Combating the Spread of Illicit Drugs
Thomas Schweich, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
Opening Statement of the Government of the United States of America Before the 50th UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs
Washington, DC
March 12, 2007
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. As this is the first opportunity for my delegation to take the floor, I would like to
congratulate you on behalf of the Government of the United States of America on your election as chairperson of this
50th UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). We look forward to a valuable and productive meeting, working together under
your able leadership. We also continue to look to the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to play a critical role in
leveraging international support for counternarcotics issues.
This year marks an important milestone. We celebrate the fiftieth occasion of the international community coming
together under the banner of the United Nations, and this Commission, for the purpose of combating the spread of illicit
drugs across the globe. During this 50-year period, three groundbreaking drug control conventions guided our efforts. In
the words of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), these legally-binding instruments "ensure a delicate
balance between making narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances available for medical and scientific purposes, and
preventing their abuse or non-medical use." It is our obligation--we, the Member States of the CND--to work together to
ensure that we maintain this balance. In particular, we believe that an effort to legalize the massive Afghan opium
crop, or expand the already excessive areas of licit coca cultivation in South America, would result in unprecedented
levels of diversion, with seriously negative consequences for all of us.
The international community took decisive action in 1998 by coming together at the UN General Assembly Special Session
on Drugs (UNGASS). As a result, countless positive actions to address directly the drug problem have been undertaken.
More people around the world have access to effective drug treatment and prevention programs. In addition, more
intravenous drug users today have improved access to prevention, treatment and care. Specifically, the U.S. President's
Emergency Plan for HIV/AIDS Relief has contributed $15 billion over five years to global HIV/AIDS efforts. However, the
United States remains concerned that too many nations rely on needle distribution for managing intravenous drug use
related problems, rather than a comprehensive approach, including drug treatment, HIV/AIDS treatment and care.
We have also made progress in dismantling drug trafficking organizations and eliminating illicit crops. We are on the
right path. In this regard, we are pleased to report that drug consumption is considerably down amongst youth in our
country--by 23 percent. Of course, much work remains to be done at home, particularly with regard to the growing threat
of synthetic drugs.
Controlling synthetic drug chemicals in a cooperative, responsible manner will be a central focus our thematic debate
this week. This topic is highly appropriate because consumption of synthetic drugs continues to spread, with an
estimated 35 million people using amphetamine-type stimulants globally.
Ephedrine and pseudophedrine are integral chemical components for legitimate pharmaceutical respiratory medicines. As we
all know, however, they are also integral chemical components in the production of two of the most prevalent and abused
synthetic drugs--amphetamine and methamphetamine. The same can be said about many of the other Table 1 chemicals--they
have valuable licit uses producing positive results, but also adverse illicit uses producing destructive results. Our
challenge, therefore, is threefold:
* We need to ensure that legitimate pharmaceutical manufacturers obtain the chemicals they need;
* We must stop traffickers from diverting these chemicals through international commerce; and
* We must prevent pharmaceutical preparations produced from these chemicals from being misused to obtain precursors.
This difficult challenge of meeting legitimate needs while eliminating synthetic drug production warrants a strong
system of both international cooperation and national regulation for effective precursor chemical control. The United
States Government, through the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, is implementing controls on domestic over-
the-counter sales of pharmaceutical preparations, thereby dramatically reducing their availability and subsequent
diversion to illicit drug manufacture, while still ensuring their availability for legitimate medical purposes. Many
other countries have similar controls in place.
More importantly, in the international context, last year this Commission passed resolution 49/3--"Strengthening systems
for the control of precursors used in the manufacture of synthetic drugs." This resolution recognizes an essential fact:
it is very difficult to prevent diversion of precursor chemicals for illicit uses if you do not know what your
legitimate requirements are. As a result of resolution 49/3, eighty-two countries and territories have voluntarily
provided the INCB with estimates of their domestic, legitimate requirements for chemical precursors used in the
manufacture of synthetic drugs. This baseline for authorities in importing and exporting countries facilitates quick
"reality checks" on the chemicals and the quantities proposed in commercial transactions for key synthetic drug
chemicals. Such checks enable authorities to determine whether importation is warranted, and many nations are already
taking strong actions. We commend the Government of Mexico, which is using estimates of its legitimate requirements of
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to cut its imports significantly.
In another instance, the INCB reports that some governments cancelled shipments of precursor chemicals because the
proposed importation amount was hundreds of times greater than that particular country's declared licit needs. The
United States Government applauds these efforts and those of other countries to tighten domestic controls of precursors.
The CND resolution also provided enhanced authority for the sharing of information within law enforcement channels.
Under the banner of the INCB's Project Prism task force, national law enforcement authorities, including those from the
United States, have participated in operational initiatives that have deepened cooperation and capabilities, especially
in regions susceptible to chemical diversion. Over the past year, we have seen the Project Prism task force increase its
effectiveness and the INCB become more able to identify and prevent the diversion of controlled chemicals. Last year,
the INCB indicated that Project Prism monitored 2,295 individual shipments of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, resulting
in the seizure of 113,133 kilograms of these chemicals, which otherwise would have made their way into the market for
illicit use and consumption.
As traffickers respond by turning to countries that do not normally trade in precursor chemicals, the international
community must be increasingly vigilant in providing legitimate estimates to the INCB to serve as a first warning for
suspicious transactions. The United States urges those governments that have not yet done so to provide data on
legitimate needs for synthetic drug precursor chemicals, and their pharmaceutical preparations, to the INCB as soon as
possible.
Resolution 49/3 also requested Member States to provide--to the extent possible--estimated requirements for imports of
preparations containing the chemicals that can be easily used or recovered by readily applicable means. These estimates
may be difficult to make and the 1988 Convention excludes pharmaceutical preparations from its chemical control
provisions. Nevertheless, we must recognize that traffickers will increasingly turn to these preparations for the
chemicals they must have, as we become increasingly successful in preventing diversion of bulk chemicals. Therefore, we
urge all Member States to make every effort to provide estimates of these requirements to the INCB, and we thank those
that have done so already.
This year the Commission will have before it another issue that will require us to ensure a delicate balance between
making narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances available for medical and scientific purposes, and preventing their
abuse or non-medical use. The World Health Organization has made recommendations to schedule orapavine in Schedule I of
the 1961 Convention on Narcotic drugs, and to move dronabinol from Schedule II to the less restrictive Schedule III of
the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
The WHO is to be commended for the scientific and medical assessment accompanying its recommendation regarding
orapavine. The 1961 Convention requires that orapavine, a substance that is easily convertible into thebaine and other
substances currently controlled in Schedule I of the 1961 convention, be scheduled accordingly. The United States
Government fully supports this recommendation.
By contrast, the recommendation on dronabinol is less clear, and fundamentally troubling. It is based on several
questionable assumptions. First, it assumes that the current scheduling unduly restricts the availability of dronabinol
for medical and scientific purposes. Moreover, it prematurely assumes that the rescheduling will not increase the risk
of abuse or non-medical use. Unfortunately, the supporting research and material presented by the WHO on dronabinol do
not address these issues even though they are central to any decisions on rescheduling. Moreover, all of the WHO
analysis regarding abuse focuses narrowly on the use and potential abuse of one product that contains dronabinol. That
product is Marinol.
There is no mention of data on the medical usefulness of dronabinol. The United States is one of the largest users of
Marinol, which helps relieve the suffering of those battling cancer and AIDS, and we support the availability of Marinol
for this purpose. However, we find that this is easily accomplished within the current scheduling structure. Moreover,
our experience in the United States indicates no problems with availability for scientific or medical purposes. We are
concerned, however, that rescheduling may in fact lead to an increase in abuse. While the WHO has indicated that abuse
of Marinol has been low, this narrowly focuses on only one product and does not address new dronabinol products in the
research phases, which may deliver the drug more rapidly to the brain and have greater abuse potential.
There are too many key questions on the proposed rescheduling that need to be addressed before we can make an informed
decision about rescheduling. We therefore urge this Commission to proceed prudently and cautiously. Rather than vote on
the re-scheduling recommendation, we recommend seeking further information from the World Health Organization, as
allowed for under Article II, paragraph 5 of the 1971 Convention. We are requesting that the WHO re-examine the issue,
particularly once more scientific and medical research becomes available. The Commission has taken similar action in the
past on rescheduling recommendations, when additional information was necessary to make a decision, and should do so
now.
Fifty years ago, the international community recognized that international trade in narcotics requires an international
response. We need each other to fight organizations that are adaptable, ruthless, and determined. Problems of the future
have to be on the table today: will the Internet increasingly become an avenue for trafficking? How can we stay on top
of regulating newly-created chemical substances? We have all progressed in our understanding of the problem and our
approach to tackling counter-drug issues since the first Commission on Narcotic Drugs. We can all take pride in the
accomplishments of the Commission--it has demonstrated throughout its history a commitment to substantive achievements.
The United States is committed to doing its part, and we are grateful for the guidance and support of the very capable
staff of international civil servants in the UNODC and INCB. We look forward to collaborating with UNODC, the INCB, and
our fellow Member States during this 50 th Session to find cooperative solutions. Thank you.
ENDS