March 4th, 2020: “It is incumbent on this Commission that we review all aspects, administrative, social, political, legal, and other aspects, that are part of the mandate of this Commission in discharging its responsibilities. It is also important for the Brazilian government that these are challenges that have to be undertaken in conformity with the UN Conventions on drug control, which provide us with a very clear legal framework for its Members, that need comply with. Brazil will be participating actively in this process, and we very much look forwards to continue working under [CND Chair’s] leadership, under the time we have agreed upon in differing action on these recommendations. These recommendations on cannabis and cannabis-related substances are very important, and we are fully confident in this time that we have given ourselves for better understanding, clarifying issues, and continuing to working together for the good of our own populations.”

n/a

n/a

March 2nd, 2020: “Thank and express recognition for the leadership and efforts shown among last weeks, that enabled us to acheive a consensus on the topic of the WHO recommendations on cannabis and cannabis-related substances.”

March 4th, 2020: “Take note of the decision to continue the consideration of the ECDD’s scheduling recommendations on cannabis and cannabis-related substances during the current 63rd session, on the understanding that definitive action by way of a vote be taken at the reconvened 63rd session in December 2020. We also wish to extend our thanks to [CND Chair] and to the secretariat for your work in the consultation process thus far.

We are of the view that this approach does not undermine the WHO recommendations which have been instructive in guiding our decision-making on scheduling cannabis and cannabis related substances. We wish to thank the WHO for its contribution in this regard.

Jamaica acknowledges that this deferral will allow Members States that require additional time to further assess the impact of these recommendations. We encourage Member States to use this time for scientific and evidence-based evaluation. We are however mindful that continuing delay will not improve access and enhance palliative care for those individuals who are suffering from illnesses and disorders such as epilepsy, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and wasting syndrome. These groups require this avenue of hope where all other options have failed. Jamaica looks forward to constructive engagement across the CND membership on the scheduling of cannabis.”

March 2nd, 2020: “At the 62nd Session of the CND, in March last year, my delegation placed on record its disappointment that the WHO’s recommendations on the scheduling of cannabis were not considered for adoption. Once more, the recommendations have been placed before the Commission for consideration and we urge that Members to firmly grasp this historic opportunity for the Commission to demonstrate its capacity to operate within the context of an ever-changing and innovative world.

The recommendations serve to make significant advancement based on scientific knowledge by acknowledging the medical and therapeutic benefits of cannabis. We owe it to the countless millions of persons in need of palliative care; to those suffering from illnesses and disorders such as epilepsy, cancer, multiple sclerosis and wasting syndrome. We owe it to them to provide this avenue of hope where all other options have failed.”

March 4th, 2020: Mexico aligned with the position contained in the statement of European Union member states and other countries [see EU position from March 4th, under “European Union”].

March 4th, 2020: “One of the fundamental tasks of the CND is taking action in order to amend the Schedules for the international control of substances. Failing to fulfil this mandate set forth in the Conventions themselves, would mean sharking our role as a principal organ to address the world drug problem. In addition to having joined the statement delivered by the representative of the European Union, I would like to convey that, as Mexico sees it, postponing the taking of action on the recommendations of ECDD of the WHO based on the scientific analysis of cannabis and its derivatives, should not merely mean ‘postponing the date’ for this action; quite the contrary, rather it should compel us to ramp up our joint effort in order to better understand the technical interpretations and implications, in order to, therefore, fully carry out our role within the international drug control system, and thus carry out and fulfil our mandate. 

Undoubtedly, this is a very different time compared to that of 1961, when the Single Convention was adopted, and therefore Mexico once again recognizes the role and work of the WHO in undertaking a critical examination of cannabis and its derivatives. A plant which indeed was included in the control Schedules without prior analysis regarding its possible therapeutic properties, scientific uses, or psychoactive characteristics.

My country trusts that under [Chair’s] guidance and UNODC secretariat, we will start as of now our substantive work, bringing us up to December 2020. And, inter alia, Mexico believes that together, we could address the following tasks.

 – Identifying the recommendations that require further study; it is clear for everyone, for instance, that recommendation 5.1 does not require additional technical clarification. That is clear.
 – Carry on informal consultations to focus on those recommendations that are intrinsically interlinked., as well as other consultations in order to address pending consultations.
 – In order to prepare thoroughly for these consultations, we are committed to ensuring that [CND Chair] receives in due time indications from the Member States, regarding the bodies – in addition to WHO, the INCB and the UNODC – that should be convened in this exercise, given that they can provide valuable opinions, allowing us to fully understand the implications of these recommendations. Entities such as the World Customs Organization or the World Trade Organization.”

March 2nd, 2020: “Tenemos la obligación de cumplir con los roles que nos marcan nuestros acuerdos internacionales, por ejemplo, en materia de cambios en las listas de fiscalización internacional. Tenemos ante nosotros la obligación de tomar acción sobre las recomendaciones del Comité de Expertos en Farmacodependencia de la Organización Mundial de la Salud que resultaron del análisis crítico a la cannabis y sus derivados, análisis al cual le dimos la bienvenida. Para México, la posibilidad de posponer esa toma de acción no debe ser pretexto, sino que debe orientarnos a reconocer y reafirmar el papel clave de los órganos mandatados por los tratados, y obligarnos a debatir más que nunca sobre aquello que debe cambiar para mejorar la política internacional de control de drogas.”

n/a

n/a

n/a

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

March 4th, 2020: “We note the postponement of the matter, and thank [CND Chair] for providing Member States with more time to review the proposal presented by WHO, and appreciate the work of WHO providing evidence-based recommendations to guide our scheduling mandate. I, however, wish to reiterate my delegation’s position on this matter, as read in our statement yesterday [see below] and to state that my delegation is not persuaded that WHO report addresses some of the logistical difficulties of guiding against diversion of cannabis to illicit markets. Our objection to this proposal is also informed by the fact that cannabis is the most problematic substance of abuse, responsible for the highest number of persons with substance use disorders. We see this rescheduling proposal as a formal legalization beyond the [???] provided by the current régime of the CND. We are convinced that the 3 international Conventions already provide access to such drugs and substances for medical and scientific purposes. Approving the WHO proposal will also result in a misunderstanding, and therefore result in uncontrolled abuse and misuse of cannabis and cannabis-related substances. I call upon the other Member States to take advantage of the time given to reflect on the impact of this proposal, so as to make an informed choice in December during the reconvened session of the CND.”

March 3rd, 2020: “It is our belief that the Conventions provide sufficient safeguards that allow access to such drugs and substances for medical and scientific purposes. We once again echo our strongest opposition to any attempt to push for the legalization of Cannabis and other controlled substances for any reason other than medical and scientific purposes. It is important to note that majority of developing countries are yet to establish effective and enforcement drug control mechanisms and legalizing these substances for recreational purposes will strain the already weak control mechanisms.”

n/a

n/a

March 4th, 2020: “Nigeria recognizes the Treaty-mandated role of the WHO in recommending changes to the control measures for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The Commission has continued to play its role, in promptly implementing scheduling recommendations by WHO, especially where they pose no challenges to clarity.

However, my delegation has expressed serious concerns about the recommendations by WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence on the scheduling of cannabis and cannabis-related substances. We believe that the reasons offered by ECDD for the recommendations are insufficient. Besides, the reasons relate only to scientific basis: no explanation has been profiled for the social, logical administrative and technical ramifications.

My delegation is also deeply concerned about global perception of such rescheduling proposal, which may be viewed as a shift and support for legalization of non-medical or recreational use of cannabis. This situation is further compounded by growing and disturbing appetite, in some jurisdictions, to legalize non-medical or recreational use of cannabis, as reported in the 2019 report of the INCB. Similarly, the 2019 World Drug Report identifies cannabis as the most abused substance in the world, posing serious threats to security, health and well-being of the global population. We reiterate that legalization of non-medical use of cannabis is a violation of international obligations under the drug control treaties. At the national level, cultivation and high traffic in cannabis still persist in Nigeria. These have necessitated us to prioritize our farmland identification and destruction strategy, which has resulted in the destruction of several hectares of farmland. 

Rescheduling cannabis in the manner proposed will be counter-productive to our prevailing situation on drug control efforts.

We are also concerned about the linkage between abuse of cannabis and rate of crime, including insurgency and banditry in Nigeria. Our national drug use survey launched in January 2019 revealed that over 10 million persons abuse cannabis in Nigeria in one year alone. Similarly, the report of the Nigeria Epidemiology Network of Drug Use shows that over 80% of those that access treatment abuse cannabis. It is against this background that the merits of the recommendations by WHO’s ECDD continue to face serious scrutiny. No meaningful action could have been taken by the Commission under the prevailing situation.”

February 20th, 2020: “The Government of Nigeria noted with concern that the questions raised with regard to the recommendations on cannabis and cannabis-related substances had not satisfactorily been addressed by the World Health Organization.”

March 4th, 2020: “The South African Government has carefully considered and read the recommendations of the World Health Organisation’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence regarding the proposed changes to the scheduling of cannabis, its tinctures, extracts, cannabis resin, dronabinol, tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol from the schedules and/or tables of the three international drug control conventions.

We commend the World Health Organisation for providing Member States with scientific and evidence-based information in assisting member states to formulate drug policies and programs to counter and address the world drug problem.

We are of the view that the recommendations are sound, balanced, and based on a critical review of the scientific evidence. These recommendations will serve as an important guide on how Member States should schedule the substances in their domestic legislation.

In conclusion, my government re-upholds its commitment to upholding the international drug control system as the foundation of its policy on drugs and related substances and ensures that the mission of its intention continues to comply with international obligations accordingly.”

March 2nd, 2020 (text): “My delegation would like to take this opportunity to express sincere appreciation for efforts in handling the process relating to the recommendations from the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence relating to cannabis and to commend Member States for upholding the Vienna spirit of consensus on this matter. While my government has kept a close ear to these recommendations and is already in a position to support the WHO’s ECCD recommendations as related to cannabis, my delegation will continue to work with member states in arriving at a mutual/amicable solution.”

n/a

Unfortunately, to date, we have not seen any convincing exhaustive arguments to support the proposals which came from the international experts at the WHO.

We suggest the task of Commission at this stage is also to analyze what is behind the need to weaken controls on cannabis, which remains the most abused narcotic drug in the world. We hope that we will manage to receive answers to these questions during the intergovernmental meetings planned for the second half of the year in Vienna with participation of expert representatives from Ministries of health, law enforcement, as well as legal experts, to look at these 6 recommendations by WHO. We believe that this process will be open to all interested Member States of the UN. We are certain the results from this expert format will allow our Commission to adopt a well-considered and objective decision on the issue of cannabis.

In order to study this issue in detail, in addition to the opinion WHO, we need the opinion of INCB, which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Conventions. It will be important to receive the legal conclusions of the [INCB] with regard to the cannabis control regime, included alleged existing limitations in the use of this narcotic in regards to medical and scientific purposes.

It would also be a good idea to analyse the precedents for the revision by the Commission of the scheduling of other substances from the point of view of their exclusion from Schedules. Russia intends to actively participate in work on this issue and we are counting on constructive cooperation with all delegations. We hope the objective dialogue in its expert format will allow Member States to determine their positions at the reconvened 63rd session of the Commission, and allow them to take a well-considered and objective decision on these recommendations.”

February 20th, 2020: The Government of the Russian Federation stated that a decision by the Commission to relax cannabis control would indirectly encourage the liberal experiments in a number of countries on full or partial legalization of the recreational use of marijuana in violation of their obligations under the international drug control conventions. The removal of cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention would inevitably be perceived by society, especially young people, to mean that the drug was harmless. Diminished awareness of the risks associated with cannabis abuse would in turn lead inevitably to an increase in drug abuse among young people and entail serious social consequences. Further, the deletion of cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV would mean that the parties to the Convention would be limited in their ability to apply stricter national control measures to cannabis according to their specific circumstances.

n/a

March 4th, 2020: “Canada continues to strongly endorse the treaty-mandated role of the WHO to assess and make recommendations to schedule drugs based on its expert assessment of the latest scientific evidence. Its critical review of cannabis and cannabis-related substances resulted in several recommendations with complex implications. Over the past year, CND members have been working to gain a better understanding of the WHO’s reasoning behind the recommendations and to begin to consider their potential consequences. In this regard, Canada very much appreciates the answers already provided by the WHO, the INCB, and the UNODC within their respective mandates during the 4th and 5th intersessional meetings of the CND.

It remains our view that two recommendations were ready for a substantive vote and could have been adopted today. In the spirit of compromise, we were willing to postpone voting on those items to be defined at a date this year. We are hopeful that the legal and technical concerns that we ourselves have with the other recommendations will be addressed by further examination and clarification.

Like others, Canada acknowledges that this limited period of further study will allow States to consider additional legal, policy, and administrative factors. It is now incumbent upon all CND members to make optimal use of the intersessional meetings to hear from experts, engage in dialogue and address outstanding questions. As we do so, it’s imperative that we protect and preserve the integrity of the scheduling process itself and that we ensure that the decisions we take are based on scientific evidence and fact. We look forward to fulfilling our treaty-mandated responsibilities, voting on these recommendations at the reconvened 63rd session of the CND in December.“

March 4th, 2020: “For more than one year, Member States have had the opportunity to use intersessional CND to pose questions and to decide on their positions. Switzerland was prepared to vote on the recommendations during this CND and we regret that some Member States were not. We accept that they need more time to further consider the implications and consequences of the recommendations so they can make the necessary evidence-based assessments in order to vote on the issues in December, this year, at the reconvened CND.

We need to show the world, beyond the CND, that we are ready to assume our responsibility according to international drug control Conventions. That the international scheduling system still works and most of all that the international scheduling system is credible and fit for the future.”

March 2nd, 2020: “To address complex issues, it is high time to give due weight to scientific evidence and to a coherent scheduling of substances under the international drug control regime.”

March 4th, 2020: “Expressing the UK gratitude to the WHO, UNODC and INCB for their work on the recommendations we voted on this morning. We fully support the ongoing role of the WHO, UNODC, and INCB to ensure that international controls are in place for the most harmful substances. Turning to the recommendation on cannabis and cannabis-related substances, we would first like to thank the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence for their work on the recommendations and for their participation in the intersessional meetings to date. The UK continues to fully support the treaty mandated role of the WHO. It is important to underline that the WHO ECDD recommendations reaffirm that cannabis is subject to the full scope of international controls of the 1961 Single Convention. Due in particular to the high rates of public health problems arising from cannabis use and the global extent of such problems. We were ready to vote on the recommendations at this session but respect the consensus decision of the commission to postpone. We trust that through your leadership the CND will conclude on this process for a vote on the recommendations during the reconvened session in December. This is imperative so as to ensure that we preserve the integrity and credibility of the international scheduling system.”

March 2nd, 2020: “We note the Commission was able to come to consensus on the way forward World Health Organisation’s recommendations regarding cannabis and related substances, but it is imperative that the vote takes place in December in order for the CND to fulfil its treaty mandated role”

March 4th, 2020: “The United States would like to echo the statement of the EU and Canada this morning [see statement of the EU from March 4th, under “European Union”] and offer these additional remarks to highlight key concerns to the United States.

We join consensus on the decision to vote on the WHO’s cannabis-related recommendations at the reconvened session in December in order to allow the members of the Commission and other Member States an opportunity to share their views on the economic, social, legal and administrative and other relevant factors raised by the WHO cannabis recommendations.

We recognize that differences in national situation will result in a diversity of viewpoints; we believe this is an important part of this process.

We will do our part and we urge the CND and other Member States to join us in committing to effectively studying these issues throughout the intersessional period so that all countries are prepared to cast their votes in December focusing on those questions which are within the CND’s mandate to consider and not question seeking to undermine or challenge the underlying scientific evidence.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly we wish to underscore the significance of the WHO’s critical review of cannabis but also put in perspective: the scientific review conducted by the WHO reaffirms the placement of cannabis under Schedule I of the Single Convention, the strictest set of controls in the 1961 Convention.

This is a major milestone in our collective efforts to control narcotic drugs liable to be abused, but also possessing the potential of therapeutic value. But as important as these cannabis figures are, we cannot lose sight of the stark reality that the world drug problem is vast and multi-faceted, and that much work remains to address the drug threats that are killing all our citizens today.

This important work cannot be sidelined by other deliberations, so the United States reaffirms its support for the efforts of the Chair and Member States to use these next 6 months productively so that the CND is ready to vote on the WHO recommendations in December. We look forward to our good work together. I thank you Chair.”

March 2nd, 2020: “Member states also must support and utilize the international scheduling system provided in our treaties to respond to new and evolving challenges. Data should be the primary driver of this process. We support the role of the WHO to recommend changes in international control based on their scientific, evidence-based assessments of risks of abuse, dependence, and harm to health of substances.

As the WHO accelerates the rate at which it can assess substances, it is especially important that the CND respond to all WHO recommendations in a timely manner. This includes making difficult decisions on cannabis, so that the commission can return its focus to more urgent drug control threats that are killing many of our citizens and undermining our security and public health. The United States remains firmly committed to consensus-based decision making here at the CND, including on this week’s procedural decision to vote on the cannabis recommendations at the Reconvened CND in December. We do regret that the CND was unable to take action on the WHO cannabis recommendations this week, given that Member States have been working hard since February 2019 to engage in an in-depth consultative process on the legal, administrative, social, and economic impacts of the recommendations. We would like to thank the WHO, the INCB, and UNODC for participating in all those sessions. It is now the responsibility of Member States to continue this process through the CND in a manner that ensures they arrive at the Reconvened session in December prepared to cast their votes.

It is important to highlight that the WHO recommendations have drawn our attention to important questions regarding the proper administration of the drug control system. In the absence of a timely response from the CND, these questions may give rise to discrepancies and vulnerabilities that can be exploited by traffickers, ultimately weakening the international drug control system. This lends urgency to our efforts. We look forward to working together to find creative and effective solutions to these challenges so the Commission can return to more urgent priorities.

The CND is a time-honored forum for sharing expertise and coordinating new and traditional partnerships. We must remain nimble to adapt to the drug-related challenges of today and tomorrow. The conventions give us the tools we need, and we look forward to working together with other member states to live up to our commitments and demonstrate our values through concrete action.”

January 2020: Document circulated with the following elements:

Unclassified – Handout for External Use:
Possible Responses to WHO/ECDD Cannabis Scheduling Recommendations

The international scheduling process is an essential tool for countering the world drug problem. Over the last several years, bringing additional substances under international control faster and more efficiently has been a central pillar of the world’s strategy to address the emerging threats of new psychoactive substances, fentanyl-related drugs and other synthetic opioids, and other dangerous substances. It is therefore vital that the international community continues to view the international scheduling process as functional, consensus driven, and responsive to scientific analysis. A failure to engage meaningfully with the WHO/ECDD’s cannabis scheduling recommendations could incorrectly imply that the CND and the international drug control treaties are ill-suited to tackle modem challenges. We cannot allow this perception to dominate the narrative of the CND’s debates over cannabis regulation; however, at the same time, Member States have expressed substantial confusion over the underlying meaning and potential impact of some of the WHO’s recommendations on cannabis, and many delegations are keen to study them in more depth before taking action on some or all of these proposals.

In some cases, the WHO/ECDD’s cannabis scheduling recommendations appear to have identified solutions to issues that not all CND members agree are problematic. The first step in building consensus is to identify clearly the issues the recommendations seek to address. Next, we must ask if we can agree on whether these issues are actually problematic. Finally, the Commission has a responsibility to consider the administrative, legal, socio-economic, and political considerations associated with the solutions proposed by the WHO/ECDD. Even if we decide that the costs of the solutions put forward by the WHO/ECDD outweigh the benefits, it is our responsibility to examine if we can propose alternative solutions, outside of the international scheduling process, that would address the issues identified by the WHO/ECDD.

In this spirit, the United States has developed discussion points and a wide range of possible solutions for each of the proposed WHO/ECDD recommendations. We have considered in this context that the CND has many different tools available to it beyond simply voting on scheduling decisions. This paper is intended only to serve as a starting point for further discussion among Member States, with a view to designing a pragmatic and balanced approach to discussing cannabis scheduling at the CND in the future. It is possible that the Commission may find itself in a position to take action on certain WHO recommendations in the short term — perhaps even at the 63″1 CND in March 2020 — while preferring to engage in a longer-term process to analyze the content, justification, and potential impact of other WHO recommendations. This paper is intended to help facilitate discussion regarding those actions that may be more appropriate for short-term consideration, and those which may benefit from additional consultation and review.

Recommendation 5.1

Decision Text: Delete Cannabis and Cannabis Resin from Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention (retain in Schedule I).
Issue(s) Identified: Schedule IV classification may entail unnecessary barriers to research into the medical or scientific benefits as well as any consequent harms associated with use of the cannabis plant (and cannabis resin) and its constituent compounds (THC, CBD, etc.).
Is this Problematic: It is unclear what specific barriers Schedule IV entails that inhibits research into the scientific or medical benefits of cannabis. Germany, Israel, Australia, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, for example, have robust industries growing cannabis for medical and scientific purposes, despite cannabis’ Schedule IV listing. On the other hand, the WHO has said certain unspecified countries may place additional control measures on substances listed in Schedule IV and noted the effect of scheduling that has been reported by some countries. Similarly, scientists, doctors, and researchers in many countries, especially in countries with less developed regulatory systems, may believe that substances listed in Schedule IV are too dangerous for experimentation. A Schedule IV listing could therefore be seen as causing a psychological chilling effect on cannabis research globally, even as the effect varies by country.
Pros to adopting WHO recommendation: • Although the body of robust science is growing, there remains limited scientific evidence from well-controlled clinical studies to determine the safety and effectiveness of potential therapeutic uses of the cannabis plant. At least a few safe, effective, and authorized medications have been developed from cannabis to date (Sativex, Marinol, Epidiolex, etc.) demonstrating that the constituents contained in the cannabis plant do have therapeutic uses. While a schedule IV classification does not prevent the use of cannabis for research purposes, a statement encouraging research would be beneficial to the advancement of collective knowledge of both the therapeutic utility as well as any associated harms of cannabis. • Similarly, there is limited research regarding the problems associated with cannabis use and the public health threat of cannabis dependence. Encouraging countries to make cannabis available for research purposes would allow for advancing study of these important issues. • Schedule IV only invites member states to consider “special measures of control” over substances that have “particularly dangerous properties,” but does not place any additional mandatory controls on those substances. In practice, because cannabis is also listed in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention, most signatories already have domestic laws in place to regulate cannabis cultivation and distribution for medical and scientific purposes at or above the strictest levels required under the Conventions. Therefore, the recommendation has little practical impact on domestic laws or regulations. • Before the current review, the WHO had never conducted a formal review and scientific analysis of cannabis. The WHO’s recommendation to keep cannabis in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention (the strictest level of substantive control) after a thorough review of the available scientific literature could send a strong message that the high abuse potential and ill effects associated with use of cannabis and cannabis preparations are similar to other drugs in Schedule I and pose a significant public health risk.
Cons to adopting WHO recommendation: • It is possible that civil society, the media, and the general public will view deleting cannabis from Schedule IV as a first step toward widespread legalization of marijuana use, especially without proper messaging. • It is possible that a decision to remove cannabis from Schedule IV could be misinterpreted publicly to imply that Schedule N control levels pose inherent barriers to research, and that the international drug control framework is incompatible with such scientific research. This challenge would be possible to mitigate through an explanatory statement by the CND to clarify that the international drug control framework is effective and both promotes research and responds to available scientific evidence.
Possible Solutions: Whether we decide to accept, reject, return, or postpone consideration of the recommendation, the CND may wish to consider adopting an explanatory statement, either attached to the decision itself or as a separate resolution, that contains the following elements: • Thanks the WHOIECDD for its recommendations. • Acknowledges that cannabis was placed in Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention without the benefit of knowing about many of its constituent compounds, such as THC and CBD, and their effects on the human body. • Highlights that the WHOIECDD’s recommendation to retain cannabis in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention after a thorough scientific review demonstrates the significant risks to health associated with cannabis use, especially high potency preparations. • Stresses the need for further systematic research into both the health risks of cannabis and potential therapeutic uses. • Reminds signatories that even Schedule IV listings do not prohibit scientific research and invites signatories to remove unnecessary barriers to research wherever possible, taking into consideration the need for controls to prevent diversion and other illicit activity. • Invites UNODC, INCB, and international partners to continue providing technical assistance and capacity building efforts to law enforcement officials and public health practitioners to strengthen international control measures, address the public health consequences of cannabis abuse, and improve treatment techniques.

Recommendations 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3.1, and 5.3.2

Decision Text: • Add Dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol) to Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (5.2.1). • Delete dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) from the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Schedule II, subject to the Commission’s adoption of the recommendation to add dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) to Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (5.2.2). • Add Tetrahydrocannabinol (understood to refer to the six isomers currently listed in Schedule I of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances) to Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, subject to the Commission’s adoption of the recommendation to add dronabinol (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in Schedule I (5.3.1). • Delete Tetrahydrocannabinol (understood to refer to the six isomers currently listed in Schedule I of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances) from the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, subject to the Commission’s adoption of the recommendation to add tetrahydrocannabinol to Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (5.3.2).
Issue(s) Identified: The justification for these recommendations cited by the WHO/ECDD is that moving control of these substances from the 1971 Convention to the 1961 Convention will “greatly facilitate the implementation of the control measures in Member States.” During the June 23 and September 23 CND intersessional sessions the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and several other Member States pressed the WHO/ECDD, INCB, and UNODC to explain what specific control measures would be improved. The only explanation provided by WHO/ECDD, INCB, and UNODC is that Member States will be better able to understand reporting requirements to the INCB. Therefore, the issue appears to be that the INCB’s reporting mechanism for these substances is currently inadequate to address changes to how the substances are produced and categorized.
Is this Problematic: The U.S. agency responsible for reporting to the INCB has not reported any difficulties or confusion. Other countries may feel differently. This issue most likely impacts to the greatest degree large cultivators of licit cannabis, such as Australia. It may be beneficial, therefore, to focus inquiries on these countries. It should be noted that reporting under the 1961 Convention is mandatory and occurs yearly, whereas reporting under the 1971 Convention is voluntary and occurs once every three years.
Pros to adopting WHO recommendation(s): • Additional reporting on cannabis may provide additional information policy makers can use to make informed decisions about programmatic efforts and other issues. • Confusion about how to report to the INCB may be reduced among certain Member States.
Cons to adopting WHO recommendation(s): • The WHO/ECDD has provided no public health justification for these recommendations. They appear purely administrative in nature. • The removal of THC and its isomers from the 1971 Convention and their placement in the 1961 Convention could raise issues concerning whether THC found in or derived from the leaves or from cannabis cultivated for industrial or horticultural purposes is still under control. Pursuant to the 1961 Single Convention, cannabis as scheduled does not include the leaves, and pursuant to article 28, cannabis cultivated for industrial or horticultural purposes is not subject to the Convention. The authority to schedule substances does not include the authority to amend or overrule the text of the Single Convention. Even if an argument can be made that THC would be scheduled regardless of where it was found, this internal contradiction could undermine the Convention and should be avoided. • There may be unintended consequences associated with the scheduling change and domestic laws or regulations may need to be amended. For example, the 1971 Convention requires less frequent estimates and reporting of legitimate use by Member States than 1961 Convention. Understanding the full range of consequences will require significant time and effort. • The workload of domestic agencies reporting to the INCB will triple with respect to cannabis reporting. • The INCB has indicated it will require additional, unspecified, support from the UN Regular Budget to implement this recommendation.
Possible Solutions: • Ask the 1NCB to advise the Commission on difficulties encountered by States Parties reporting on cannabis under the 1961 Single Convention and THC under the 1971 Convention, and to recommend revised forms to be applied specifically to capture the totality of data required. The Commission could adopt these forms pursuant to Article 18 of the Single Convention and Article 16 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, authorizing the Commission to request that Parties provide information to the Secretariat; • Ask the INCB to convene an expert working group to examine ways to clarify and improve reporting mechanisms for ❑9-THC such as consolidating reporting for cannabis under one form, instead of separate forms for the 1961 and 1971 Conventions, similar to how forms are consolidated for opium reporting. • Invite Member States to voluntarily provide information on cannabis cultivation yearly, or at other more frequent intervals, instead of once every three years, through a resolution or other decisional text.

Recommendation 5.4

Decision Text: Delete “Extracts and Tinctures of Cannabis from Schedule I of the 1961 Convention.
Issue(s) Identified; The WHO/ECDD has explained that the term “extracts and tinctures of cannabis” is outdated and duplicative of the term “preparations of cannabis,” which are already controlled under the 1971 and 1961 Conventions. Additionally, some preparations extracted from the cannabis plant have psychoactive properties and some do not. The WHOIECDD’s review emphasized that the variability in psychoactive properties is due principally to varying concentrations of THC, which is already scheduled under the 1971 Convention. Finally, the WHO/ECDD noted some preparations of cannabis have demonstrated therapeutic applications such as the authorized medicine Sativex.
Is this Problematic: The WHO/ECDD claims national regulatory agencies are confused by the extracts and tinctures terminology. The United States views the addition of extracts and tinctures as redundant with “preparations” and agree that eliminating the terminology would remove confusion concerning which regime controls in cases where a preparation that is also an extract or tincture has been moved to a different schedule than schedule I.
Pros to adopting WHO recommendation: • Confusion among national regulatory authorities may be reduced. • Adopting the recommendation would send a message that the CND is supportive of the WHO/ECDD’s findings.
Cons to adopting WHO recommendation: • Similar to recommendations 5.2.1 — 5.3.2, recommendation 5.4 is administrative in nature; no public health justification is apparent.
Possible Solutions: As no Member State has raised any concerns about this particular recommendation, it is difficult to contemplate alternatives to accepting, rejecting, or postponing consideration of the recommendation.

Recommendation 5.5

Decision Text: Add a footnote to Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to read: “Preparations containing predominantly cannabidiol and not more than 0.2 percent of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol are not under international control.”
Issue(s) Identified: Advances in scientific knowledge have made clear that there are no “pure” preparations that can guarantee the absence of psychoactive components. Medicines, beauty products, natural remedies, and other compounds that are non-psychoactive in nature, but are derived from plants that have psychoactive components may contain residual trace amounts of psychoactive material that could also be considered an “impurity,” as compared to an active ingredient of such a preparation. Preparations of predominantly cannabidiol (CBD) are excellent examples of this conundrum. As CBD is derived from the cannabis plant, CBD products will normally contain residual trace amounts of THC. During the September 23 CND intersessional meeting, UNODC, INCB, and WHOIECDD provided vastly different explanations of how the international drug control treaties should be interpreted to address this issue.
Is this Problematic: The international drug control treaties do not provide detailed guidance about how to deal with impurities or residual trace amounts of internationally controlled substances in preparations that are otherwise non-psychoactive in nature. This is a gap that may need to be addressed, but when in doubt, the parties should be guided by the object and purpose of the treaty.
Pros to adopting WHO recommendation: • Selecting a specific numeric threshold amount for the residual substance provides clarity to Member States about how to domestically control preparations that contain such impurities.
Cons to adopting WHO recommendation: • At the September 23 CND intersessional meeting the WHO/ECDD clarified that the 0.2 percentage figure selected is calculated on a dry-weight basis. However, the text of the recommendation does not make this clear, and we previously understood from the WHO/ECDD that the 0.2 percent figure was calculated by weight by volume in a final preparation or solution. A technical correction or clarification will likely be necessary before CND Member States can accept the recommendation, since the WHO recommendation text is not clear as currently worded. • Many countries have already considered and developed policies to regulate CBD products and have chosen thresholds for allowable delta-9-THC content that are above or below the WHOIECDD’s recommended 0.2 percent. For example, Switzerland uses a one percent threshold, and the United States a 0.3 percent threshold on a dry-weight basis. Adopting the resolution may therefore be inconsistent with some Member States’ existing domestic laws and may be unacceptable to a portion of the CND membership on grounds.
• There are many other non-psychoactive components of the cannabis plant (perhaps as many as 200). Medical research is ongoing for some of these components, and as new products are developed, new footnotes may need to be added to cover these other components. This may, in effect, create an additional schedule for the 1961 Convention. The default assumption is and should be that non-psychoactive substances are not under international control. This footnote could turn this assumption on its head and create a cumbersome process of adding potentially endless footnotes to the schedules every time products are developed that mix psychoactive and non-psychoactive components.
Possible Solutions: It is not the responsibility of UNODC, INCB, or the WHO to interpret the international drug control treaties. States Parties instead have a primary duty to identify and address any gaps in the international drug control treaties with regard to trace residual amounts and impurities of internationally controlled substances in preparations that are otherwise non-psychoactive in nature. We note, however, that the treaties acknowledge the principle that the offenses referred to in the conventions “shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of the Party.” In our view, this preserves the right of each State Party to determine whether there will be a threshold, and if so, what that threshold should be, guided by the general intent to prevent diversion to illicit purposes. States Parties therefore may wish to develop a policy paper, resolution, or other decisional text for consideration by a future CND that provides general guidance to States Parties on how preparations that are non-psychoactive in nature, but contain residual trace amounts of psychoactive components, should be addressed. Some elements may include: • Statements recognizing that CBD, although it is derived from the cannabis plant, is not psychoactive, is already used for therapeutic purposes in several medicines, and there is no evidence of its abuse. Therefore, it is contrary to the purposes of the Convention to subject it to international control once CBD is no longer part of cannabis. • An acknowledgement that CBD should not be under international control, despite the fact that it contains residual trace amounts of THC; for example, by providing a definition of “pure” CBD, or by allowing Member States to determine what is considered pure. • General guidance about how CBD products should be produced in such a way that THC is not readily recoverable or recoverable only in yields that would not pose a risk to public health. Care should be taken to ensure flexibility for Member States to set reasonable THC thresholds that make sense in domestic contexts. • More generally, a recognition that the CND is the body empowered to make recommendations on all matters related to the aims of the conventions.

Recommendation 5.6

Decision Text: Add preparations containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol), produced either by chemical synthesis or as a preparation of cannabis, that are compounded as pharmaceutical preparations with one or more other ingredients and in such a way that delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol) cannot be recovered by readily available means or in a yield which would constitute a risk to public health to Schedule III of the 1961 Convention.
Issue(s) Identified: Several existing authorized medicines such as Marinol and Syndros contain a psychoactive compound (09-THC). The WHO/ECDD recognized that such preparations have formulations with decreased likelihood of abuse and lack evidence of actual abuse or ill effects that would justify either Schedule I of the 1961 Convention or Schedule II of the 1971 Convention. However, the WHO/ECDD believes that adding these preparations to Schedule III of the 1961 Convention would not impeded access to these medicines while assuring some warranted measure of control.
Is this Problematic: The WHO/ECDD review acknowledges that existing evidence concerning the use of medicines containing i9-THC indicates such medicines are not associated with problems of abuse and dependence and that they are not diverted for the purpose of non-medical use. Initially it was thought that this recommendation would not be undertaken unless the Commission decided to move THC from the 1971 Convention to the Single Convention, but when asked to clarify, the WHO/ECDD maintained that its recommendations were not linked. In our view, if THC is not moved to the 1961 Convention, there is no basis to consider moving preparations of THC into the 1961 Convention.
Pros to adopting WHO recommendation: • A Schedule III listing exempts preparations with low abuse liability from certain control measures, but still provides some protection.
Cons to adopting WHO recommendation: • A Schedule III listing imposes additional regulatory burdens on Member States. • Additionally, the recommendation refers to “pharmaceutical” preparations, which is not a defined term under the Single Convention. Introducing an undefined term into the schedules may lead to further confusion. Further, without agreement as to what constitutes a “pharmaceutical preparation,” almost any preparation, including butane hash oil, could be so construed.
Possible Solutions: Preparations in Schedule III must contain drugs scheduled elsewhere in the 1961 Convention. If the recommendation to reschedule delta-9-THC from the 1971 Convention to the 1961 is not accepted, this may obviate the need to vote on recommendation 5.6.