UN: between political inertia and conservatism, cannabis is on the losing side

In late January 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized for the first time the usefulness and therapeutic potential of cannabis, and called on governments around the world to relax the legal status of this plant under international law. Having been in the hands of politicians for a year now, the WHO’s proposal—though moderate and consensus-based—could be consigned to the dustbin of history… at the risk of digging a little deeper the disconnect between international drug policies and the realities experienced on the ground by patients, healthcare professionals, and researchers.

The WHO proposal, based on a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and field data by an international committee of independent experts, is tailored to meet the needs of states. It would not force any government to relax its cannabis laws, while at the same time allowing countries that so desire to facilitate access to and availability of cannabis or its derivatives for medical purposes. It takes an inclusive approach to pharmaceutical forms, does not exclude the herbal form, and shows no preference for any particular formulation: the choice is left to countries, if they so desire, to select the type of cannabis-based medicine they wish to authorize (including traditional uses, such as Ayurvedic medicine in India, which already includes more than a hundred different preparations of the plant). The WHO’s recommendation would also simplify matters for countries that have already established a program for access to medical cannabis by reducing the extremely complex formalities at all levels, which are primarily due to the current classification of cannabis under international conventions. Yet it is precisely the classification of cannabis that the WHO recommends changing in its 2019 conclusions, as a consequence of the symbolic recognition of its therapeutic value.

However, even though the WHO spent three years fine-tuning a proposal that would not offend either side and would take into account testimonials from all stakeholders, it would seem that inertia and political conservatism are on the verge of winning the battle against scientific reason and patients’ suffering.

The WHO, Uruguay, and Jamaica are coming to the rescue of medical cannabis. What about the others?

Last March, the UN forum (Commission on Narcotic Drugs), which was supposed to ratify these WHO recommendations, decided to postpone the decision until March 2020. Even at that time, very few of the many countries that had reformed their medical cannabis policies had spoken out in support of the WHO. Only Uruguay had had the courage to defend the reclassification. by stating “not to agree with postponing the necessary discussion of the WHO’s recommendations” joined by Jamaica for whom the deadline represented a “major disappointment”. Strangely, countries at the forefront of policies on access to medical cannabis—such as the Netherlands, Israel, Colombia, and even Canada—have remained largely silent (or even critical) of the WHO. In the past year, the situation has hardly improved; it now appears that governments are banding together to ensure that the discussion of the WHO’s conclusions will once again be delayed next March.

This “reluctance to make decisions” can also be explained by the bubble in which governments operate. While international cannabis law directly impacts the lives of ordinary citizens around the world, there has been little social pressure on the issue. 

On other important issues such as climate change, the rights of indigenous peoples, or the ban on glyphosate, pressure from social movements and civil society as a whole, along with constant and critical scrutiny of decision-making processes—has been, and continues to be, an indispensable key to reforming the UN—yet there has been little response to the issue of cannabis. In France, no more than elsewhere—with the exception of Newsweed—has any major newspaper published an analysis, a special report, or joint opinion pieces by patients and doctors, nor have television networks devoted any debate to the WHO’s conclusions, which are nonetheless historic. Such a lack of mobilization and social support is undoubtedly interpreted by governments as a “free pass” to continue doing nothing.

A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity since 1961, lost because of politicians’ laziness… and the reluctance of those involved to take action?

KRZ