WHO’s first scientific review of medicinal Cannabis: from global struggle to patient implications

IF 1.3 Q4 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Drugs, habits and social policy Pub Date : 2022-03-15 DOI:10.1108/dhs-11-2021-0060
Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli, Michael Krawitz
{"title":"WHO’s first scientific review of medicinal Cannabis: from global struggle to patient implications","authors":"Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli, Michael Krawitz","doi":"10.1108/dhs-11-2021-0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nBackground\n“Cannabis” and “cannabis resin” are derived from the Cannabis plant, used as herbal medications, in traditional medicine and as active pharmaceutical ingredients. Since 1961, they have been listed in Schedule IV, the most restrictive category of the single convention on narcotic drugs. The process to scientifically review and reschedule them was launched by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 2 December 2016; it survived a number of hindrances until finally being submitted to a delayed and sui generis vote by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs on 2 December 2020, withdrawing “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” from Schedule IV.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nTo evaluate WHO’s scheduling recommendations, the process leading to the Commission vote and subsequent implications at global, national and patient/clinician levels. Narrative account of the four-year proceedings; review of the practical implications of both rejected and accepted recommendations.\n\n\nFindings\nThe process was historically unprecedented, of political relevance to both medical Cannabis and evidence-based scheduling generally. Procedural barriers hampered the appropriate involvement of civil society stakeholders. The landscape resulting from accepted and rejected recommendations allow countries to continue creating decentralised, non-uniform systems for access to and availability of “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” for medical purposes.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nPerspective of accredited observers; highlight of institutional issues and the lay of the land; contrast of stakeholders’ interpretations and engagement.\n","PeriodicalId":72849,"journal":{"name":"Drugs, habits and social policy","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs, habits and social policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/dhs-11-2021-0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background “Cannabis” and “cannabis resin” are derived from the Cannabis plant, used as herbal medications, in traditional medicine and as active pharmaceutical ingredients. Since 1961, they have been listed in Schedule IV, the most restrictive category of the single convention on narcotic drugs. The process to scientifically review and reschedule them was launched by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 2 December 2016; it survived a number of hindrances until finally being submitted to a delayed and sui generis vote by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs on 2 December 2020, withdrawing “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” from Schedule IV. Design/methodology/approach To evaluate WHO’s scheduling recommendations, the process leading to the Commission vote and subsequent implications at global, national and patient/clinician levels. Narrative account of the four-year proceedings; review of the practical implications of both rejected and accepted recommendations. Findings The process was historically unprecedented, of political relevance to both medical Cannabis and evidence-based scheduling generally. Procedural barriers hampered the appropriate involvement of civil society stakeholders. The landscape resulting from accepted and rejected recommendations allow countries to continue creating decentralised, non-uniform systems for access to and availability of “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” for medical purposes. Originality/value Perspective of accredited observers; highlight of institutional issues and the lay of the land; contrast of stakeholders’ interpretations and engagement.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
世卫组织对医用大麻的首次科学审查:从全球斗争到患者影响
“大麻”和“大麻树脂”是从大麻植物中提取的,在传统医学中用作草药和活性药物成分。自1961年以来,它们被列入《麻醉品单一公约》限制最严格的类别附表四。世界卫生组织(世卫组织)于2016年12月2日启动了科学审查和重新安排它们的进程;它克服了一些障碍,直到最终于2020年12月2日提交联合国麻醉药品委员会进行延迟和独特的投票,从附表四中撤回“大麻”和“大麻树脂”。设计/方法/方法评估世卫组织的日程安排建议、导致委员会投票的过程以及随后在全球、国家和患者/临床层面的影响。四年诉讼的叙述;审查被拒绝和接受的建议的实际影响。这一过程在历史上是前所未有的,对医用大麻和基于证据的日程安排都具有政治意义。程序障碍阻碍了民间社会利益攸关方的适当参与。接受和拒绝的建议所造成的局面使各国能够继续建立分散的、不统一的系统,以获取和提供用于医疗目的的“大麻”和“大麻树脂”。原创性/价值认可观察员的观点;制度问题的突出与现状;利益相关者的解释和参与的对比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cultural variations in conceptualization of excessive drinking among young adults in Denmark, Estonia and Italy Pandemic-related changes in alcohol use among LGB+ people with and without mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions: a multinational cross-sectional study Implications of legalisation of cannabis cultivation in Ghana: a critical review Family ties: examining family functioning and alcohol use among American Indian youth Ayahuasca ceremonies: set and setting features across Italy and Colombia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1