Abstract: The centenary of the international prohibition of cannabis and its related cultural practices offers an opportunity to address a long-standing blind spot in global cultural policy. In 1961, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs’s Article 49 codified the eradication of traditional, non-medical uses of cannabis worldwide — disregarding their documented historical presence and silencing communities whose cultural expressions were never institutionally recognised nor safeguarded. Since 2003, the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage has shifted the normative framework. And socio-cultural groups associated with cannabis have managed to maintain their living cultural traditions, despite stigma and repression. This Technical Paper calls for a reconsideration of international obligations and commitments related to cannabis and cultural rights, including the right to maintain, transmit, and develop one’s cultural heritage. It invites relevant institutions to foster enabling environments for the community-based safeguarding of cannabis-related living heritage, and to acknowledge the impact of stigma, criminalisation, and exclusion on the cultural vitality and intergenerational transmission of knowledge. Recognising cannabis cultures as part of the diversity of cultural expressions is essential to the promotion of inclusive, rights-based, and peace-oriented cultural policies in the 21st century.

All our articles on Mondiacult –– Our UNESCO info portal

Introduction

Cannabis is a plant with deeply-rooted historical, environmental, and cultural ties to all continents.1 The Single Convention on narcotic drugs, 1961, created an unprecedented (and so far unmatched) legal obligation to “abolish” and “discontinue as soon as possible” its traditional uses and cultural practices globally.

The Single Convention’s Article 49 mandates the following for “the use of cannabis, cannabis resin, extracts and tinctures of cannabis for non-medical purposes; and the production and manufacture of and trade in” cannabis, when they were “traditional … and … permitted on 1 January 1961”: 

“(f) The use of cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be discontinued as soon as possible but in any case within twenty-five years from the coming into force of this Convention as provided in paragraph 1 of article 41; 

(g) The production and manufacture … and trade … for any of the uses mentioned therein must be reduced and finally abolished simultaneously with the reduction and abolition of such uses.”2

In another provision, Article 2(9), the Single Convention creates a set of legal regulations — not limited in time — applying to “drugs which are commonly used in industry for other than medical or scientific purposes”.3

The Convention bans traditional use of drugs for “other than medical or scientific purposes” that existed prior to 1961. However, it allows the “industry” from any point on to enjoy the same drugs for “other than medical or scientific purposes”.

The fundamental discrimination enshrined in this Article 49 is not only a gross violation of international human rights law. It is also a testament to the existence of traditional uses of “cannabis, cannabis resin, extracts and tinctures of cannabis” globally before 1961 — the proceedings of the 1961 diplomatic conference, and decades of discussion prior to that, are supporting information. More importantly, it is a benchmark to assess the evolution and vitality of the rich and diverse cultures associated with cannabis globally, and to design appropriate safeguarding strategies that take into account the complex nature of the threats to the cultural heritages associated with cannabis communities that can be entailed by such discriminative international legal provisions.

Importantly, Article 49 should be understood within its historical context: in 1961, no institutional mechanism existed to document, protect, or safeguard living cultural traditions. It would take more than a decade before the international community adopted the 1972 World Heritage Convention, but it focused primarily on tangible elements. Only with the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage did States begin to formally structure the recognition and safeguarding of living traditions through binding, community-based frameworks. Today, these mechanisms balance the scope and challenge the legitimacy of Article 49.

War on Drugs: A War on Cultures 

The 1961 Convention replaced nine previous international drug control instruments (see Article 44: “Termination of previous international treaties”) among which was the International Opium Convention, signed at Geneva on 19 February 1925 — a century ago.

The 1925 International Opium Convention was the first international legal instrument to include measures related to Cannabis — a plant associated with many human cultures across continents, through rich and diverse socio-cultural and environmental interactions. The 1925 Opium Convention controlled the medicines derived from Cannabis, namely its extract and tincture. The monitoring of medication (termed “drug control” in the 1920s) was the core raison d’être of the International Opium Convention with respect to Cannabis. Legal provisions monitored international trade and included basic measures to respect the sovereignty of other countries’ trade dispositions regarding Cannabis medication.4

Between 1925 and 1961, something happened that turned the monitoring of cannabis medicines into an abolition “as soon as possible” of its traditional and non-medical uses. Controlling medicines has no links with suppressing other uses. Chilli pepper is used pharmaceutically; its resin is controlled under the Chemical Weapons Convention,5 yet people are allowed to grow it on their balcony, culinary cultures around the plant have not been repressed, and the traditional knowledge holders of the plant have not been jailed and replaced by licit “industry” standards and licences. Traditional chilli pepper growers and modern industrial weapons manufacturing companies growing chilli pepper can coexist. 

Cannabis could also. But not with the international legal provisions that have refrained it from happening since 1961.

Sixty-four years after the Single Convention, a century after the Opium Convention, neither cannabis nor its uses have been eradicated. To the contrary, its traditions and its socio-cultural heritage have not only survived prohibition, repression, and stigmatisation, but they managed to adapt, to reinvent themselves, to evolve, to revitalise.

Cultures of Resilience & Tolerance

International human rights instruments —including article 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 5(e)(vi) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)— affirm the right of all individuals, without discrimination, to equally take part in cultural life and to freely take part in the process of deciding which cultural practices to continue or not. 

The Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights, in its Article 5(b) on access & participation in cultural life, affirms that the right to access and participate freely in cultural life includes:

“The freedom to exercise … one’s own cultural practices and to follow a way of life associated with the promotion of one’s cultural resources …”

But also: 

“The right to the protection of the moral and material interests linked to the works that result from one’s cultural activity.”

These principles are reaffirmed in specific contexts by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in Article 5 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in Article 26 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas.

For communities whose traditions involve cannabis, the fulfilment of these rights has frequently been obstructed by restrictive legal environments and enduring stigma.

Prohibition has reinforced stigma and social exclusion for individuals and communities associated with cannabis-related practices. Penal measures have rendered cultural artefacts and expressions legally suspect, and turned the representative objects and shared practices of entire groups into mere evidence of crimes. This has constrained the ability of individuals and communities to maintain, celebrate, or develop their heritage without fear of legal repercussion.6

Many cannabis-related traditions rely on oral transmission and lived experience. This is singularly the case for cannabis-related traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions of a number of Indigenous peoples and local communities working with cannabis. Criminalisation has displaced these traditions further underground, thereby at times interrupting the intergenerational transfer of knowledge. 

There are also a number of examples of cannabis policy reforms in jurisdictions which did not contemplate local Indigenous knowledge systems, customary norms, and failed to be co-constructed with key affected populations, resulting in the further marginalisation of legacy cannabis communities and the replacement of legitimate cannabis cultures with commercially-driven alternatives. A significant threat associated is the mercantile exploitation of cannabis plant varieties and the agro-ecological and medical knowledge and cultures associated (biopiracy), both under prohibition and unfair regulatory models. The licit “industry” commercialisation of cannabis —particularly in wellness and pharmaceutical sectors— has often drawn on the traditional medical or agronomic knowledge of cannabis farmers, or the genetic resources (seeds), without ethical access and equitable benefit-sharing (despite international legal agreements requiring it in some countries, such as the Nagoya Protocol).7 

Paradoxically, prohibition also contributed to the living and evolving nature of cannabis cultures: at the same time constrained by repressive policies, cannabis-related cultural practices have also adapted and evolved to increase self-protection. Particularly salient examples include the rise of homegrowing, as well as the movement of small-scale, non-profit-oriented, and community-managed supply systems (like the “cannabis social clubs”).8 Such evolutions of the supply patterns in cannabis communities have also resulted in notable socio-economic and health-related improvements for people who use cannabis: distancing from transnational organised criminal suppliers & reducing exposure to violence; sidelining intermediaries; and through a facilitated oversight of consumers over the plants grown, favouring organic methods of cultivation, analysis of harvested cannabis, and other harm reduction and quality improvement practices and know-hows.

In being pushed to the margins, cannabis cultures met “underground” cultures, which mutually-enriched. In fleeing repression in their countries, cannabis cultural practitioners met foreign cannabis communities, and mutually-enriched.9

Recommendations

The centenary of the prohibition of cannabis-related uses and practices in 2025 represents a crucial opportunity: that of moving beyond decades marked by cultural degradation and sidelining, to initiate a new cycle based on the recognition of the practices and communities that steward this heritage, and that are engaged with the conservation of biodiversity, the promotion of rights and tolerance, and with peace.

As we meet with joint commitments to rethink and strengthen cultural policies as a “Culture for Peace” in ways that acknowledge historical injustices, reaffirm the dignity of all people and communities, and restore the legitimacy of marginalised traditions… let’s not forget Cannabis — hemp, mariguana, भांग–bhang, dagga, ganja, konopi, 麻–ma, pot, ntsangu, haschish, riamba, قنب–quinnab, siddhi, kif, cáñamo, mambe, 大麻–taima, chanvre, sedenegi.

UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions:

“Article 2 – Guiding principles

3. Principle of equal dignity of and respect for all cultures 

The protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions presuppose the recognition of equal dignity of and respect for all cultures, including the cultures of persons belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples.”

Efforts to document, characterise, revitalise, and safeguard the vulnerable cultural expressions of local communities connected to cannabis —within the framework of sustainable development10— can play a constructive role in fostering global understanding and social cohesion. But in order to do so, it is essential to establish enabling environments at the regional level to initiate participatory safeguarding processes. These must strengthen the self-determination of communities without the distortions of stigma, discrimination, or criminalisation.

The following recommended action, stemming from the elements outlined in this Technical Paper, could be meaningful steps to take at or following the MONDIACULT 2025 Conference:

1. Acknowledge the policy crisis affecting the full enjoyment of the cultural rights of people part of cannabis-related communities, and putting at risk their cultural heritage.
2. Address the interactions between Article 49 of the Single Convention on narcotic drugs, 1961, and other international legal provisions, particularly in the UDHR, the two human rights covenants, and the ICERD. 
3. Consider supporting existing or future community-led initiatives concerned with the identification, documentation, and safeguarding of cultural elements associated with cannabis and cannabis-related communities.

Cannabis cultures are a vibrant, resilient multiplicity of local —but interconnected— living heritage. But many of these cultures continue to be confronted with substantial threats, after a century of prohibition and stigma. By addressing this crisis, and promoting policies that foster a culture for peace rather than a war on drugs, our societies can play a substantial role in a more tolerant and sustainable future.

Notes

1. The uses of the Cannabis sativa L. plant are millennia-old and form part of diverse cultures across the globe. Since the Neolithic period in Eurasia and the Mediterranean, for millenia in Africa, and various centuries in America and the Pacific region, across territories and historical periods, social groups have recognised and valued the multiple properties and functions of this botanical species, originally native to Central Asia. Monospecific (“indica” and “sativa” or “hemp” and “marijuana” are the same plant), the fibres of Cannabis have been utilised for countless purposes; its cellulose for paper production; its fruits and seeds, roots, stems, leaves, and tops have been employed for food, medicinal, ritual, sacramental, social, and hedonistic purposes. More recently, the plant is being recognised for its potential in new applications: environmental phytoremediation, biofuel production, and bioconstruction. On diffusion patterns in Eurasia see Long et al., 2017; McPartland & Hegman, 2018; McPartland, Guy, & Hegman, 2018; in Africa and America see du Toit, 1976; Duvall, 2019b.
2. See United Nations, 2013. See also Bruun, Pan, and Rexed, 1975.
3. See United Nations, 1973; Riboulet-Zemouli, 2022.
4. Bruun, Pan, and Rexed, 1975; Collins, 2020; Kozma, 2011; Mills, 2007; Riboulet-Zemouli, 2025; Stensrud, 2022.
5. See OPCW Scientific Advisory Board, 2017, p. 5; Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 2020, p. 4; Timperley et al., 2018
6. See for example Martínez Oró, 2015; Clarke et al, 2021; Pardal, 2023.
7. See Duvall, 2019a; .
8. See Pardal, 2023; ENCOD, 2011.
9. See Duff, 2013; ENCOD, 2020; Clarke et al., 2021.
10. See Riboulet-Zemouli, 2021 for a set of specific cannabis policy recommendations aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 2016 UNGA Special Session on drug policy’s political outcome document.

To read the bibliography and annexes, please see the full PDF version of the Technical Paper.