ARTICLE: The United Nations Debates Cannabis

Originally published by Garden Culture Magazine on June 14, 2019

Inside the walls that represent all flags, during the 62 nd Commission of Narcotic

Drugs (CND) at the UN, there was a common buzz going around: cannabis. It was a

predictable tee-off between cannabis the killer (and arrest those who use cannabis)

versus cannabis the medicine (and regulate cannabis use). From the criminalized

Filipino—Russian side to the legalized Uruguayan—Canadian side of the spectrum,

it defined nations united by divided views on cannabis.

This year was meant to be a pivotal point evaluating a decade of progress since the

‘2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action’ and establishing goals for the next ten

years to come. Although a lot has changed over the past ten years, the institutional

structure is challenged in keeping up with the modern times.

The drug policy conversation at the UN is a bit like listening to a broken record

picked up from a baby boomers’ closet, policies stuck in that era of prohibition.

Without fail, delegations repeat their allegiance to the conventions, as they are ‘the

cornerstones of the international drug control regime:’ the 1961 Single Convention

on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the

1988 Single Convention Against Illicit Traffic of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances.

When it comes to cannabis, countries such as Uruguay, Canada and a number of

states in the USA are often singled out as their regulatory frameworks for adult-use

cannabis technically violates the treaties, thus ‘undermining the integrity of the

international system.’ Pointing fingers about treaty violations releases the bull into

the rink. Other countries, such as Russia and Philippines, are then accused of human

rights violations.

This playground chat often gets lost in a mix of national agendas and foreign affairs.

Drug policies become the veil for deeply entrenched political issues and domestic

matters. In fact, it distracts from advancing dialogues and often becomes a blast

from the past, which was clearly the case when some ambassadors referred to

‘cannabis as the devil’s poison.’

It’s mind boggling that certain conversations have been static in time and that the

key drug control treaties continue to be too.

However, this year the cannabis conversation began to shift, and the world was

watching the 62 nd CND with particular attention. The World Health Organization

(WHO) conducted its first-ever critical review on cannabis and its derivatives, resin

and extracts, CBD, THC and isomers of THC, and provided recommendations to

schedule cannabis at the international level.

In December 2018, the WHO announced recommendations for other substances

under critical review (e.g. Tramadol, Pregabalin), yet recommendations for cannabis

were only announced at the end of January 2019. It was an unprecedented action

that marked its historically late premiere.

It is necessary to note that cannabis for medical and scientific purposes has always

been, and continues to be, permitted under the international drug control system.

This means that countries have the right to implement regulatory frameworks for

cannabis for medical, research or scientific purposes. Countries, however, have

argued that the current scheduling has restricted access to research and medicine

for cannabis.

Changing the schedule of cannabis reflects the medicinal value of it. A number of

changes to the conventions were recommended including the following key points:

• CBD should not be subject to international scheduling

• Remove THC (and isomers of THC) from the 1971 Convention and list it in

  1961 under Schedule I

• List cannabis and resin in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention and remove itfrom Schedule IV

• Remove extracts and tinctures from Schedule I of the 1961 Convention

• Expectations were high. Results were underwhelming.

High-level debates occurred primarily behind closed doors, whereas politicized

statements were shared in the main plenary.

The main cannabis consensus this year, despite some strong opposition from

delegations with regulated cannabis markets, was to postpone the vote on

scheduling cannabis and its derivatives until March 2020 at the 63 rd CND. It is

expected that a series of informal conversations, formal meetings and other sessions

will be conducted over the next year. Activists have been waiting for this historic

moment and, unfortunately, they’re still waiting for a formal adoption of the

outcome.

If cannabis were treated like any other substance and if all international agencies

upheld their mandates then the situation may be very different. At an informal

session during the CND, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) addressed

civil society and made a statement regarding what constituents medical cannabis,

which excluded smoking cannabis for example. With plans to also provide

cultivation guidelines for medical cannabis, the INCB seems to taking on more than

mandated to do.

The INCB’s treaty-mandated role was a key point of contention at the CND this year.

A resolution, sponsored by Russia, remained in informal sessions until the end of the

week. Prepared to bring the resolution to the plenary for consideration to adopt, no

matter the cost, was rather unprecedented. It appears that this specific resolution

indirectly hoped to frame the cannabis conversation with a potential roadblock.

What happened at the UN this year reveals that cannabis is controversial, which is

not news to most of us. The mere fact that the recommendations are controversial

also reveals that cannabis policies have the potential to disrupt the system as we

know it.

With the opportunity to create new regulatory frameworks welcomes the

opportunity to create new structures, rather than recreating structures that already

exist. Think small farmers, smaller countries with equal, fair opportunities. Topics

such as fair trade and sustainability are being discussed prior to the international

framework being in place. Even if the regulatory shift is at a bit of a standstill, at

least for the next few months, it gives the international community time to seriously

consider how to come together through interstate agreements and national

frameworks.

We’ve been living in prohibition our entire life. The past few years of cannabis

reform proved that anything is possible, even in the most unconventional of ways.

While we may have to wait one full year for a legitimate vote, there is still a lot that

could happen from now to then.

Right now, there’s diplomatic consensus and localized agreements. We’re looking at

a future where that diplomatic consensus could reflect the localized agreements of

relaxed cannabis laws. Enjoy the grey space for just a wee bit longer.

Read the original article on Garden Culture’s digital magazine or online.