Indeed, the recognition of the severity of these offenses led to their inclusion in the treaties to which Israel is a party. In the bilateral treaty between Israel and the United States (an extradition treaty between the Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the United States of America), "offenses against the law of dangerous drugs" are established as extradition offenses in Article 2(31) of the Convention.
- An examination of American law reveals a similar picture. It should be said that it is no coincidence that many conspirators direct their actions specifically to the United States. This country is a preferred destination for drugs smuggled from abroad. The drug "market" in it, it turns out, is vast and the profits on its side are large. The demand for the "Ecstasy" drug there, as we have seen in various cases that came before this court, is high.
Drug crimes, as well as acts related to their commission, are clearly included in U.S. law as acts that allow the law to be applied outside of the territory, according to United States v. Bowman [77] cited above. These are acts that as far as the application of the law is concerned, the decisive element is not the place where they were carried out, but the place where they became influential. American case law reiterates this. In the case of United States v. Wright-Barker, supra [79] discussed the case of defendants who conspired, outside the United States, to import and distribute a dangerous drug within its territory. The Court of Appeals ruled that American law has a clear application to these offenses, since the law in the United States -
“... undoubtedly intended to prohibit conspiracies to import controlled substances into the United States, and intentions to distribute such contraband there, as part of its continuing effort to contain the evils caused on American soil by foreign as well as domestic suppliers of illegal narcotics” (ibid [79], at p. 167).
In another case, it was held that limiting the applicability of the law to acts committed in the United States would significantly undermine the ability to fight drug crime and the effectiveness of this fight (United States v. Vasquez-Velasco, supra [80], at p. 839). See also: Brulay v. United States (1967) [107], at p. 349; United States v. Perez-Herrera, supra [78], at p. 290; United States v. MacAllister, supra [76], at p. 1307.