CBD out of international control: CannaReporter's ’exclusive« confirms it

A confidential letter from the INCB on the status of CBD has been stirring up the industry for the past few days. Published by Portuguese media outlet CannaReporter, the document is indeed new. What it says, however, comes as no surprise to anyone following the dossier: the complete legal framework had been laid down by a French researcher as early as 2022, with institutional consequences that member states prefer to ignore, which go far beyond CBD alone and which the INCB itself is careful not to formalize.

On May 20 and 22, 2026, the CannaReporter published a two-part [...editor's note: a third is forthcoming] his analysis of an exclusive document: a confidential letter from the INCB (International Narcotics Control Board, the UN's quasi-judicial body in charge of conventions on narcotics) reveals that CBD is «outside international control». This information was quickly circulated in European cannabis professional networks.

But if the letter is indeed exclusive, it only confirms that what we already knew. This does not, however, reduce its scope, as the implications are far-reaching.

The letter: a new piece

The letter in question is identifiable: it is the Circular E/INCB/NAR/C.L.20/2024, An information document distributed by the INCB to States parties to the 1961 and 1971 Conventions. Its purpose: the application of these conventions «in relation to cannabis and cannabis-derived substances». Its discovery by CannaReporter was the result of a real effort to access information: Infarmed, the Portuguese ANSM, refused to provide it, the INCB referred the matter to the national authorities, and finally the European Commission forwarded it, with the agreement of the UN agency.

What the letter says, on the other hand, has been circulating in specialist circles for much longer. For example, we already written in 2020.

More recently, Dr. Pavel Pachta, former secretary and then member of the INCB, mentioned the circular at a side event of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in March 2026 in Vienna. It was following this mention that CannaReporter confirmed that it had sought, and obtained, the Circular.

This document has meanwhile been quoted, analyzed and partially reproduced in a article from High Times dated April 9, 2026. In it, the author, Michael Krawitz, stated that the circular «reaffirms that only certain cannabinoids, primarily THC and its isomers, are internationally listed in the Schedules», explicitly distinguishing these compounds from CBD.

So what the letter says comes as no surprise. And we can add to it the context of why the INCB has come to this point, and what it really implies beyond CBD.

What the law has been saying since 2022

In March 2022, the Franco-Algerian researcher Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli published a monograph via the FAAAT think-tank entitled High Compliance, a lex lata legalization for the non-medical cannabis industry. This 130-page text, available in open access on SSRN, established with complete legal apparatus that cannabis products «not mentioned in the Schedules of the Conventions, e.g. cannabidiol» are structurally outside the scope of international narcotics law.

The central argument: Article 2, paragraph 9 of the 1961 Single Convention allows states to exempt substances from the narcotics control regime if they are «commonly used in industry for purposes other than medical or scientific». And this provision, writes Riboulet-Zemouli, makes no distinction between CBD and THC, nor between cannabis and any other scheduled drug.

The publication had an immediate effect: for the first time in INCB's history, the body's president flew to New York to consult with INCB.’Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations. An institutional earthquake that went completely unnoticed by the local media.

The report High Compliance is not an opinion: it's a literal reading of the texts. The 1961, 1971 and 1988 international conventions only control substances expressly listed in their annexes. CBD is not listed. It never has. In 2018, following an assessment by its Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, the WHO recommended that «preparations containing mainly CBD and less than traces of THC should not be placed under international control». This recommendation did not change the law, but simply documented what the law already provided.

Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli also cited the’stop Kanavape of the Court of Justice of the European Union in November 2020 (case C-663/18), which concluded that European law precludes a Member State from prohibiting the marketing of CBD legally produced in another Member State, precisely because the molecule does not have the psychoactive properties on which its possible control is based.

What INCB accepts and what it refuses to write

This is where the INCB's current position, illustrated by the Circular of 2024 and Pachta's statements, becomes both interesting and problematic.

The INCB now accepts the interpretation of article 2(9) for CBD. It recognizes that this molecule, although derived from Cannabis, can be exempted from the narcotics control regime. But it refuses to extend this logic to THC or other cannabinoids, without ever providing the slightest legal justification for this distinction.

And for good reason: there is no such thing. The 1961 Convention was drafted before THC had even been isolated and identified. It mentions neither CBD nor THC by name. Article 2(9) makes no distinction between molecules: it applies to all scheduled substances «commonly used in industry». If the provision applies to CBD, it also applies to THC, to complex extracts and to all cannabinoids. What is listed in the Convention is ’cannabis extract«, i.e. both CBD and THC. If the provision applies to extracts high in CBD, it also applies to extracts high in THC, or whatever. That's basic legal consistency.

INCB knows this. Until now, it had found a status quo convenient: orally accepting the exemption for CBD, which satisfies the member states that want a legal CBD industry, without ever putting down in writing the conditions that would enable the reasoning to be extended. Thus, countries that legalize recreational cannabis are in breach of the conventions, but a discreet breach, without formal confrontation. The system is held together by ambiguity.

Why INCB is talking about it now

That the INCB has seen fit to send a circular to its member states to clarify the status of CBD in 2024 is in itself interesting. It bears witness to a reality on the ground: despite formal legal clarity, many states have continued to treat CBD as a controlled narcotic, through administrative inertia or restrictive interpretation.

This confusion is not insignificant. It has led customs authorities to seize legal shipments, states to prosecute traders for products that are not internationally controlled, and companies to operate in a persistent regulatory fog. The INCB circular of 2024 seeks to dispel this fog, not by creating new law, but by reiterating existing law.

This is a crucial distinction that the CannaReporter article tends to blur. Presenting the letter as a «revelation» suggests that CBD's status has just changed, or that it depends on a passing benevolence from the INCB. The opposite is true: CBD is outside international control because the drafters of the 1961 Conventions did not include it, and added the safety valve of article 2(9), and no administrative decision can change this structural fact.

What French operators should remember

For CBD market players in France, Belgium, Portugal and Quebec, this sequence illustrates a recurring phenomenon: real legal advances, documented by rigorous researchers, take years to percolate into the public and media debate in a readable form.

The good news is that these advances are solid. Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli's work, freely available since 2022, offers an analytical framework that any lawyer, regulator or entrepreneur can mobilize. The monograph High Compliance is not just an academic analysis: it's an operational tool for understanding how states can regulate non-medical cannabis and uncontrolled cannabinoids like CBD, while remaining fully compliant with international law. If Malta's 2022 law copies the vocabulary of article 2(9) word for word, or if Colombia's current draft law on the legalization of recreational cannabis and coca leaf is based on article 2(9), it's not by chance... nor is it a scoop!

The INCB has now confirmed this in writing.