roadmaps to reforming the un drug conventions - Beckley Foundation

specific authority to possess the drugs (e.g. a licence, prescription, certificate or similar),rather than meaning possession that is contrary to the domestic law of the Party or theprovisions of the Conventions. The usual meaning of ‘legal authority’ is a positiveauthority under law to commit a particular act or exercise a particular power (such as apermit), rather than committing an act or exercising a power in a way that is notcontrary to law. However, it seems more likely that these words were intended to beread in conjunction with other provisions of the Convention dealing with possession –Articles 4(c) and 36 – such that possession ‘under legal authority’ should be interpretedas possession that is permitted for medical or scientific purposes, or for other limitedpurposes as allowed under the Convention (i.e. under the exemptions in Articles 2(9), 27and 49). This interpretation is implied by the 1961 Commentary, which states thatArticle 33 must be read in connection with Article 4(c), to limit the possession of drugsexclusively to medical and scientific purposes (subject to the exemptions in theConvention). 168 In addition, the United Nations Commentary on the 1971 Convention(‘1971 Commentary’) 169 notes that Article 5(3) of the 1971 Convention, which declares itto be ‘desirable’ that Parties should ‘not permit the possession of substances in ScheduleII, III and IV except under legal authority’, was intended to recommend that possessionshould only be permitted in accordance with legal conditions for the possession of thosesubstances, and not to recommend that possession should be subject to a permit. 1704.16.2 Option 1 – changes to Article 33In any case, it is clear that Article 33 prevents Parties from permitting possession ofdrugs for non-medical personal use or non-commercial supply for recipients’ nonmedicalpersonal use, and would need to be amended or changed in effect for thepurposes of Option 1.The new Article 3 bis would have the effect of limiting Parties’ obligations under Article33 to not permitting possession of more than small quantities of drugs, and notpermitting possession of drugs for commercial purposes; therefore, no directamendment of Article 33 would be needed for the purposes of Option 1.4.16.3 Option 2 – changes to Article 33Under Option 2, the proposed removal of Article 4(c) from the Convention would meanthat there would no longer be any requirement for Parties to limit possession of drugs tomedical and scientific purposes, and consequently no requirement for Parties to makenon-medical and non-scientific possession a punishable offence under Article 36(1)(discussed in detail below). However, it is unclear whether the removal of this limitation1681961 Commentary, p. 402.169United Nations. Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. New York: UnitedNations, 1976 (‘1971 Commentary’).1701971 Commentary, p. 143.127