section_path: Aftermath and consequences
section_name: Aftermath and consequences
paragraph_text: Aftermath and consequences
  
  Already in the 2000s, representatives of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (such as Cindy Fazey) and the International Narcotics Control Board (then-president Philip O. Emafo) warned that it would be nearly impossible to loosen international cannabis regulations, and that even if the Commission on Narcotic Drugs removed cannabis from Schedule IV, prohibition would remain embedded into the Single Convention.
  
  After the vote, a number of analysts continued to follow these views, arguing that the decision taken would have little legal consequences, if any. Others suggested that the change in legal status could facilitate access and availability to medical cannabis, or even legitimate the legalization of non-medical cannabis under Article 2(9) of the Single Convention.
  
  According to the World Health Organization, the withdrawal of cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of C61 "will remove some international procedural barriers to research and development of cannabis- based medical products according to national regulatory frameworks." Some commentators argue that, by accepting only the withdrawal from Schedule IV, and not the other ECDD recommendations, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs "might actually be perpetuating the model initiated in the US state of California in 1996 and followed by dozens of other jurisdictions: that of sui generis, locally oriented access programs, reliant on small- and medium-scale businesses and compound botanical medicines."
  
  A number of governments mentioned the withdrawal from Schedule IV in their rationale for national medical cannabis reforms such as Morocco, Spain, Mauritius, Japan, Peru.
  
  In the United States, "cheduling pursuant to international treaty obligations does not require the factual findings that are necessary for other administrative scheduling actions, and may be implemented without regard to the procedures outlined for regular administrative scheduling." For this reason, some have argued that changes in cannabis scheduling at the U.S. federal level may be fast-tracked on these grounds.