text:
Donnie Yen

Donnie Yen Ji-dan (born 27 July 1963) is a Hong Kong actor, filmmaker, martial artist, and action director best known for his martial arts films. He is one of the highest paid actors in Asia.

Born in Guangdong, Yen developed an interest in martial arts at a young age, and began experimenting with various styles, including tai chi and other traditional Chinese martial arts. At age 18, he auditioned for action choreographer Yuen Woo-ping in Hong Kong. He landed his first starring role in the 1984 Hong Kong martial arts action film Drunken Tai Chi. He made his breakthrough role as the antagonist General Nap-lan in Once Upon a Time in China II (1992), opposite Jet Li. In 1997, he made his directorial debut in the action-martial arts film Legend of the Wolf.

Yen made his American debut in Highlander: Endgame (2000), followed by a cameo in Blade II (2002). He continued to be active in Hong Kong cinema in the 2000s, appearing in the critically acclaimed wuxia film as the antagonist Long Sky in Hero (2002), opposite Li once again. In 2003, Yen played the antagonist Wu Chow in the American action comedy film Shanghai Knights, opposite Jackie Chan. He later appeared in the American films Rogue One (2016), XXX: Return of Xander Cage (2017), Mulan (2020), and John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023).

In television, Yen starred as Chen Zhen in the television series Fist of Fury. He later reprised his role as Chen Zhen in the 2010 film Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen. Yen is credited by many for contributing to the popularisation of Wing Chun in China. He portrayed Wing Chun grandmaster Ip Man in the Ip Man film series, starring in Ip Man (2008), Ip Man 2 (2010), Ip Man 3 (2015), and Ip Man 4: The Finale (2019).

Early life
Yen was born on 27 July 1963 in Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. His mother, Bow-sim Mark, is a Fu-style wudangquan (internal martial arts) and tai chi grandmaster, while his father, Klyster Yen (甄雲龍), was a newspaper editor. When he was 2 years old, his family moved to Hong Kong and then to the United States when he was 11 years old, settling in Boston. He attended Newton North High School.

His younger sister, Chris Yen, is also a martial artist and actress, and appeared in the 2007 film Adventures of Johnny Tao: Rock Around the Dragon.

At a young age, under the influence of his mother, Yen developed an interest in martial arts and began experimenting with various styles, including tai chi and other traditional Chinese martial arts. At age 16, Yen began practising Wushu after his parents sent him to Beijing to train with the Beijing Wushu Team.

At age 18, when Yen was returning to the United States to visit his family, he made a stop in Hong Kong, where he met and auditioned for action choreographer Yuen Woo-ping.

Yen also came from a family of musicians. His mother is a soprano, in addition to being a martial arts teacher in Boston, while his father is a violinist. From a young age, he was taught by his parents to play musical instruments, including the piano.

Beginnings to the 1990s
Yen's first step into the film industry was when he landed his first starring role in the 1984 film Drunken Tai Chi.

After filming Drunken Tai Chi and Tiger Cage (1988), Yen made his breakthrough role as General Nap-lan in Once Upon a Time in China II (1992), which included a fight scene between his character and Wong Fei-hung (portrayed by Jet Li). Yen had a starring role in the film Iron Monkey in 1993. Yen and Li appeared together again in the 2002 film Hero, where Yen played a spear (or qiang) fighter who fought with Li's character, an unnamed swordsman. The film was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 2003 Academy Awards.

In 1995, Yen starred as Chen Zhen in the television series Fist of Fury produced by ATV, which is adapted from the 1972 film of the same title that starred Bruce Lee as Chen Zhen. Yen later reprised his role as Chen Zhen in the 2010 film Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen by replacing Li who starred as Chen Zhen in the prequel film Fist of Legend, which was released in 1994.

In 1997, Yen started the production company Bullet Films, and made his directorial debut in Legend of the Wolf (1997) and Ballistic Kiss (1998), in which he played the lead character. At age 34, Yen almost went bankrupt. Films produced by his own production company and directed by him were critically acclaimed but did not do well at the box office. Yen was forced to borrow money from loan sharks and his production crew to get by.

2000s: Breakthrough success
Yen later went back to the United States, where he was invited to choreograph fight scenes in Hollywood films, such as Highlander: Endgame (2000) and Blade II (2002). His choreography and skills impressed the directors, and they invited him for cameo appearances in both movies. In 2002, Li was filming the movie Hero and insisted to the director (Zhang Yimou) that he wanted Yen to play the role of Sky, his adversary, due to Yen's martial arts ability. Li personally invited Yen back from Hollywood to star in the movie, marking the second time the two actors appeared onscreen together since Once Upon a Time in China II 10 years earlier back in 1992. In 2003, Yen portrayed the antagonist named Wu Chow against Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson in Shanghai Knights.

Yen choreographed most of the fight animation in the 2004 video game Onimusha 3, which featured actors Takeshi Kaneshiro and Jean Reno. Yen continued to be active in Hong Kong cinema in the 2000s, starring as Chu Zhaonan in Tsui Hark's wuxia epic film Seven Swords, and as Ma Kwun in Wilson Yip's brutal crime drama film SPL: Sha Po Lang in 2005. Both films were featured at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Later that year, Yen co-starred with Nicholas Tse and Shawn Yue in Wilson Yip's Dragon Tiger Gate, an adaptation of Wong Yuk-long's manhua series Oriental Heroes. Yen also worked as action choreographer in Stormbreaker, starring Alex Pettyfer. Yen continued to work with Wilson Yip in Flash Point (2007), in which he starred as the lead character and served as producer and action choreographer for the film. He won the award for Best Action Choreography at the Golden Horse Film Awards and the Hong Kong Film Awards for his performance in Flash Point.

In 2008, Yen starred in Ip Man, a semi-biographical account of Ip Man, the Wing Chun master of Bruce Lee. Ip Man marked Yen's fourth collaboration with director Wilson Yip, reuniting him with his co-stars in SPL: Sha Po Lang, Sammo Hung and Simon Yam. Ip Man became the biggest box office hit to date featuring Yen in the leading role, grossing HK$25 million in Hong Kong and 100 million yuan in China.

2010s
In 2010, Ip Man 2 was released. Similar to the first movie, it was directed by Wilson Yip. In August 2011, while Yen was on a vacation with his family in the United States, he reportedly received an invitation by producer Avi Lerner to star in The Expendables 2. It was stated that Yen was considering the offer, had many films at hand, and would wait until deciding whether the script appealed to him. Later on, Yen revealed to the Hong Kong media that he had rejected the role. In 2011, Yen revealed that he was venturing into other genres of movies and had taken up two comedy roles in a row, in All's Well, Ends Well 2011 and All's Well, Ends Well 2012, and would be working with Carina Lau in the former and Sandra Ng in the latter. Both films obtained huge critical and box-office success and proved Yen's versatility as an actor.

Yen took a six-month break in the second half of 2011 after the filming of The Monkey King, where he portrayed the title character and main protagonist Sun Wukong, replacing Li once again, in which the film was released during the Chinese New Year period in January 2014, he explained that he wanted to spend more time with his family and be with his children more as they grew up. In 2012, Yen returned to the movie industry and commenced the filming of Special ID, in which he played the main lead, an undercover cop, and also took on the role of action choreographer. In 2013, it was reported that Yen would be playing the lead role for Iceman, a sci-fi action film dealing with time travel and which was filmed in 3D. Yen confirmed that MMA would be used in both of the aforementioned films.

In February 2013, the Weinstein Company confirmed that it had purchased the rights to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon sequel and contacted Yen to play the male lead. In March 2013, Hong Kong magazines surfaced photos of Harvey and Bob Weinstein traveling to Hong Kong to meet with Yen and persuade him to accept the offer. It was reported that Yen was considering the role and quoted as saying, "The first is that my schedule this year is very packed. The second is that the first film is already such a classic. I am afraid of the pressure, that the original cannot be surpassed." In May 2013, during the annual Cannes Film Festival, the Weinstein Company announced that Yen would play the lead role of Silent Wolf in the Crouching Tiger sequel, titled Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny, alongside leading female action star Michelle Yeoh reprising her role as Yu Shu Lien, and with director Yuen Woo-ping, Yen's mentor. It was revealed that the movie would be filmed in both English and Mandarin to appeal to the international market. It was also revealed during the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon II press conference that the Weinstein Company had obtained rights to Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, was planning a remake and was negotiating with Yen, George Clooney, and Zhang Ziyi to star in the film. Yen declined the offer due to scheduling conflicts for the filming of Ip Man 3. Yen earned HK$220 million (US$28.4 million) from four films and six advertisements in 2013.

In late March 2015, Ip Man 3 was announced. Yen reprised his role as the titular character, Bruce Lee's wing chun master, Ip Man. Retired boxer and former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson was confirmed to join the cast. Yen mentioned that he was a big fan of Tyson, watched many of his professional boxing bouts, and was excited to work with him. Tyson stated during a press conference that he was a huge fan of Yen and has watched Ip Man and Ip Man 2 more than three times each and was honored to be invited for the final installment of the trilogy. Principal photography for Ip Man 3 began on 25 March 2015, and the finished movie was released in December 2015 in parts of Asia and around the world in early 2016 to generally favorable reviews.

In 2016, Yen co-starred in the Star Wars anthology film Rogue One as Chirrut Îmwe, the Zatoichi-like blind transient warrior. On 12 February 2016, it was confirmed that Yen would once again replace Li for the third time as Xiang in the upcoming action film XXX: Return of Xander Cage (after Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen in 2010 and The Monkey King in 2014). For the promotion of XXX: Return of Xander Cage, Paramount focused marketing efforts on Yen in China and most parts of Asia, placing him at the front of the film posters ahead of Vin Diesel, and shared clips and reviews of Yen's performance in the movie on the popular Chinese social media site Weibo. Paramount's efforts worked very well in China. The film was number one in its opening weekend with $61.9 million, and crossed the $100 million mark in just six days with $22.2m coming from Valentine's Day alone after rave reviews praising Yen's performance swept through Chinese social media, driving moviegoers to the cinema. Yen's performance in both Rogue One and XXX: Return of Xander Cage received extremely positive responses from critics and general audiences. For XXX: Return of Xander Cage, many media sites including Variety, Los Angeles Times, Screen Anarchy and Budomate praised Yen's performance and credited him as the highlight of the movie and stealing every scene he is in. In the case of Rogue One, other than praises from critics, Yen's performance was also applauded by audiences worldwide. In an official poll on the Star Wars webpage, in which more 40,000 people voted, Yen's character Chirrut Îmwe was voted as audiences' favorite Rogue One character.

While Yen was filming XXX: Return of Xander Cage in Canada, he received many offers from Hollywood studios and directors. At the same time, Hong Kong director Wong Jing personally flew to Canada to invite Yen to star in his film Chasing the Dragon, a remake of the award-winning film To Be Number One. Yen eventually accepted the offer and played a non-traditional role of a villain with limited fighting scenes and the opportunity to work alongside Andy Lau. In September 2017, Chasing the Dragon was released with extremely positive reviews from critics, citing Yen's versatility as an actor and his incredible portrayal of the late Ng Sek Ho, the main character of the film. Chasing the Dragon was also a huge hit with audiences in most parts of Asia. In Hong Kong, Chasing the Dragon is ranked as one of the top 5 Hong Kong films in 2017.

In 2017, Yen received a call from Li and Alibaba CEO Jack Ma about a potential collaboration on a short martial arts film known as Gong Shou Dao – to promote a new form of tai chi as an Olympic sport in the future. Yen was on holiday with his wife to celebrate their anniversary, but cancelled his plans to take part in the film. Yen declined any salary for this participation for GSD as he stated that "friendship is not measured by money" and that he hopes his participation can help promote Chinese martial arts to worldwide audiences. In return, Li and Ma surprised Yen and his wife Cissy, by helping to celebrate their wedding anniversary on the set. The full GSD 20 minutes short film was released on 11 November – China's Singles' Day, debuting on Youku and Li's official Facebook page, garnering a total of more than 100 million views worldwide. Netizens in China praised Yen's speed and technique in the film, with most audiences (over 190,000) voting Yen as the highlight of the short film. In late 2017, Yen began filming Big Brother, a mixed martial arts film where Yen plays a high school teacher with unconventional methods and a dark past.

In 2017, a live-action film adaption of the video game Sleeping Dogs was announced, with Yen playing the lead character Wei Shen. In February 2018, Yen confirmed the continued production of the film through social media. In 2019, Yen reprised his role as Ip Man for the final time in Ip Man 4: The Finale. During the Hong Kong protests of that year, protesters urged a boycott of the film, citing the pro-Beijing stances of Yen, co-star Danny Chan, and producer Raymond Wong. Nonetheless, the film was a box office success, grossing over three times its budget of $52 million and becoming the highest-grossing Chinese film of all time in Malaysia as well as the third-highest-grossing Chinese film in North America in five years.

2020s
In March 2020, as part of the press tour for Disney's live-action remake of Mulan, when Yen was asked by reporters whether he was interested in appearing in a superhero movie, Yen revealed that he had been offered a role in Warner Brothers' Justice League and Aquaman films by Zack Snyder, but turned it down due to scheduling conflicts. The role offered was that of Nuidis Vulko, which eventually went to Willem Dafoe. Yen joined the cast of John Wick: Chapter 4, which was released in March 2023. Yen and the film both received rave reviews from critics, with many considering Yen both a highlight of the film and his performance being one of the best in his career.

In 2024, according to The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Yen is set to Star in the ‘John Wick’ Caine Spinoff Movie.

Martial arts history, style and philosophy
Yen has exemplified his aptitude, expertise, and skill in an array of combat and martial arts disciplines, being well-versed in tai chi, Boxing, Kickboxing, Jeet Kune Do, Hapkido, Mixed martial arts, Taekwondo, Karate, Muay Thai, Wrestling, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Hung Ga, Sanda, Judo, Shaolin kung fu, wudangquan, Wing Chun, and Wushu.

Yen describes himself as a mixed martial artist. He learned Shaolin kung fu and wudangquan from a young age under his mother's tutelage. He then wanted to learn Taekwondo in his teenage years, earning a 6th Dan in the process. At the time, the Beijing Wushu Team had a scout in the United States and invited Yen over to Beijing, China, where he began training at the Beijing Sports Institute, the same facility where champion-turned-actor Jet Li trained; this is where the two of them crossed paths for the first time. Upon his return to the United States, Yen won gold medals in various wushu competitions.

Over the course of his life, Yen would subsequently embark on a quest to explore and acquire expertise in various other forms of martial arts disciplines; he would later obtain black and purple belts from Judo and Brazilian jiu-jitsu, respectively, and went on to study Parkour, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, and Boxing under various trainers. His exposure to the combat sport mixed martial arts (MMA) was heightened when he went back to the United States from 2000 to 2003. While making his Hollywood debut, he also took time off to learn the various martial arts forms in preparation for subsequent and future film roles. Yen's progress was evident when he returned to the East Asian film industry, where he implemented his newfound knowledge of MMA, showcased in films such as SPL: Sha Po Lang (2005), Flash Point (2007), and Special ID (2013).

Near the end of 2007, Yen added a new martial arts system to his arsenal. He was offered the role of Wing Chun grandmaster and mentor of film star Bruce Lee, Ip Man, in a 2008 film named after the grandmaster. He worked hard and studied Wing Chun under Ip Man's eldest son, Ip Chun, for 9 months before tackling the role. Ip Chun has since praised Yen for his effort, his skills as a martial artist, and his ability to grasp the full concept of Wing Chun much faster than anyone else he has taught. With the huge success of the Ip Man films both critically and commercially, Yen has been credited by many for contributing to the popularisation of Wing Chun in China.

Yen believes that combining many martial arts together will produce the most effective and harmonious style. Yen has said, "When you watch my films, you're feeling my heart." He believes in practical combat, and in his opinion, MMA is the most authentic type of practical combat.

Yen was a rebel in his youth due to the huge expectations and pressures from his parents, as his mother is the founder of the Chinese Wushu Research Institute in Boston, and his father was a scholar and a musician.

Other martial arts film stars such as Jackie Chan and Jet Li have also stated that Yen may be the best fighter in terms of practical combat in the East Asian cinematic universe.

World class fighters, such as former Strikeforce Middleweight Champion Cung Le and former World Boxing Heavyweight Champion Mike Tyson, who have worked with Donnie Yen in the films Bodyguards and Assassins and Ip Man 3, respectively, have both claimed that Yen is an incredible martial artist and would do well in authentic combat. While filming Ip Man 3, crew members were worried that Tyson, who had been a professional boxer, would accidentally injure Yen. However, it was ultimately Yen who fractured Tyson's finger while using his elbow to block Tyson's punches. Tyson insisted on finishing the scene before he was treated in hospital.

Action choreography
Yen was considered one of the premiere action choreographers in the world, having been invited by Hollywood to choreograph blockbusters such as Blade II, Highlander: Endgame, and Shanghai Knights. Throughout the East Asian cinematic universe, he remained the principal action choreographer for most of his movies and has won multiple awards for his action choreography.

Yen's most famous works include films such as Flash Point and SPL: Sha Po Lang. He has mentioned that the main differences in East Asian styles of filmmaking and Hollywood are with regards to freedom and control. In the East Asian film industry, the action choreographer takes over the scene during the fight scene. This means that for action scenes filmed in East Asia, the choreographer becomes the director and is in full control over camera placements, camera angles, and the relationship between the drama and the action; therefore the main director is not needed at all. While in Hollywood, on the other hand, Yen explains that the action choreographer simply choreographs the actions with the director, who still maintains full control of such settings and camera angles.

Yen's work as a choreographer won him the Hong Kong Film Award for Best Action Choreography at the 27th Hong Kong Film Awards and the Golden Horse Award for Best Action Choreography at the 2008 and 2011 Golden Horse Awards.

Yen was the fight choreographer for the 2010 film Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen. For this film, Yen mentioned that he included Jeet Kune Do elements as a tribute to the American actor and martial artist Bruce Lee, who played Chen Zhen in the 1972 film Fist of Fury. Furthermore, he incorporated many MMA elements in the film, coupled with the use of Wing Chun. Yen also stated that the concept behind Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do is similar to that of MMA, hence the incorporation of many forms of martial arts was a necessity in the film.

He won the Hong Kong Film Award for Best Action Choreography four times, being one of the most frequent winners of this coveted award. He has won awards for his choreography in films such as The Twins Effect, SPL: Sha Po Lang, Flash Point, and Kung Fu Jungle.

Bodybuilding and transformation for roles
Yen is renowned for his physical fitness, strength, and speed achieved through his use of a strict and disciplined fitness regime.

However, despite his muscular build, Yen has gained tremendous attention for his dedication to his roles and for the lengths to which he goes to achieve the physical build and appearance of the characters he plays. In 2007, Yen lost over 14 kg (30 pounds) to reach the weight of 54 kg (120 pounds) to better portray the slender Ip Man and the techniques of Wing Chun, which focuses on techniques and not strength. He did so through a very strict regimen of limiting himself to a plain diet consisting mainly of vegetables.

In 2010, still fresh off Ip Man 2, Yen was cast as Chen Zhen in Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen, which was originally portrayed by Bruce Lee. He had to regain his muscular physique for the role and took 6 months through a precise and dedicated diet routine. He maintained this bulk and physique while filming The Lost Bladesman, in which he plays Guan Yu, a Chinese general known for his size and spear-fighting abilities.

In 2015, Yen reduced his muscular physique yet again to reprise the role of Ip Man in Ip Man 3 and for his role as the blind warrior monk Chirrut Îmwe in Rogue One. For his role as Xiang in XXX: Return of Xander Cage opposite Vin Diesel, Yen rebuilt his physique.

Personal life
Yen met his first wife, Hong Kong advertising executive Leung Zing-ci, in 1990. The couple began dating in 1990. After three years of dating, they married secretly in the United States in November 1993. The marriage ended in less than a year. After their divorce was finalized, Leung realized that she was pregnant with their son, Jeff, who was born in 1995.

Yen later married former beauty queen Cissy Wang after three months of dating in 2003. The couple have two children, Jasmine and James.

Yen has stated that he is a big fan of the MMA organization Ultimate Fighting Championship and has watched almost every UFC event available. In various interviews, he has mentioned that he would have loved to compete in the Ultimate Fighting Championship if he did not have a recurring shoulder injury.

Philanthropic work
In 2012, Yen and his wife Cissy co-founded Go.Asia, an online charity platform encouraging people to participate in charity work and serve local communities.

In October 2014, Yen was invited to be a guest speaker in front of a crowd of 20,000 youths for WE Day Vancouver, where he spoke about the hardships he faced growing up and how he overcame difficulties to become the reigning martial arts star.

In 2015, Yen visited refugee camps in Thailand, bringing donations and gifts for the refugees. Yen is also an ambassador for the international charity Save the Children.

In December 2015, Yen established a charitable fund, Yen's Honour Protection Fund, with the purpose of empowering celebrities to use the law to defend their honor and reputation. Yen said the fund "[seeks] to assist and render help to everyone who needs it, most importantly to heal and repair the hearts and dignities which have been affected." This fund was established after Yen won a lawsuit against Geng Weiguo (AKA Tan Bing), who defamed Yen and hired netizens to threaten Yen's family.

In February 2020, in light of the coronavirus pandemic in China and the rest of the world, Yen stepped in to donate HK$1 million to frontline medical workers in Wuhan. He also produced and dedicated a short clip to thank all medical workers in China in their fight against the coronavirus; the clip was uploaded on Chinese social media site, Weibo, where Yen has over 11 million followers. He also donated a painting done by himself and his two children, to the frontline medical workers.

Politics
In 2023, Yen was appointed to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference as a representative of the "Literature and Arts" sector, replacing outgoing fellow action star Jackie Chan. He stated that he was a Chinese patriot and requested that his film roles in Hollywood must positively represent the Chinese.

Yen said of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests that "It wasn’t a protest [...] it was a riot."

title: Donnie Yen


text:
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (Single Convention, 1961 Convention, or C61) is a United Nations treaty that controls activities (cultivation, production, supply, trade, transport) of specific narcotic drugs and lays down a system of regulations (licenses, measures for treatment, research, etc.) for their medical and scientific uses; it also establishes the International Narcotics Control Board.

The Single Convention was adopted in 1961 and amended in 1972. As of 2022, the Single Convention as amended has been ratified by 186 countries. The convention has since been supplemented by the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which controls LSD, MDMA, and other psychoactive pharmaceuticals, and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances; the three conventions establish the legal framework for international drug control and the war on drugs.

Ratification
The Single Convention as amended in 1972 had been ratified or acceded to by 186 states. Only Chad remained party to the original 1961 Convention in its unamended form. The Cook Islands, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, South Sudan, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu are not parties.

Since the Single Convention is not self-executing, parties must enact legislation to carry out its provisions, and the UNODC works with countries' legislatures to ensure compliance.

History
The League of Nations adopted several drug control treaties prior to World War II, such as the International Opium Convention, and International Convention relating to Dangerous Drugs (1925) specifying uniform controls on addictive drugs such as cocaine and opium, and its derivatives. However, the lists of controlled substances were fixed in the treaties' text. Consequently, it was necessary to periodically amend or supersede the conventions with the introduction of new treaties to keep up with advances in chemistry. According to a 1954 interview with United States Commissioner of Narcotics Harry J. Anslinger, the cumbersome process of conference and state-by-state ratification could take many decades.

A Senate of Canada committee reported: "The work of consolidating the existing international drug control treaties into one instrument began in 1948, but it was 1961 before an acceptable third draft was ready." That year, the UN Economic and Social Council convened a plenipotentiary conference of 73 nations for the adoption of a single convention on narcotic drugs. That meeting was known as the United Nations Conference on Narcotic Drugs. The participating states organized themselves into five distinct caucuses: These competing interests, after more than eight weeks of negotiations, finally produced a compromise treaty. Several controls were weakened; for instance, the proposed mandatory embargoes on nations failing to comply with the treaty became recommendations. The 1953 New York Opium Protocol, which had not yet entered into force, limited opium production to seven countries; the Single Convention lifted that restriction, but instituted other regulations and put the International Narcotics Control Board in charge of monitoring their enforcement. A compromise was also struck that allowed heroin and some other drugs classified as particularly dangerous to escape absolute prohibition.
 * Organic states group: As producers of the organic raw materials for most of the global drug supply, these countries had been the traditional focus of international drug control efforts. They were open to socio-cultural drug use, having lived with it for centuries. While India, Turkey, Pakistan and Burma took the lead, the group also included the coca-producing states of Indonesia and the Andean region of South America, the opium- and cannabis-producing countries of South and Southeast Asia, and the cannabis-producing states in the Horn of Africa. They favored weak controls because existing restrictions on production and export had directly affected large segments of their domestic population and industry. They supported national control efforts based on local conditions and were wary of strong international control bodies under the UN. Although essentially powerless to fight the prohibition philosophy directly, they effectively forced a compromise by working together to dilute the treaty language with exceptions, loopholes and deferrals. They also sought development aid to compensate for losses caused by strict controls.
 * Manufacturing states group: This group included primarily Western industrialized nations, the key players being the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, West Germany, and Japan. Having no cultural affinity for organic drug use and being faced with the effects of drug abuse on their citizens, they advocated stringent controls on the production of organic raw materials and on illicit trafficking. As the principal manufacturers of synthetic psychotropics, and backed by a determined industry lobby, they forcefully opposed undue restrictions on medical research or the production and distribution of manufactured drugs. They favored strong supranational control bodies as long as they continued to exercise de facto control over such bodies. According to W.B. McAllister's Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century, their strategy was essentially to "shift as much of the regulatory burden as possible to the raw-material-producing states while retaining as much of their own freedom as possible."
 * Strict control group: These were essentially non-producing and non-manufacturing states with no direct economic stake in the drug trade. The key members were France, Sweden, Brazil, and the Republic of China. Most of the states in this group were culturally opposed to drug use and suffered from abuse problems. They favored restricting drug use to medical and scientific purposes and were willing to sacrifice a degree of national sovereignty to ensure the effectiveness of supranational control bodies. They were forced to moderate their demands to secure the widest possible agreement.
 * Weak control group: This group was led by the Soviet Union and often included its allies in Europe, Asia and Africa. They considered drug control a purely internal issue and adamantly opposed any intrusion on national sovereignty, such as independent inspections. With little interest in the drug trade and minimal domestic abuse problems, they refused to give excessive power to any supranational body, especially over internal decision-making.
 * Neutral group: This was a diverse group including most of the African countries, Central America, sub-Andean South America, Luxembourg and the Vatican. They had no strong interest in the issue apart from ensuring their own access to sufficient drug supplies. Some voted with political blocs, others were willing to trade votes, and others were truly neutral and could go either way on the control issue depending on the persuasive power of the arguments presented. In general, they supported compromise with a view to obtaining the broadest possible agreement.

The Single Convention created four Schedules of controlled substances and a process for adding new substances to the Schedules without amending the treaty. The Schedules were designed to have significantly stricter regulations than the two drug "Groups" established by predecessor treaties. For the first time, cannabis was added to the list of internationally controlled drugs. In fact, regulations on the cannabis plant – as well as the opium poppy, the coca bush, poppy straw and cannabis tops – were embedded in the text of the treaty, making it impossible to deregulate them through the normal Scheduling process. A 1962 issue of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs' Bulletin on Narcotics proudly announced that "after a definite transitional period, all non-medical use of narcotic drugs, such as opium smoking, opium eating, consumption of cannabis (hashish, marijuana) and chewing of coca leaves, will be outlawed everywhere. This is a goal which workers in international narcotics control all over the world have striven to achieve for half a century."

A 3 August 1962, Economic and Social Council resolution ordered the publication of the Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The legal commentary was written by the United Nations Secretary-General staff member Adolf Lande, the former Secretary of the Permanent Central Narcotics Board and Drug Supervisory Body, operating under a mandate to give "an interpretation of the provisions of the Convention in the light of the relevant conference proceedings and other material." The Commentary contains the Single Convention's legislative history and is an invaluable aid to interpreting the treaty.

The Single Convention entered into force on 13 December 1964, having met Article 41's requirement of 40 ratifications. As of 1 January 2005, 180 states were Parties to the treaty. Others, such as Cambodia, have committed to becoming Parties.

On 21 May 1971, the UN Economic and Social Council called a conference of plenipotentiaries to consider amendments to the Single Convention. The conference met at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 6 to 24 March 1972, producing the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The amendments entered into force on 8 August 1975.

On 11 November 1990, mechanisms for enforcing the Single Convention were expanded significantly by the entry into force of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which had been signed at Vienna on 20 December 1988. The Preamble to this treaty acknowledges the inadequacy of the Single Convention's controls to stop "steadily increasing inroads into various social groups made by illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances". The new treaty focuses on stopping organized crime by providing for international cooperation in apprehending and convicting gangsters and starving them of funds through forfeiture, asset freezing, and other methods. It also establishes a system for placing precursors to Scheduled drugs under international control. Some non-Parties to the Single Convention, such as Andorra, belong to this treaty and thus are still under the international drug control regime.

Medical and scientific purposes

The Single Convention repeatedly affirms the importance of medical use of controlled substances. The Preamble notes that "the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes". Articles 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 19, and 49 contain provisions relating to "medical and scientific" use of controlled substances. In almost all cases, parties are permitted to allow dispensation and use of controlled substances under a prescription, subject to record-keeping requirements and other restrictions.

The Single Convention unambiguously condemns "abuse of drugs", even stating that "addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind". It takes a prohibitionist approach to the problem of drug addiction, attempting to stop all uses considered "abuse" or "addiction." Article 4 requires nations to limit use and possession of drugs to medicinal and scientific purposes. Article 49 allows countries to phase out coca leaf chewing, opium smoking, and other traditional drug uses gradually, but provides that "the use of cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be discontinued as soon as possible".

The discontinuation of these prohibited uses is intended to be achieved by cutting off supply. Rather than calling on nations to prosecute drug users, the treaty focuses on traffickers and producers. As of 2013, 234 substances are controlled under the Single Convention.

Non-medical and non-scientific purposes
In the Single Convention, "other than medical and scientific purposes" are not subject to the general legal framework established in Article 4 (c), being exempt by a series of provisions referred to in article 4 (c). Some analysts suggest the "recreational use" of drugs is part of the "other than medical and scientific purposes," and therefore exempt from the measure of control of the Convention, which are limited to "medical and scientific purposes;" others analysts have, however, suggested that "other than medical and scientific purposes" does not encompass recreational use.

Malta seem to have followed article 2 paragraph 9 of the Single Convention, which allow for the use of drugs, other than medical and scientific, in the context of industry.

Penal provisions
As scholars note: "although formally binding, the penal provisions prove remarkably soft"  and, as explained in the Commentary on the Single Convention, they are "rather vague, and [admit] escape clauses for the benefit of those Governments to which even such vague norms would be unacceptable."

Article 36 requires Parties to adopt measures against "cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention," as well as "[i]ntentional participation in, conspiracy to commit and attempts to commit, any of such offences, and preparatory acts and financial operations in connexion with the offences referred to in this article", but it does not directly require criminalization of all the above; it states only in the cases of (unspecified) serious offences that they "shall be liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty."

The Article also provides for extradition of drug offenders, although a Party has a right to refuse to extradite a suspect if "competent authorities consider that the offense is not sufficiently serious." A 1972 amendment to the Article grants nations the discretion to substitute "treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration" for criminal penalties if the offender is a drug abuser. A loophole in the Single Convention is that it requires Parties to place anti-drug laws on the books, but does not clearly mandate their enforcement.

Drug enforcement varies widely between nations. Many European countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and, most famously, the Netherlands, do not prosecute all petty drug offenses. Dutch coffee shops are allowed to sell small amounts of cannabis to consumers. However, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport's report, Drugs Policy in the Netherlands, notes that large-scale "[p]roduction and trafficking are dealt with severely under the criminal law, in accordance with the UN Single Convention. Each year the Public Prosecutions Department deals with an average of 10,000 cases involving infringements of the Opium Act." Some of the most severe penalties for drug trafficking are handed down in certain Asian countries, such as Malaysia, which mandate capital punishment for offenses involving amounts over a certain threshold. Singapore mandates the death penalty for trafficking in 15 g (half an ounce) of heroin, 30 g of cocaine or 500 g of cannabis. Most nations, such as France and the United States, find a middle ground, imposing a spectrum of sanctions ranging from probation to life imprisonment for drug offenses.

The Single Convention's penal provisions frequently begin with clauses such as "Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall..." Thus, if a nation's constitution prohibited instituting the criminal penalties called for by the Single Convention, those provisions would not be binding on that country.

Possession for personal use
It is unclear whether or not the treaty requires criminalization of drug possession for personal use. The treaty's language is ambiguous, and a ruling by the International Court of Justice would probably be required to settle the matter decisively. However, several commissions have attempted to tackle the question. With the exception of the Le Dain Commission, most have found that states are allowed to legalize possession for personal use.

The Canadian Le Dain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs' 1972 report cites circumstantial evidence suggesting that states must prohibit possession for personal use:

"It has generally been assumed that 'possession' in Article 36 includes possession for use as well as possession for the purpose of trafficking. This is a reasonable inference from the terms of Article 4, which obliges the parties 'to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'. There is also Article 33, which provides that 'The Parties shall not permit the possession of drugs except under legal authority.' ... On the face of Article 26 it would not be unreasonable to argue that what is contemplated is possession for the purpose of trafficking rather than possession for use, and that the requirements of the article are satisfied if the former kind of possession is made a penal offense. The prevailing view, however, is that the word 'possession' in Article 36 includes simple possession for use."

However, LeDain himself concludes

"The costs to a significant number of individuals, the majority of whom are young people, and to society generally, of a policy of prohibition of simple possession are not justified by the potential for harm of cannabis and the additional influence which such a policy is likely to have upon perception of harm, demand and availability. We, therefore, recommend the repeal of the prohibition against the simple possession of cannabis."

The Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare's 1979 report, The Single Convention and Its Implications for Canadian Cannabis Policy, counters with circumstantial evidence to the contrary:

"The substantive argument in support of simple possession falling outside the scope of Article 36 is founded on the assumption that it is intended to insure a penal response to the problem of illicit trafficking rather than to punish drug users who do not participate in the traffic. (See United Nations, 1973:112; Noll, 1977:44–45) The Third Draft of the Single Convention, which served as the working document for the 1961 Plenipotentiary Conference, contained a paragraph identical to that which now appears as Article 36, subparagraph 1(a). This paragraph was included in a chapter entitled Measures Against Illicit Traffickers, but the format by which the Third Draft was divided into chapters was not transferred to the Single Convention, and this, apparently, is the sole reason why this chapter heading, along with all others, was deleted. (See United Nations, 1973:112) Article 36 is still located in that part of the Convention concerned with the illicit trade, sandwiched between Article 35 (Action Against the Illicit Traffic) and Article 37 (Seizure and Confiscation). In addition...the word 'use', suggesting personal consumption rather than trafficking, appears in conjunction with 'possession' in Article 4 (which pertains to non-penal 'general obligations'), but not in the penal provisions of Article 36."

The Sackville Commission of South Australia concluded in 1978 that:

"the Convention does not require signatories to make either use or possession for personal use punishable offenses ... This is because 'use' is not specifically covered by Article 36 and the term 'possession' in that Article and elsewhere can be read as confined to possession for the purpose of dealing'."

The American Shafer Commission reached a similar conclusion in 1972, finding "that the word 'possession' in Article 36 refers not to possession for personal use but to Possession as a link in illicit trafficking."

The Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare report cites the Commentary itself in backing up its interpretation:

"The official Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, as prepared by the office of the U.N. Secretary-General, adopts a permissive interpretation of possession in Article 36. It notes that whether or not the possession of drugs (including prohibited forms of cannabis) for personal use requires the imposition of penal sanctions is a question which may be answered differently in different countries. Further, the Commentary notes that parties which interpret Article 36 as requiring a punitive legal response to simple possession, may undoubtedly choose not to provide for imprisonment of persons found in such possession, but to impose only minor penalties such as fines or even censure (since possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal consumption may be held not to be a serious offense under article 36... and only a serious offense is liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty)."

The Bulletin on Narcotics attempted to tackle the question in 1977:

"Since some confusion and misunderstanding had existed in the past and some instances still persist in respect of the legal position laid down in the international treaties concerning the relationship between penal sanctions and drug abuse, some clarifying remarks are called for. These were already offered at the XIth International Congress on Penal Law. 5 They were reiterated at the Fifth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. 6 The international treaties in no way insist on harsh penal sanctions with regard to drug abuse, as is sometimes alleged by persons criticising the international drug control system; the treaties are much more subtle and flexible than sometimes interpreted.

First of all, Article 4 of the Single Convention contains the general obligations for Parties to this Convention to 'take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary, subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'. From the contents of this provision it is clear that use of drugs and their possession for personal consumption has also to be limited by legislation and administrative measures exclusively to medical and scientific purposes. Consequently, 'legalization' of drugs in the sense of making them freely available for non-medical and non-scientific purposes-as it is sometimes demanded by public mass media and even experts in discussions on the subject-is without any doubt excluded and unacceptable under the present international drug control system as established by the international treaties. The question, however, remains whether Parties are obliged by the international treaties to apply penal sanctions for unauthorized use and unauthorized possession of drugs for personal consumption. It is on this point that confusion still exists and clarification is needed.

It is a fact that 'use' (or 'personal consumption') is not enumerated amongst the punishable offences in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 36 of the Single Convention. Although, as mentioned above, Parties are required to limit the use of drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes, the Single Convention does not require them to attain the goal by providing penal sanctions for unauthorized 'use' or 'personal consumption' of drugs.

Unauthorized 'possession' of drugs is mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 36, but from the context it is clear that, as stated in the Official Commentary by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 'possession' of drugs for personal consumption is not to be considered a 'punishable offence' by a Party to the Single Convention. The whole international drug control system envisages in its penal provisions the illicit traffic in drugs; this also holds true for the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention and for the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. As there is no obligation to provide penal sanctions for 'use' in the sense of personal consumption and 'possession' of drugs for personal consumption, any criticism levelled against the international drug control system by protagonists in favour of the so-called 'liberalization' or decriminalization or 'de-penalization' of use and possession of drugs for personal consumption is quite beside the point."

Regulation of cannabis and hemp cultivation
The Single Convention places generally the same restrictions on cannabis cultivation that it does on opium cultivation, although there are cannabis-specific dispositions.

Article 23 and Article 28 require each Party to establish a government agency to control cultivation for medical and scientific purposes. Cultivators must deliver their total crop to the agency, which must purchase and take physical possession of them within four months after the end of harvest. The agency then has the exclusive right of "importing, exporting, wholesale trading and maintaining stocks other than those held by manufacturers."In the United States, the National Institute on Drug Abuse fulfills that function. NIDA administers a contract with the University of Mississippi to grow a 1.5 acre (6,000 m2) crop of cannabis every other year; that supply comprises the only licit source of cannabis for medical and research purposes in the United States. Similarly, in 2000, Prairie Plant Systems was awarded a five-year contract to grow cannabis in the Flin Flon mine for Health Canada, that nation's licit cannabis cultivation authority.

Article 28 specifically excludes the cultivation of industrial hemp from these regulations, stating:"'This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes.'"In addition, article 2(9) exempts the cannabis tops and resin obtained from hemp grown according to article 28.

Once on a path to reduction, there are now an increasing number of countries worldwide which are returning to hemp cultivation, often a traditional crop in various regions of the world, according to a report of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Drugs and preparations under control
The treaty updated the Paris Convention of 13 July 1931, to include the vast number of synthetic opioids invented in the intervening 30 years and to add a mechanism for more easily including new ones. From 1931 to 1961, most of the families of synthetic opioids had been developed, including drugs related to methadone, pethidine (meperidine/Demerol), morphinans, and dextromoramide (Palfium, Palphium, Jetrium, Dimorlin, marketed solely in the Netherlands). Research on fentanyls and piritramide (R-3365, Pirium, Dipidolor, Piridolan, among others) was also nearing fruition at that point.

Earlier treaties had only controlled opium, coca, and derivatives such as morphine, heroin, and cocaine. The Single Convention, adopted in 1961, consolidated those treaties and broadened their scope to include cannabis and other substances with effects similar to drugs already covered. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the World Health Organization were empowered to add, remove, and transfer drugs among the treaty's four schedules of controlled substances. The International Narcotics Control Board was put in overall control of drug production, international trade, and dispensation. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) was delegated the Board's daily monitoring of each country and working with national authorities to ensure compliance with the Single Convention. This treaty has since been supplemented by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which controls LSD, MDMA, and other psychoactive pharmaceuticals, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which strengthens provisions against money laundering and other drug-related offenses.

Schedules
The Single Convention's Schedules of drugs range from most restrictive to least restrictive, in this order: Schedule IV, Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III. The list of drugs initially controlled was annexed to the treaty. Article 3 states that for a drug to be placed in a Schedule, the World Health Organization must make the findings required for that Schedule, to wit:
 * Schedule I – The substance is liable to similar abuse and productive of similar ill effects as the drugs already in Schedule I or Schedule II, or is convertible into a drug.
 * Schedule II – The substance is liable to similar abuse and productive of similar ill effects as the drugs already in Schedule I or Schedule II, or is convertible into a drug.
 * Schedule III – The preparation, because of the substances which it contains, is not liable to abuse and cannot produce ill effects; and the drug therein is not readily recoverable.
 * Schedule IV – The drug, which is already in Schedule I, is particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects, and such liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages.

Schedule I
According to the Commentary, is the category of drugs whose control provisions "constitute the standard regime under the Single Convention." The principal features of that regime are:
 * Limitation to medical and scientific purposes of all phases of narcotics trade (manufacture, domestic trade, both wholesale and retail, and international trade) in, and of the possession and use of, drugs, except when these drugs are used in industry for other than medical and scientific purposes (article 2(9) );
 * Requirement of governmental authorization (licensing or state ownership) of participation in any phase of the narcotics trade and of a specific authorization (import and export authorization) of each individual international transaction;
 * Obligation of all participants in the narcotics trade to keep detailed records of their transactions in drugs;
 * Requirement of a medical prescription for the supply or dispensation of drugs to individuals;
 * A system of limiting the quantities of drugs available, by manufacture or import or both, in each country and territory, to those needed for medical and scientific purposes.

Schedule II
Drugs in Schedule II are regulated only slightly less strictly than Schedule I drugs. The Commentary confirms, "Drugs in Schedule II are subject to the same measures of control as drugs in Schedule I, with only a few exceptions":
 * The drugs are not subject to the provisions of Article 30, paragraphs 2 and 5, as regards the retail trade.
 * Governments are thus not bound to prevent the accumulation of drugs in Schedule II in the possession of retail distributors, in excess of the quantities required for the normal conduct of business.
 * Medical prescriptions for the supply or dispensation of these drugs to individuals are not obligatory.
 * Such drugs are also exempted from the provision – which in fact is no more than a suggestion – concerning the use of official prescription forms in the shape of counterfoil books issued by the competent governmental authorities or by authorized professional associations.
 * Parties to the Single Convention need not require that the label under which a drug in Schedule II is offered for sale in the retail trade show the exact content by weight or percentage.

Schedule III
Schedule III "contains preparations which enjoy a privileged position under the Single Convention, i.e. are subject to a less strict regime than other Preparations," according to the Commentary. Specifically:
 * Government authorizations are not required for each import or export of preparations in Schedule III. The import certificate and export authorization system laid down in Article 31, paragraphs 4 to 15, which governs the international transactions in drugs and their preparations, does not apply to the preparations in Schedule III.
 * The only estimates and statistical returns that a Party need furnish to the INCB in reference to Schedule III preparations are estimates of the quantities of drugs to be used for the compounding of preparations in Schedule III, and information on the amounts of drugs actually so used.

Schedule IV
This is the category of drugs, such as heroin, that are considered to have "particularly dangerous properties" in comparison to other drugs (ethanol is left unregulated).

According to Article 2, "The drugs in Schedule IV shall also be included in Schedule I and subject to all measures of control applicable to drugs in the latter Schedule" as well as whatever "special measures of control"; each Party deems necessary. This is in contrast to the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, which has five Schedules ranging from Schedule I (most restrictive) to Schedule V (least restrictive), and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which has four Schedules ranging for Schedule I (most restrictive) to Schedule IV (least restrictive).

Under certain circumstances, Parties are required to limit Schedule IV drugs to research purposes only:

"(b) A Party shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit the production, manufacture, export and import of, trade in, possession or use of any such drug except for amounts which may be necessary for medical and scientific research only, including clinical trials therewith to be conducted under or subject to the direct supervision and control of the Party."

The Commentary explains two situations in which this provision would apply:

"For a considerable period of time – and still at the time of writing – there has been no significant diversion of legally manufactured drugs from legal trade into illicit channels; but if a Government were unable to prevent such a diversion of drugs in Schedule IV, a situation would arise in which the measures of prohibition mentioned in subparagraph (b) would be 'the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare'. Whether this was or was not the case would be left to the judgement of the Party concerned whose bona fide opinion on this matter could not be challenged by any other Party.

Another situation in which measures of prohibition would be 'appropriate' for the protection of public health and welfare might exist where the members of the medical profession administered or prescribed drugs in Schedule IV in an unduly extensive way, and other less radical measures, such as warnings by public authorities, professional associations or manufacturers, were ineffective. It may however be assumed that such a situation could rarely if ever arise."

The Commentary notes that "Whether the prohibition of drugs in Schedule IV (cannabis and resin, desomorphine, heroin, ketobemidone) should be mandatory or only recommended was a controversial question at the Plenipotentiary Conference." The provision adopted represents "a compromise which leaves prohibition to the judgement, though theoretically not to the discretion, of each Party." The Parties are required to act in good faith in making this decision, or else they will be in violation of the treaty.

Cannabis and cannabis resin were present in Schedule IV from 1961 until 2 December 2020.

Limitation of scope
The Single Convention allows only drugs with morphine-like, cocaine-like, and cannabis-like effects to be added to the Schedules. The strength of the drug is not relevant; only the similarity of its effects to the substances already controlled. For instance, etorphine and acetorphine were considered sufficiently morphine-like to fall under the treaty's scope, although they are many times more potent than morphine. However, according to the Commentary:

"The Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations ruled, in an opinion given to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its twenty-third session, that barbiturates, tranquillizers and amphetamines were outside the scope of the Single Convention. It pointed out that there was an understanding at all stages of the drafting of the Single Convention, in particular at the Plenipotentiary Conference of 1961 which adopted that treaty, that the Convention was not applicable to these three types of substances, although the effects of amphetamines have some degree of similarity to cocaine, and those of barbiturates and tranquillizers to morphine."

Since cannabis is a hallucinogen (although some dispute this), the Commentary speculates that mescaline, psilocybin, tetrahydrocannabinol, and LSD could have been considered sufficiently cannabis-like to be regulated under the Single Convention; however, it opines, "It appears that the fact that the potent hallucinogenics whose abuse has spread in recent years have not been brought under international narcotics control does not result from legal reasons, but rather from the view of Governments that a regime different from that offered by the Single Convention would be more adequate." That different regime was instituted by the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The Convention on Psychotropic Drugs' scope can include any drug not already under international control if the World Health Organization finds that: The reason for sharply limiting the scope of Single Convention to a few types of drugs while letting the Convention on Psychotropic Drugs cover the rest was concern for the interests of industry. Professor Cindy Fazey's The Mechanics and Dynamics of the UN System for International Drug Control explains, "concerted efforts by drug manufacturing nations and the pharmaceutical industry ensured that the controls on psychotropics in the 1971 treaty were considerably looser than those applied to organic drugs in the Single Convention."
 * The substance has the capacity to produce "[a] state of dependence" AND "[c]entral nervous system stimulation or depression, resulting in hallucinations or disturbances in motor function or thinking or behaviour or perception or mood"; or
 * The substance has the capacity to produce similar abuse and similar ill effects as LSD or one of the other controlled substances enumerated in Convention; or
 * There is sufficient evidence that the substance is being or is likely to be abused so as to constitute a public health and social problem warranting the placing of the substance under international control.

A failed 24 March 2003 European Parliament committee report noted the disparity in how drugs are regulated under the two treaties:

"The 1971 Convention, which closely resembles the Single Convention, establishes an international control which is clearly less rigorous for the so-called 'psychotropic' substances, generally produced by the pharmaceutical industry ... The parallel existence of the Single Convention and the 1971 Convention have led to certain illogical effects such as the fact that a plant (cannabis) containing at most 3% of a principal element is dealt with more severely than the pure substance at 100% (tetrahydrocannabinol or THC)."

For this reason, the European Parliament, Transnational Radical Party, and other organizations have proposed removing cannabis and other drugs from the Single Convention and scheduling them under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

Furthermore, the provisions of the Single Convention regarding the national supply and demand of opium to make morphine contribute to the global shortage of essential poppy-based pain relief medicines. According to the convention, governments can only request raw poppy materials according to the amount of poppy-based medicines used in the two preceding years. Consequently, in countries where underprescription is chronic due to the high prices of morphine and lack of availability and medical training in the prescription of poppy-based drugs, it is impossible to demand enough raw poppy materials from the INCB, as the convention's regulating body, to meet the country's pain relief needs. As such, 77% of the world's poppy-based medicine supplies are used by only six countries (See: Fischer, B J. Rehm, and T Culbert, "Opium based medicines: a mapping of global supply, demand and needs" in Spivack D. (ed.) Feasibility Study on Opium Licensing in Afghanistan, Kabul, 2005. p. 85–86. ). Many critics of the Convention cite this as one of its primary limitations and the World Health Organization is currently attempting to increase prescription of poppy-based drugs and to help governments of emerging countries in particular alter their internal regulations to be able to demand poppy-based medicines according to the convention's provisions (see the WHO "Assuring Availability of Opioid Analgesics for Palliative Care" ). The Senlis Council, a European drug policy thinktank, proposes creating a second-tier supply system that would complement the existing system without altering the balance of its relatively closed supply and demand system. The council, who support licensing poppy cultivation in Afghanistan to create Afghan morphine, believe the opium supply in this country could go a long way to easing the pain relief needs of sufferers in emerging countries by producing a cheap poppy-based medicine solution (see [The Senlis Council]: "Poppy for Medicine").

Rescheduling of cannabis
There has long been a controversy over whether cannabis is "particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects" and whether that "liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages", as required by Schedule IV criteria. Already in 1973, the Commentary on the Single Convention edited by UN Secretary-General pointed out that "should the results of the intensive research which is at the time of this writing being undertaken on the effects of [cannabis and cannabis resin] so warrant, they could be deleted from Schedule IV, and these two drugs, as well as extracts and tinctures of cannabis, could be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II." Since the discovery of the endocannabinoid receptor system in the late 1980s, which revolutionized the scientific understanding of the psychopharmacological effects of cannabis, and the important progresses in research related to the medical uses of the plant, questions as to the validity of the placement of cannabis and cannabis resin in Schedule IV increased.

In 1991, delta-9-THC was down-scheduled from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971. After numerous discussions at the World Health Organization in the 2000s and 2010s, on 2 December 2020, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs adopted Decision 63/17 withdrawing "cannabis and cannabis resin" from Schedule IV of the Single Convention. The vote was based on recommendations issued by the World Health Organization in 2019 on the basis of scientific evidence-based reviews. The decision entered into force in April 2021.

Drugs and substances scheduled in other treaties
Cannabinoids (natural and synthetic) and opioids (synthetic and semisynthetic) are scheduled by Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

Natural cannabinols (synthetic cannabinoids omitted):
 * tetrahydrocannabinol, the following isomers and their stereochemical variants:
 * 7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 * (9R,10aR)-8,9,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 * (6aR,9R,10aR)-6a,9,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 * (6aR,10aR)-6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 * 6a,7,8,9-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 * (6aR,10aR)-6a,7,8,9,10,10a-hexahydro-6,6-dimethyl-9-methylene-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 * delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol – (6aR,10aR)-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol, and its stereochemical variants (dronabinol is the international non-proprietary name, although it refers to only one of the stereochemical variants of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, namely (−)-trans-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol)

Semisynthetic agonist–antagonist opioids:
 * buprenorphine

Synthetic agonist-antagonist opioids – benzomorphans:
 * pentazocine

Synthetic open chain opioids having also stimulant effects:
 * lefetamine

Opioids not scheduled
Some opioids currently or formerly used in medicine are not scheduled by UN conventions, for example:
 * tramadol
 * tapentadol
 * nalbuphine (agonist-antagonist opioid)
 * butorphanol (agonist-antagonist opioid)

There are of course many opioid designer drugs, not used in medicine.

Governance
The Single Convention gives the UN Economic and Social Council's Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) power to add or delete drugs from the Schedules, in accordance with the World Health Organization's findings and recommendations. Any Party to the treaty may request an amendment to the Schedules, or request a review of the commission's decision. The Economic and Social Council is the only body that has power to confirm, alter, or reverse the CND's scheduling decisions. The United Nations General Assembly can approve or modify any CND decision, except for scheduling decisions.

The CND's annual meeting serves as a forum for nations to debate drug policy. At the 2005 meeting, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and Iran rallied in opposition to the UN's zero-tolerance approach in international drug policy. Their appeal was vetoed by the United States, while the United Kingdom delegation remained reticent. Meanwhile, U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters clashed with United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa on the issue of needle exchange programs. Walters advocated strict prohibition, while Costa opined, "We must not deny these addicts any genuine opportunities to remain HIV-negative."

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is mandated by Article 9 of the Single Convention to "endeavour to limit the cultivation, production, manufacture and use of drugs to an adequate amount required for medical and scientific purposes, to ensure their availability for such purposes and to prevent illicit cultivation, production and manufacture of, and illicit trafficking in and use of, drugs." The INCB administers the estimate system, which limits each nation's annual production of controlled substances to the estimated amounts needed for medical and scientific purposes.

Article 21 provides that "the total of the quantities of each drug manufactured and imported by any country or territory in any one year shall not exceed the sum of" the quantity:
 * Consumed, within the limit of the relevant estimate, for medical and scientific purposes;
 * Used, within the limit of the relevant estimate, for the manufacture of other drugs, of preparations in Schedule Ill, and of substances not covered by this convention;
 * Exported;
 * Added to the stock for the purpose of bringing that stock up to the level specified in the relevant estimate; and
 * Acquired within the limit of the relevant estimate for special purposes.

Article 21 bis, added to the treaty by a 1971 amendment, gives the INCB more enforcement power by allowing it to deduct from a nation's production quota of cannabis, opium, and coca the amounts it determines have been produced within that nation and introduced into the illicit traffic. This could happen as a result of failing to control either illicit production or diversion of licitly produced opium to illicit purposes. In this way, the INCB can essentially punish a narcotics-exporting nation that does not control its illicit traffic by imposing an economic sanction on its medicinal narcotics industry.

The Single Convention exerts power even over those nations that have not ratified it. The International Narcotics Board states:

"The fact that the system generally works well is mainly due to the estimates system that covers all countries whether or not parties to the Convention. Countries are under an obligation not to exceed the amounts of the estimates confirmed or established by the INCB."

Article 14 authorizes the INCB to recommend an embargo on imports and exports of drugs from any noncompliant nations. The INCB can also issue reports critical of noncompliant nations, and forward those reports to all Parties. This happened when the United Kingdom reclassified cannabis from Class B to class C, eliminating the threat of arrest for possession. See Cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom.

The most controversial decisions of the INCB are those in which it assumes the power to interpret the Single Convention. Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Spain continue to experiment with medically supervised injection rooms, despite the INCB's objections that the Single Convention's allowance of "scientific purposes" is limited to clinical trials of pharmaceutical grade drugs and not public health interventions. These European nations have more leverage to disregard the Board's decisions because they are not dependent on licit psychoactive drug exports (which are regulated by the Board). As international lawyer Bill Bush notes, "Because of the Tasmanian opium poppy industry, Australia is more vulnerable to political pressure than, say, Germany."

The INCB is an outspoken opponent of drug legalization. Its 2002 report rejects a common argument for drug reform, stating, "Persons in favour of legalizing illicit drug use argue that drug abusers should not have their basic rights violated; however, it does not seem to have occurred to those persons that drug abusers themselves violate the basic rights of their own family members and society." The report dismisses concerns that drug control conflicts with principles of limited government and self-determination, arguing, "States have a moral and legal responsibility to protect drug abusers from further self-destruction." The report takes a majoritarian view of the situation, declaring, "Governments must respect the view of the majority of lawful citizens; and those citizens are against illicit drug use."

Article 48 designates the International Court of Justice as the arbiter of disputes about the interpretation or application of the Single Convention, if mediation, negotiation, and other forms of alternative dispute resolution fail.

Previous treaties
Article 44 provided that the Single Convention's entry into force terminated several predecessor treaties, including:
 * The International Opium Convention, signed at The Hague on 23 January 1912;
 * The Agreement concerning the Manufacture of, Internal Trade in and Use of Prepared Opium, signed at Geneva on 11 February 1925;
 * The International Opium Convention, signed at Geneva on 19 February 1925;
 * The Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs, signed at Geneva on 13 July 1931;
 * The Agreement for the Control of Opium Smoking in the Far East, signed at Bangkok on 27 November 1931;
 * The Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs, signed at Geneva on 26 June 1936;
 * The Protocol Amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs concluded at The Hague on 23 January 1912, at Geneva on 11 February 1925 and 19 February 1925, and 13 July 1931, at Bangkok on 27 November 1931 and at Geneva on 26 June 1936 (except as it affected the latter), signed at Lake Success on 11 December 1946;
 * The Protocol Bringing under International Control Drugs outside the Scope of the Convention of 13 July 1931 for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs, signed at Paris on 19 November 1948; and
 * The Protocol for Limiting and Regulating the Cultivation of the Poppy Plant, the Production of, International and Wholesale Trade in, and Use of Opium, signed at New York on 23 June 1953.

Complementary treaties
The Single Convention is supplemented by two other major drug control treaties:
 * The Convention on Psychotropic Substances controls LSD, MDMA, and other drugs whose unique psychoactive effects exclude them from the scope of the Single Convention. It was signed at Vienna on 21 February 1971.
 * The United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances adds additional enforcement mechanisms for fighting drug traffickers, including asset forfeiture provisions. The convention also establishes a system of drug precursor regulation, dividing them into two tables of listed chemicals. It was signed at Vienna on 20 December 1988.

Other treaties referring to the Single Convention

 * United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
 * Convention on the Rights of the Child,
 * Regional legal instruments, such as European Union regulations, sometimes refer to the Single Convention.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs