Agenda Item 6b: Changes in the scope of control

Documents: E/CN.7/2016/9 and E/CN.7/2016/CRP.2

Chair: Philippines informed the secretariat that it does not oppose the scheduling of any of the proposed substances. Commission will examine recommendations on the seven substances in accordance with the provisions of the 1971 convention, and should decide what action, if any, it wishes to take. Before moving on to a vote on each substance, there will be an introduction by each party that proposed it. After that introduction, the CND will take action. Normal procedure is to move by consensus to a vote. Then, the voting rules go into play. For substances recommended under the 1971 convention, simple majority of commission members voting and present are required. Regarding recommendation on acetylfentanyl, the CND would vote on the inclusion of this in schedule 1 and 4 simultaneously. In accordance with past practice, substances recommended under the 1971 convention, 2/3 vote will suffice. This means for an addition to be adopted, an affirmative vote of at least 35 members of the commission is required. In terms of voting itself, in accordance with rule 59, voting is conducted by a showing of hands. Chair will call upon members in favour to raise their plates. Then those that are not in favour to raise their plates. Then those abstaining. At the end, Chair will declare the decision reached on each substance, and move to the next.

Acetylfentanyl: 

WHO: Acetylfentanyl properties like morphine. No current medical uses. Similar to morphine, which is in schedule 1 of 1961 single convention. It is recommended that it be included.

46 votes in favor
0 against
0 abstentions
Include acetylfentanyl in schedules 1 and 4 of the 1961 convention.

MT-45:

WHO: Led to overdoses. It has no current medical uses. Effects are similar to those of morphine and other opioids included in schedule 1. Recommended to include in schedule 1 of 1961 convention.

45 votes in favour
0 against
1 absention
Include MT-45 in schedule 1 of the 1961 convention.

Para-Methoxymethyl-amphetamine (PMMA):

WHO: Chemically similar to methamphetamine. Use of PMMA has been recorded across a number of countries. The committee considered that the risk to public health is especially serious. We recommend that PMMA be placed in schedule 1 of 1971 convention.

47 votes in favour
0 against
0 abstentions
Include PMMA  in schedule 1 of the 1971 convention.

A-Pyrrolidinaovalero-Phenone (a-PVP):

WHO: A-pyrrolidinaovalero-phenone (a-PVP) abused in a number of countries, and shown to cause multiple deaths. The abuse of these substances causes substantial problems. Recommend to place them in schedule 2 of the 1971 convention.

48 votes in favour
0 against
1 abstention
Include a-PVP in schedule 2 of the 1971 convention.

Para-Methyl-4-methylaminorex (4,4’-DMAR):

WHO: Recommendation to place Para-Methyl-4-methylaminorex (4,4’-DMAR) in schedule 2 of the 1971 convention.

48 votes in favour
0 against
1abstention
Include 4,4’-DMAR in schedule 2 of the 1971 convention.

Methoxetamine (MXE):

WHO: Recommendation to place Methoxetamine (MXE) in schedule 2 of the 1971 convention.

48 votes in favour
0 against
1 abstention
Include MXE in schedule 2 of the 1971 convention.

Phenazepam:

WHO: Illicit use of Phenazepam has increased in a number of countries in recent years. Its use has been associated with a number of overdose deaths. It has similar affects to diazepam, which is included in schedule 4 of the 1971 convention. It has smaller risk than those substances in 1-3, and some medical uses. Place them in schedule 4 of the 1971 convention.

46 votes in favor
2 against (Belarus and Russia)
0 abstentions
Include Phenazepam in schedule 4 of the 1971 convention.

Belarus: We voted against the inclusion of Phenazepan, because it is widely used in medicine. Similar substances may be restricted, but are not put under control.

Russia: All the of the substances put to the vote, except for Phenazepam. It is not a psychotropic or highly active substance. In accordance with the Russian law, it is in a list of vital and necessary substances. It is broadly used in medicine and for medical purposes. No evidence of large scale abuse. Scheduling the substance could mean restricted medical availability. We think WHO should describe clear and detailed explanation of how it comes to these decisions. Let us recall the situation with Ketamine. When the main reasons were cited, its medical usefulness was included. This same criterion was simply ignored. We insist in the use of standardized and comprehensible approaches to the scheduling of drugs.

Austria: Wants to explain abstention. We would like to have this statement reflected and included. The situation concerning NPS on consumer market has changed over last years. The emergence of NPS has steadily been increasing. We need global answers. We question whether this mechanism is really working. None of the new chemicals on the market can be presumed to be safe when consumed. The information on these newer chemicals is very scarce. We believe a generic approach should be used, to avoid the regulator always lagging behind. Prevention, education, play and important role. To achieve good results in terms of prevention and risk reduction, consumers should be able to talk about the reasons they use NPS. All the substances listed today are either already controlled or will be controlled soon. New challenges required tailored answers.

UK: Evidence-based reviews of substances under international control. International scheduling is an effective tool to reduce the supply of NPS. Requires distinct but complementary approaches at all levels. Look forward to continued WHO work on this issue.

WHO: Reviewed by ECDD. Belongs to benzodiazepine family. Structural resemble to benzodiazepine, which is in schedule 4 of 1971. Can result in withdrawal effects indicative of dependence. Following effects: Respiratory arrests, psychotic effects, overdose, deaths, and driving under its influence. User reports indicate that this enhances effect of opiates and alcohol. Thus, the committee has identified the need to have this under schedule 4 of the 1971 convention. Very serious public health risk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.