the Commission's directives to the scientific research on opium, a study had been made of the absorption characteristics of cannabis in the ultra-violet region.15

188. Regarding the international collaboration in the research programme reference was made to an important contribution by Canada which had furnished a detailed study on the chemical analysis of cannabis and which was in course of publication. The Institute for the Control of Drugs, Zagreb, Yugoslavia, was also carrying out research on cannabis; and Dr. Fritz, Professor of the Faculty of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary, had recently been nominated by the Government of the Hungarian People's Republic to participate in the United Nations research programme. In addition a document on the methods used for the identification of cannabis in the United States of America had been published in the ST/S0A/SER.S/ . . . series.15

1 Agenda items 9 and 10 (E/CN.7/SR.461, 470 and 476).

2 Wld. Hth. Org., Techn. Rep. Ser., 1952, 57, p. 11.

3 E/CN.7/AC.3/9, article 39.

4 E/CN.7/409; E/CONF.34/5. World Health Organization Reports    477

5 E/CONF.34/22.

6 E/CONF.34122, Article 2, para. 3.

7 Report, fifteenth session, para. 212; E/CN.7/286 and Adds. 1-29.

8 Report, fourteenth session, para. 314.

9 E/CN.7/399.

10 S/PV.944, page 38.

11 Communication of 17 November 1960, by Edmond Heiby.

12 Bhang is the dried mature leaves of the cannabis plant.

13 E/CN.7/286/Add.12, part F.

14 E/CN.7/397 and Add.l.

15 ST/S0A/SER.S12.

16 ST/S0A/SER.S/3.