It looks like it may be official soon, or perhaps it already happened in March. I was tipped off by this post on at /r/TheeHive
PMK-glycidate just got banned by the UN - what's next? (self.TheeHive)
submitted 4+ weeks ago by Andromeda2803
I was at the meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs this week, and PMK-glycidate has been banned there. It will be a matter of time before nations start checking for it.
Last time when PMK was banned, the market went back to safrole oil- and when that dried up, the market pretty much collapsed until PMK glycidate made it jump back stronger than ever.
What will happen next?
It seems this is true.
The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is the independent and quasi-judicial control organ for the implementation of the United Nations drug conventions. It plays an important role in monitoring enforcement of restrictions on narcotics and psychotropics and in deciding which precursors should be regulated.
From hxxps://www.incb.org/incb/en/news/press-releases/2019/incb-concludes-124th-session--meets-with-member-states-on-past-year-drug-control-developments.html
INCB concludes 124th session, meets with Member States on past year drug control developmentsUNIS/NAR/1373
8 February 2019
VIENNA, 8 February 2019 (UN Information Service) - The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) concluded its 124th session in Vienna today. In his closing remarks, INCB President Dr. Viroj Sumyai recognized the constructive efforts being made by national authorities, regional and international organizations, and civil society in preventing and treating drug abuse, in preventing diversion from licit international trade and in addressing drug trafficking and illicit cultivation and production.
On 6 February, the INCB President held a briefing for Member States on the work of the Board over the past year and on matters related to treaty implementation and compliance. The President emphasized the importance of cooperation with governments to improve treaty compliance towards achieving the health and welfare objectives of the three international drug control conventions and the Sustainable Development Goals. Dr. Sumyai presented the latest findings of the Board on the global disparity in availability of internationally controlled medicines, which will be published on 5 March in a special supplement to the INCB Annual Report 2018.
The Board considered the findings of its missions to Armenia, Germany, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Paraguay, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom, to whose governments the Board will soon transmit its recommendations. In this context, the INCB President recognized the key role country missions played in furthering dialogue and understanding of the drug control situation at the national level.
INCB held consultations with the Chair of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), and discussed preparations for the Board's participation at the 62nd session of the Commission, during which the Board would present its 2018 Annual Report, Precursors Report and supplement on availability.
The Board also met the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Yury Fedotov. During the Board session, the INCB President reiterated the importance of ongoing tripartite collaboration between INCB, UNODC and the World Health Organization in supporting states to achieve the objectives of the three international drug control conventions and in implementing the outcome document of the 2016 special session of the General Assembly on the World Drug Problem . Dr. Sumyai noted "we remain committed to working together with WHO and UNODC to support States in addressing the drug problem, as set out in our joint statement made last year at the 61st session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs".
The Board considered the challenges posed by the proliferation of non-scheduled "designer" precursors used in illicit drug manufacture, which is addressed in detail in the forthcoming 2018 Precursors report, and highlighted the need for a discussion at the international level on ways to address this problem.
INCB finalized preparations for the launch of its Annual Report 2018, the thematic chapter of which focuses on the use of cannabis and cannabis derivatives for medical and non-medical purposes. In accordance with the Board's mandate to monitor and promote implementation of the three drug control conventions, the Annual Report reviews the status of treaty compliance by States, regional aspects of the world drug problem, and makes recommendations to Governments and international organizations to improve the situation.
So I downloaded the 2018 report. The report is available here as a PDF:
hxxps://www.incb.org/incb/en/precursors/technical_reports/precursors-technical-reports.html
There is A LOT of interesting stuff in this report including info on ergot precursor seizures by customs agencies and ketamine precursors also, but here is what seems to be the PMK glycidate relevant info extracted from it:
Action taken by Governments and the International Narcotics Control Board
A. Scope of control
6. In December 2017, the Government of Argentina proposed that three precursors of amphetamine-type stimu-
lants be included in the tables of the 1988 Convention. Pursuant to article 12, paragraph 3, of the 1988 Convention,
the Secretary-General then invited Governments to submit their comments concerning the proposal.
Responses were received from 50 Governments, although many of those contained only limited information.
Nevertheless, the Board assessed the three chemicals on the basis of the information available. It communicated its findings to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and recommended the inclusion of APAA and 3,4-MDP-2-P
methyl glycidate (the methyl ester of 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidic acid) in Table I of the 1988 Convention. The Board
further recommended that hydriodic acid not be included in the tables of that Convention. The Commission will
vote on the Board’s recommendations in March 2019.
7. In its assessment of 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidate (the substance proposed for scheduling by Argentina), the
Board noted that the sodium salt of 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidic acid had been and continued to be seized in sig-
nificant quantities, including in clandestine laboratories. Given the very comparable properties of the sodium salt
with regard to the synthesis of MDMA and related substances, the Board considered that scheduling 3,4-MDP-
2-P methyl glycidate alone could well be insufficient, as it would likely result in a mere shift to and an increased use of the sodium salt, and possibly of other salts as well.
8. Therefore, taking into account that the scope of Table I and Table II of the 1988 Convention automatically extends
to the salts of the substances listed whenever the existence of such salts is possible, the Board considered that the acid form, i.e., 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidic acid, should also be included in one of the tables of the 1988 Convention.
Subsequently, in August 2018, the Board sent a supplementary notification to the Secretary-General to formally
initiate the procedure for scheduling the acid together with its salts.3 On the basis of the supplementary information received from Governments, INCB also submitted its recommendation for the international scheduling of 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidic acid, to be considered by the Commission in March 2019.
9. None of the chemicals concerned has to date been given a unique Harmonized System code. Considering the length of the cycle to update the Harmonized System nomenclature, INCB encourages Governments to adopt, on a voluntary basis, interim, discrete codes based on Harmonized System nomenclature.
Farther in the report:
In the present report, the following terms and definitions have been used:
“designer” precursor: A close chemical relative of a controlled precursor that is purpose-made to
circumvent controls and usually does not have any recognized legitimate
use
IV. Options to address the proliferation of non-scheduled “designer” precursors at the international level
214. Non-scheduled chemicals, alternates, substitute chemicals and pre-precursors are terms often used inter-
changeably to describe a development that increasingly poses a challenge to one of the pillars of international drug supply control, namely prevention of the diversion of chemicals as stipulated in article 12 of the 1988 Convention.
215. To address the challenges, it is necessary to understand the nature of “designer” precursors and the limitations of the existing legal framework with its focus on monitoring legitimate trade in a set of priority precursors listed in the two tables of the 1988 Convention. article 12 of the 1988 Convention, it is clear that the
number of non-scheduled substances that could be used to replace the controlled precursors is almost infinite and poses a challenge to the international precursor control system for two reasons in particular:
216. The present thematic chapter builds on the Board’s observations over the years 47 and is aimed at providing input for a strategic discussion about precursor control in the twenty-first century.
(a) A system of assessments of individual substances and substance-by-substance scheduling will almost certainly be reactive and lag behind the speed of innovation of traffickers;
The issue
217. The issue of non-scheduled chemicals is not new. 48
However, it has made a quantum leap in the past 8 to 10 years. The increases in the sophistication, diversification and scale of illicit drug manufacturing operations have far exceeded anything anyone envisioned at the time the 1988 Convention was drafted. This is especially true for the manufacture of synthetic drugs.
218. As a result, there now is virtually no limit to the range of chemicals and manufacturing methods that may
be employed in illicit drug manufacture, including those that were previously considered unusable in illicit settings.
Broadly speaking, the chemicals used are obtained from two supply sources, each with its own implications for the controls that can be applied:
(a) Chemicals available off the shelf and regularly traded for legitimate purposes, such as benzaldehyde, methylamine, and esters of phenylacetic acid (see paras. 127, 134 and 150 above);
(b) “Designer” precursors, which are purpose-made, close chemical relatives of controlled precursors and can easily be converted into a controlled precursor; they usually have no legitimate use and are therefore not traded widely and regularly (see box 5). Some of the commonly encountered “designer” precursors are the derivatives of P-2-P and 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidic acid (see paras. 124 and 147 above).219. While chemicals in the first category are, in principle, suitable for the monitoring system laid down in article 12 of the 1988 Convention, it is clear that the number of non-scheduled substances that could be used to replace the controlled precursors is almost infinite and poses a challenge to the international precursor control system for two reasons in particular:
(a) A system of assessments of individual substances and substance-by-substance scheduling will almost certainly be reactive and lag behind the speed of innovation of traffickers;
(b) Monitoring of international legitimate trade is at the core of the international precursor control regime. However, many of the chemicals that have recently emerged were designed specifically to circumvent controls. They have no legitimate uses beyond limited research and analysis, and there is no regular trade in them (i.e., they are not available off the shelf, although they may be manufactured on demand, including for legitimate industrial use).
220. Governments face significant difficulties in preventing non-scheduled chemicals from reaching clandes-
tine laboratories. Some of those are legal in nature, others may stand in the way of cooperation. Therefore there is a need to provide Governments worldwide with a common framework and legal basis to address those challenges jointly.
Limited international special surveillance list
221. In 1998, pursuant to resolution 1996/29 of the Economic and Social Council, INCB established the limited international special surveillance list of non-scheduled substances to meet the need for flexible, complementary approaches. 49 The list, together with the recommended actions associated with it, enables Governments, in cooperation with the industries concerned, to establish uniform procedures and a common approach to preventing the diversion of non-scheduled chemicals. However, use of the list and cooperation with industry are voluntary.
222. The list currently contains 53 individual substances.
In 2013, in response to the proliferation of “designer” precursors, INCB expanded the list in a generic manner. This meant that, instead of merely listing individual substances, the Board introduced extended definitions that capture common derivatives and other substances with chemical structures related to substances listed in Table I or Table II
Box 5. Types of “designer” precursors
The chemical concepts that traffickers have employed in recent years to circumvent controls include:
• Series of related substances, such as esters and other simple derivatives from which a controlled precursor can
often be recovered by a single hydrolysis step;
• Stable chemical intermediates, i.e., chemicals that are generated during the synthesis process for a controlled drug
or precursor but are normally not isolated, and hence not traded, but immediately consumed in the next reaction
step. APAAN and APAA are examples of such intermediates in the manufacture of P-2-P, amphetamine and meth-
amphetamine. Purpose-made chemical intermediates have also been encountered as substitute precursors of fentanyl (see para. 204 above) and ketamine (see para. 208 above);
• Masked derivatives of controlled precursors (see paras. 124 and 147 above), i.e., chemicals that are not under
international control but can easily be converted into the corresponding controlled precursor; the concept of masked
precursors is based on what is known in organic synthesis as protection group chemistry;
• Masked derivatives of controlled drugs (see para. 156 above), i.e., substances that are not under international
control but can easily be converted into the corresponding drug; their manufacture first requires the manufacture
of the drug end product, which is subsequently converted into the non-scheduled masked derivative to disguise
its identity and minimize the risks during smuggling.
...of the 1988 Convention and that can be converted into a controlled precursor by readily applicable means.
223. The limited international special surveillance list and similar national and regional monitoring lists provide, in principle, the flexibility necessary to proactively address series of chemically related substances and “designer” precursors. However, the use of those lists is not legally binding and depends on both the level and the reach of voluntary cooperation between authorities and industries.
The 1988 Convention
224. The only way to subject a chemical to a global, legally-binding framework is by including it in one of
the tables of the 1988 Convention. However, the scheduling process applies to individual substances only. Generic extensions are limited to salts 50 and optical isomers. 51 The tables of the 1988 Convention, unlike the schedules of the 1961 Convention and the national precursor legislation of many countries, do not extend controls to derivatives such as esters.
225. However, the 1988 Convention also provides guidance for developing national legislation that addresses
non-scheduled chemicals and “designer” precursors. INCB has, in the past, pointed out the applicable provi-
sions of the Convention, most importantly article 13 (materials and equipment). Other applicable provisions
are set out in article 12, paragraph 8 (monitoring of national manufacture and distribution) and article 24
(stricter measures) (see box 6). Ways to address non-scheduled chemicals at the national level have also been
set out in various resolutions of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, most recently and comprehensively in its
resolutions 56/13 and 60/5.
Box 6. Guidance provided for by the 1988 Convention
Article 13 of the 1988 Convention
Article 13 of the 1988 Convention requires the parties to take such measures as they deem appropriate to prevent trade in and the diversion of materials and equipment for the illicit production or manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and to cooperate to this end. While this is not mentioned specifically, article 13 could be interpreted quite broadly to cover non-scheduled chemicals and emerging precursors (see also paragraphs 13.1 and 13.4 of the Commentary on the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988). In its resolution 56/13, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs recalled article 13 as a basis for national responses to illicit drug manufacture involving non-scheduled substances.
Read together with article 3, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), clause (iv), of the 1988 Convention, article 13 makes it mandatory for parties to establish as criminal offences the manufacture, transport or distribution of [...] materials and equipment when they are to be used for illicit purposes. a These provisions relate not only to materials and equipment used for illicit laboratories within a party’s territory, but also to materials and equipment that are smuggled out of or exported from the party’s territory to other countries and used in illicit laboratories in those countries (see also paragraph 13.3 of the Commentary).
Article 12, paragraph 8, of the 1988 Convention
Article 12, paragraph 8, requires the parties to take the measures they deem appropriate to monitor the manufacture and distribution of substances in Table I and Table II. This provision could also serve as a basis for taking measures against non-scheduled chemicals and emerging precursors, namely those that are starting materials and/or intermediates in the legitimate manufacture of substances in Table I and Table II of the 1988 Convention. National legislation adopted pursuant to this provision may include regulatory controls and/or criminal sanctions for the intentional commission of offences set out in article 3 of the 1988 Convention.
Article 24 of the 1988 Convention
Article 24 of the 1988 Convention provides a general basis for parties to put in place stricter measures of control than those mentioned in the Convention.
The need for a common legal basis for interdiction and international cooperation
226. INCB considers that there is a need for a broader policy discussion about the options available to address the proliferation of series of non-scheduled chemicals and “designer” precursors at the international level. Such a policy discussion should complement and expand proven concepts in precursor control that have yielded results in the past and will continue to do so in most cases involving internationally controlled precursors.
227. The need for that discussion has become particularly evident during the recent assessment of chemicals for possible inclusion in the tables of the 1988 Convention. Two of the chemicals assessed, APAA and 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidate (the methyl ester of 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidic acid), can be considered “designer” precursors. APAA is a close chemical relative of APAAN and started to emerge after APAAN was placed under control in 2014. A substitute for APAA is already available in illicit markets. 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidate is one of a series of derivatives of 3,4-MDP-2-P methyl glycidic acid, and INCB has formally issued a supplementary notification to capture at least one other known chemical relative that has been seized with equal frequency.
228. Controlled precursors can be replaced by an almost infinite number of substitutes (see figure XV), including many that have no legitimate uses and are designed purely to circumvent controls, much in the same way as designer drugs and new psychoactive substances are. It is neither feasible nor desirable to include such an ever-growing number of chemicals in the tables of the 1988 Convention, especially if those chemicals do not lend themselves to monitoring in legitimate trade flows.
229. Efforts could rather be focused on establishing a common legal basis that would enable authorities worldwide to disrupt the supply of such chemicals to illicit drug manufacturers without creating any unnecessary regulatory burden. To that end, Member States could identify ways and means to introduce more proactive elements in the tables of the 1988 Convention to address series of chemical relatives and support the prosecution of criminal cases. It should also be possible to establish a separate category of precursor chemicals that do not have any currently recognized legitimate uses. For that category, the provisions regarding enforcement measures, such as the requirement to provide for seizures (article 12, subparagraph 9 (b), of the 1988 Convention) could be separated from the regulatory requirement to monitor licit trade.
230. INCB encourages Governments to consider all available options and to work with the Board to make the
framework for international precursor control more responsive to current challenges.
Does anyone have more specific info on this topic?
Recent Posts
