The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) has voted to place hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) under international control, a move that signals a growing concern over the synthetic cannabinoid’s potential risks. While nearly all countries present supported the decision, the United States notably abstained, raising questions about its stance on international drug control measures.
Global Crackdown on HHC and Other Substances
The vote, held this week in Vienna, resulted in HHC being placed under Schedule II of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The decision follows recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO), which identified the compound as a synthetic cannabinoid with psychoactive effects comparable to delta-9 THC, the primary intoxicating element in cannabis.
Alongside HHC, the CND also voted to regulate carisoprodol, a muscle relaxant, under Schedule IV. Additionally, four synthetic opioids from the nitazene class—compounds linked to overdose risks—were brought under control. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) described these moves as crucial steps in shaping global drug policies, impacting both law enforcement strategies and public health efforts.
Why Did the U.S. Abstain?
Despite its historical role in pushing international drug control policies, the U.S. chose not to cast a vote on HHC or carisoprodol. Instead, American officials issued a statement acknowledging the scheduling decisions while maintaining that both substances are already controlled domestically.
“While the United States supports the use of the international scheduling system to make scientifically informed decisions about international drug control, we were unable to vote on the proposals,” the statement read. However, no specific reason was provided for the abstention, leading to speculation about possible legal, political, or diplomatic considerations.
This noncommittal approach stands in contrast to past U.S. efforts to advocate for stricter drug control at the UN level. Observers suggest that domestic regulatory frameworks—where HHC is already subject to varying state laws—may have influenced the decision to refrain from taking a clear position internationally.
The Science Behind HHC and WHO’s Concerns
HHC has gained attention as a gray-area compound within the cannabis market, often marketed as a legal alternative to THC. While it occurs in trace amounts in cannabis plants, most HHC products available today are synthesized from cannabidiol (CBD). Manufacturers frequently spray HHC onto low-THC cannabis flowers to enhance their psychoactive effects.
A WHO representative clarified that HHC has been linked to drug-impaired driving incidents and clinical admissions related to intoxication in multiple countries. The organization emphasized that HHC “poses a risk to public health and has no recognized therapeutic use.”
The DEA, in a 2023 letter, supported the classification of HHC as a synthetic compound, stating that it “does not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically, and therefore does not fall under the definition of hemp.” This distinction is significant in the U.S., where hemp-derived products have gained legal protections under the 2018 Farm Bill.
What’s Next for HHC Regulation?
With its new status under international drug control laws, HHC could face increased scrutiny worldwide. Countries that are party to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances are expected to implement regulatory measures, which could include restrictions on manufacturing, distribution, and possession.
For consumers and businesses in the cannabis sector, the ruling introduces uncertainty. Some nations may impose outright bans, while others might follow the U.S. approach of regulating HHC through existing frameworks. The decision also raises broader concerns about how synthetic cannabinoids are classified and controlled, particularly as the industry continues to evolve.
Legal experts warn that enforcement of HHC restrictions may vary significantly depending on how individual countries interpret and implement the new classification. Meanwhile, the UN’s move to schedule additional synthetic opioids underscores the ongoing effort to curb substances that contribute to rising overdose rates worldwide.
The broader implications of the U.S. abstention remain unclear, but the move suggests a more cautious approach to international drug scheduling decisions. Whether this marks a shift in U.S. drug policy or a one-off occurrence will likely become clearer as regulatory discussions continue.
