roadmaps to reforming the un drug conventions - Beckley Foundation

on trade activities referred to in paragraph 1 would be authorised by the Government todo so, and consequently would be considered to be under licence or other similarcontrol measure. Therefore, there is no apparent need to retain the State enterpriseexception. The 1971 Commentary notes that there is no substantive difference between a‘licence’ and ‘other similar control measure’, but the latter words were used in Article 8to make it clear that a government authorisation not specifically named as a licencewould be sufficient.Subparagraph 2(a) of Article 29 should be similarly amended to require Parties tocontrol persons and enterprises undertaking cultivation or production of drugs, andsubparagraph 2(b) of Article 29 should be amended to require Parties to control (underlicence or other similar control measure) the land on, or establishments and premises, inwhich such cultivation or production takes place.In addition, subparagraph 2(a) should be amended to specify that only ‘duly authorised’persons or enterprises that cultivate or produce drugs must be controlled, following theapproach in Article 8 of the 1971 Convention. The 1971 Commentary explains that thequalifying phrase ‘duly authorised’ was included in Article 8(2)(a) to avoid requiringParties to control (through measures such as physical searches) all persons entering orleaving places of manufacture, including, for example, tradespersons and office workers,and that ‘duly authorised’ persons would include those persons licensed to undertakemanufacture, trade in or distribution of Schedule II, III and IV substances under Article8(1). Accordingly, ‘duly authorised’ persons and enterprises in Article 29(2)(a) wouldrefer to persons or enterprises licensed to cultivate, produce or manufacture drugsunder Article 29(1).The requirement in subparagraph 2(c) of Article 29 for licensed manufacturers of drugsto obtain periodical permits specifying the kinds and amounts of drugs they maymanufacture should be removed, as there is no corresponding requirement in the 1971Convention, and there would not be the same need for periodical permits under Option3 following the removal of manufacture and import limits under Article 21 (discussedabove). The 1971 Commentary explains that the rationale for the requirement forperiodical permits was to ensure that states that meet (some or all of) their drugrequirements through drug manufacture would be able to allocate quotas to each oftheir manufacturers to ensure that they would not exceed annual manufacture andimport limits. 90Article 8(2)(c) of the 1971 Convention makes specific provision for Parties to providethat security measures be taken with regard to establishments and premises in whichmanufacture, trade or distribution of substances takes place. The 1971 Commentarysuggests that this measure would already be required by implication under 1961Convention as part of subparagraph (2)(c), which requires establishments and premisesin which drugs are manufactured to be controlled under licence. The Commentaryexplains that the obligation to take security measures was included explicitly in the 1971Convention to indicate that one of the main purposes of control of establishments and901971 Commentary, pp. 322–232.63