 Hello, my name is Peter Scherosi. I'm the director of the Rights Report, the foundation and the editor of the drug reporter website and I'm hosting this discussion on global cannabis policies here at the UN headquarters in Vienna where the 62nd session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs is taking place a few meters actually from us and Governments are discussing debating Global drug policies right now. This is the largest decision-making forum in in the world and I have excellent guest speakers with me today here. We have Lisa Maria Sanchez from Mexico City representing Mexicans against crime Mexicans united against crime and transform We have Martin Yeltsma from the Transnational Institute and Michael Kravitz from the United States representing veterans for medical cannabis access and Just 60 years ago Cannabis was played by the United Nations on the Schedule 4 of the UN drug conventions And this is the same list as the as heroin or cocaine, you know substances highly addictive and with no recognized medical value and Last year The WHO made the first scientific review ever on cannabis and as a result It's made a proposal to the UN to reschedule Cannabis to schedule one which means that it will be recognized as a as a as a medicine and This is clearly a historical decision Although we can discuss, you know, how significant and what what are the implications of that? The word drug policies. We know that the word is now progressing in big steps To making cannabis legal. There are more than 30 countries in the world that made medical use of cannabis legal There are several countries now Cannabis the recreational use of cannabis legal But let's first look a bit back back to the past So I I'm looking to you Martin because you are one of the best experts on the history of the international drug control system How cannabis ended up on on schedule for in the first place like 60 years ago Can you tell us the story of of why and how cannabis? became This prohibited substance on the UN conventions Thanks, and yes, I would love to talk about that for an hour. It's a fascinating history, but In in short, no, it cannabis came first came to the international drug policy discussions already in 1925 And and some cannabis preparations were already included in the 25 convention. So when After the Second World War now when they started to negotiate the single convention 1961 to a convention Yeah, the first step was was basically to to to take as a starting point the Substances that were already under control. So Cannabis was part of the discussion immediately, but still there was some promise to Still have a good review before just copy paste the existing Lists from before the Second World War into the single convention That's never happened. No, the the WHO expert committee is is the entity that that has the mandate to recommend To to the C&D to this commission here On scheduling decisions. So what which substance has to be scheduled at what level? under international control at at the time in the 50s Yeah, the The WHO never got to do a critical review. There was a very strongly Anti-cannabis activist secretary of the expert committee at that time And and he wrote several. Yeah, really things that that are more pamphlets. I would say By no means anywhere near near scientific standards of today Including also racist and and and yeah Colonial or cultural insensitive arguments. So based on those pamphlets basically The WHO expert committee Yeah, rec a set Recommended that indeed it should be that that it wouldn't have any medical use and that it should be included in schedule for But also in schedule one with which I think is also a serious problem Yeah, so that's how it happened in the earlier drafts of the single convention There was a special paragraph even That cannabis would be the only substance that would be fully prohibited And and that that means in terms of the treaties also prohibited for medical use So that it would only only be used for scientific research basically, but but nothing else that didn't make it It did end up in schedule for which which indeed is for substances they thought at the time had little therapeutic value and Were highly addictive that that was sort of the category Yeah, but but in the negotiations there was already it was not obligatory To impose the full prohibition including medical uses so countries already had the option as Many countries have done to also allow medical use if they wanted I Yeah, so at at the time of this negotiation of the single convention the The the cannabinoids were were not really that there were sort of busy at the time of Discovering them, but that had not been isolated and but shortly after that That that did happen So and that was at the time that they started to negotiate the next treaty the 71 treaty And of course there was a decision or discussion. No, should they be then be part of just added to the Single convention the THC Delta 9 THC there are not been all And and it was it was basically because of the pharmaceutical industry who were at that moment Starting to develop some medicines based on the renabino And and that was also for some other medicines that the pharmaceutical industry was developing for other substances That there was pressure to to keep it separate in another treaty with a lighter regime And and it's a controversial decision at the time mainly under pressure of the pharmaceutical industry without a scientific justification I would say and something that now the expert committee is addressing again because they now proposed to Yeah to transfer THC drama all back to the 61 convention So we know that this decision does not did not come out of the blue But several professionals and activists have been working hard for several years to you know to kind of Pressurized the system to to recognize the medical value of of this substance and you are one of them Michael Can you talk us about the the process that led to this current proposal and a new personal involvement and work around this issue So I'm trying to think of where to pick up it goes back for me Quite a ways the process itself that we're seeing the result of right now was a process that was started In the vast majority of it was started by a resolution that was passed here at the commission narcotic drugs I think it was 2009 The so-called seed resolution cannabis seed resolution and that was Japan and Azerbaijan that put in a resolution Japan I remember very clearly the complaints from the floor that they were making about their young people buying cannabis seeds on the Internet and and how that was a big problem, and they wanted some kind of control. I'm pretty sure in fact I'm absolutely sure that they had no idea how big a rabbit hole they were getting into by asking this this of the system itself Because seeds are exempt under the treaty for one But also to that to add cannabis seeds since it's not ran in would be an actual big lift It's not a small thing. They were asking The process to do by adding cannabis seeds so that was I guess Interpreted or translated into a request for a official review of cannabis or Assessment of cannabis by the World Health Organization which then was seconded. I believe by the International Cottage Control Board So there's quite a few distinct requests in the interim that there was a fellow that I got to meet through my medical marijuana work at the time he was running the medical marijuana program of the Netherlands for the government a William Shulton and William Was on the expert committee. It was the they didn't have an expert committee meeting during his time and that's the problem they had didn't have those expert committee meetings for a very long time as I understand it and He was trying to see how he can get this process started He had a whole list of Substances that were just like cannabis like coca that were put into the treaty and antiquity based on information That was either false misinformation or just lacking evidence And that all should be revisited I think he came up with like 24 plant mostly plant-based substances that are are in the treaty But have never had an evidentiary review and cannabis was leading that pack And I remember sitting one of these tables just like this and and just he and I brainstorming how we could get this started To get process like this for a committee started we figured would take either We couldn't do it just for like if George Soros wanted to give me money to do it I couldn't do it even though I could ask George Soros for that and he'd probably do it We couldn't do it that way even if it was individual funders. It would have to be a group Representing like the Red Cross or something like that and if we had countries it couldn't be just our friends It couldn't just ask, you know your way to cover it It would have to be a group of countries and especially probably maybe countries like Canada or the UK or Germany or something like that leading the pack again to try to Have some kind of middle ground Balance the consensus kind of approach to get these guys to do stuff at that level. So anyway The WHO expert committee finally was brought together after William left And I went and spoke to the committee spoke with Steph share on the importance of doing a review of Cannabis not just an update at that time. They were going to do just an update of cannabis There was a person on the committee expert committee Member I guess they're 13 or 11 11 12 13 varies from time to time They are all real experts and this woman certainly a great expert, but she's anti-marijuanaist can be a professor birth of madras So one of the first things I did was spoke to the importance of doing a review and the importance of the expert committee Assessing whether birth of madras professor madras Was an appropriate member of the committee I felt like I had to do this because she was so effective an anti-marijuana Activist that she could actually make a sensible argument by me look ridiculous once they left my my site So the next time they met they did just agree to do a review and they Didn't have professor madras on the committee even after that though There were steps along the way where it just the the process just tries to stall I think the the Placement of cannabis It's kind of a weird catch 22 where no one has the courage to step up and change it I guess that's where Jack Cara came up with his emperor Where's no clothes because everyone can see it needs to be changed but who has the courage to really step up and do that and The WHO has now finally accepted that responsibility completely Took a lot of work by a lot of people. I think at any given point We had as many as a hundred people working with us We've submitted documents like our civil society documentation that showed you that had 60 people contribute and over 200 NGO sign-on our core team Kenzie ribulae me Farid Goucher With others extending out to maybe 15 or 20 in our core team have attended all the meetings in Geneva and presented evidence and we've had 10 and 20 even 30 people in that little tiny room in Geneva at the World Health Organization headquarters speaking from the heart speaking from science and and no anti-marijuana Voice to be heard really to be found and I think that doesn't speak to the ineffectiveness of anti-marijuana I think that speaks to the fact that we were working on something very real there is based on real evidence And we didn't have really time for talking points or you know ideological positions So can you explain us what is in this proposal of the Of the ECDD which was adopted last year in November. What does it say and what what its significance is? Yeah, I would say the the critical review Documentation itself. No, they they had five different substance cannabis related Substances under review. Those are very thorough Literature literature review documents. No, there's a lot of Excellent information in there. I think they will be an important reference for the next years to come however, I think that the Conclusions that in the end were drawn in terms of the concrete scheduling recommendations That that there is in fact a disconnect between the evidence they present and the conclusions that are drawn that in my view are Politically influenced. So what what they do propose is to take cannabis and cannabis raisin out of schedule for Which indeed is a certain recognition of of their medical value and it's basically Acknowledging the reality that that indeed there are by now 40 countries who are Implementing medical cannabis programs So it's a recognition of reality, but also based on the critical review, you know, there's a little many Scientific documents are quoted that that's that's proof that there is medical Therapeutic value in in cannabis related all kinds of cannabis substances So then the the problematic thing one of the problematic thing is that they then recommend that it should remain in Schedule one and and that's where I think problems are are starting to arise because For that in their scheduling procedure. No, they they have to do this a similarity test So whether it is has similar ill effects and similar risk of Addiction in terms of the treaty as other substances already in the schedule So and Because they do have a historical Responsibility for the fact that it is included in schedule one with which which is together with morphine with heroin with with cocaine No, it is a very strictly controlled schedule So they in the critical review report they conclude That it does not have similar harmful effects as many of the other substances on schedule one But they still Recommend to make to keep it on that list because it is so widely abused in the world Which is not a criterion at all and yeah, and yeah, you have to remember now That's when these two meetings to place of the from the the the expert committee in June and November last year the the political the polarization about the cannabis issue here in Vienna was at a boiling point so Canada had just Decided in May to go for full regulation the Russian Federation here, but also the ICB Secretariat were aggressively Campaigning against Canada, but on the cannabis issue Yeah, more in general So it is in that political context that the WHO had to make a choice They clearly wanted to give a sign medical use should be recognized, but they definitely They were they they erred on the side of cautioned. Let's say it politely That's their recommendations would not throw any fuel to the to the political fire About cannabis regulation more generally, but with that I think they failed to sort of correct the historical error that they are Corresponsible for and and that is a serious issue because If if it is approved as it is No, of course, there still has to be Voting procedure coming up, but it it's then will for the first time in history no Justify ratify the inclusion of cannabis on schedule one Supposedly based on on a thorough scientific critical review exercise of the WHO. I find that problematic There are some other details about the recommendations What I would add to that is well, first of all kind of to maybe defend the WHO slightly I Think it's totally justifiable to say they've acted politically to agree with Martin But I don't think they would say they've acted politically and I think the nuance of that would be that they've tried desperately to avoid controversy and they want their recommendations to be accepted desperately want to not have Controversy desperately want to not create controversy of not being able to have a successful vote and and somehow you got to realize that the WHO Process as Martin talked about they do so much work all the time adding new drug substances and things that the commission is Poorly qualified if even competent to do it all the CND really does count on the WHO in this process And I think it's like a doctor making this devil's arithmetic for medical marijuana Even where you know, do I want to treat these handful of patients that have this specific medical need if they threaten my Threaten my ability to treat the three thousand other patients I have in my practice and that's a real choice that these patients get denied access under in my world Work that I do. So anyway, it gives the medical side of that, you know, where the devil's arithmetic of you know Do I go as far as we really should go they said themselves? That cannabis shouldn't be in schedule one and but again, maybe to take it one step further that Schedule one placement also has coca leaf. It also has poppy flower. These things clearly don't belong in schedule one either So while it has heroin and it has cocaine as well that may arguably belong in schedule one Even though they're from that plant material, I think the plant material all of it needs to be removed from schedule one So I'm thinking maybe this is you know team effort here The World Health Organization goes as far as they can they do what they can they they certainly have registered themselves And we're registering I think Martin is doing the best job of registering our perspective of why that's not sufficient But it is something that can pass it's passable here It's voteable and I for one I'm on the side that thinks this vote can actually succeed and we can actually change the Treaty here. That's no small thing. That's a monumental thing So we can do that I think we should be coming back and it's the first time Martin's hearing this for me But I think we should come back very soon with resolutions on the table from some of these countries that are Bolivia that are Uruguay that are Canada with with hard You know data facts good reports and and a very sound Presentation to pull all the plant material out of schedule one and do something with it There I hand it back to him because I don't know what to do with it But it needs clearly to be out of schedule one that the tinctures extracts and things weighed to the WHO explained it Concoctions that the active ingredient can't be so easily removed from Therefore theoretically less abusable are going to be put in schedule three of the single convention and that's a very low placement that should allow concoctions cannabis concoctions that are Registrable at the national level to be you know very very Easily accessible by patients. Hopefully more insurance coverage and stuff like that. So that's kind of what we're excited about That's an interesting debate. Maybe we can get back to it a bit later, but when we are speaking about the historical error, which the UN made by Making cannabis illegal, I think there is well, maybe the the region that suffered more more the most of this The impact or the effects of this decision of this historical error is Latin America and When I'm here at the United Nations, I always try to ask people, you know, like what is the real on the ground the impact of those Solutions and and decisions and proposals of the WHO and all these documents what what what really impact they have on the ground on in the country level and Also, I would like to ask you Lisa What role Latin America is playing now in this in this in this debate at the UN level? Can you maybe talk about that? Yeah, sure, but let me just start with a quick comment We started all these conversation by saying that there is an expert committee that was conducting a scientific review And if we take for valid the results of the scientific review were agreeing on political Review of what's the most possible viable alternative The current state being what the current state is having an extremely Porallized ambience in which there are countries that still punish Cannabis possession with that penalty and then you have other countries that went for few for full regulation So it's not a scientific thing if we're not accepting what science says But it's a rather political commitment to just like allow What's the what causes the least harm to the system and not necessarily what improves reality to its best? so that said Latin America is definitely the region that has been fueling drug policy reform in regards to cannabis is The hemisphere that has the most territories already Implementing some sort of regulation for medical and scientific use But also it's the region that has all of the full regulatory experiences With Canada and Uruguay Other than all the but jurisdictions, I know Marty's giving me the eye because the Netherlands started first. I'm just kidding But but they didn't go for the entire, you know regulating the entire chain, right? So it's definitely where the political advances are more plausible It's where you can actually see advance in the ground and as basically as you said south of the border of the United States It's basically where the war on drugs has has been fought with the most Vigor I would say it's where we have Some of the most punitive policies not to say the most because Southeast Asia is definitely Way ahead of us But we've suffered the social and economic consequences of having to prohibit these markets and having to fight For these drugs not to get into the consumer markets specifically into the US or you other European Countries, but what's going to happen in the ground as we already move forward to trying to regulate some of the uses of these Plans and its derivatives and it's the cannabinoids that are present in the plant in other substances presents in the plant is That if we actually vote for these recommendations to materialize And this is not to say that I'm preventing drug policy reform not at all But if we vote this most of the medical regimes in Latin America will suffer And this is because of a very technical stuff that the week one of the recommendations says that medicinal products or derivatives Used for medical purposes should only have under zero two point under zero point two percent of THC if they're to be considered Medicines right and in many countries like mine for example, I come from Mexico were in 2017 the parliament voted a bill that allowed for medicinal and scientific use of cannabis There is a distinction already a legal distinction of what constitutes medicine and what constitutes therapeutic Preparations that will help you with symptoms, but are not necessarily Consider medicines or treatment The distinction is one percent THC So if you adopt this new resolution and you actually mandate this as a treaty obligation Countries like mine will be forced or at least encouraged to change the regulatory systems already in place as To restrict even more the access of patients to substances that have little more THC Than the quantity allowed by this new recommendation And this is all this is also the case for other countries in In in in the hemisphere that already have regulatory regimes. This is the case for Uruguay This is the case for Jamaica. This is the case for Chile. This is the case even from Brazil That is a country that not house a very conservative regime But that allows for the importing of different medicinal therapeutic pharmaceutical products that have over one percent THC So they can be used by the patients We as an organization in Mexico are defending some cases In in actually taking those cases to the Supreme Court and this is how we got jurisprudence for recreational use or adult use of cannabis This year like three weeks ago. We've basically got the jurisprudence on February the 22nd 2019 We're defending some other patients For that use cannabis for medicinal purposes and one of these kids It's an eight-year-old boy that develops resistance to medicines to treat his epilepsy But that he also develops resistance to cannabinoids So for him for example, and I know this is a tiny minority of patients But they still have the right to access to health and they still have the right to access to the best possible medication that can treat their symptoms or their illness and this particular kid is not gonna have access to the variety of Substances in and the ratios of Cannabinoids presence in the plant that he actually needs in order to remain stable. His mother needs to change You know the the types of plant but also the types of concentration and modulates His medicine for him to remain stable and not having more epileptic crisis So when we're thinking about establishing just like very arbitrary Limits to something because it's the it's the most reachable or it's the only possible agreement that we can have given the political Ambience or arena. We're actually not committing to the science of it But we're also not thinking about the impacts on the ground and this is gonna harm many of the medicinal systems that are already in place and somehow Try to be as limited and as Discrete as possible given the political conditions here in Vienna, New York and Geneva So we we have to think about that and we have to think about that Using science as evidence because that was the original Monday We didn't talk about CBD And CBD is something that has been kind of a it's interesting from the United States perspective because United States we separated the marijuana movement into the marijuana and hemp movement long long time ago because we recognized that the issues surrounding the use of cannabis hemp for Fiber for fuel for food. They really didn't have any of the sociological issues of our kind of Hippy generation, you know ethic of the marijuana movement It was more about farming and industrial applications and suit and tie kind of stuff So we did you literally did that where we didn't talk about marijuana anymore and we talked about him We didn't talk about him anymore separated But that is that separation is going away now because of CBD and CBD is now out there everywhere as a byproduct of hemp But that's industrial application hemp. That's now, you know, they're gearing towards producing CBD and that out in the market It's really it's a buyer's beware market some of the stuff has been found out not have any CBD in it some of it's been found have all kinds of other stuff and The police say it's got any trace of THC in it. Oh, it's marijuana Then all of a sudden it's marijuana because there's no clarification in the treaty that CBD is not in the treaty So that was really the the task at hand for the WHO is figure out How do we say in the treaty that CBD is not in the treaty and the way they decided to do that was put a note in the treaty now There is the number in that note. It's a zero point two percent But I think you'll find a Real relief to hear that doesn't apply in market Gregory, but that doesn't apply to anything else just to CBD So it's in that note and this I think would also lend very well to the argument that WHO would make about how it's nice to Have a little more time for countries to usually they'd only have a few months to kill it to talk about talk about this now They're having a whole year because of their delay which furiated us to no end But it actually seems to be useful for the time that's going to take to really sort out what this means So what they're going to do is they're planning to put a note in the treaty literally a note on the margins That says that CBD is not in the treaty But the proviso is the line in the sand it has to have less than two point two percent THC in it to be considered pure CBD Under the treaty which is a relief to those who are actually producing CBD because now in some places It's zero you got to have pure, you know a distillate CBD which is mostly not even from plant material that they're actually calling you know pure CBD out in the marketplace So having point two percent even though it's arguably and this is where I would agree not a number We should adopt and it's just everything you said about the number is true But it doesn't I don't think it applies to rosin hashish cannabis THC and that's what I've got a question for Martin to again is that Is that an increase who is like schedule two in the 71 convention a schedule one in a single convention? Is that an increase a decrease or like a cross the board move? Yeah, well, I think those are all things that that do Justify a postponement of the vote because I was I was actually pleased that that's well They still have to formally decide it next week, but but it indeed it will be postponed either December or March next year and yeah, and there are so many question marks about these issues that that require more clarification No, and of course if you have Yeah, a strict interpretation No, at the moment there is no thresholds know of of THC content so in in principle a strict interpretation is that ever any presence of THC Woods makes it basically a product that falls under schedule on so in that sense it is a little bit Higher but it it also fixes it because the fact that there was no threshold also gave some flexibility no two countries because indeed there are countries that have already introduced other thresholds so indeed it Primarily applies to to define CBD products, but I I agree that it it's perpetuates Yeah, it perpetuates a whole Lot of questions about National schedules that that have other thresholds already in place and and I think that's combined with the confusion that that's they also give for how they define the Exempted preparations in schedule three Because they talk about yeah, the it has to be difficult to extract the But it's also that's not clearly defined and then they talk about Pharmaceutical preparations No, and what what worries me is that it's a similar language that that appears in the ICB report Which just released a special chapter on on medical cannabis now where where they Consequently put medical cannabis in quotation marks and then Yeah seemed to indicate that own in their interpretation only Pharmaceutical preparations with cannabinoids are accepted For medical use under the treaties so that that excludes a whole range of more natural products, but it also And it's often it's defended by sort of the rights of patients They have to have good controls medicine and etc. But at the same time No, there's also the rights of patients who who do not have any access to medicines once it is scheduled as a Pharmaceutical industry patented products by the the Western pharmaceutical industry and and the treaties have allowed a certain flexibility for Traditional kind of medical cannabis use in India China for example No, this that is mentioned and now both the ICB and in fact the WHO expert committee Yeah, sort of say no all those natural products Cannabis itself as a medicine that is should all not be that that's basically the message that they're giving only Pharmaceutical preparations patented by the pharmaceutical industry gone through all the tests, etc Should be allowed on the market. I don't I don't think that is sufficient Precision because it goes a little beyond that because you already have that first limit that it's the interpretation of medical cannabis only being a pharmaceutical product and that has the price issue in the access issue and who produces this and who exports it and who exports it and All that kind of thing that we have with regular medicines and it's already very contentious about how how many people do I effectively have access to these medicines in lower income countries, for example and then But then there's another level of difficulty that happens for example with existing Regulatory models such as the Colombian one if you go just for the threshold of what constitutes What constitutes pure CBD and you respect the zero point two percent Then you fall into a different regulatory Framework that will give physicians different requirements and obligations towards national law to issue prescriptions for those medicines and to control the availability of the product to the final user and These equals for example a prescription of a cannabis based product with zero point three percent THC let's just say to our to a prescription of Morphin it will have effectively the same controls at least in regulatory models in Latin America like the Colombian one as as we already know that that's the limit in Colombian law and effectively Neglects or makes even more difficult for patients to access to these substances that are already have a legal market in a legal use This is what happens people coming from middle income or low income country already know that Regardless of the existence of a legal market for opiates or morphine in specific There's many many countries that don't have access to that because of the price and because of the restrictions the bureaucratic obligations that a state has to fulfill in order to Proof control of these particular substance under the international obligations they subscribe So giving that it's not only that you're authorizing the fact of just pharmaceutical products But even within the pharmaceutical products, you're making comparable the prescriptions of a fairly safe product that's harmless and has no Psychoactive effect to a product that has a much more addictive Ratio or consequences or whatever which again takes us back to the fact that these is not based on science because you cannot have the same requisites for two Non-comparable substances and uses It's like many many countries are struggling, you know to Stay beyond the boundaries of this international drug control conventions, and I know that T&I has a kind of proposal on How to kind of elegant in an elegant way how to? Go beyond the conventions, but still keep the spirit and letter of the conventions. Can you explain us? What is this solution you're proposing? Yeah, it's basically the starting point is that The last five years the policy developments have developed incredibly rapidly Now it it has polarized the debate here in Vienna It's it's clear that the solution will not be found here by negotiating Whatever no it every time that they discuss it now It ends in yeah, almost close to a physical fight No, I mean I've I've been following the the cnd coming to the cd for for more than 20 years I have never before seen that that level of aggressive statements. So Yeah, you can you can forget that Through a negotiated process you can somehow open more space for countries to continue in the direction of legal regulation of the cannabis market What now becomes clear is that also The the WHO Proposal To have a scientific review rethink of the classification is also Not going to work Because there's already self-censorship that they basically only want to look at certain Restricted medical users and they don't want to mess in the more political debate about Yeah, so so that is also not not a way out Even if they would have recommended to take it fully out of of the schedules It would not have survived the vote here in the cnd. So well, that's true But but at least then other countries would have the argument of a scientific backing of The WHO so I still think that would have been preferably So but starting from that point we we yeah with a group of international law is we started to think So then what can countries do that? for very good reasons Do not want to violate international law International law is is that is a very valuable Thing it is under pressure politically on many issues at the moment Yeah, but we think it is important to be careful about International law so and and it is clear that legal regulation Violates certain provisions of the of the treaties we've always been clear about that. Yeah, and that Canada now also acknowledges it. That's indeed that they are in violation of certain treaty provisions So then what could be the answer? So there's one option that is embedded in the Vienna Treaty on treaties And that it was designed at the time specifically for treaty regimes that that are more or less frozen in time that it is it's basically impossible to to find a consensus again to amend the treaty or And so then they they came up with this figure of intersay modification That if it is too difficult to to change the treaty as a whole and to prevent that when it comes to that Countries just start to withdraw from the treaties There is under specific circumstances restrictions the possibility for a group of like-minded countries to agree a sort of a sub-treaty and To modify certain provisions of the treaty with effect among themselves alone and then that group still still promises still remains party of the big treaty and still Will comply with the the obligations towards the other treaty parties that are not That have not signed the the intersay agreement among the like-minded countries So that that is now there's now Conversations are starting about it With the international treaty lawyers. Yeah, we have we have spelled out that we think it is This is a situation where this this model could be applicable and justified And so yeah, we hope that's those countries who Who already have regulated or the ones who are considering to go in that direction because I think the next five years Yeah, those policy trends will continue Yeah, those can can start to think about a Sub-agreement among themselves, which then also would allow International trade between legally regulated markets and that's another thing that's for us important Because if countries like like the Netherlands and Canada if they only adopt nationally closed domestically closed systems What what we will see over the next years is that gradually all the Traditional farmers from the traditional producing countries in the south will be pushed out of the listed market So what so we we do think that there should be a place also for small farmers in traditional producing countries to stay To keep a slot click keep supplying the international the opening spaces in the in the listed cannabis market and and that would also that then would be allowed if That kind of interstate treaty could could be negotiated So we don't have much time left so the question I want to ask you from all of you is about the future How do you see the future? We have many fears and hopes about the future of many people fear that you know There will be a kind of big marijuana a bit big companies will take over the market as Martin You say that some countries can be pushed out from the market And so what could we do to prevent that kind of things and what would be the optimal? Regulation for the world. What what is your vision of of the future of the cannabis market? so Fits perfectly in responding to what Martin was saying anyway for me. I think that Most if not all I I come to these meetings and I go to the WHO with a mandate of speaking for the cannabis movement as a whole because There's no one else doing it essentially Varied from time to time. We'll ask questions to the plenary floor and stuff from here We're very very small group that are really actually willing to take that step and actually speak for the cannabis culture in these Proceedings and we have kind of there's two sets of thought like do we work incrementally or do we want to you know? Go for a very very big ask and negotiate and just try to get there I would argue that what Martin's saying is the big ask is more important I would argue that what he's saying is that we should get it right and have a model and work towards that and Not have you know steps in the way that what you could call the WHO's position an incremental step Making it maybe a simple model to look at like in the United States We have the scheduling one two three four and cannabis is a schedule one which means it can't use it at all as medicine and When we started the marijuana movement in medical marijuana movement in the US Bob Randall was asking for schedule two We wouldn't accept accept schedule two now. We as a movement in the United States recognize the schedule two would actually be more Problematic for us think about that. It's absolutely prohibited felony possession But yet we're more comfortable with that system Then we are moving and out of that system into a controlled Medicine because we realized that system is so screwed up. It's even worse for us That's mind-boggling think about it and think about it from the perspective of someone in prison for 30 years for possession under that Incredibly prohibitive regime of schedule one, but it is unworkable a schedule to it I recognize that and I don't work for that But I do work for an incremental step towards where we're going towards where you have Sustainability we hand it out. I'll plug this document at the CND this year Cannabis sustainability and you see how big it is. We've always Prided ourselves in working from an environmental perspective from a human rights perspective from a medicinal access perspective So when they start talking about sustainability, we're talking about local growth. We're talking about craft farmers we're talking about things that are sustainable environmentally friendly and and and and Promote equality and and all these things that get us away from the colonialism that of these of these laws These are like the laws that they manifestly you know implement legal Colonialism and what she's saying if I would take Lisa's word and paraphrase it is we don't want to a new colonialism Replacing the old colonialism. So that's where we're at and how do we do that? How do we get from here to there? Incrementally is a mind-boggling difficulty and in the United States. There's very few people that have any plan. We had a delegate in the Senate that put forward a Proposal to create an alcohol tobacco firearms and cannabis and just pull it out of the control substances act I mean that these things get really mind-boggling to try to think about how we would do that how would you actually have a New system, how do we get from here to there? That's all I would put out as an open question You know, I agree with your premise I agree with your thoughts, but how do we get from here to there? I'm a here-to-there guy and I worked incrementally to build a lot of structures are standing on here the New York NGO committee That's me. I I did it at one point. It was just one guy in New York doing it That was me and now it's this huge thing that is so powerful and so beautiful and and together with Vienna And geo committee has created a civil society task force that looks eye-to-eye We had at the before the African groups and the in the G8s and the whatever spoke We had the NGO committee speaking on behalf of the civil society task force. That's coming a long way incrementally I I just need a path and I don't want to step on a landmine, you know to use my military background. So that's me. I See things change happening basically in 2013 Martin and I Were part of these group that for the Organization of American States or regional organization in the Americas Wrote a report and there was a scenario that was called pathways in which we basically foresee Cannabis legalization happening all across the Americas from 2013 to 2025 and that's basically happening, right? So you basically have now some some 70% of the continent already exploring some sort of regulation So I see change happening and I see change happening on the ground So I see reform happening from the bottom to the top and not the other way around What I don't see and I think it's a missing conversation that we should be having right now is Full acknowledgement of the existence of the cannabis industry already shaping those regulations and shaping The possibilities of such reform movement happening on the ground and I don't see a conversation about corporate integrity Because these guys are gonna make money these guys are already making a lot of money And they're not necessarily thinking about the social consequences the economic consequences the institutional Consequences for example in a country like mine where the rule of law doesn't necessarily exist because corruption has been fueled For decades with drug money with illicit drugs money So we should think about how to involve these new players how to make them think socially and under these integrity lens of What the impact of their actions can be on the ground and how to actually make a regulatory system that works for everybody and that Allows for for effective exercise of human rights. I I'd say that and I think it's a full responsibility and commitment of civil society members like us to push for that change and to push for That to happen. So I I definitely think change is gonna happen change requires the integration of these new players from an integrity perspective But it's also gonna happen With us in In our terms if we decide to participate because this is what's been happening around here, right? Yeah, no, I fully agree But I do think that it should be one of our next big challenges to counter This this corporate capture which is going on both in the medical and in the non-medical Licit cannabis markets. No, but at the moment almost every week. There is somewhere an international business conference No with all guys in suits talking about millions and billions and Making prospects about how how this market is growing, etc No, what while with within a few hundred meters from those conference places that there are still prisons filled with with people who have Who are there for just possession of cannabis or or have been a small trader or no and there there is no connection between those two and and there there should be those there There has to be a social justice like fair trade principles for the construction of this illicit market and And that requires indeed special provisions for the ones who have been involved in the illicit who have been criminalized And they're both users but also small producers and small traders They are there to have to be as expungement of criminal records, but I would say even Preferential access schemes for them to to become players in the illicit market before all these Corporations just capture the complete market and then because I I also I I am not all against incremental steps No, we are very constantly working on Improving policies also at national level and and and of course every step is not the one We had hoped it would be and but but as long as there is progress No, of course, it's that is worth fighting for But but the worry I have now seeing this this corporate capture going on and then at the UN level Getting these kinds of messages from both the WHO and the ICB which which are basically Favouring the kind of products that that only the pharmaceutical industry can produce and and if that helps the pharmaceutical industry and and the big cannabis Companies to fully capture basically the medical markets then they have such an Advantage at the moment when it also rolls out further into the the non-medical and I see that as a serious risk and and I also think it is a responsibility for Also the drug policy reform movement No, we we've all fought for ending the criminalization of cannabis of users or farmers But yeah now that the wheels of change are turning we also have to take the responsibility that This change has to happen in a social socially just a responsible way I just want to add that it'd be horrible if I didn't because this is now becoming my main thing that I'm working on Appalachians of origin intellectual property rights, and I talked about craft farmers So we're in the Mendocino Appalachians project in California. We're working with the state legislature to create origins Protection for cannabis it's some of the best cannabis in the world from California If you like it to stay that way it won't be if you grow it in a big shed owned by Marlboro or whatever in the valley it's it's up in the hills and these little farms With the culture and the people that you know we call it indigenous cultivation in other parts of the world That's what it is and and if you think about grandma's tomatoes the heirloom tomatoes that tastes better than any and you can't even grow I'm at home even with her seeds. I mean that's what we're looking for is something. It's geographically both sustainable But unique and and very beautiful and worth saving and to create a path to market for that all the way to the international level It requires a whole new set of international bodies that I'm working with now I'm just beginning to learn the WIPO world international property organization the World Trade Organization and working with the state Legislatures and and the farmers all the way up to the UN is like my dream job So I shout out to my friends out there in California and I think it's not enough Certainly to even if you scale it up around the world But I think it's something that can help at least for some of the farmers that have identified themselves And that we can find to help create some protections from the big industry and create some space That that will help to like I said again make it both sustainable from our perspective You know, it's a beautiful thing that we're really trying to preserve and get from here to there again This is really interesting subject we could sit here for hours and discuss it. Yeah until sunrise And I'm really happy that we have so smart and committed activists and professionals Working on the future Thank you Michael Lisa and Martin for being with us today and thank you for those who are watching us online Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter to learn about our new video shows