The sixty-eighth session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) concluded on March 14 after five days of intensive discussions on global drug policy, international cooperation, and implementing international drug policy commitments.
Approximately 2,000 people gathered at UN headquarters in Vienna, Austria (UNOV) to exchange views and shape collective responses to evolving drug-related challenges.
The CND is the policy-making body of the United Nations. It is primarily responsible for drug control and other drug-related matters, such as monitoring the world drug situation, developing evidence-based drug control strategies, and recommending measures to address the world drug problem.
The Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Ghada Waly, emphasized the importance of strengthening the CND.
“In times of division and uncertainty, we need effective multilateral institutions more than ever,” Waly said. “UNODC will remain committed to working for a healthier and safer world, guided by the decisions of Member States.” (The countries that participate in the UN are referred to as “Member States.”)
Six New Controlled Substances
The Commission acted on recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) by deciding to place six substances under international control.
These scheduling decisions are meant to “reflect the Commission’s ongoing efforts to respond to emerging drug threats and protect public health,” according to the CND.
The Commission placed hexahydrocannabinol (HHC), a semi-synthetic cannabinoid with effects similar to Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) that has been found in a variety of consumer products, under Schedule II of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
HHC’s primary function is similar to other cannabinoids in that it interacts with the body’s endocannabinoid system. Research into HHC’s specific benefits and uses is ongoing.
The UN’s drug scheduling classifications are ranked oppositely to those in the U.S., with Schedule IV being the most restrictive. Schedule II classification regulates drugs with a lower potential for abuse than those in Schedule I but still requires significant control, with some exceptions to the regulations for retail trade and medical prescriptions.
In the United States, a Schedule I drug, as defined by the Controlled Substances Act, is a substance with a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medicinal value, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and is the most restricitve.
UN Schedule I
Synthetic opioids N-pyrrolidino protonitazene and Protonitazepyne, which are benzimidazole derivatives sold as designer drugs via the internet, were placed in Schedule I. The latter drew attention in mid-2022 and was definitively identified in drug seizures in Canada in early 2023 and Ireland in late 2023.
The CND is heavily influenced by scheduling moves made by the United States government. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a notice in July 2024 to restrict N-desethyl isotonitazene and etonitazepipne.
The latter is another designer drug and benzimidazole derivative with opioid-like effects that is reputed to be around 100 times more potent than morphine. Both drugs have been linked to fatal overdoses.
In September of 2024, the DEA released guidance of its “intent to publish a temporary order to schedule two synthetic benzimidazole-opioid substances, N -pyrrolidino metonitazene and N -pyrrolidino protonitazene,” in U.S. Schedule I.
Additionally, carisoprodol (brand name Soma), which is no longer prescribed in the U.S., is a centrally acting skeletal muscle relaxant that is reportedly widely misused recreationally in combination with opioids and benzodiazepines. It was placed under Schedule IV of the 1971 Convention due to its potential for dependence and health risks.
Image courtesy of the United Nations.
Six Resolutions Adopted
The CND also adopted six resolutions, reinforcing global efforts to address drug-related challenges through evidence-based policies and strengthened international cooperation.
The Commission encouraged the implementation of scientific, evidence-based drug prevention programs, emphasizing the need for early interventions to protect children and adolescents from developing substance use disorders.
Another resolution promoted research into practical, evidence-based treatment options. The CND issued a call to action for Member States to invest in pharmacological and psychosocial interventions to improve care for those affected by the increasing detrimental impact of stimulant use disorders.
What was lacking in these discussions were any resolutions or sanctions holding Big Pharma accountable for creating highly addictive synthetic opioids in the first place. While society and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have held the Sackler family accountable for creating Oxycodone, which spawned the fatal opioid epidemic, the CND and the UNODC have not. Both bodies tend to focus more on the detrimental impacts of the illicit drug trade rather than on criminally negligent catastrophes caused by the legal prescription market.
What are the Alternatives?
Alternatives to producing drugs in low-income communities worldwide remain unresolved.
The importance of alternative development, meant to attempt to ensure long-term economic opportunities are available in communities that generally rely on the drug trade for survival, was reaffirmed with a resolution aimed at transitioning communities away from unregulated crop cultivation.
However, precisely how, for example, Afghani poppy farmers, Colombian coca leaf processors, and Jamaican ganja farmers are meant to survive economically without unregulated cultivation was not addressed or implemented in a practical, solution-oriented manner.
Protecting 5-0
In response to the rising threat of synthetic drugs, the Commission adopted a resolution to protect law enforcement and first responders who are called upon to dismantle illicit synthetic drug labs. The resolution advocates for stronger safety protocols, enhanced training, and international cooperation to reduce risks during these operations.
Protecting the Environment
Additionally, recognizing the environmental damage caused by unregulated drug-related activities, the Commission adopted another resolution calling on Member States to integrate environmental protection into drug policies and address the negative impacts on the environment. Implement, how specifically, was again vague and open to interpretation.
Not addressed was the U.S. State-legal cannabis regulations on childproof packaging, which produces copious amounts of single-use plastic waste, or that requirements for disposing of cannabis-production byproducts, such as mixing discarded stems and other organic material with non-biodegradable material, is detrimental to the environment.
While non-legally binding, these six new resolutions are meant to reflect the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that drug control policies remain effective, adaptive, and aligned with contemporary challenges worldwide.
However, the only UN resolutions that have the potential to be legally binding are those officially adopted by the Security Council.
