UK "NOT OVERLY CONCERNED" BY PROPOSED UN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 LONDON 000014 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SNAR UNCND UNCRIME UK SUBJECT: UK "NOT OVERLY CONCERNED" BY PROPOSED UN RECATEGORIZATION OF SYNTHETIC THC REF: 06 STATE 195365 LONDON 00000014 001.2 OF 002 ¶1. SUMMARY: The UK's initial assessment of ref talking points is that dronabinol - synthetic THC - is virtually unknown in the UK, and likely to remain so. As a consequence, they are not "overly concerned" by the WHO recommendation to move it from Schedule II to III of the 1971 Convention. They do share our assessment that the WHO recommendation appears to be unsupported by additional evidence, however. Like us, the UK would support a recategorization of oripavine. END SUMMARY ¶2. Angela Scrutton, head of the Home Office's Drug Legislation Section, told narcotics reporting officer Dec 21 and 28 that dronabinol is controlled under the UK's 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act and is not licensed for any use in the UK. Until 1995, dronabinol was a Schedule 1 drug under the 1971 Act, meaning it had no known medical benefit. In 1995, following a recommendation by the WHO, the UK moved dronabinol to their Schedule 2, which provides the tightest regime of control around its medical use in terms of prescribing, supply, safe custody and record keeping. Consequently, it may be prescribed in the UK on a named-patient basis but as an unlicensed drug in the UK it would have to be imported under a Home Office license. ¶3. To the best of Scrutton's knowledge, dronabinol is rarely if ever prescribed. Nor is she aware of any illicit market for it in the UK. The fact that it is only available under prescription and license is a protective factor, Scrutton explained, which leads her to view the WHO attempts to recategorize it with equanimity. She also sees no potential for an illicit market in the synthetic drug, given the ready availability of natural cannabis. The only practical effect of the WHO recommendation, therefore, would be a relaxation of the export reporting requirements. ¶4. Scrutton said she would be interested to know on what LONDON 00000014 002.2 OF 002 basis the WHO recommended the change for dronabinol. ¶5. Oripavine is not controlled under the 1971 UK Act. There is no evidence that it is misused in the UK, but Scrutton foresaw no reason for the UK to resist the WHO recommendation to add it to Schedule I of the 1961 Convention. ¶6. COMMENT: Scrutton's perspective, as befits her role in the Home Office, is UK-centric. She was not receptive to arguments about the wider international impact of a change to the UN regime. For that we will have to go to the Foreign Office's Drugs section. Until we present our own views, however, that office is content to defer to the expertise of the Home Office. Visit London's Classified Website: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/london/index. cfm Johnson