It would seem like a historic turning point in the medical-scientific field: after more than half a century in which the WHO included cannabis among the drugs considered dangerous and without any therapeutic value, now the matter seems to have (finally) practically reversed.
Even though the regulations in this regard around the world are rapidly changing and some countries have long since liberalized them, in some cases even for recreational use, cannabis at an international level is still officially identified as a narcotic substance with all the consequences of the case. Precisely for this reason, the request of the World Health Organization (WHO) to the UN for the removal of cannabis from the list of the most dangerous substances caused a lot of outcry. The recommendation, which reached the United Nations Secretary General António Guterres in the form of a letter, was signed by the Director General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , but it has not been made public. The content was revealed by some organizations that have been fighting on the topic for years.
At the moment this does not yet contain anything definitive, but the recommendations made by an institution such as the WHO now seem to be a big step towards a new framework for cannabis at an international level . Specifically, the institution recommends the removal of the substance from Table IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and its inclusion in Table III of the same convention, that of low-risk substances. A similar opinion had also been expressed in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration which, however, had referred to the 1961 UN convention as an obstacle to reform. For this reason, the adoption of the WHO recommendations could open the doors to further reforms both in the US and in the rest of the world.
The news was obviously welcomed with jubilation by the various organizations active on this issue, even if opinions on its real significance are conflicting. In fact, there are those who see this as a decisive opening and those who underline that it is only a moving of tables and not a deletion of the name of the substance from the dangerous ones. In practice the result would be more political and symbolic than practical, because legalization for non-medical reasons (e.g. recreational use) would still technically violate international conventions.
