roadmaps to reforming the un drug conventions - Beckley Foundation

2.2 Changing the status of one or more substances under the treatiesA psychoactive substance could in principle be removed from the scope of the treatiesby removing it from any of the schedules of the 1961 and 1971 treaties. This wouldrequire the recommendations of a WHO Expert Committee (transmitted through theWHO Director-General), and approval by a majority vote in the Commission onNarcotic Drugs (CND), and then in the ECOSOC, if any Party appealed the CNDdecision there. In the specific cases of cannabis, coca and opium, there would still beprovisions in force in the 1961 treaty that require state control of licensing andproduction and a state monopoly wholesaler.The provisions on ‘changes in the scope of control’ in the 1961 treaty allow for thepossibility of ‘deleting a drug... from a Schedule’, but this would require that the WHOfind that the substance is not ‘liable to similar abuse and productive of similar ill effects’as the other drugs listed in the schedules accompanying the treaty (Art. 3, §§6, 3).Similarly, although the main emphasis in the 1971 treaty is on adding substances to theschedules, there is mention of the possibility to ‘delete’ a substance from the schedules(Art. 2, §6). However, recommendations from WHO are subject to approval by theCommission on Narcotic Drugs under both treaties, and also subject to a possible appealto ECOSOC under the 1971 treaty.The recent history of relevant actions under these provisions of the international systemdoes not suggest a likelihood of success in removing psychoactive substances withsubstantial patterns of use from the scope of the treaties. For example, the 2006 WHOExpert Committee’s recommendation to transfer dronabinol (also known as THC), amedication which is the primary psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, to a less restrictiveschedule of the 1971 treaty (from II to III) was rejected by the 2007 Commission onNarcotic Drugs. 31It may be noted that with respect to cannabis there is another option, which does notrequire reclassification in the treaties. The option for any nation is to legalise forms ofcannabis that fall outside the restrictive definition of ‘cannabis’ in the 1961 Convention.The ‘cannabis’ which is controlled under the 1961 Convention is defined as ‘theflowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves whennot accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatevername they may be designated’ (Art. 1, §1(b)). Parties to the treaty are thus not requiredto outlaw or criminalise cultivation or use of cannabis leaves for whatever purpose(presumably the flowering or fruiting tops must be discarded or put to medical use tocomply with the Convention). There is likewise no prohibition on providing for a legalmarket in cannabis leaves. 32 Cannabis leaves have some psychoactivity when consumed,31Room et al., 2010, p. 11.32Article 28 (3) of the 1961 Convention states that “the Parties shall adopt such measures as may benecessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant”. This isdiscussed below in section 4.11 of the Appendix. As noted there, the official Commentary clearlyrecognises that non-medical use of the leaves is not forbidden by this article.11