Hello! Very interesting arricle but I am not convinced by the fact that Anslinger won the argument. I have read through the League of Nations and United Nations archives related to cannabis (1926-1961) and found that the US position failed to be the one followed in many instances. Ansliger even left the room and did not take prt in the end of the Single Convention’s negociations because he found that his ideas were not being properly reflected in the draft treaty. William McAllister documents this very convincingly in his thesis and his 2000 book “Drug Diplomacy in the 20th Century”. In recent decades, historiand have shown that Anslinger and the US’s role was way less important than that of countries such as Egypt, when trying to push global cannabis prohibitions. I have published last montj a report “High Compliance” which also re-analyses the text of the Convention and shows not only it is NOT a cannabis prohibition treaty, but it contains workeable exemptions giving governments full socereignty to regulate “other than medical and scientific uses” of cannabis. I would be happy to discuss anf share some reference with you eventually! All the best. Kenzi
You're welcome. Thank you too for reading as well. Surprised that you find blog posts (with no substantiation in the text of the treaty, truncating provisions, and cherry-picking in the Commentary statements from stakeholders which are not binding) more convincing that a detailed legal analysis based upon a textual interpretation of the law. That is telling as to the excessive weight that preconceived notions caan have in our judgment, over demonstrations relying on classical methods. I have still seen no argument in these blog posts which reconciles the principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat with the interpretation of Article 2(9) as prohibiting adult use. All the best!
Hello! Very interesting arricle but I am not convinced by the fact that Anslinger won the argument. I have read through the League of Nations and United Nations archives related to cannabis (1926-1961) and found that the US position failed to be the one followed in many instances. Ansliger even left the room and did not take prt in the end of the Single Convention’s negociations because he found that his ideas were not being properly reflected in the draft treaty. William McAllister documents this very convincingly in his thesis and his 2000 book “Drug Diplomacy in the 20th Century”. In recent decades, historiand have shown that Anslinger and the US’s role was way less important than that of countries such as Egypt, when trying to push global cannabis prohibitions. I have published last montj a report “High Compliance” which also re-analyses the text of the Convention and shows not only it is NOT a cannabis prohibition treaty, but it contains workeable exemptions giving governments full socereignty to regulate “other than medical and scientific uses” of cannabis. I would be happy to discuss anf share some reference with you eventually! All the best. Kenzi
Thanks for reading and commenting, Kenzi! I've read your recent publication. Unfortunately, I must admit I did not find it persuasive. I favor the views expressed here: https://longreads.tni.org/a-house-of-cards. And here: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/highly-non-compliant-does-non-medical-1749403/. Cheers
You're welcome. Thank you too for reading as well. Surprised that you find blog posts (with no substantiation in the text of the treaty, truncating provisions, and cherry-picking in the Commentary statements from stakeholders which are not binding) more convincing that a detailed legal analysis based upon a textual interpretation of the law. That is telling as to the excessive weight that preconceived notions caan have in our judgment, over demonstrations relying on classical methods. I have still seen no argument in these blog posts which reconciles the principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat with the interpretation of Article 2(9) as prohibiting adult use. All the best!