OPPOSITION

UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs/Abuse

THBT legalization of medical marijuana should be allowed in the Philippines. But we on the opposition
side strongly opposed this motion. If the Government of the Philippines will be the one to carry out the
production, procurement, and supply of Marijuana, this will go against our international obligation. And
perhaps the strongest argument against this is that the Philippines is a signatory of the United Nations
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which effectively prohibits a state, among other things, from
procuring, producing, supplying, manufacturing, importation and exportation of drugs. Likewise, on the
Resolution III adopted by the UN to consider amendments to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,
1961 recommends that a state party shall (1) bear in mind that drug addiction is often the result of an
unwholesome social atmosphere in which those who are most exposed to the danger of drug abuse live;
(2) should do everything in their power to combat the spread of the illicit use of drugs; (3) should
develop leisure and other activities conducive to the sound physical and psychological health of young
people.

The intent of the law is very clear. Article 36 of the convention states that each party shall adopt
measure as will ensure that cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession,
offering, distribution, purchase, sale, brokerage, dispatch, transport, importation and exportation, or
other words of similar import shall be penalized when committed intentionally. In other words, if the
government wants to legalize marijuana in our country, we would have first to renege and break one
international commitment duly contracted by our state. And that is not very practical to begin with. We
would then expose ourselves to international ridicule and embarrassment.

Also, we cannot take the promise of the government side that such implementation on the use of
marijuana for medical purposes is likely to succeed, without any hindrance or controversy. For one
thing, it is open to abuse and exploitation. If this would happen, it is as if we are giving license to permit
someone to circumvent the law, under the guise of a colorable legislation. What cannot be legally done
directly, cannot be done indirectly. This rule is basic and, to a reasonable mind, does not need
explanation. Indeed, if acts that cannot be legally done directly can be done indirectly, then all laws
would be illusory.

Now, given the stance of our present government to eradicate illegal drugs in the whole country, it is
very doubtful move to propose an exception to this stance for there is no safeguard or guarantee that
such implementation would not falter. To legislate such legalization, it must be exercised with deliberate
care and prudence; execution of the laws, on the other hand, requires the whole machinery of people to
carry out effectively the mandate of the law. To simplify the matter, the problem is both legislation and
execution. As long as the government cannot give us any satisfying reasons and substantiation on
matters pertaining not only on legislation, but also on execution, all of their arguments would not hold.

With all the arguments presented, we win this debate.