Plenary: Item 9. Implementation of the international drug control treaties (cont.)

Chair: We will now continue our consideration of Agenda Item 9. The Commission is invited to carry out its treaty mandated provisions. This morning, we will first consider Item a (Changes in the scope of control of substances. The CoW will be suspended during consideration of this item). We will, during the meeting today, proceed considering draft decision L10 entitled Changes in the scope of control of substances – Proposed scheduling recommendations of cannabis and cannabis-related substances. The UN Sec Gen received two notifications from the Director General of WHO concerning the outcome of the 41st meeting of the WHO-ECDD. One notification informed about the review of 10 new psychoactive substances and two pain relieving medicines. In this regard, the ECDD made scheduling recommendations on 4 fentanyls and 5 synthetic cannabinoids. The contents of the recommendations were already presented orally by the representative of the WHO at the reconvened. Concerning the review of cannabis and cannabis related substances, the ECDD made several recommendations. They were not presented during the reconvened as they awaited clearance. They were formally shared as notes verbales in February. States were requested to submit comments to the Secretariat. The recommendations and comments submitted by States by 28 February are available to the Commission. After receiving the two notifications, a number of delegations expressed concern that not enough time was available to prepare the voting during this session of the commission. Considering that complex domestic procedures would need to be completed based on the recommendations. The extended bureau discussed this. The regional groups were consulted. During the discussion, reference was made to CND resolution from 1982 (Procedure to be followed by the CND in matters of scheduling of narcotic drug and psychoactive substances), which requests WHO to forward recommendations at least three months prior to the commission session at which the recommendations could first be examined. At its intersessional meeting in February, the CND agreed on the recommendation of Extended Bureau concerning procedural recommendations to postpone vote. It was agreed upon by the meeting of the Extended Bureau that the procedural resolution will be taken up after the voting today. We will first proceed to the scheduling recommendations of the following under 1961 and 1971 conventions.

Secretariat: The CND has before, a document concerning the vote. A series of countries sent comments, including Bhutan, Bolivia, and Indonesia. The WHO and INCB will explain the recommendations accordingly. The Commission will act by consensus to decide whether a vote is to be taken. For 1961 convention, a simple majority. For 1971 convention, 2/3 majority (irrespective of the amount of members in the CND present but at least 35). 1988 Convention also requires 2/3 majority. In terms of the voting itself, in according to Rule 59 of the rules of procedure; the voting is conducting by showing of hands. Members in favour will be asked to raise their plates. Following that, those against will be asked. Only 53 countries members of the CND are invited to vote. The scheduling decision will be manifested immediately and then the CND will consider another.

Parafluorobutyrylfentanyl

Gilles Forte, WHO: It is a synthetic analogue of fentanyl. It appears in powder, tablets, nasal spray and vaping. It produces opioid like effects like analgesia. Potency between morphine and fentanyl. Significant potential for dependence and likelihood of abuse. Typical opioid adverse effects related to respiratory depressing. It has caused substantial harm and has no therapeutic use. Similar potential for abuse and effects of substances in Schedule I. So the ECDD recommended to Schedule in Schedule I of 1961.

Chair: I invite the CND to take a vote. Simple majority needed. I call only the members of the commission in favour to raise their plates and keep them raised until their name is called out: Afghanistan,. Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroun, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico Netherlands, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 45 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has included Parafluorobutyrylfentanyl in schedule 1 of the 1961 convention.

Orthofluorofentanyl

Gilles Forte, WHO: Synthetic analogue of fentanyl. Potential for dependence and likelihood of abuse. Typical opioid adverse effects including respiratory depression. Substantial harm and no therapeutic effect. Similar to opioids in Schedule I, recommend to schedule Schedule I 1961.

Chair:  In favour? Afghanistan,. Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico Netherlands, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 46 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has included orthofluorofentanyl in schedule 1 of the 1961 Convention.

Methoxyacetylfentanyl

Gilles Forte, WHO: Synthetic analogue of opioid analgesic fentanyl. Powders, liquid and table. Analgesia higher to morphine, close to fentanyl. High potential for abuse and dependence. Most serious adverse effect is respiratory depression; in overdose can lead to death. Consistent with opioid action. Significant risk to public health and no therapeutic use. Similar to opioids in Schedule I, so recommendation Schedule I 1961.

Chair: I invite the CND to take a vote. Simple majority needed. I call only the members of the Commission in favour to raise their plates and keep them raised until their name is called out: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 46 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include Methoxyacetylfentanyl in schedule 1 of the 1961 Convention.

Cyclopropylfentanyl

Gilles Forte, WHO: Synthetic analogue of opioid analgesic fentanyl. Powders, liquid and tabletas. Opioid action and effects. Use associated with large number of deaths. For most, principal substance. No known therapeutic use, substantial harms. Potential for similar abuse and ill effects to opioids in Schedule I, so recommendation Schedule I 1961.

Chair: I invite the CND to take a vote. Simple majority needed. I call only the members of the Commission in favour to raise their plates and keep them raised until their name is called out: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 46 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include Methoxyacetylfentanyl in schedule 1 of the 1961 Convention.

Chair: Moving on to 1971 Convention.

ADB-FUBINACA

Gilles Forte, WHO: Synthetic cannabinoid used smoking plants material sprayed or inhaled in vapour. Potential for dependence and likelihood of abuse. Effects like other synthetic cannabinoids. Similar mechanism of action to other Schedule II synthetic cannabinoids. Severe adverse effects. No therapeutic use. Recognising abuse and therapeutic use, recommendation Schedule II of 1971.

Chair: I invite the CND to take a vote. 2/3 of members. I call those in favour. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil,, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 45 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include ADB-FUBINACA in schedule II of the 1971 Convention.

FUB-AMB (MMB-FUBINACA, AMB-FUBINACA)

Gilles Forte, WHO: Synthetic cannabinoid used as powder, solution or sprayed in smoking plants material/inhaling vapour. Potential for dependence and likelihood of abuse. Similar mechanism of action to other Schedule II synthetic cannabinoids. Severe adverse effects, including deaths. No therapeutic use. Recognising abuse and therapeutic use, recommendation Schedule II of 1971.

Chair: I invite the CND to take a vote. 2/3 of members. I call those in favour. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 47 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include FUB-AMB (MMB-FUBINACA, AMB-FUBINACA) in schedule II of the 1971 Convention.

CUMYL-4CN-BINACA

Gilles Forte, WHO: Synthetic cannabinoid encountered as powder, solution or sprayed in herbal material that mimics cannabis. Smoked or inhaled. Potential for dependence and likelihood of abuse. Similar effects and mechanism of action to other Schedule II synthetic cannabinoids. In Europe, most frequently seized. Evidence with fatal and nonfatal intoxication. Substantial harm. No therapeutic use. Recognising abuse and therapeutic use, recommendation Schedule II of 1971.

Chair: I invite the CND to take a vote. 2/3 of members. I call those in favour. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 47 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include CUMYL-4CN-BINACA in schedule II of the 1971 Convention.

ADB-CHMINACA (MAB-CHMINACA)

Gilles Forte, WHO: Synthetic cannabinoid encountered as powder, solution or sprayed on herbal material that mimics the appearance of cannabis. Smoked in plant material sprayed with substance or inhaled. Similar effects and mechanism of action to other Schedule II synthetic cannabinoids. Among the most potent. Mode of action with high likelihood of dependence and abuse. Severe intoxications and deaths. Causes harm. No therapeutic use. Recommendation Schedule II of 1971.

Chair: I invite the CND to take a vote. 2/3 of members. I call those in favour. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 47 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include ADB-CHMINACA (MAB-CHMINACA) in schedule II of the 1971 Convention.

N-Ethylnorpentylone (ephylone)

Gilles Forte, WHO: Synthetic cathinone usually available as capsule, tablet, pill, powder; usually sold as MDMA/ecstasy. Psychomotor stimulant effects, paranoia, tachychardia, consistent with other synthetic cathinones and not dissimilar to cocaine. Significant potential for dependence and likelihood of abuse. Mechanism of action similar to MDPV and alpha MDPV, listed Schedule II of the Convention of 1971. Evidence of use in many countries in various regions. Fatal and nonfatal intoxications. Substantial harm and no therapeutic usefulness. Recommendation to list Schedule II 1971.

Chair: I invite the CND to take a vote. 2/3 of members. I call those in favour. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 47 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include N-Ethylnorpentylone (ephylone) in schedule II of the 1971 Convention.

3,4-MDP-2P-methylglycidate (PMK Glycidate) (All stereoisomers)

Chair: Argentina’s suggestion on four precursors to ATS. Pursuant to 1988 Convention, Argentina has suggested 3,4-MDP-2P-methylglycidate 3,4-MDP-2P-methylglycidic acid alpha-phenylacetoacetamide (APAA). INCB submitted a notification to the Secretary General in conjunction with the Argentinian proposal. INCB proposed that 3,4-MDP-2P-methylglycidate 3,4-MDP-2P-methylglycidic acid alpha-phenylacetoacetamide (APAA)  be included,

Viroj Sumyai, INCB: The INCB has the responsibility under the 1988 conventions to assess the chemical use of substances in the manufacture of drugs. The INCB recommended including them in Table 1 of the Convention. I’d like to share a few recommendations. They’re all designer precursors. No known legitimate use nor regularly traded. The first two substances are very closely related to MDMA. 3,4-MPD-2-p methyl glycidate (PMK). PMK is not part of the 1988 drug convention. The board find that both chemicals are highly suitable for the illicit manufacturing of precursors for MDMA. both substances have no legitimate use other than small laboratory analytical purposes. The board recommends all stereoisomers be placed in table 1 of the UN convention against illicit drug trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, 1988.

Chair: I invite the CND to take a vote. 2/3 majority of CND members. I call those in favour. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 48 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include 3,4-MDP-2P-methylglycidate in Table I of the 1988 Convention.

3,4-MDP-2P-methylglycidic acid

Chair: No comments? Then I invite the CND to take a vote. 2/3 majority of CND members. I call those in favour. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Hungary Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 48 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include 3,4-MDP-2P-methylglycidic acid in Table I of the 1988 Convention.

alpha-phenylacetoacetamide (APAA)

INCB: Introducing alpha-Phenylacetoacetamide (APAA) a precursor of amphetamines and methamphetamines, its it highly suitable for the manufacturing of p2p which is already in table 1 of the 1988 convention, which is then used to make methamphetamines and amphetamines. There is no known legitimate use and recommends adding APAA to table 1 of the 1988 convention.

Chair: No comments? Then I invite the CND to take a vote. 2/3 majority of CND members. I call those in favour. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Netherlands,  Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 47 votes in favour.

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour? None.

Chair: Members abstaining? None.

Chair: The CND has decided to include alpha-phenylacetoacetamide (APAA) acid in Table I of the 1988 Convention.

Hydroiodic acid

Chair: As mentioned before, the government of Argentina proposed that apart from APAA and the other two substances, another substance hydroioidic acid. We will hear the advice of the INCB.

INCB: The board suggest the substance Hydriodic acid can be used to create methamphetamines and amphetamines, though it should not be classified in the 1988 convention – due to other substances being available on the market that are cheaper and perform the same role. It  also is seen to have legitimate medicinal uses in anaesthetics and research – the scheduling of this substance would not affect the production of illicit drugs therefore recommends it not be scheduled into the 1988 act.

Chair: I invite the CND to consider, based on the INCB’s view, if the substance is placed under control.

Argentina: Firstly, I would like to express gratitude for the technical assessment made by the INCB and the decision that this honourable commission has taken in relation to the 3 other precursors submitted. We feel this is an accompaniment of the evaluation my country did on this substance. In relation to the 4th substance, we have heard the INCB. Argentina is satisfied with this explanation and understand that, although the substance is relevant, because it has problematic uses, however the reasons put forward justify this assessment and the proposed decision by the Board is appropriate.

Chair: No comments? Then I invite the CND to take a vote. 2/3 majority of CND members. I call those in favour. None

Chair: Members of the Commission not in favour?Afghanistan, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United States, Uruguay. 43 votes against.

Chair: Members abstaining? Argentina, Brazil, Peru. 3 abstaining.

Chair: The CND does not include hydroioidic acid in Table II of the 1988 Convention.

Chair: Now, we will focus on L10 on cannabis and cannabis related substances. I invite the CND to adopt the decision contained in L10. I see no objection. The decision is adopted. May I ask if any delegation wishes to take the floor at this stage?

Japan: We acknowledge that WHO recommendation on scheduling substances, etcetera, came late to the UN. If we could not do the vote today, NPS would stay unregulated. Japan recognises our decision progresses to prevent smuggling, trafficking and abusing. And international community should more actively cooperate together to prevent abuse of those substances. Recently, international measures against NPS have been progressing; it is very important that information sharing among member states concerning newly found NPS and national countermeasures in each country and accumulation of research data concerning statistics and effects. It is important that continuous measures from: first, finding new NPS in the market and its analyses; second, measures on prevention and border control and education. Further sharing of scientific expertise among member states as well as strengthening domestic measures in each country. We had already regulated 9 of 12 substances excluding 3 precursors as designated substances at this CND. We are ready to reclassify these 9 NPS into the narcotic category as soon as possible. We appreciate the proposal country, Argentina, and INCB for scheduling 3 new precursors under the international treaties. Clandestine production of illicit drugs converting from precursors is increasing and diversifying recently. Japan would like to enforce further cooperation through PENS and ION, the INCB proposed sharing information platform. We apply cannabis for medical use, it is significant to not only focus on accessibility but also to establish substantial and detailed systems for preventing abuse. Japan supports our decision to discuss carefully with enough time. I stress that cannabis is still the most abused drug in the world. We cannot miss the bad influence to the new generation. Cannabis has changed to high concentrations and foods. Japan is concerned by the widespread abuse. Japan says we can’t ignore the need for investigative perspectives, for example when we regulate cannabis preparations depending on the percentages of THC. It becomes very hard to find out whether the illicit cannabis production is or not (…). Japan remains committed to raise detection issues when considering the recommendations

Uruguay: The Delegation of Uruguay has stated that we do not agree with the fact of postponing the necessary discussion on the recommendation of the World Health Organization regarding the reclassification of cannabis, given the growing scientific evidence indicating that this substance could be beneficial for treat different health problems. At the request of some honorable delegates who manifested that their countries were not in a position to offer an answer, my delegation was forced to agree to postpone the vote. As we all know, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence has recommended that cannabis resin and other cannabis products be moved from list IV to list I, with respect to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. The committee also recommended that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, be designated as a Schedule I drug to simplify its classification. Currently, THC is classified separately in list IV of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. In addition, the Committee proposes that products made with cannabidiol (cannabis compound), containing no more than 0.2% THC, be removed from all international drug control conventions. We must keep in mind, that the list IV is the strictest category described in the document, which nowadays can restrict the work of scientists who wish to investigate the possible therapeutic effects of the plant. We cannot ignore that this recommendation marks a significant change in the position of WHO, which during the last six decades had positioned itself against the use of cannabis in medicine. We warmly welcome this evolution in the concepts that WHO is involved in. It is our obligation to establish that by postponing this decision, the CND demonstrates once again that it cannot accomplish the tasks assigned to it decades ago. According to the most reliable estimates, cannabis represents 57% of total drug consumption worldwide. Undoubtedly, this is not the first time that the discussion about Cannabis is postponed sine die by the CND. In 2004, in Resolution 59/160 of the UN General Assembly, Member States requested UNODC to prepare a global survey on cannabis, which led to a special chapter in the World Drug Report 2006, entitled “Cannabis: why should we worry?” In the report, UNODC stated that “the world community is confused about cannabis,” and that “reaching agreement on cannabis matters is important because it is, by a wide margin, the most popular illicit drug in the world.” It also recognized that “much of the initial material on cannabis is now considered inaccurate, and that a series of studies in several countries have exonerated the cannabis of many of the charges against him.” It noted that “the medical use of the active ingredients, if not the plant itself, is championed by respected professionals.” The report recognized that supply reduction is impossible given the potential to grow the plant anywhere and that all previous attempts to control availability had failed. In its final conclusion, the report already raised the key issue on cannabis, before UNGASS 2016, and I quote: “The world has not reached an agreement about cannabis as a drug. In some countries, the use and trafficking of cannabis is taken very seriously, while in others, they are practically ignored. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the international system, and the time to resolve the global ambivalence on the issue is far behind. Either the gap between the letter and the spirit of the single Convention, which manifests itself about the cannabis, must be overcome, or the Convention parties must discuss the redefinition of the state of the cannabis”. However, the cannabis issue was not discussed at the 2016 UNGASS, despite the fact that some jurisdictions had already legally regulated the substance for non-medical use and others had announced that they would do so. For decades, the Academy has been discussing the potential damage to the health of different psychoactive substances. In all serious work on the subject, cannabis has been considered a substance outside the group of the most harmful and addictive (among which are alcohol and tobacco although they have not been subject to international control). It is imperative that the CND not continue to be oblivious to this concept and, conversely, incorporate it into their work. Consistent with the vision, insistently promoted in this Commission, of basing decisions on the best available scientific evidence, we must take into account the contribution made by the highest Experts Committee on the subject within the framework of WHO. Additionally, the proposed modifications, if approved, may encourage the development of new knowledge about the cannabis plant and its derivatives. Honorable Delegates, for the aforementioned reasons, accepting the WHO recommendation is imperative and this decision should not be postponed indefinitely. Recall that the proposed change is for the benefit of the health of humanity, and that not taking a decision means damaging, day by day, millions of people. The CND should not be held responsible, by omission, for this purpose. My delegation would like to end this statement by proposing that the recommendation be adopted as soon as possible, in the course of this year, instead of being this decision postponed for the coming year. Specifically, we formally request that this Commission schedule the treatment to the WHO recommendations regarding cannabis at the next Reconvened Meeting in December 2019.

China: We agree with the recommendation on strengthening substance control, although NPS abuse is rare in China, the government takes into account the view of other countries and will act to tighten control on fentanyl analogs. Emergence of NPS and opioids is a global problem that no country can stop alone, we suggest strengthening prevention via education. In addition, we strive to tighten control on precursor chemicals.

Russia: Usually, the recommendations of the WHO-ECDD only is something disseminated to a very narrow circle of experts. With regard to recommendations on cannabis, this situation is completely different. The idea is debated in ample circles, the mass media. This is not surprising. We have a situation where countries are violating international law, legalising cannabis. Here, it is understandable that the ECDD interest is justifiable. In case we took a positive decision on this matter, society would understand this decision as further calling for legalisation. This is not the case. Cannabis would remain on Schedule I. But the perception of the world of the community would be that legalisation is fine and dandy. Probably the experts don’t have to go through the turmoil of thinking through the repercussions of their decisions. They’re technical experts. Nothing more. Our Commission, given our status and mandate. We must demonstrate exceptional caution on this matter and carefully analyse what we’re talking about and why. Why is it that 58 years after cannabis was put on Schedule IV that all of the sudden we have an expert group of WHO that it needs to be taken out. We have to ask: “What happened in 2019 to justify this recommendation?”. We fully support the decision to postpone the decision on the recommendations in this regard. The way in which the ECDD has forced this process through; it’s the ECDD recommendation and not the WHO recommendation. The way they forced this theme through in such a hurry and with such conviction raises a multitude of questions in our mind. In the absence of favourable reasons to review cannabis internationally. Many countries are conducting research on the drugs. They’re stepping us the imports of raw material and the production of pharmaceuticals. In recent years, the medical cannabis market has developed substantially. The presence of cannabis in Schedule IV doesn’t stand in the way at all. And the ECDD and the INCB note that the medical controls which are there are not enough to stand in the way to stand in the way of possible diversion towards trafficking. Nonetheless, the ECDD is talking about hindrances in the way of scientific research into the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis. By way of recommendations, they talk about specific articles. It’s a strange argument by the esteemed Committee of experts. As we know, investigations are legally conducted by pharmaceutical companies with their interests. These interests do no overlap with those of our commission. In controlling international narcotics drug trafficking and use. During the commission meeting in February this year, the Russian delegation asked WHO delegate for an exact list of articles they refer to constantly and we have not received that. In taking this serious decision, the CND cannot be based on flimsy and sporadic evidence. We need robust evidence on harms and benefits. I recall that cannabis is the most abused narcotic drug substance in the entire world. This makes it indispensable for us to exercise strong control over this drug. I draw your attention that pursuant to para 5 of article 2 of the convention of 1961, it says “a party shall if it’s opinion that the conditions of the country are the (…) can prohibit trade in Schedule IV”. Each state should be able to decide what control is the soundest. Schedule IV allows parties to the 1961 Convention to take appropriate domestic measures. The arguments alleging restrictions on research and medicinal use are not convincing. The review of the scheduling status would rather till fertile ground for further weakening of the international drug control measures in regard to this drug. Thus, it would negatively impact public health and welfare; worse than at present. I would also discuss the inclusion of THC in the convention of 1961. The ECDD doesn’t have the powers to switch one substance from a convention to the other. It cannot be to the ECDD to do this. (…) Only then, will the CND should respond to the recommendation. This recommendation is not the most felicitous or topical and its justification really is flimsy to say the least.

Chile: We believe that the international drug control treaties constitute the corner stone of the international drug control system. The world drug problem must be addressed in common and shared responsibility where international cooperation will be the best (…) for years Chile has been focused on reducing supply and demand placing emphasis on issues affecting women and children. The work undertaken by the CND is critical when scheduling substances derived from fentanyl. These substances are some of the most problematic world-wide, due to deaths and international regulation (…) I would like to refer to recommendations from the 44th meeting of the expert committee on the WHO – specifically on cannabis scheduling and the recommendation for cannabis removal from table IV, we would vote to postpone the recommendation to remove it from table IV. I wish to inform you that in jan 2016, the implementing regulations for implementing Chiles drug laws has changed. The amendment saw substances moved to list two – extracts and tinctures of cannabis and pharmaceutical grade products made from cannabis. We clearly make a distinction between medicinally used drugs and those that damage public health. we issue a call to WHO to pay careful heed to the need that recommendations take place at least 3 month before the CND meetings so that they can be taken into account prior to the meetings.

Mexico: The decision-making process on the scheduling and de-scheduling substances of the international drug control system is one of the core tasks of this Commission. It is not only a matter of implementing the mandates of the Conventions, of deciding on a particular substance, but rather a matter of assessing the full scope of social, economic, and public health factors, as well as evolving realities. Literally thousands of people depend on actions taken in this room. In this regard, the Government of Mexico considers that the WHO has a key role to play, and it therefore requires the support of all Member States to effectively carry out its analysis, and to articulate the recommendations it presents to this Commission with autonomy and on the basis of science. We regret that there was a delay in the presentation to this Commission of the recommendations that the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence consolidated after having conducted a critical review on cannabis and its derivatives, and that action thereon was postponed. Mexico considers that it is a matter of utmost relevance requiring our full attention. Given the decisions we must make regarding cannabis – a plant and derivative substances that had never before been submitted to a critical review by the WHO –, we have before us the opportunity to assess, objectively and without prejudice, the differentiation of cannabis with regard to the potential harm caused by other substances under international control. In the coming months, I hope that all of us at the Commission will responsibly take on the assessment of this topic, and that we shall discuss based on the whole body of available information regarding wellbeing, public health, and social and economic matters.

Nigeria: We welcome the votes on the postponement of the recommendation of WHO, however we are concerned that tramadol has become one of the most used drugs in West Africa and our research indicates that tramadol is the second most used drug in Nigeria. A dangerous pattern is emerging where the contents of some pills go from 100mg to 500mg. we believe that tramadol should be kept under review and be scheduled. We thank the CND for the postponement of the vote.

United States: We welcome the recommendations of the ECDD. Our delegation appreciates the role of the ECDD in accelerating control on dangerous substances. On cannabis, we would echo that the recommendations are incredibly complex. MS do not understand their practical implications. We appreciate the time to better understand their legal and scientific basis. They were transmitted historically late, challenging our capacity to firm up responses from our national authorities. We recommend their postponement to 63rd Session. We want to raise issue with the consideration. Consideration was included 62nd provisional agenda even before UNODC received the official recommendations. US would suggest that the inclusion in the agenda is received by UNODC from WHO.

Côte d’Ivoire – In the name of observer countries of the Francophonie: This statement was for yesterday and that is why it doesn’t relate to today’s point. The international community is faced by a multifaceted problem. Affected by consumption, transit, destination, suffering from the scourge of drug trafficking. The Ministerial Segment had the challenge to take stock and set out the path for next year. WE support the Declaration and the ambitious objectives. We reaffirm that the world drug problem remains a common and shared responsibility to be addressed multilaterally through cooperation and in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN and the Declaration of Human Rights. We reiterate the need to promote all human rights, fundamental freedoms and all instruments related. Faced with persistent challenges, the three Conventions form a reliable foundation. They demonstrate flexibility and point in the right direction. They’re the cornerstone of the international drug control regime alongside human rights instruments. UNODC should be in a position to identify themes emphasised in combatting the world drug problem. We underscore the need to stop the cultivation, manufacture of psychotropic substances and the consequences of criminality and violence. We need to take into account emerging challenges like the emerging use of the darknet and internet; and harmful health effects of psychoactive drugs. We recall the nexus between world drug problem and organised crime, including terrorism. Drug use disorder is a complex problem that we can address through treatment, rehabilitation, community-based programme, post-cure policies, social reintegration, rehabilitation of people affected by disorder. In order to better address the world drug problem, we recall the importance to put in place strategies to reduce harmful behaviour. It’s necessary to also tackle socioeconomic issues linked to production, trafficking and consumption of drugs that are focused on SDGs and AD programmes. Also, we need to develop initiatives seeking to minimise harmful effects of drug abuse on public health and society, particularly for young people and women. We note disparities in the availability of substances for medical purposes and ongoing insufficient number in countries. We underscore the essential role of the CND to address the world drug problem and hail the work undertaken by relevant agencies. Vital to step up the use of synergy between different bodies such as WHO, UNAIDS and HRC. For the effective implementation, we hope we can continue to count on the support of relevant UN bodies, who provide important tools to the international community. We stress the importance of high quality analysis and data in order to respond to the world drug problem. Combatting illicit trafficking requires effective coordination between NY and Vienna, particularly in funding to international bodies in the drugs field, including WHO. Cooperation should step up and involve private sector, including finance. A group of member states and observes of the Francophonie manifests its commitment to continue cooperation with UN and other intergovernmental organisations and relevant civil society.

Secretary: Ongoing is still the informal L4 convened by Norway, also ongoing in room MOE on resolution L6 convened by Peru, starting at 1:30 there will be proposals on resolution L3 by Russia. Resolution L8 draft proposal will be held in M7 by Uruguay, and L9 will be convened by Brazil in M4. At 3:30pm resolution L2 will be convened by turkey in room M6

Chair: The CoW can reconvene this afternoon

Secretary: The CoW will convene at 3pm as will the working plenary and will start with agenda item 10.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.