João Gama: “The great victory is for the UN to recognize the medicinal value of cannabis”

about the recent cannabis reclassification from United Nations (UN) Commission on Narcotic Drugs, on the 3rd of December, CannaReporter spoke with lawyer and professor João Taborda da Gama, to understand what the practical effects of this historic decision will be and what situation CBD and preparations with less than 0,2% THC are in. , which are still subject to control, and whose regulation still gives rise to a lot of confusion.

The UN approved the WHO recommendation to remove cannabis and its resin from Annex IV of the 1961 Convention (“most dangerous substances and of low or very limited medical or therapeutic value”), keeping it only in Annex I (“substances with addictive properties that pose a risk of serious abuse”)… What does this new classification mean in practical terms for the medical cannabis industry, for patients who use it for therapeutic purposes, and even for those who use it in a recreational?

The great victory is that the UN, through the CND, unequivocally recognizes the medicinal value of the cannabis plant and its extracts (and not of synthetic molecules). For patients and the industry, it is only relevant in those countries where there is still no medical cannabis, because this decision undermines the classic argument of countries that do not yet have medical cannabis programs, that the United Nations or treaties do not allow medical cannabis. For countries like Germany, Portugal, the United Kingdom or Canada, it is just confirmation of what their parliaments and governments decided a few years ago. But beyond that, symbolically, it is important to see an ultra-conservative body on drug policy give a signal regarding the dangers of cannabis, with the withdrawal of Annex IV. But it doesn't change much more than that, because the classifications contained in the annexes remain highly outdated in the face of science, reality and, of course, what a drug policy should be based on human rights and not on prejudice or public policies of for over a hundred years. In fact, it is distressing that in the United Nations system, a prohibitionist and expired drug policy and a meritorious action on human rights issues coexist in apparently separate silos. But these two hemispheres of the institution's brain continue to turn their backs.

Another measure that was rejected was the exclusion of cannabis extracts and tinctures from Annex I and the Conventions, as this classification is difficult to interpret, as some may have psychoactive properties and others may not (5.4). the suggestion, according to WHO and ECDD was “that a new entry be created in Annex III of the 1961 Convention with pharmaceutical preparations of cannabis that do not present a risk to public health”… Do you agree with this? Do you think the decision makes sense in light of the approval of the previous measure?

I followed the discussion on this issue and the positions of the various countries. In my opinion, this recommendation made perfect sense as “extracts and tinctures” are undefined terms, which has caused practical difficulties in international control over the years, for governments and industry; on the other hand, “extracts and tinctures” are already cannabis “preparations” and, as such, are already subject to international control by Article 2 of the Convention. This Recommendation would clarify that they were subject to control, ending the discussion of what extracts or preparations are. But many countries were afraid that passing the recommendation would open the door to CBD, or other THC-free preparations, or even BHO (butane hash oil).

Recommendation 5.5, which suggested adding the following footnote to Annex I to the 1961 Convention, was also not approved: “Preparations containing predominantly cannabidiol and not more than 0,2 percent delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol are not under international control” (44 votes against, 6 in favor and 3 abstentions). If the CBD is supposedly not subject to international control, what is the reason behind this WHO recommendation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, what do you think the rejection of most member countries is due to? 

I do not consider that CBD is not subject to control. On the contrary, the way in which the Convention is worded clearly points to the idea that the CBD is subject to control, which is, in fact, the position of the INCB [International Narcotics Control Board] what has, as is well known, the powers of “guardian of treaties”. The expressive vote not to accept this recommendation is proof that most countries also understand it, as several courts in several countries and police and regulatory authorities have decided in recent years. Note that less than two weeks after the CJEU decision in the Kanavape case (C-663/18), all 12 EU countries voting in the CND voted against recommendation 5.5. I think this is due to a lot of confusion on the subject, but also some legitimate fears about the CBD industry, the fear of converting CBD to THC, and the social panic that can create the circulating existence of plants (flowers) in all similar (look, smell, etc.), except for THC. Law enforcement officials have a say in how countries vote on the CND. It was a very expressive vote against CBD (note that of the 12 countries, 11, with the exception of Hungary, had voted positively on recommendation 5.4 to remove extracts and tinctures from Annex I). However, I believe that it is essential to move towards European regulation on CBD, creating standards for the industry, deciding pending Novel Foods orders at the EFSA (European Food Safety Agency). The so-called CBD industry must respect the legal frameworks for the intended uses of CBD (medicinal, cosmetic, food, smoking).