The Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 is a United Nations treaty designed to control psychoactive drugs such as amphetamine-type stimulants, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and psychedelics signed in Vienna, Austria on 21 February 1971. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 did not ban the many newly discovered psychotropics, since its scope was limited to drugs with cannabis, coca and opium-like effects.

During the 1960s such drugs became widely available, and government authorities opposed this for numerous reasons, arguing that along with negative health effects, drug use led to lowered moral standards. The Convention, which contains import and export restrictions and other rules aimed at limiting drug use to scientific and medical purposes, came into force on 16 August 1976. As of 2013, 183 member states are Parties to the treaty. Many laws have been passed to implement the Convention, including the Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the U.S. Psychotropic Substances Act. Adolf Lande, under the direction of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, prepared the Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The Commentary, published in 1976, is an invaluable aid to interpreting the treaty and constitutes a key part of its legislative history.

Provisions to end the international trafficking of drugs covered by this Convention are contained in the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This treaty, signed in 1988, regulates precursor chemicals to drugs controlled by the Single Convention and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. It also strengthens provisions against money laundering and other drug-related crimes.

History

International drug control began with the 1912 International Opium Convention, a treaty which adopted import and export restrictions on the opium poppy's psychoactive derivatives. Over the next half-century, several additional treaties were adopted under League of Nations auspices, gradually expanding the list of controlled substances to encompass cocaine and other drugs and granting the Permanent Central Opium Board power to monitor compliance. After the United Nations was formed in 1945, those enforcement functions passed to the UN.

In 1961, a conference of plenipotentiaries in New York adopted the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which consolidated the existing drug control treaties into one document and added cannabis to the list of prohibited plants. In order to appease the pharmaceutical interests, the Single Convention's scope was sharply limited to the list of drugs enumerated in the Schedules annexed to the treaty and to those drugs determined to have similar effects.

During the 1960s, drug use increased in Western developed nations. Young people began using hallucinogenic, stimulant, and other drugs on a widespread scale that has continued to the present. In many jurisdictions, police had no laws under which to prosecute users and traffickers of these new drugs; LSD, for instance, was not prohibited federally in the U.S. until 1967.

In 1968, "[d]eeply concerned at reports of serious damage to health being caused by LSD and similar hallucinogenic substances", the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) passed a resolution calling on nations to limit the use of such drugs to scientific and medical purposes and to impose import and export restrictions. Later that year, the UN General Assembly requested that ECOSOC call upon its Commission on Narcotic Drugs to "give urgent attention to the problem of the abuse of the psychotropic substances not yet under international control, including the possibility of placing such substances under international control".

Circa 1969, with use of stimulants growing, ECOSOC noted with considerable consternation that the Commission "was unable to reach agreement on the applicability of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 to these substances". The language of the Single Convention and its legislative history precluded any interpretation that would allow international regulation of these drugs under that treaty. A new convention, with a broader scope, would be required in order to bring those substances under control. Using the Single Convention as a template, the Commission prepared a draft convention which was forwarded to all UN member states. The Secretary-General of the United Nations scheduled a conference for early 1971 to finalize the treaty.

Meanwhile, countries had already begun passing legislation to implement the draft treaty. In 1969, Canada added Part IV to its Food and Drugs Act, placing a set of "restricted substances", including LSD, DMT, and MDA, under federal control. In 1970, the United States completely revamped its existing drug control laws by enacting the Controlled Substances Act (amended in 1978 by the Psychotropic Substances Act, which allows the U.S. drug control Schedules to be updated as needed to comply with the Convention). In 1971, the United Kingdom passed the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. A host of other nations followed suit. A common feature shared by most implementing legislation is the establishment of several classes or Schedules of controlled substances, similarly to the Single Convention and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, so that compliance with international law can be assured simply by placing a drug into the appropriate Schedule.

The conference convened on 11 January 1971. Nations split into two rival factions, based on their interests. According to a Senate of Canada report, "One group included mostly developed nations with powerful pharmaceutical industries and active psychotropics markets ... The other group consisted of developing states ... with few psychotropic manufacturing facilities". The organic drug-making states that had suffered economically from the Single Convention's restrictions on cannabis, coca, and opium fought for tough regulations on synthetic drugs. The synthetic drug-producing states opposed those restrictions. Ultimately, the developing states' lobbying power was no match for the powerful pharmaceutical industry's, and the international regulations that emerged at the conference's close on 21 February were considerably weaker than those of the Single Convention.

The Convention's adoption marked a major milestone in the development of the global drug control regime. Over 59 years, the system had evolved from a set of loose controls focused on a single drug into a comprehensive regulatory framework capable of encompassing almost any mind-altering substance imaginable. According to Rufus King, "It covers such a grab-bag of natural and manufactured items that at every stage of its consideration its proponents felt obliged to stress anew that it would not affect alcohol or tobacco abuse."

Member states
As of February 2018, there are 184 state parties to the convention. This total includes 182 member states of the United Nations, the Holy See and the State of Palestine. The 11 UN member states that are not party to the convention are East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Samoa, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Liberia has signed the treaty but has not ratified it.

Schedules of Controlled Substances
The list of Schedules and the substances presently therein can be found on the International Narcotics Control Board's website.

The Convention has four Schedules of controlled substances, ranging from Schedule I (most restrictive) to Schedule IV (least restrictive). A list of psychotropic substances, and their corresponding Schedules, was annexed to the 1971 treaty. The text of the Convention does not contain a formal description of the features of the substances fitting in each Schedule, in contrast to the US Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which gave specific criteria for each Schedule in the US system. The amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS), a legal class of stimulants – not all of which are substituted amphetamines – were defined in the 1971 treaty and in subsequent revisions. A 2002 European Parliament report and a 1996 UNODC report on ATS describe the international Schedules as listed below.
 Schedule I includes drugs claimed to create a serious risk to public health, whose therapeutic value is not currently acknowledged by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. It includes isomers of THC, synthetic psychedelics such as LSD, and natural psychedelics like certain substituted tryptamines. ATS such as cathinone, MDA, and MDMA (ecstasy) also fall under this category.
 Schedule II includes certain ATS with therapeutic uses, such as delta-9-THC (including dronabinol, its synthetic form), amphetamine and methylphenidate.
 Schedule III includes barbiturate products with fast or average effects, which have been the object of serious abuse even though useful therapeutically, strongly sedative benzodiazepines like flunitrazepam and some analgesics like buprenorphine.  The only ATS in this category is cathine.
 Schedule IV includes some weaker barbiturates like (phenobarbital) and other hypnotics, anxiolytic benzodiazepines (except flunitrazepam), and some weaker stimulants (such as modafinil and armodafinil). Over a dozen ATS are included in this category, including the substituted amphetamine phentermine.

A 1999 UNODC report notes that Schedule I is a completely different regime from the other three. According to that report, Schedule I mostly contains hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD that are produced by illicit laboratories, while the other three Schedules are mainly for licitly produced pharmaceuticals. The UNODC report also claims that the Convention's Schedule I controls are stricter than those provided for under the Single Convention, a contention that seems to be contradicted by the 2002 Senate of Canada and 2003 European Parliament reports.

Although estimates and other controls specified by the Single Convention are not present in the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the International Narcotics Control Board corrected the omission by asking Parties to submit information and statistics not required by the Convention, and using the initial positive responses from various organic drug producing states to convince others to follow. In addition, the Convention does impose tighter restrictions on imports and exports of Schedule I substances. A 1970 Bulletin on Narcotics report notes:

Scheduling process
Article 2 sets out a process for adding additional drugs to the Schedules. First, the World Health Organization (WHO) must find that the drug meets the specific criteria set forth in Article 2, Section 4, and thus is eligible for control. Then, the WHO issues an assessment of the substance that includes:
 The extent or likelihood of abuse,
 The degree of gravity in the public health and social problem,
 The degree of utility of the substance in legitimate medical therapy, and
 Whether international control measures as provided in the treaty would be appropriate and useful.

Article 2, Paragraph 4:
If the World Health Organization finds: (a) That the substance has the capacity to produce (i) (1) A state of dependence, and (2) Central nervous system stimulation or depression, resulting in hallucinations or disturbances in motor function or thinking or behaviour or perception or mood, or (ii) Similar abuse and similar ill effects as a substance in Schedule I, II, III or IV, and (b) That 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, the World Health Organization shall communicate to the Commission an assessment of the substance, including the extent or likelihood of abuse, the degree of seriousness of the public health and social problem and the degree of usefulness of the substance in medical therapy, together with recommendations on control measures, if any, that would be appropriate in the light of its assessment.

The Commentary gives alcohol and tobacco as examples of psychoactive drugs that were deemed to not fit the above criteria by the 1971 Conference which negotiated the Convention. Alcohol can cause dependence and central nervous depression resulting in disturbances of thinking and behavior, furthermore alcohol causes similar effects as barbiturates, alcohol causes very serious "public health and social problems" in many countries, and also alcohol has minimal use in modern medicine. Nevertheless, according to the Commentary:
 Alcohol does not 'warrant' that type of control because it is not 'suitable' for the regime of the Vienna Convention. It appears obvious that the application of the administrative measures for which that treaty provides would not solve or alleviate the alcohol problem.
Similarly, tobacco can cause dependence and has little medical use, but it was not considered to be a stimulant or depressant or to be similar to other scheduled substances. Most important, according to the Commentary:
 [Tobacco] is not suitable for the kinds of controls for which the Vienna Convention provides, and which if applied would not make any useful impact on the tobacco problem. That problem, however serious, therefore does not 'warrant' the placing of tobacco 'under international' control, i.e. under the Vienna Convention.

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs makes the final decision on whether to add the drug to a Schedule, "taking into account the communication from the World Health Organization, whose assessments shall be determinative as to medical and scientific matters, and bearing in mind the economic, social, legal, administrative and other factors it may consider relevant". A similar process is followed in deleting a drug from the Schedules or transferring a drug between Schedules. For instance, at its 33rd meeting, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended transferring tetrahydrocannabinol to Schedule IV of the Convention, citing its medical uses and low abuse potential. However, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs has declined to vote on whether to follow the WHO recommendation and reschedule tetrahydrocannabinol. The UN Economic and Social Council, as a parent body of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, can alter or reverse the Commission's scheduling decisions.

In the event of a disagreement about a drug's Scheduling, Article 2, Paragraph 7 allows a Party to, within 180 days of the communication of the Commission's decision, give the UN Secretary-General "a written notice that, in view of exceptional circumstances, it is not in a position to give effect with respect to that substance to all of the provisions of the Convention applicable to substances in that Schedule." This allows the nation to comply with a less stringent set of restrictions. The U.S. Controlled Substances Act's 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(4) implies that placing a drug in Schedule IV or V of the Act is sufficient to "carry out the minimum United States obligations under paragraph 7 of article 2 of the Convention". This provision, which calls for temporarily placing a drug under federal drug control in the event the Convention requires it, was invoked in 1984 with Rohypnol (flunitrazepam). Long before abuse of the drug was sufficiently widespread in the United States to meet the Act's drug control criteria, rohypnol was added to the Schedules of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the U.S. government had to place rohypnol in Schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act in order to meet its minimum treaty obligations.

As of March 2005, 111 substances were controlled under the Convention.

World Health Organization evaluations of specific drugs

Ephedrine
In 1998, ephedrine was recommended for control under the Convention. The Dietary Supplement Safety and Science Coalition lobbied against control, stressing the drug's history and safety, and arguing that "ephedrine is not a controlled substance in the US today, nor should it be internationally" because is a soft stimulant similar to caffeine. After a two-year debate, the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence decided against regulating ephedrine. However, the Commission on Narcotics Drugs and the International Narcotics Control Board listed the drug as a Table I precursor under the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances because ephedrine can be used as chemical precursor for synthesize or manufacture amphetamine or methamphetamine, both which are actually controlled substances, a move that did not require WHO approval.

Ketamine
The Expert Committee on Drug Dependence cautiously began investigating ketamine at its thirty-third meeting, noting, "Its use in veterinary medicine must also be considered in relation to its control". Ketamine remains uncontrolled internationally, although many nations (e.g. USA and UK) have enacted restrictions on the drug.

MDMA
The Expert Committee's evaluation of MDMA during its 22nd meeting in 1985 was marked by pleas from physicians to allow further research into the drug's therapeutic uses. Paul Grof, chairman of the Expert Committee, argued that international control was not yet warranted, and that scheduling should be delayed pending completion of more studies. The Expert Committee concluded that because there was "insufficient evidence to indicate that the substance has therapeutic usefulness," it should be placed in Schedule I. However, its report did recommend more MDMA research:
the Expert Committee held extensive discussions concerning therapeutic usefulness of 3,4 Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. While the Expert Committee found the reports intriguing, it felt that the studies lacked the appropriate methodological design necessary to ascertain the reliability of the observations. There was, however, sufficient interest expressed to recommend that investigations be encouraged to follow up these preliminary findings. To that end, the Expert Committee urged countries to use the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances to facilitate research on this interesting substance.

MDMA was added to the convention as a Schedule I controlled substance in February 1986.

MBDB
MBDB (Methylbenzodioxolylbutanamine) is an entactogen with similar effects to MDMA. The thirty-second meeting of the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (September 2000) evaluated MBDB and recommended against scheduling.

From the WHO Expert Committee assessment of MBDB:
Although MBDB is both structurally and pharmacologically similar to MDMA, the limited available data indicate that its stimulant and euphoriant effects are less pronounced than those of MDMA. There have been no reports of adverse or toxic effects of MBDB in humans. Law enforcement data on illicit trafficking of MBDB in Europe suggest that its availability and abuse may now be declining after reaching a peak during the latter half of the 1990s. For these reasons, the Committee did not consider the abuse liability of MBDB would constitute a significant risk to public health, thereby warranting its placement under international control. Scheduling of MBDB was therefore not recommended.

Methcathinone
Circa 1994, the United States government notified the UN Secretary General that it supported controlling methcathinone, an addictive stimulant manufactured with common household products, as a Schedule I drug under the Convention. The FDA report warned of the drug's dangers, even noting that addicts in Russia were observed to often have "potassium permanganate burns on their fingers" and to "tend not to pay attention to their appearance, thus looking ragged with dirty hands and hair". With methcathinone having no medical use, the decision to place the drug in Schedule I was uncontested.

Nicotine
Traditionally, the UN has been reluctant to control nicotine and other drugs traditionally legal in Europe and North America, citing tolerance of a wide range of lifestyles. This contrasts with the regulatory regime for other highly addictive drugs. Gabriel G. Nahas, in a Bulletin on Narcotics report, noted:
Some psychotropic substances such as nicotine, myristicin, ephedrine, mitraginyne, salvinorin A, arecoline, theophylline, theobromine, kava, khat, tobacco, L-theanine, or caffeine (in moderate amounts) or in moderate and responsible consumption, or alcoholic drinks (in small amounts or limited consumption) do not produce any measurable symptoms of neuropsychological toxicity, main physical damage, acute physical damage or main physical dependence or addiction, as also acute side effects or several adverse effects. Some pharmacologists have associated the symptoms of neuropsychological toxicity with behavioural toxicity or the toxic and addictive personality, the toxicity of drugs generally and overall depends by several factors as, environmental factors, economic factors, the field of the drug use, the place, the date, the time and social, psychological, emotional, mental, spiritual and intellectual factors that if are weak can to contribute as a risk factor or a risk behaviour. which include in addition: suppression of normal anxiety, toxic emotions, toxic relationships, toxic behavior, negative thinkings, reduction in motivation and non-purposive or inappropriate behaviour, illegal offense or immoral act necessary. However, the latter behavioural symptoms do not present "markers" which may be measurable in societies accepting as "normal" a wide range of life styles.
Nonetheless, in October 1996, the Expert Committee considered controlling nicotine, especially products such as gum, patches, nasal spray, and inhalers. The UN ultimately left nicotine unregulated. Since then, nicotine products have become even more loosely controlled; Nicorette gum, for instance, is now an over-the-counter drug in the United States and in Finland, readily available in Finland from grocery stores and pharmacies. Another nicotine gum sold in Finland is called Nicotinell. All kinds of nicotine products are readily available in Finnish grocery stores and pharmacies.

Tetrahydrocannabinol
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active ingredient in cannabis, was originally placed in Schedule I when the Convention was enacted in 1971. At its twenty-sixth meeting, in response to a 1987 request from the Government of the United States that THC be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended that THC be transferred to Schedule II, citing its low abuse potential and "moderate to high therapeutic usefulness" in relieving nausea in chemotherapy patients. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs rejected the proposal. However, at its twenty-seventh meeting, the WHO Expert Committee again recommended that THC be moved to Schedule II. At its 45th meeting, on 29 April 1991, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs approved the transfer of dronabinol and its stereochemical variants from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Convention, while leaving other tetrahydrocannabinols and their stereochemical variants in Schedule I.

At its thirty-third meeting (September 2002), the WHO Committee issued another evaluation of the drug and recommended that THC be moved to Schedule IV, stating:
The abuse liability of dronabinol (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) is expected to remain very low so long as cannabis continues to be readily available. The Committee considered that the abuse liability of dronabinol does not constitute a substantial risk to public health and society. In accordance with the established scheduling criteria, the Committee considered that dronabinol should be rescheduled to schedule IV of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
No action was taken on this recommendation. And at its thirty-fourth meeting the WHO Committee recommended that THC be moved instead to Schedule III. In 2007 the Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided not to vote on whether to reschedule THC, and they requested that the WHO make another review when more information is available.

In 2019, the WHO Expert Committee recommended that all isomers of THC be withdrawn from the Schedules of the 1971 Convention and included in the 1961 Convention alongside other Cannabis-related products and pharmaceutical preparations. However, this was rejected by a vote at the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs on 2 December 2020.

2C-B (4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine)
2C-B is a psychedelic phenethylamine. At its thirty-second (September 2000) meeting the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended that 2C-B be placed in Schedule II, rather than with other scheduled psychedelics in Schedule I.

The committee stated that "[t]he altered state of mind induced by hallucinogens such as 2C-B may result in harm to the user and to others", but did not cite any evidence.

From the WHO Expert Committee assessment of 2C-B:
At high doses it is a strong hallucinogen, producing particularly marked visual hallucinations with an intense colour play, intriguing patterns emerging on surfaces and distortions of objects and faces. 2C-B is also reported to enhance sexual feelings, perception and performance.... Apart from its controversial experimental use in psychotherapy, 2C-B, like most other hallucinogens, does not have any known therapeutic usefulness.... The Committee noted, however, that hallucinogens are rarely associated with compulsive use and that abuse of 2C-B has been infrequent, suggesting that the drug is likely to constitute a substantial, rather than an especially serious, risk to public health. For these reasons, the Committee recommended that 2C-B be placed in Schedule II of the 1971 Convention.

Medical and scientific uses
Like the Single Convention on narcotic medicines, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances recognizes scientific and medical use of psychoactive drugs, while banning other uses. Article 7 provides that,
 In respect of substances in Schedule I, the Parties shall: (a) Prohibit all use except for scientific and very limited medical purposes by duly authorized persons, in medical or scientific establishments which are directly under the control of their Governments or specifically approved by them.

In this sense, the U.S. Controlled Substances Act is stricter than the Convention requires. Both have a tightly restricted category of drugs called Schedule I, but the US Act restricts medical use of Schedule I substances to research studies, while the Convention allows broader, but limited and restricted, medical use of Schedule I controlled substances but scientific or industrial use of controlled substances is normally permitted.

Psychedelic plants and fungi

Several of the substances originally placed in Schedule I are psychedelic drugs which are contained in natural plants and fungi (such as peyote and psilocybin mushrooms) and which have long been used in religious or healing rituals. The Commentary notes the "Mexican Indian Tribes Mazatecas, Huicholes and Tarahumaras" as well as the "Kariri and Pankararu of eastern Brazil" as examples of societies that use such plants.

Article 32, paragraph 4 allows for States, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, to make a reservation noting an exemption for
 plants growing wild which contain psychotropic substances from among those in Schedule I and which are traditionally used by certain small, clearly determined groups in magical or religious rites.

However, the official Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances makes it clear that psychedelic plants (and indeed any plants) were not included in the original Schedules and are not covered or included at all by the Convention. This includes "infusion of the roots" of Mimosa tenuiflora (M. hostilis; which contains DMT) and "beverages" made from psilocybin mushrooms or psychotropic acacias, the latter of which are used in the DMT-containing beverage known colloquially as Ayahuasca. The purpose of Paragraph 4 of Article 32 was to allow States to "make a reservation assuring them the right to permit the continuation of the traditional use in question" in the case that plants were in the future added to the Schedule I. Currently, naught plants or plant products are included in the Schedules of the 1971 Convention.

 Commentary 32-12: It may be pointed out that at the time of this writing the continued toleration of the use of hallucinogenic substances which the 1971 Conference had in mind would not require a reservation under paragraph 4. Schedule I does not list any of the natural hallucinogenic materials in question, but only chemical substances which constitute the active principles contained in them. The inclusion in Schedule I of the active principle of a substance does not mean that the substance itself is also included therein if it is a substance clearly distinct from the substance constituting its active principle. This view is in accordance with the traditional understanding of that question in the field of international drug control. Neither the crown (fruit, mescal button) of the Peyote cactus nor the roots of the plant Mimosa hostilis, Peganum Harmala that contains Harmala alkaloids or Syrian Rue, or Hawaiian Baby Woodrose plant and morning glory flowers that contains LSA or Lysergic Acid Amide or the Chacruna, a psychotropic shrub or plant which is used for make the Ayahuasca brew, [Footnote: "An infusion of the roots is used"] nor Psilocybe mushrooms [Footnote: "Beverages made from such mushrooms are used"] themselves are included in Schedule I, but only their respective active principles, mescaline, DMT and psilocybine (psilocine, psilotsin).

 Commentary 32-13: It can however not be excluded that the fruit of the Peyote cactus, the roots of Mimosa hostilis, Psilocybe mushrooms or other hallucinogenic plant parts used in traditional magical or religious rites will in the future be placed in Schedule I by the operation of article 2, at a time at which the State concerned, having already deposited its instrument of ratification or accession, could no longer make the required reservation. It is submitted that Parties may under paragraph 4 make a reservation assuring them the right to permit the continuation of the traditional use in question in the case of such future actions by the Commission.

Furthermore, in a letter, dated 13 September 2001, to the Dutch Ministry of Health, Herbert Schaepe, Secretary of the UN International Narcotics Control Board, clarified that the UN Conventions do not cover "preparations" of psilocybin mushrooms:
As you are aware, mushrooms containing the above substances are collected and abused for their hallucinogenic effects. As a matter of international law, no plants (natural material) containing psilocine and psilocybin are at present controlled under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971. Consequently, preparations made of these plants are not under international control and, therefore, not subject of the articles of the 1971 Convention. However, criminal cases are decided with reference to domestic law, which may otherwise provide for controls over mushrooms containing psilocine and psilocybin. As the Board can only speak as to the contours of the international drug conventions, I am unable to provide an opinion on the litigation in question.

Nonetheless, in 2001 the U.S. Government, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, argued that ayahuasca, an infusion of Mimosa hostilis and other psychoactive plants that is used in religious rituals, was prohibited in the US because of the 1971 Convention. That case involved a seizure by U.S. Customs and Border Protection of several drums of DMT-containing liquid. Plaintiffs sued to have the drugs returned to them, claiming that they used it as a central part of their religion.

In the discussions on Article 32, paragraph 4, noted in the Official Record of the 1971 Conference, the representative from the United States supported the explicit exemption of sacred psychoactive substances, stating: "Substances used for religious services should be placed under national rather than international control", while the representative of the Holy See observed: "If exemptions were made in favour of certain ethnic groups, there would be nothing to prevent certain organizations of hippies from trying to make out, on religious grounds, that their consumption of psychotropic substances was permissible."

Organic plants
The Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances notes that while many plant-derived chemicals are controlled by the treaty, the plants themselves are not:

The term "synthetic" appears to refer to a psychotropic substance manufactured by a process of full chemical synthesis. One may also assume that the authors of the Vienna Convention intended to apply the term "natural material" to parts of a plant which constitute a psychotropic substance, and the term "natural psychotropic substance" to a substance obtained directly from a plant by some process of manufacturing which was relatively simple, and in any event much simpler than a process of full chemical synthesis.
(...)
Cultivation of plants for the purpose of obtaining psychotropic substances or raw materials for the manufacture of such substances is not "manufacture" in the sense of Article 1, paragraph (i). Many provisions of the Vienna Convention governing psychotropic substances would be unsuitable for application to cultivation. The harvesting of psychotropic substances, i.e. separation of such substances from the plants from which they are obtained, is "manufacture".
(...)
The cultivation of plants from which psychotropic substances are obtained is not controlled by the Vienna Convention. (...) Neither the crown (fruit, mescal button) of the Peyote cactus nor the roots of the plant Mimosa hostilis nor Psilocybe mushrooms themselves are included in Schedule 1, but only their respective principles, Mescaline, DMT and Psilocybin.
Mexico, in particular, argued that "production" of psychotropic drugs should not apply to wild-growing plants such as peyote cacti or psilocybin mushrooms. The Bulletin on Narcotics noted that "Mexico could not undertake to eradicate or destroy these plants". Compared to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (which calls for "uprooting of all coca bushes which grow wild" and governmental licensing, purchasing, and wholesaling of licit opium, coca, and cannabis crops), the Convention on Psychotropic Substances devotes few words to the subject of psychoactive plants.

On 2 July 1987, the United States Assistant Secretary of Health recommended that the Drug Enforcement Administration initiate scheduling action under the Controlled Substances Act in order to implement restrictions required by cathinone's Schedule I status under the Convention. The 1993 DEA rule placing cathinone in the CSA's Schedule I noted that it was effectively also banning khat:
Cathinone is the major psychoactive component of the plant Catha edulis (khat). The young leaves of khat are chewed for a stimulant effect. Enactment of this rule results in the placement of any material which contains cathinone into Schedule I.

Precursors
A 1971 Bulletin on Narcotics notes:
Article 2, in paragraph 4 of the original text, carried over the concept in Article 3 (3) (iii) of the Single Convention, and required the application to a "precursor " – i.e. a substance "readily convertible" into a substance under control – of measures of control. In Vienna the complexity of controlling precursors of psychotropic substances was agreed to be so overwhelming that no absolute obligation to control them was provided. The new article 2 in paragraph 9 asks Parties "to use their best endeavours" to apply "such measures of supervision as may be practicable" to substances which may be used in the illicit manufacture of psychotropic substances, i.e. their precursors and possibly also substances essential in the chemistry of manufacture.
This provision was eventually judged to be inadequate, and was strengthened by the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances's precursor control regime, which established two Tables of controlled precursors. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs and International Narcotics Control Board were put in charge of adding, removing, and transferring substances between the Tables.

Analogs
Circa 1999, the Government of Spain proposed amending Schedules I and II to include isomers, esters, ethers, salts of isomers, esters and ethers, and any "substance resulting from modification of the chemical structure of a substance already in Schedule I or II and which produced pharmacological effects similar to those produced by the original substances". The WHO opposed this change. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs did amend the Schedules to include stereoisomerisms, however, with the understanding that "specific isomers that did not have hazardous pharmacological activity and that posed no danger to society could be excluded from control, as dextromethorphan had been in the case of Schedule I of the 1961 Convention."

Penal provisions

Article 22 provides:
1. (a) Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall treat as a punishable offence, when committed intentionally, any action contrary to a law or regulation adopted in pursuance of its obligations under this Convention, and shall ensure that serious offences shall be liable to adequate punishment, particularly by imprisonment or other penalty of deprivation of liberty.
1. (b) Notwithstanding the preceding sub-paragraph, when abusers of psychotropic substances have committed such offences, the Parties may provide, either as an alternative to conviction or punishment or in addition to punishment, that such abusers undergo measures of treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration in conformity with paragraph 1 of article 20.

Conspiracy, attempts, preparatory acts, and financial operations related to drug offenses are also called on to be criminalized. Parties are also asked to count convictions handed down by foreign governments in determining recidivism. Article 22 also notes that extradition treaties are "desirable", although a nation retains the right to refuse to grant extradition, including "where the competent authorities consider that the offence is not sufficiently serious."

As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries:
4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction.
5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.

Treatment and prevention
Article 22 allows Parties, in implementing the Convention's penal provisions, to make exceptions for drug abusers by substituting "treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration" for imprisonment. This reflects a shift in focus in the war on drugs from incarceration to treatment and prevention that had already begun to take hold by 1971. Indeed, in 1972, a parallel provision allowing treatment for drug abusers was added to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs by the Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

Article 20 mandates drug treatment, education, and prevention measures and requires Parties to assist efforts to "gain an understanding of the problems of abuse of psychotropic substances and of its prevention" and to "promote such understanding among the general public if there is a risk that abuse of such substances will become widespread." To comply with these provisions, most Parties financially support organizations and agencies dedicated to these goals. The United States, for instance, established the National Institute on Drug Abuse in 1974 to comply with the research requirement and began sponsoring Drug Abuse Resistance Education in 1983 to help fulfill the educational and prevention requirements.

Recent trends

Rise in stimulant trafficking
Control of stimulants has become a major challenge for the UN. In 1997, the World Drug Report warned:
Since the mid-1980s the world has faced a wave of synthetic stimulant abuse, with approximately nine times the quantity seized in 1993 than in 1978, equivalent to an average annual increase of 16 per cent. The principle synthetic drugs manufactured clandestinely are the amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) which include the widely abused amphetamine and methamphetamine, as well as the more recently popularized methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), known as ecstasy." It is estimated that throughout the world 30,000,000, people use ATS. This is 0.5 per cent of the global population and exceeds the number using heroin and probably those using cocaine.
A 1998 UN General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem report noted:
Between 1971 and 1995, there was a nearly fivefold increase in the number of amphetamine-type stimulants under international control. . . ecstasy and related designer drugs are under schedule one of the 1971 Convention, because they have virtually no medical use, while amphetamine and methamphetamine are under schedule 2 because they began life with medical use. But even though they are scheduled, the system is not really working for these illegally produced drugs. One of the main limitations of the control system is that the Psychotropic Convention was not designed to control illicit markets. It was designed to control and regulate legitimate pharmaceutical markets to prevent their diversion into illicit markets.
The report mentioned proposals to increase the flexibility of scheduling drugs under the Convention and to amend the drug-control treaties to make them more responsive to the current situation. Neither proposal has gained traction, however. Due to the ease of manufacturing methamphetamine, methcathinone, and certain other stimulants, control measures are focusing less on preventing drugs from crossing borders. Instead, they are centering on increasingly long prison sentences for manufacturers and traffickers as well as regulations on large purchases of precursors such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. The International Narcotics Control Board and Commission on Narcotic Drugs help coordinate this fight by adding additional precursors to the Tables of chemicals controlled under the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

In 1997, ECOSOC called on nations to help enforce international law by cooperating "with relevant international organizations, such as Interpol and the World Customs Organization . . . in order to promote coordinated international action in the fight against illicit demand for and supply of amphetamine-type stimulants and their precursors." That resolution also called on governments overseeing precursor exports "to inquire with the authorities of importing States about the legitimacy of transactions of concern, and to inform the International Narcotics Control Board of the action taken, particularly when they do not receive any reply to their inquiries".

Pockets of high-intensity clandestine production and trafficking, such as rural southwest Virginia, exist in most industrialized nations. However, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime believes that East Asia (particularly Thailand) now has the most serious amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) problem in the world. A 2002 report by that agency noted:

The Office called on nations to bring more resources to bear in the demand reduction effort, improving treatment and rehabilitation processes, increasing private sector participation in eliminating drugs from the workplace, and expanding the drug information clearing house to share information more effectively.

Canadian noncompliance
In 2000, the International Narcotics Control Board chastised Canada for refusing to comply with the Convention's requirement that international transactions in controlled psychotropics be reported to the Board. INCB Secretary Herbert Schaepe said:
From Canada there is just a big, black hole. We don't know what is going into the country, nor coming out. We cannot monitor the international movement of these substances, which is our mandate. The lack of controls in Canada means that they could be destined for fake companies that will divert them into the hands of traffickers. Traffickers in third countries could be getting them through Canada. Normally, Canada has a very good reputation for fulfilling its international obligations, but here it is just breaking the treaty – a treaty that it ratified a long time ago. It is very disturbing.

Licit drug problems
In an unusual departure from its normally pro-industry leanings, the INCB issued a press release in 2001 warning of excessive use of licit psychotropics:
. . . the Board points to loose regulation, unreliable estimates and information regarding medical needs, aggressive marketing techniques and improper or even unethical prescription practices as the main reasons for the oversupply of such controlled substances as benzodiazepines and various amphetamine type stimulants. Easy availability leads to overconsumption of such substances, either in the form of drug abuse or by fuelling a culture of drug-taking to deal with a variety of non-medical problems. . . Insomnia, anxiety, obesity and child hyperactivity as well as various kinds of pain are listed among the most common problems to be treated by prescribing psychotropic substances. The Board is especially concerned that preference is given to quick solutions without looking at the long-term effects, as prolonged, excessive consumption of such drugs could result in dependency and other physical and mental suffering.

The Board also warned that the Internet provides "easy access to information on drug production and drug-taking," calling it "a growing source of on-line drug trafficking." The Board pointed out that some Internet suppliers sell controlled drugs without regard to the Convention's medical prescription requirements.

List of controlled psychotropic substances

Source: INCB Green List (28th Edition, 2017)

Statistics
All Schedules consist of 116 positions and common generalization clause for salts. Schedule I also contains generalization clause for stereoisomers. There are also 2 specific generalizations, both for tetrahydrocannabinol stereochemical variants. There are no exclusions.

Schedule I
Contains 62 positions (including 1 position for six tetrahydrocannabinol isomers), generalization clause for stereoisomers, specific generalization for tetrahydrocannabinol stereochemical variants and common generalization clause for salts.

Phenethylamine psychedelics:
 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine (DOB)
 dimethoxyamphetamine (DMA)
 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine(DOET)
 methylenedioxyhydroxyamphetamine (MDOH)
 methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA)
 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA)
 mescaline
 MMDA
 4-MTA
 para-methoxyamphetamine (PMA)
 DOM (STP)
 tenamfetamine (MDA)
 trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA)

Tryptamine psychedelics:
 diethyltryptamine (DET)
 dimethyltryptamine (DMT)
 etryptamine (αET)
 psilocin
 psilocybin

Stimulants:
 cathinone
 methcathinone
 4-methylaminorex

Synthetic cannabinoids:
 dimethylheptylpyran (DMHP)
 parahexyl

Isomers of natural tetrahydrocannabinol:
 tetrahydrocannabinol, the following isomers and their stereochemical variants:
 (9R)-Δ6a(10a)-tetrahydrocannabinol — 7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 (9R,10aR)-Δ6a(7)-tetrahydrocannabinol — (9R,10aR)-8,9,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 (6aR,9R,10aR)-Δ7-tetrahydrocannabinol — (6aR,9R,10aR)-6a,9,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 (6aR,10aR)-Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol — (6aR,10aR)-6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 (6aR,9R)-Δ10-tetrahydrocannabinol — 6a,7,8,9-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
 (6aR,10aR)-Δ9(11)-tetrahydrocannabinol — (6aR,10aR)-6a,7,8,9,10,10a-hexahydro-6,6-dimethyl-9-methylene-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol

Dissociatives:
 eticyclidine (PCE)
 rolicyclidine (PHP, PCPy)
 tenocyclidine (TCP)

Ergolines:
 LSD

The stereoisomers of substances in Schedule I are also controlled, unless specifically excepted, whenever the existence of such
stereoisomers is possible within the specific chemical designation.

Salts of all the substances covered by the four schedules, whenever the existence of such salts is possible, are also under international control.

Schedule II
Contains 19 positions, specific generalization for tetrahydrocannabinol stereochemical variants and common generalization clause for salts.

Stimulants:
 amineptine
 amphetamine and its isomers (dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine)
 fenethylline
 methamphetamine and its isomers (dextromethamphetamine and levomethamphetamine)
 methylphenidate and its isomers (dextromethylphenidate and levomethylphenidate)
 phenmetrazine
 a-PVP
 N-Ethylpentylone

Phenethylamine psychedelics:
 2C-B

Natural cannabinols:
 Δ9-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)

Depressants (barbiturates):
 secobarbital

Depressants (qualones):
 mecloqualone
 methaqualone

Dissociatives:
 phencyclidine (PCP)

Other:
 zipeprol

Salts of all the substances covered by the four schedules, whenever the existence of such salts is possible, are also under international control.

Schedule III
Contains 9 positions and common generalization clause for salts.

Depressants (barbiturates):
 amobarbital
 butalbital
 cyclobarbital
 pentobarbital

Depressants (benzodiazepines):
 flunitrazepam

Depressants (other):
 glutethimide

Semisynthetic agonist–antagonist opioids:
 buprenorphine

Synthetic agonist–antagonist opioids – benzomorphans:
 pentazocine

Stimulants:
 cathine

Salts of all the substances covered by the four schedules, whenever the existence of such salts is possible, are also under international control.

Schedule IV
Contains 62 positions and common generalization clause for salts.

Depressants (barbiturates):
 allobarbital
 barbital
 butobarbital
 methylphenobarbital
 phenobarbital
 butabarbital
 vinylbital

Depressants (benzodiazepines):
 alprazolam
 bromazepam
 brotizolam
 camazepam
 chlordiazepoxide
 clobazam
 clonazepam
 clorazepate
 clotiazepam
 cloxazolam
 delorazepam
 diazepam
 estazolam
 ethyl loflazepate
 fludiazepam
 flurazepam
 halazepam
 haloxazolam
 ketazolam
 loprazolam
 lorazepam
 lormetazepam
 medazepam
 midazolam
 nimetazepam
 nitrazepam
 nordazepam
 oxazepam
 oxazolam
 pinazepam
 prazepam
 temazepam
 tetrazepam
 triazolam
 zolpidem (z-drug)

Depressants (carbamates):
 ethinamate
 meprobamate

Depressants (other):
 ethchlorvynol
 gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB)
 methyprylon

Stimulants:
 amfepramone
 aminorex
 benzphetamine
 etilamfetamine
 fencamfamine
 fenproporex
 mazindol
 mefenorex
 mesocarb
 pemoline
 phendimetrazine
 phentermine
 pipradrol
 pyrovalerone

Drugs with both stimulant and opioid effects:
 lefetamine (SPA) — open chain opioid having also stimulant effects

Salts of all the substances covered by the four schedules, whenever the existence of such salts is possible, are also under international control.

Regulated elsewhere
 ephedrine (as well as pseudoephedrine and norephedrine) is regulated as an UN-controlled drug precursor.

The following are scheduled by Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

Cannabis:
 cannabis — the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (resin not extracted)
 cannabis resin — the separated resin, crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant
 extracts and tinctures of cannabis

Coca leaf, cocaine and ecgonine:
 Coca leaf — the leaf of the coca bush (plant material), except a leaf from which all ecgonine, cocaine and any other ecgonine alkaloids have been removed
 cocaine (methyl ester of benzoylecgonine) — an alkaloid found in coca leaves or prepared by synthesis from ecgonine
 ecgonine — its esters and derivatives which are convertible to ecgonine and cocaine

All other drugs scheduled by the narcotic convention are agonist-only opioids (and natural sources of them).

Not scheduled by UN conventions
Plants being the source of substances scheduled by this convention are not scheduled (see Psychedelic plants and fungi and Organic plants sections).

Partial list of psychotropic substances currently or formerly used in medicine, but not scheduled:
 benzydamine (deliriant and stimulant, used medically as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug)
 butorphanol (agonist-antagonist opioid)
 caffeine (stimulant)
 dextromethorphan (dissociative, used medically as a cough suppressant) and its metabolite dextrorphan
 diphenhydramine and dimenhydrinate (deliriants)
 ketamine (dissociative) and its stereoisomer esketamine
 modafinil (stimulant), its stereoisomer armodafinil, and a similar drug adrafinil
 nalbuphine (agonist-antagonist opioid)
 nicotine (stimulant)
 propofol and fospropofol (anesthetics)
 sodium thiopental (barbiturate)
 zaleplon (depressant z-drug)
 zopiclone (depressant z-drug) and its stereoisomer eszopiclone

There are also many designer drugs not used in medicine that are not scheduled, as well as alcohol, which is also not scheduled and widely consumed legally as a recreational drug.

See also
 List of UN-controlled narcotic drugs
 List of UN-controlled drug precursors
 Regulation of therapeutic goods
 Drug prohibition law
 Controlled Substances Act
 Federal Analogue Act

Notes and references

Footnotes

References

 Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Done at Vienna on 21 February 1971, Adolf Lande, United Nations: New York, 1976 (E/CN.7/589)
 Bewley-Taylor, David R. and Fazey, Cindy S. J.: The Mechanics and Dynamics of the UN System for International Drug Control, 14 March 2003.
 Saunders, Nicholas: E is for Ecstasy, Appendix 1: Reference Section, Letter from myself in New Scientist, 18 December 1993.
 The ratification of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 and its transposition into national legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany, Bulletin on Narcotics, 1982.
 1973/1773(LIV). 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances: ratifications and accessions, UN Economic and Social Council, 18 May 1973.
 3443(XXX). 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, UN General Assembly, 9 December 1975.
 CND Res.6(XXVIII). 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, 22 February 1979.
 1981/7. Implementation of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, UN Economic and Social Council, 6 May 1981.
 Cappato, Marco and Perduca, Marco: Concept Paper for Campaign by the Transnational Radical Party and the International Antiprohibitionist League to Reform the UN Conventions on Drugs, 9 October 2002.
 Bewley-Taylor, David R.: Breaking the Impasse: Polarisation & Paralysis in UN Drug Control, July 2002.
 Psychotropic Substances under International Control ("Green List")  The chemical name and structure of each substance under the control of the Treaty. Correlates the drugs and substances controlled by the Treaty with those named in the Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the US Controlled Substances Act.
 Drug diplomacy in the twentieth century: an international history, William B. McAllister, Routledge, 2000
 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
 World Health Organization Expert Committee on Drug Dependence – Reports of drug evaluations
 Signatures and ratifications .
 A Primer on the UN Drug Control Conventions Transnational Institute, 2015.

Drug policy
Drug control law
Drug control treaties
Criminal justice reform
Crime
Global health
Public health
Health policy
International law
World Health Organization
United Nations Economic and Social Council
February 1971 events in Europe
Treaties concluded in 1971
Treaties entered into force in 1976
Treaties of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Treaties of Albania
Treaties of Algeria
Treaties of Andorra
Treaties of Angola
Treaties of Antigua and Barbuda
Treaties of Argentina
Treaties of Armenia
Treaties of Australia
Treaties of Austria
Treaties of Azerbaijan
Treaties of the Bahamas
Treaties of Bahrain
Treaties of Bangladesh
Treaties of Barbados
Treaties of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
Treaties of Belgium
Treaties of Belize
Treaties of the Republic of Dahomey
Treaties of Bhutan
Treaties of Bolivia
Treaties of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Treaties of Botswana
Treaties of the military dictatorship in Brazil
Treaties of Brunei
Treaties of the People's Republic of Bulgaria
Treaties of Burkina Faso
Treaties of Burundi
Treaties of Cambodia
Treaties of Cameroon
Treaties of Canada
Treaties of Cape Verde
Treaties of the Central African Republic
Treaties of Chad
Treaties of Chile
Treaties of the People's Republic of China
Treaties of Colombia
Treaties of the Comoros
Treaties of the Republic of the Congo
Treaties of Costa Rica
Treaties of Ivory Coast
Treaties of Croatia
Treaties of Cuba
Treaties of Cyprus
Treaties of Czechoslovakia
Treaties of the Czech Republic
Treaties of North Korea
Treaties of Zaire
Treaties of Denmark
Treaties of Djibouti
Treaties of Dominica
Treaties of the Dominican Republic
Treaties of Ecuador
Treaties of Egypt
Treaties of El Salvador
Treaties of Eritrea
Treaties of Estonia
Treaties of the Derg
Treaties of Fiji
Treaties of Finland
Treaties of France
Treaties of Gabon
Treaties of the Gambia
Treaties of Georgia (country)
Treaties of West Germany
Treaties of East Germany
Treaties of Ghana
Treaties of Greece
Treaties of Grenada
Treaties of Guatemala
Treaties of Guinea
Treaties of Guinea-Bissau
Treaties of Guyana
Treaties of the Holy See
Treaties of Honduras
Treaties of the Hungarian People's Republic
Treaties of Iceland
Treaties of India
Treaties of Indonesia
Treaties of Iran
Treaties of Ba'athist Iraq
Treaties of Ireland
Treaties of Israel
Treaties of Italy
Treaties of Jamaica
Treaties of Japan
Treaties of Jordan
Treaties of Kazakhstan
Treaties of Kenya
Treaties of Kuwait
Treaties of Kyrgyzstan
Treaties of Laos
Treaties of Latvia
Treaties of Lebanon
Treaties of Lesotho
Treaties of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Treaties of Liechtenstein
Treaties of Lithuania
Treaties of Luxembourg
Treaties of Madagascar
Treaties of Malawi
Treaties of Malaysia
Treaties of the Maldives
Treaties of Mali
Treaties of Malta
Treaties of the Marshall Islands
Treaties of Mauritania
Treaties of Mauritius
Treaties of Mexico
Treaties of the Federated States of Micronesia
Treaties of Monaco
Treaties of Mongolia
Treaties of Montenegro
Treaties of Morocco
Treaties of Mozambique
Treaties of Myanmar
Treaties of Namibia
Treaties of Nepal
Treaties of the Netherlands
Treaties of New Zealand
Treaties of Nicaragua
Treaties of Niger
Treaties of Nigeria
Treaties of Norway
Treaties of Oman
Treaties of Pakistan
Treaties of Palau
Treaties of the State of Palestine
Treaties of Panama
Treaties of Papua New Guinea
Treaties of Paraguay
Treaties of Peru
Treaties of the Philippines
Treaties of the Polish People's Republic
Treaties of Portugal
Treaties of Qatar
Treaties of South Korea
Treaties of Moldova
Treaties of Romania
Treaties of the Soviet Union
Treaties of Rwanda
Treaties of San Marino
Treaties of São Tomé and Príncipe
Treaties of Saudi Arabia
Treaties of Senegal
Treaties of Serbia and Montenegro
Treaties of Seychelles
Treaties of Sierra Leone
Treaties of Singapore
Treaties of Slovakia
Treaties of Slovenia
Treaties of the Somali Democratic Republic
Treaties of South Africa
Treaties of Francoist Spain
Treaties of Sri Lanka
Treaties of Saint Kitts and Nevis
Treaties of Saint Lucia
Treaties of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Treaties of the Republic of the Sudan (1985–2011)
Treaties of Suriname
Treaties of Eswatini
Treaties of Sweden
Treaties of Switzerland
Treaties of Syria
Treaties of Tajikistan
Treaties of Thailand
Treaties of North Macedonia
Treaties of Togo
Treaties of Tonga
Treaties of Trinidad and Tobago
Treaties of Tunisia
Treaties of Turkey
Treaties of Turkmenistan
Treaties of Uganda
Treaties of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Treaties of the United Arab Emirates
Treaties of the United Kingdom
Treaties of Tanzania
Treaties of the United States
Treaties of Uruguay
Treaties of Uzbekistan
Treaties of Venezuela
Treaties of Vietnam
Treaties of Yemen
Treaties of Yugoslavia
Treaties of Zambia
Treaties of Zimbabwe
1971 in Austria
Treaties extended to Niue
Treaties extended to Tokelau
Treaties extended to the Netherlands Antilles
Treaties extended to Anguilla
Treaties extended to Bermuda
Treaties extended to the Cayman Islands
Treaties extended to the Falkland Islands
Treaties extended to Gibraltar
Treaties extended to Montserrat
Treaties extended to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Treaties extended to the Turks and Caicos Islands
Treaties extended to the Isle of Man
Treaties extended to the British Antarctic Territory
Treaties extended to Aruba
Treaties extended to the Faroe Islands
Treaties extended to Greenland
Treaties extended to the British Virgin Islands
Treaties extended to Jersey
Treaties extended to Clipperton Island
Treaties extended to French Guiana
Treaties extended to French Polynesia
Treaties extended to the French Southern and Antarctic Lands
Treaties extended to Guadeloupe
Treaties extended to Martinique
Treaties extended to Mayotte
Treaties extended to New Caledonia
Treaties extended to Réunion
Treaties extended to Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Treaties extended to Wallis and Futuna
Treaties extended to French Comoros
Treaties extended to French Somaliland
Treaties extended to British Hong Kong
Treaties extended to Portuguese Macau
Treaties extended to West Berlin
United Nations treaties

Convention on Psychotropic Substances


The Book of Tobit (or Book of Tobias) is a book of biblical scripture that is part of the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canon, put forward by the Council of Carthage of 397 and confirmed for Roman Catholics by the Council of Trent (1546). It's listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.

Likely written in the second century BC in Palestine, Tobit is regarded by Protestants as apocryphal. Also, it has never been included within the Tanakh (also known as Old Testament) as canonical by ancient Judaism. However, it is found in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), and Aramaic and Hebrew fragments of the book were discovered in Cave IV at Qumran in 1952.

Tobit goes blind and feels hopeless, but recovers his sight through the advice of an Angel called Raphael. Also mentioned is Tobit's son called Tobias, who is traveling eastward to collect money, accompanied by the Angel, Raphael, who tells Tobit of a woman named Sarah who is looking to get married. Her earlier marriages were not completed because shortly beforehand the man would always die mysteriously, which saddens Sarah. This time, though, the man does not die and in the end Tobias and Sarah are happily married. The story of Tobit is important for its teaching about guardian angels and for the need to always remain loyal to God during difficult times.

References

Books of the Bible

Book of Tobit


France was taking American ships in 1797. President John Adams wanted to avoid a war with France, so he sent officials to France to discuss the rights of neutral nations. However, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, the French foreign minister, sent three secret agents who insisted that America give a loan to France and pay a bribe. President Adams refused the offer that France gave. When he told the public in 1798, he addressed the Frenchmen as X, Y, and Z, hence the name of this affair. People hated the XYZ Affair, saying, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" America soon quickly declined France's offer. John Adams decided to start preparing for unofficial war, but not declaring war so as to keep peace.

1790s in the United States
1790s in France
1798

XYZ Affair


Anglicanism is a denomination within Christianity. It is made up of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion (a group of Anglican churches from many other countries). The term Anglicanism includes those who have accepted the English Reformation as embodied in the Church of England or in the offshoot Churches in other countries that have followed closely to its doctrines and its organisation.

In the English Reformation, the English Church kept the early Catholic ministry of bishops, priests, deacons, and most of the doctrine and liturgy. The event that led to the Anglican Church was the outright rejection of the Pope. This meant they also rejected the Catholic Church as an organisation.

It is sometimes seen as being the middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. That is why it is not always thought of as Protestantism.

The term Anglican comes from the phrase ecclesia anglicana. This is a Medieval Latin phrase dating to at least 1246. It means 'the English Church'. The noun Anglican is used to describe the people, institutions, churches, traditions and ideas developed by the state established Church of England and the Anglican Communion, a theologically broad and often divergent affiliation of thirty-eight provinces that are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Worship
Anglicans can have many different beliefs. For example, there are a range of beliefs about Holy Communion. Some Anglicans believe that the bread and wine becomes the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Other Anglicans think that Holy Communion is about remembering the life of Jesus Christ and his death on the Cross. The first ('High Church') is in the minority. It is similar to the belief of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The second (the majority 'Low Church') is like the belief of most Protestants. It is fundamentally a Protestant church because the Bible is the source of authority, not the Pope.

Origin
The name Anglican for this Church comes from the Latin word for English because the Church started in England. In the British Isles, Anglicanism has been the official or State religion in all parts at one time or another. Anglican Church leaders, and the State, worked together in what is called the alliance of Throne and Altar or Church and State. Together, they tried to make the Anglican denomination as broad and welcoming as possible to a wide range of Christian believers.

They did this to try to get as many citizens as they could to worship in the official church.

Origin in Britain
When Henry VIII wanted to divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the Pope refused to divorce him. As a result, King Henry split from the Roman Catholic Church and started the Church of England. The English Parliament, through the Act of Supremacy, declared King Henry VIII to be the "Supreme Head of the Church of England" in order to fulfill the "English desire to be independent from continental Europe religiously and politically." This act said that the king, not the pope was the head of the Church of England. With this act, Henry VIII was not only free to divorce his wife and remarry, he also made England free from the interference of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.

Although now separate from Rome, the English Church, at this point in history, continued to maintain the Roman Catholic theology on many things, such as the sacraments. Over time the Church of England was reformed even more, in what is known as the English Reformation, which it gained a number of characteristics which has finally formed the modern day Anglican Communion.

In the British Isles, and early British colonies, this was done to try to defeat both the followers of the Roman Catholic Church and all the kinds of Protestants too by including their best ideas, traditions, and practices in the Anglican Church. Now, the only place in the United Kingdom where Anglicanism is still the official religion is England, where the monarch, King Charles III is the Supreme Governor on Earth of the Church of England. The effective government of the Church is by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the legal Church Parliament known as the General Synod.

Spread of Influence
In the rest of the world, Anglicanism was spread by overseas colonisation, settlement, and missionary work. It functions there as an ordinary denomination of Christianity without special status. Anglicans around the world join together in a group of national churches in countries where there are Anglican Churches to make the world-wide Anglican Communion. There are more than 80 million Anglicans in the world today. Most live in Africa and Asia and are not of British ethnic heritage anymore.

Issues
The Anglican Communion is struggling today with questions about the role of women and gay people in the Church. As the Anglican Communion deals with these serious issues, some have split into liberal and conservative groups. Already, there are Anglicans who have broken from the main Churches to form their own separate groups of believers. Some use the term Anglican combined with the word Catholic, Christian, Reformed, or Episcopal.

At the same time, leaders from the Anglican Communion hold talks with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to try to work toward Christian unity. At times, there has been some progress. Also, the Anglican and Lutheran Churches have agreed to a high level of shared beliefs, leadership, and practices called intercommunion.

Related pages
 History
 Protestantism
 Catholicism
 English Reformation
 Movements and denominations
 Methodism
 Prominent Anglican Thinkers
 T. S. Eliot
 C. S. Lewis
 John Wesley

References

Bibliography
 Hein, David, ed. (1991) Readings in Anglican Spirituality. Cincinnati: Forward Movement.

Other websites

 Anglican Communion - The official site of the Anglican Communion.
 What it means to be an Anglican: Official Church of England site
 Anglican Historical Texts
 Anglicans Online - An unofficial site of the Anglican Communion. One of the biggest resources of Anglicanism in the world.
 Anglicanism: ReligionFacts.com  - Articles on Anglican history, ritual, and organisation, plus an image gallery of people and places.

Anglicanism


Nicholas Leonard Skorich (June 26, 1921 – October 2, 2004) was an American football player and coach.

Skorich played guard at Bellaire High School and the University of Cincinnati before joining the United States Navy in 1943. After the end of World War II, he signed with the Pittsburgh Steelers, who had taken him in the 1943 NFL Draft. He played three years for the Steelers.

Skorich then went into coaching, first at the high school level, then as an assistant with the Steelers from 1954 to 1957. After one year with the Green Bay Packers, he moved to the Philadelphia Eagles, who promoted him to head coach after Buck Shaw retired following the Eagles' 1960 championship season.

The Eagles remained competitive in 1961, winning 10 of 14 games, but fell to 3–10–1 in 1962 and 2–10–2 in 1963. Fired from the Eagles, Skorich took a job as a defensive assistant under Cleveland Browns coach Blanton Collier in 1964. The Browns promoted him to offensive coordinator four years later and head coach on January 7, 1971 upon Collier's retirement after the 1970 season.

In 1970, the Browns had gone 7–7 in only their second non-winning season since beginning play in 1946. Under Skorich, the Browns went 9–5 in 1971, winning the AFC Central Division before losing to the Baltimore Colts in the divisional playoffs. The following year, the Browns earned a wild card spot with a 10–4 record. In the playoffs, they came as close as anyone else that season did to beating the Miami Dolphins in that team's perfect season, losing 20–14 on a late Jim Kiick touchdown.

But by then Browns greats like Leroy Kelly, Gary Collins and Gene Hickerson had retired or were winding down their careers, and quarterback Mike Phipps was proving to be a disappointment. Cleveland dropped to 7–5–2 in 1973 and, in its first last-place finish ever, 4–10 in 1974. The Browns replaced Skorich with former Green Bay Packers star Forrest Gregg. Several players drafted under Skorich, including Brian Sipe, Doug Dieken and Greg Pruitt would play well for Gregg and his successor, Sam Rutigliano.

After leaving Cleveland, Skorich served as supervisor of officials for the National Football League.  He is credited with developing mechanics for umpires, the most demanding position on an officiating crew since the umpire is positioned behind the defensive line and is often caught in the middle of heavy traffic during play. The mechanics for umpires was changed by the NFL for the 2010 season, moving the umpire behind the quarterback, parallel to the referee, except for the last two minutes of each half.

He died in 2004, after complications from heart surgery.  In his memory his family started the Nicholas L. Skorich scholarship fund, which, holds a yearly golf outing.

References

External links
 Nicholas Skorich Scholarship Fund

"Upbringing served Skorich well" by Steve King, Clevelandbrowns.com, October 4, 2004, retrieved December 8, 2005.

Bibliography
Carroll, Bob, et al. (1999). Total Football II. New York: HarperCollins. .

1921 births
2004 deaths
American football guards
Cincinnati Bearcats football players
Cleveland Browns coaches
Green Bay Packers coaches
Philadelphia Eagles coaches
Pittsburgh Steelers coaches
Pittsburgh Steelers players
RPI Engineers football coaches
High school football coaches in Pennsylvania
United States Navy personnel of World War II
United States Navy officers
People from Bellaire, Ohio
Players of American football from Ohio
Cleveland Browns head coaches
Philadelphia Eagles head coaches

Nick Skorich


Beautiful Joe was a dog from the town of Meaford, Ontario, whose story inspired the bestselling 1893 novel Beautiful Joe, which contributed to worldwide awareness of animal cruelty.

The real Beautiful Joe
The real Beautiful Joe was an Airedale-type dog. He was medium-sized, brown, and described as likely being part bull terrier and part fox terrier. He was also described as a mongrel, a cur, and a mutt. He was originally owned by a local Meaford man, who cruelly abused the dog to the point of near death, and even cut off his ears and tail. Walter Moore, father of Louise Moore, rescued the dog in 1890, from what likely would have been a violent and painful death. In 1892, Margaret Marshall Saunders (1861–1947), first learned about Beautiful Joe when she visited her brother and his wife, Louise Moore. Saunders was so touched by Joe's story that she wrote a novel-length, fictionalized, autobiographical version of it, entitled Beautiful Joe. Margaret Saunders relocated the story to a small town in Maine and changed the family's name from Moore to Morris to win a literary contest sponsored by the American Humane Education Society. The book was first published in 1893. By 1900, over 800,000 copies sold in the U.S., 40,000 in Canada and 100,000 in the United Kingdom.

Saunders chose to write Beautiful Joe as an "autobiography" and tell the story from Beautiful Joe's viewpoint, and in her imagined version of Beautiful Joe's own words. While it was not the first book to tell a story from an animal's viewpoint – Black Beauty by Anna Sewell was already on its way to becoming classic literature by then – it was still an uncommon narrative device. This unusual viewpoint allowed the reader into Beautiful Joe's mind, and inarguably led the reader to feel more sympathy toward the narrator than if the material had been presented in a straightforward and documentative manner. Also, Saunders believed that she would not be taken seriously as a writer using the obviously female name Margaret Saunders, so she wrote using the variant name Marshall Saunders.

Fame and legacy
Saunders submitted her story to a writing contest being run by the Humane Society in 1893. It won, and the following year it was published as a novel.  The response was tremendous; both the book and its subject received worldwide attention. It was the first Canadian book in history to sell over a million copies, and by the late 1930s had sold over 7 million copies worldwide. In 1902, a sequel, Beautiful Joe's Paradise, was published. In 1934, Saunders was granted Canada's highest civilian award at the time, Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire or C.B.E. In 1963, the official Beautiful Joe Park was named in Meaford, next to the Moore house where Beautiful Joe was rehabilitated by Louise Moore. A Beautiful Joe Heritage Society was formed in 1994 to preserve Joe's legacy and ultimately establish the Moore residence as a museum.

Connection with Black Beauty
Saunders did not avoid comparison of her work to the similarly themed Black Beauty. Indeed, she makes reference to Black Beauty in the very first page of Beautiful Joe, not referring to it by name but writing [from Joe's viewpoint] "I have seen my mistress laughing and crying over a little book that she says is a story of a horse's life". Joe goes on to say that he will write the story of a dog's life, to similarly please his owner. Thus, within the context of the book at least, Beautiful Joe is directly inspired by Black Beauty.

See also
 List of individual dogs

References

External links

Beautiful Joe Heritage Society
Beautiful Joe Park, Meaford
Ontario historical plaque - Beautiful Joe
Beautiful Joe: An Autobiography Philadelphia: The Griffith and Rowland Press, 1893, at A Celebration of Women Writers

Beautiful Joe (1893), with an introduction by Hezekiah Butterworth. Illustrated. From Internet Archive, a scanned book.

Individual dogs
Animal cruelty incidents
Fiction about animal cruelty
Novels about dogs
Individual animals in Canada

Beautiful Joe


Digital rights management (DRM) is a way to make it difficult to copy music, movies, and computer programs. It is used to make people follow copyright laws. It works by using computer technologies.

Many companies use DRM to protect their properties from copyright infringement, such as Sony, Microsoft and the BBC. Other companies also use DRM.

Some people do not like digital rights management. They think that DRM makes copying harder than copyright laws allow. The Free Software Foundation suggested that 'digital restrictions management' is a better name.

People can break DRM. If someone breaks a DRM technology then copying is possible. All common DRM technologies have been broken. Making a DRM technology that can not be broken is very hard. Some people say that all DRM technologies can be broken. In the United States it is illegal to break a DRM.

DRM is a way for companies to keep their profits while sharing their content online. A good example of this is BBC iPlayer. They do this by keeping their content online for a certain amount of time.

Copyright
Intellectual property law

Digital rights management


The West Norfolk Junction Railway was a standard gauge eighteen and a half-mile single-track railway running between Wells-next-the-Sea railway station and Heacham in the English county of Norfolk. It opened in 1866 and closed in 1953.
At Wells the line made a junction with the Wells and Fakenham Railway and at Heacham it connected with the line from Hunstanton to Kings Lynn.

History

The West Norfolk Junction Railway was opened in August 1866. The line came from Heacham on an  single track aimed at exploiting the great arc of coastline between Hunstanton and Yarmouth. 1866 saw the start of a major financial crisis triggered by the collapse of Overend Gurney Bank; the year also saw the outbreak of a "cattle plague" in North Norfolk which impacted on the cattle receipts on the line. The West Norfolk was amalgamated with the Lynn and Hunstanton Railway in 1872, forming the Hunstanton and West Norfolk Railway,  which in turn was acquired by the Great Eastern Railway in 1890.

During the Second World War, the railway's strategic coastal location meant that it provided a natural 'rampart' behind which a potential beach invasion could be repelled. For this reason, a line of pillboxes were constructed along the railway.

The post-war boom experienced by the King's Lynn to Hunstanton line was not felt on the West Norfolk Junction Railway whose inconveniently sited stations contributed to declining passenger traffic. Passenger services from Wells-next-the-Sea to Heacham were eventually withdrawn from 2 June 1952, but the line remained open to freight. However, following the North Sea flood of 1953, the track between Wells-next-the-Sea and Holkham was so severely damaged that British Railways considered it not worth repairing and the line was closed completely between these two places.

Up to the end of its existence, the line was one of the last where one could travel in gas-lit clerestory coaches hauled by Victorian locomotives.

Route

At Heacham, services to Wells-next-the-Sea started and terminated in a bay platform to the east of the line, while trains to Hunstanton and King's Lynn departed from the platforms just to the west. The station was rebuilt at least twice, with the Great Eastern Railway adding platform canopies, a turntable and improving the platform buildings. More substantial modifications were carried out by the London and North Eastern Railway in 1937 as Heacham had by then become a significant holiday destination, and it was necessary to extend the passing loop to accommodate 13-coach trains. A lattice girder footbridge linked the platforms, while a signal box was situated on the down side.

Sedgeford railway station was the first station after Heacham on the single-track West Norfolk Junction Railway. It was a small station located in a rural area, equipped with a single platform on the down side, built to smaller dimensions to other stations on the Lynn and Hunstanton Railway, and without a stationmaster's residence. Very basic goods facilities were provided in the shape of a single carriage siding on the down side. The station's staff amounted to two persons, reduced to one in the final years. Traffic on the line was largely agricultural, consisting of corn, sugar beet, cattle and agricultural machinery. A level crossing lay to the east of the platform.

After passing through Docking, trains arrived at Stanhoe railway station, situated more than a mile from the village from which it took its name; its remote rural location was accentuated by the fact that it lay at a height of around 200 ft above sea level. With no goods facilities provided, the station had one of the simplest layouts on the line; a single platform on the up side on which was built a signal box and single storey station building out of Norfolk flint rather than the usual Great Eastern Carstone. A level crossing lay to the west while the line climbed to the west, running parallel with a minor road before crossing it on a level about a mile from Docking.

Burnham Market was the principal intermediate station on the West Norfolk branch, serving the largest settlement between Heacham and Wells-next-the-Sea. Its importance was to decline towards the end of the nineteenth century as it shed its urban functions to become the village it is today. A single platform was provided together with a brick station building situated on the down side of the line. There was a crossing loop to the west of the station allowing it to be a passing place. Four sidings led from the loop to serve a goods yard equipped with a red brick goods shed. Another siding led to a nearby brickworks which used the railway to import coal. The station, like many others along the line, also handled its fair share of agricultural traffic and, in addition, some fish traffic (notably shellfish) from nearby villages such as Brancaster and Burnham Overy.

The station was also the nearest to Lord Nelson's birthplace at Burnham Thorpe, a fact capitalised on by the Great Eastern Railway which erected large nameboards proclaiming that this was the station "For Burnham Thorpe & Nelson's Birthplace".

At Holkham the railway line curved away from the main village centre dominated by Holkham Hall, and followed a path nearer the coast. The line had been opposed by the occupant of Holkham Hall, the Earl of Leicester, who feared that it would lead to large scale resort development and an influx of holiday visitors near his home. A station was nevertheless opened opposite the main gates of Holkham Park which had been laid out by Thomas Coke who had reclaimed from the sea some of the land over which the railway now ran. The station's approach road, Lady Ann's Drive, continued for around half a mile to the beach at Holkham Gap. The station itself was very small, equipped with a single platform and no goods facilities. Architecturally, it was a miniature version of the Great Eastern's "Victorian House" design, incorporating a small platform canopy. There was a level crossing over Lady Ann's Road which was controlled by a wooden signal box.

East of Holkham, the line curved southwards and rose on an embankment to cross the coast road on an overbridge, then turned eastwards to curve around the south of the town in a cutting which is now densely overgrown.
The line entered Wells-next-the-Sea station on a sharp curve, turning through a full 180 degrees before converging with the Wymondham to Wells branch from Dereham for the final approach. West Norfolk services used the outer face of a sheltered wooden island platform to the south of the station, with the inner face being set aside for services to Dereham and Wymondham. The Dereham side was unusual in that there was a platform on either side of the train, allowing the passengers the choice of which side to alight from, much the same as Ventnor and Ulverston stations.

Post-closure

The majority of the route remains unobstructed although some of it now traverses open fields with no visible sign of the trackbed, and at Wells-next-the-Sea the line is densely overgrown where it runs through a cutting. The stations at Heacham, Sedgeford, Stanhoe, Burnham Market and Wells-next-the-Sea remain in good order, and large sections of the route remain in transport use as roadways and drives. For example, at Burnham Market, the former route passes east of the station across a field and is not visible, but the trackbed then survives as a concrete road leading from the south end of Joan Short's Lane to the sewage works, from where it continues as a public footpath through woodland.

Holkham station has been demolished, although the WW2 pill boxes remain. The site of Docking station has been redeveloped as a housing estate, although the station house survives as a private residence, and the route into Wells-next-the-Sea has been partially redeveloped as housing, a school playing field and an industrial estate.

References

Bibliography

Rail transport in Norfolk
Closed railway lines in the East of England
Railway lines opened in 1866
Railway companies disestablished in 1890
Standard gauge railways in England
1866 establishments in England
Railway companies established in 1866
British companies disestablished in 1890
British companies established in 1866

West Norfolk Junction Railway


Dorris Alexander "Dee" Brown (February 29, 1908 – December 12, 2002) was an American novelist, historian, and librarian. His most famous work, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (1970), details the history of the United States' westward colonization of the continent between 1830 and 1890 from the point of view of Native Americans.

Personal life

Born in Alberta, Louisiana, a sawmill town, Brown grew up in Ouachita County, Arkansas, which experienced an oil boom when he was thirteen years old. Brown's mother later relocated to Little Rock so he and his brother and two sisters could attend a better high school. He spent much time in the public library reading the three-volume History of the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark which saw him develop an interest in the American West. He also discovered the works of Sherwood Anderson and John Dos Passos, and later William Faulkner and Joseph Conrad. He cited these authors as those most influential on his own work.

While attending home games by the baseball team the Arkansas Travelers, he became acquainted with Chief Yellow Horse, a pitcher. His kindness, and a childhood friendship with a Creek boy, caused Brown to reject the descriptions of Native American peoples as violent and primitive, which dominated American popular culture at the time.

He worked as a printer and reporter in Harrison, Arkansas, and decided to continue his education at Arkansas State Teachers College in Conway, Arkansas. His mentor, the history professor Dean D. McBrien, helped give him the idea to become a writer. They traveled west along with other students on two occasions in a Model T Ford. On campus, Brown worked as an editor to the student newspaper and was a student assistant in the library. The latter convinced him that he should become a librarian.

In the midst of the Great Depression he went to George Washington University in Washington, D.C. for graduate study. Brown worked part-time for J. Willard Marriott, attended classes, and married Sally Stroud (another graduate of Arkansas State Teachers College drawn to Washington by the New Deal). Eventually he found a full-time job and became a librarian for the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 1934 to 1942. He lived at 1717 R Street NW, in the Dupont Circle neighborhood.

Brown's first novel was a satire of New Deal bureaucracy, but it was not published, owing to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The publisher suggested "something patriotic" instead. He responded with Wave High The Banner, a fictionalized account of the life of Davy Crockett (who was an acquaintance of his great-grandfather). A few months after its publication, he was drafted into the U.S. Army where he met Martin Schmitt, with whom he collaborated on several works after the war. During the war, Brown worked for the United States Department of War as a librarian and never went overseas.

From 1948 to 1972, he was an agriculture librarian at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, where he had gained a master's degree in library science, became a professor, and raised a son, Mitchell, and daughter, Linda, with his wife Sally.

As a part-time writer, he published nine books, three fiction and six nonfiction, by the end of the 1950s. During the 1960s, he completed eight more including The Galvanized Yankees, which Brown described as requiring more research than any of his other books, and The Year of the Century: 1876, which he described as his personal favorite.

During 1971, his book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee became a best-seller. Many readers assumed that Brown was of Native American heritage.

During 1973, Brown and his wife retired in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he devoted his time to writing. His later works include Creek Mary's Blood, a novel telling of several generations of a family descended from one Creek woman, and Hear That Lonesome Whistle Blow, which described the chicanery and romance concerning the construction of the western railroads. His last book-length work, The Way To Bright Star, is a picaresque novel set during the Civil War. He never completed its sequel, which was to feature P. T. Barnum and Abraham Lincoln.

Brown died at the age of 94 in Little Rock, Arkansas. His remains are interred in Urbana, Illinois, along with those of his wife.

Legacy and honors

The Central Arkansas Library System named a branch library in Little Rock, Arkansas for him.

Works

Histories
 Fighting Indians of the West (1948) with Martin F. Schmitt
 Trail Driving Days (1952) with Martin F. Schmitt
 Grierson's Raid (1954) Describes a Union foray into Confederate territory
 Settlers' West (1955) with Martin F. Schmitt
 The Gentle Tamers: Women of the Old Wild West (1958)
 The Bold Cavaliers: Morgan's Second Kentucky Cavalry Raiders (1959) Republished as Morgan's Raiders (1995). Describes John Hunt Morgan's Civil War activities.
 The Fetterman Massacre (1962)
 The Galvanized Yankees (1963) Republished (1986)
 Showdown at Little Big Horn (1964)
 The Year of the Century: 1876 (1966)
 Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (1970)
 Fort Phil Kearny: An American Saga (1971) Republished as The Fetterman Massacre (1974) (First published 1962)
 Andrew Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans (1972)
 The Westerners (1974)
 Hear That Lonesome Whistle Blow (1977)—about the Union Pacific Railroad
 Wondrous Times on the Frontier (1991)
 The American West (1994) Collected excerpts from earlier books co-authored by Schmitt
 Great Documents in American Indian History (1995)

Novels
 Wave High The Banner (1942)
 Yellowhorse (1956)
 Cavalry Scout (1958)
 They Went Thataway (1960) republished as Pardon My Pandemonium (1984)
 The Girl from Fort Wicked (1964)
 Action at Beecher Island (1967)
 Creek Mary's Blood (1980)
 Killdeer Mountain (1983) A mystery revolving around an officer in the Battle of Killdeer Mountain
 Conspiracy of Knaves (1986) A Civil War historical saga about the Northwest Conspiracy
 The Way To Bright Star (1998)

Other
 Tales of the Warrior Ants (1973) For young people
 American Spa: Hot Springs, Arkansas (1982) An illustrated history
 Dee Brown's Folktales of the Native American: Retold for Our Times (1993) Originally published as Teepee Tales (1979)
 When the Century Was Young (1993) Memories of growing up in 1920s & 1930s
 Images of the Old West (1996)

References

Further reading
 Maureen Salzer: Dee Brown. In: Michael D. Sharp (Hrsg.): Popular Contemporary Writers. Marshall Cavendish, 2005, pp. 264-724
 Lyman B. Hagen: Dee Brown. State University, Boise 1990,  (englisch).
 Washington Post Saturday, December 14, 2002
 Contemporary Authors, Autobiography Series, Adele Sarkissian, ed. Vol. 6. Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1988: 45–59.

External links

 Dee Brown at WorldCat
 Dee Brown, 94. Author Who Revised Image of West New York Times, December 14, 2002
 Dee Brown, 94; 'Wounded Knee' Author Altered Perceptions of Frontier History. Los Angeles Times, 2002-12-14 (obituary)

1908 births
2002 deaths
20th-century American novelists
American librarians
20th-century American historians
Writers from Arkansas
University of Illinois School of Information Sciences alumni
People from Ouachita County, Arkansas
American male novelists
20th-century American male writers
American male non-fiction writers
People from Dupont Circle
George Washington University alumni

Dee Brown (writer)