Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/339298907
CITATIONS READS
0 918
1 author:
Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli
Independent research
17 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Cannabis: Réflexions autour des politiques publiques françaises en la matière View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli on 16 February 2020.
Elements Document 1
Elements about the vote of the WHO recommendations on rescheduling Cannabis V.3 - 1
6.II.2020
Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli k
enzi.zemou.li
and its related substances in the international drug control Conventions.
SUMMARY
Current Recommended
Order of
Action recommended by WHO Action to take by CND
votation
Name(s) Régime(s) Name(s) Régime(s)
1961-IV
5.1.0 C&CR Delete from 1961-IV More positive than negative votes C&CR
1961-I
Preparations of C&CR
n/a n/a Do not add No action
considered to be pure CBD
5.5.0 Preparations of C&CR n/a
1961-I Add footnote to C&CR in 1961-I More positive than negative votes containing predominantly CBD
and ≤ 0.2 % of ∆9-THC
Elements Document 2
Elements about the vote of the WHO recommendations on rescheduling Cannabis V.7 - 1
6.II.2020
and its related substances in the international drug control Conventions. Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli k
enzi.zemou.li
The recommendations do not imply any change in the measures to be taken by Member States in what concerns drug
trafficking (the main objective and content of the Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 october 2004).
In the 1961 Convention, drug trafficking is addressed in Articles 35 (action against the illicit traffic), 36 (penal
provisions), and 37 (seizure and confiscation). These articles do not mention the Schedules: their provisions apply to
all drugs, irrespective of their level of scheduling.
None of the recommendations will alter nor impact any matter relating to drug trafficking.
The main objective and content of the recommendations is that of ensuring access and availability of controlled
medicines for therapeutic and scientific purposes. These recommendations should not even trigger the
Framework Decision on drug trafficking.
As per the terminology of the 1961 Convention, “cannabidiol preparations” are not necessarily controlled under the
entry “extract and tinctures.” “Cannabidiol preparations” is an impossible eventuality, because “cannabidiol” should
be present in the Schedules in order for its preparations to fall under control. But cannabidiol is not listed in the
Schedules. Another matter is that of interpretation:
- Papaverine is an active compound of opium poppy. It is not considered a “narcotic” drug, is not listed in the
Schedules, and does not fall under control. Yet, a strict interpretation could see it as controlled under the
entry “preparation of opium” – neither the EU nor most modern democratic countries adopt such a position.
- The situation is exactly the same for cannabidiol. There is no reason to adopt a different interpretation for
cannabis, than the one prevailing for non-Scheduled substances in poppy or coca plants. There is no
justification for adopting a double standard conflicting with the general interpretation of the 1961
Convention.
- Where would the limit be set? Would all components of cannabis be considered under control, including
chlorophylle and terpenoids?
Moreover, “cannabis preparations” (disregarding any content in whatever substance) are exempt from the
Convention when used in industry for other than medical (including abuse) and scientific purposes. So none of this
can have any impact on other than medical and pharmaceutical regulations. Drug trafficking, as well as food and
cosmetic regulations are not concerned by the Convention and neither addressed by the WHO recommendations.
See chart below.
Status of international control, if any, over cannabidiol: currently, and in the eventuality suggested by the recommendations from the WHO ECDD at its 39th and 40th meetings.
Supporting only the recommendations which “would not result in a significant change in the control of these
substances” is an oxymoron. Changing the control of substances is the very mandate of WHO. Opposing the
recommendations that effectively exert the mandate of WHO is opposing the system laid out in the Conventions.
The EU has repeatedly agreed common positions reiterating the importance of basing policies on evidence. The EU
insists in all fora and negotiations (from the UNGASS outcome document to the 2019 Ministerial Declaration) on the
role and mandate of WHO being cardinal within the international drug control system, to ensure a public-health
approach.
There is a complete misreading of Article 218(9) of TFEU, detailed below. It can be resumed as follows:
- “ does not apply to the 1961 Single Convention, which is not ratified by the Union per se,
- Art. 218(9) concerns the eventuality of the suspension of an agreement - not triggered here,
- Even if Art. 218 applied, it would imply that “the European Parliament shall be immediately and fully
informed at all stages of the procedure,” which has not been the case.
View publication stats
Article 218(1) TFEU frames the scope of Article 218, restricting it to “agreements between the Union and third
countries or international organisations.” The 1961 Single Convention is a multilateral agreement between countries,
including Member States, preexisting the European Union. The Single Convention has no provision allowing
international entities to access it, hence only Member States can and have ratified it. The Single Convention is
therefore not encompassed by the expression “agreements between the Union and third countries or international
organisations”
The proposal mentions Article 218(9). Just before the section quoted in the proposal, Article 218(9) frames the act of
“establishing the position to be adopted on the Union’s behalf ...” only to the cases of “a decision suspending
application of an agreement.” The agreement is the Single Convention. The recommendations of WHO are not
suspending the agreement in any way. Article 218(9) should therefore not be triggered.
In the eventuality where Article 218(9) would still be considered to be relevant, Article 218(10) would have needed
to be triggered as well, which has not been the case. Article 218(10) states that “the European Parliament shall be
immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure.” Yet, no information has been transmitted to the
Parliament.
The main objective and content of the recommendations on which EU Member States are called to action concerns
public health and access to controlled medicines for therapeutic and scientific purposes. It does not concern in any
way drug trafficking, which is not in the mandate of the WHO. Any drug trafficking-oriented substantive basis is
tremendously mistaken on the content, purpose, scope and context of the WHO recommendations.