Why is the Cannabis Control Law a mess?
The strict regulation of cannabis in Japan began during the post-World War II period, under the occupation by the GHQ (General Headquarters) forces. In Japan, hemp had traditionally been used as a fiber material, and its seeds had been consumed as food since ancient times. Therefore, the orders from the occupying forces to completely ban cannabis cultivation seemed incomprehensible to the politicians and bureaucrats of that time, as they didn’t grasp its significance.
＜One＞
Lately, there’s been quite a buzz in the media about marijuana, also known as cannabis. Recently, the arrest of a black drummer who had just arrived in town caused quite a stir due to his involvement with this drug. It’s said that jazz musicians enjoy using it because it induces a kind of euphoric state. While it’s claimed to have different effects from opium or heroin, it seems that most narcotics from the Middle East fall into this category. There’s a famous tale about a kingdom of assassins (often referred to as the Assassins’ Fortress or the Mountain Old Man’s Fortress) in the mountainous regions of Iran during the 11th and 12th centuries. It’s said they used a drug called hashish to tempt young men, turning them into assassins who struck fear into neighboring countries. The drug they used seems to have been of this type as well. On a side note, the word “assassination” in English is purportedly derived from “hashish.”
＜Two＞
Putting that aside, the narcotic effects of this marijuana cigarette supposedly come from a component called cannabinol, and its raw material is the cannabis plant (Cannabis sativa, indica, or ruderalis). In our country, cannabis has been cultivated since before the war for extracting hemp fibers, and it seems that at least in general, it was not known to be used as a drug. Therefore, after the war, when our country was under occupation, and the occupying authorities instructed us to create laws to restrict cannabis cultivation, we honestly felt a bit strange about it. Their reasoning was that black soldiers and others preferred drugs made from cannabis. But we even wondered if there was some mistake. We joked that perhaps because “麻” (má) in cannabis and “麻” (má) in narcotics happened to be the same character, there might have been a mix-up. Not only did we amateurs think this way, but officials from the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare also seemed somewhat skeptical about the necessity of it, as they pointed out that domestically grown cannabis, unlike the Indian hemp that had traditionally been internationally recognized as a narcotic plant, had a different toxicity. Naturally, farmers who had been cultivating cannabis opposed it vehemently. However, because this was during the occupation, such doubts and opposition were unlikely to be considered, and thus, the “Cannabis Control Regulations” were first enacted as a Potsdam directive in 1947, followed by the enactment and promulgation of the Cannabis Control Law as a law passed by the Diet in 1948. According to this law, anyone cultivating cannabis for the purpose of harvesting fibers or seeds, or anyone using such cannabis, had to obtain a license from the prefectural governor, and the use or administration of drugs made from cannabis was also restricted.
＜Three＞
Because of these circumstances, after the peace treaty came into effect and the occupation ended, from 1952 to 1954, when there was a large-scale review of occupation legislation and administrative affairs simplification, the abolition of this Cannabis Control Law (or at least the abolition of the license system for cultivating cannabis) was given considerable priority. At that time, officials from the Legislative Bureau, where I worked, were actively promoting this. The authorities of the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare also acknowledged the possibility of streamlining, as mentioned earlier, because domestically grown cannabis had less narcotic content. However, since there was hesitation about making the final decision, we didn’t push further, and the abolition of this law was postponed. If, at that time, we had proceeded with the legislative reform, we might have faced criticism from the public health authorities for abolishing necessary laws in the face of the recent proliferation of cannabis-related narcotics issues. This, in turn, would have led us to feel responsible for the ensuing debacle. Looking at these points, it becomes evident that legislative and administrative reforms are quite challenging endeavors. Even the recent recommendation from the ad hoc administrative investigation committee, which includes a content concerning administrative and legislative reforms, acknowledges the need for careful research and consideration rather than rash decisions based on temporary thoughts. Otherwise, we might risk situations like the one with the Cannabis Control Law. This is not to criticize the recommendation of the ad hoc administrative investigation committee but rather my humble opinion.
＜Four＞
By the way, until now, there have been several conventions concurrently governing the international control of narcotics, and the regulations have been overlapping and confusing. However, to unify and organize these, the “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961” was established, which came into effect on December 12th last year (for an explanation of this convention, see Issue 525 of this journal). Our country also ratified this convention, receiving approval from the 46th session of the Diet last year. However, this Single Convention introduces new provisions regarding cannabis in Article 28, which were not present in previous international agreements. It requires that contracting parties, when permitting the cultivation of cannabis plants for the production of cannabis or cannabis resin, apply a control system similar to that stipulated in this convention for the control of opium (Article 28.1). Therefore, after the enactment of this convention, questions have arisen in our country as to whether merely enforcing laws like the existing Cannabis Control Law would suffice or whether stricter controls, similar to those enforced under the Opium Law, would be required for cannabis cultivation, to avoid violating the convention. Compared to the time when the Cannabis Control Law was targeted for legislative reform, this represents a complete 180-degree shift. Concerning the relationship between the Single Convention and the Cannabis Control Law, when the Single Convention was being presented to the Diet last year, I was somewhat concerned. So, I asked the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare to conduct various studies. Article 28 of the Convention specifies that after the aforementioned provisions, the Convention does not apply to the cultivation of cannabis plants solely for industrial purposes (limited to fibers or seeds). Currently in our country, most of the cannabis cultivation licenses are issued for the purpose of harvesting fibers or seeds, so there is no problem because the application of the convention is excluded by this provision. Although there are a few individuals who have obtained licenses for cultivating cannabis for research purposes, they are only a small number, around a dozen or so, and the amount they cultivate is extremely small. Furthermore, since the Cannabis Control Law prohibits cannabis researchers from transferring cannabis to others, it was deemed unnecessary to amend this law. Therefore, we decided to postpone the amendment. A law that was once on the verge of abolition is now being considered for reinforcement, truly reflecting the changing nature of the world. Nevertheless, when looking at recent newspapers, it seems that cannabis cultivated for the purpose of harvesting fibers or seeds in places like Aomori Prefecture is finding its way to US military bases, among other places. If such situations escalate, there may be talks of amending the law. (Former Director-General of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau)
When Japanese government officials were ordered by the occupying forces to strictly regulate marijuana, they laughed, thinking it must have been some kind of mistake.
Fast forward about 80 years, and here we are. Today in Japan, going against the global tide, those laws are rigorously enforced. People are being criminally punished for actions that haven’t harmed or inconvenienced anyone, and many end up behind bars. The reality is no longer a laughing matter.