Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07LONDON14
2007-01-03 17:33:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy London
Cable title:
UK "NOT OVERLY CONCERNED" BY PROPOSED UN
how-toVZCZCXRO1385 RR RUEHBZ DE RUEHLO #0014/01 0031733 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 031733Z JAN 07 FM AMEMBASSY LONDON TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1110 INFO RUEHUJA/AMEMBASSY ABUJA 0507 RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS 0250 RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA 0646 RUEHAN/AMEMBASSY ANTANANARIVO 0035 RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 0226 RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT 0212 RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 2368 RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN 0400 RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 0203 RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0320 RUEHBZ/AMEMBASSY BRAZZAVILLE 0003 RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 2074 RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 0237 RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0686 RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 0221 RUEHDBU/AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA 0121 RUEHKG/AMEMBASSY KINGSTON 0216 RUEHKL/AMEMBASSY KUALA LUMPUR 0138 RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0009 RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA 0103 RUEHLS/AMEMBASSY LUSAKA 0082 RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 0304 RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 2124 RUEHNM/AMEMBASSY NIAMEY 0126 RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO 0676 RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0976 RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 2761 RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH 0507 RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 3268 RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 0148 RUEHVJ/AMEMBASSY SARAJEVO 0050 RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0473 RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 0537 RUEHTG/AMEMBASSY TEGUCIGALPA 0033 RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 0434 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 1004 RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 0604 RUEHVN/AMEMBASSY VIENTIANE 0009 RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW 0931 RUEHWD/AMEMBASSY WINDHOEK 0055 RUEHVB/AMEMBASSY ZAGREB 0152 RUEHBL/AMCONSUL BELFAST 0682 RUEHED/AMCONSUL EDINBURGH 0657 RUEABND/DEA HQS WASHINGTON DC RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0248 RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1104 RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0862 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
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
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
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