Finland:
This resolution is intended to improve the performance of drug testing labs. Drug testing labs need small amounts of controlled substances to carry out the necessary tests and are required for accurate forensic data and monitoring systems. However, laboratory’s in many country struggle to get the controlled substances for testing. There is a need for the distribution of test samples for quality control purposes by the international bodies.

United States:
The resolution needs to refer to the scientific element of the need for controlled substances rather than medical elements.

Venezuela:
We agree with the US, we think the INCB should ensure the availability of illicit drugs for medicinal and scientific purposes and we have some linguistic changes we want to make.

Argentina:
The draft resolution should guarantee the quality of the substances, and each paragraph of the resolution should be examined more carefully.

Finland:
The text is directly from the convention and we think it should remain the same

Argentina:
Proposes a slight change to the language of the text and Finland agrees with Argentina’s proposal.

Russia:
There are some contradictions in the text. We think the text should also specify that “sufficient” amounts of controlled substances must be made available, not just the “minimal” amounts.

Finland:
We can delete the word “medical” and just have “scientific”. We agree with Russia’s suggestion.

Venezuela:
Emphasising the “medical” element being important and thus has a slight issue with Finland’s proposal.

Finland:
Reiterates meaning of the resolution.

Russia:
We are agree with the provisions made and we think we should go through the text and complete it.

Argentina:
We have some comments to make. What the INCB does is not only provide the substances for testing but also to ensure their quality. This should be emphasised.

INCB official:
There is no provision for the INCB to ensure the quality of substances in the convention.

Argentina:
Were not asking the INCB to certify quality, but to verify quality. I will come back to this issue later.

Japan:
Asks for clarification of the intention of the proposal

Chair:
Quality assurance will be done by the UNODC and not the INCB

Argentina:
We would recommend that the text that says the UNODC should continue to support the laboratories and experts should be accepted.

Canada:
Raises an issue on the function of the national contact points

Finland:
The idea of national contacts points inst necessary and can be left out of the text, but the national contact points can facilitate the work of the laboratories.

Argentina:
Raises concern about departing too far from the original language.

Finland and concerned countries will finalise text outside of the committee meeting.