In a compelling Policy Forum published in Science, Dawson White and colleagues make a persuasive argument for a fundamental reevaluation of international drug policy, emphasizing the critical need to distinguish between the coca leaf itself and its chemically refined derivative, cocaine. This nuanced distinction, they assert, has been obscured for decades under rigid legal frameworks, resulting in the conflation of a historically revered and culturally significant plant with a potent and highly addictive drug. The World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) is currently undertaking a reassessment of the coca plant’s legal classification, providing a unique and timely opportunity to realign global policies with scientific data and respect for Indigenous cultural practices.
The coca leaf, cultivated and used for millennia by Indigenous peoples across South America, particularly in Andean and Amazonian regions, deserves recognition as fundamentally different from cocaine. Unlike cocaine, which has a documented history of addiction and severe health complications, the coca leaf functions as a mild stimulant with minimal addictive potential when used traditionally. The leaves have been integral to cultural, medicinal, and social practices deeply embedded in Indigenous worldviews, offering nutritional benefits, and aiding in altitude sickness and fatigue, without the deleterious effects characteristic of cocaine use.
International law, however, currently places the entire coca genus under Schedule I of the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This classification groups the coca leaf alongside substances like heroin and cocaine, drugs universally acknowledged for their high abuse potential and severe health risks. The consequence has been a sweeping criminalization of the coca leaf, ignoring its distinct pharmacological profile and cultural context. More than 11 million Indigenous and mestizo people have seen their traditional ways of life stigmatized and criminalized, undermining their sovereignty and access to ancestral knowledge.
The legal framework has also acted as a substantial barrier to scientific inquiry. Researchers have found themselves restricted in their ability to study the coca leaf’s complex alkaloid profile and its interactions within biological systems. Unlike isolated cocaine, the leaf contains a mixture of alkaloids that appear to modify the effects of cocaine alkaloid when consumed in its natural form. Studies reveal that these alkaloids, when combined, may contribute to the leaf’s relatively benign stimulant effects without the high addiction liability. This biochemical complexity challenges the simplistic classification that lumps the coca leaf with more dangerous substances.
Furthermore, recent advancements in ethnobotany and pharmacology have deepened the understanding of the coca leaf’s role within Indigenous cultures. The leaf is more than a drug; it is a sacred plant enmeshed in spiritual traditions and customary laws governing its use and stewardship. By disregarding this cultural significance, international drug policy has not only marginalized Indigenous knowledge systems but has perpetuated injustices rooted in colonial legacies. The authors emphasize that any regulatory or policy responses must be informed by this rich socio-cultural context to avoid replicating historical harms.
White and colleagues argue that the forthcoming recommendation from the ECDD represents a crucial juncture for policy reform. A scientific reassessment could lead to the descheduling of the coca leaf, thereby rectifying a decades-long mistake that conflated coca with cocaine. This reform would not only facilitate evidence-based regulation but would also revive scientific research opportunities to explore the plant’s pharmacological properties more fully. Such a change could inspire a shift toward policies that reconcile public health goals with respect for Indigenous rights and environmental sustainability.
The distinction between coca and cocaine underscores a broader challenge in drug policy: the difficulty of balancing public health concerns, scientific realities, and cultural rights. By failing to differentiate between a plant and its refined derivative, policies have often been counterproductive, undermining local economies and obstructing pathways to sustainable development in regions where the coca leaf is traditionally cultivated. Reconsidering this policy framework demands a multidisciplinary approach that integrates toxicological data, ethnographic insights, and human rights principles.
Importantly, the descheduling of coca would not imply a deregulation that allows unregulated markets but would instead unlock the possibility of nuanced regulatory frameworks that account for traditional use and modern scientific evidence. This could include legal protections for Indigenous communities, controlled cultivation, and monitoring systems that deter illicit processing while supporting legitimate economic activities. Such frameworks could provide models for rethinking drug policies globally, especially for other substances similarly misunderstood or unjustly criminalized.
The paper also highlights how the criminalization of coca leaf has had unintended consequences, including the fueling of illicit drug markets and violence, as marginalized cultivators are pushed into clandestine economies. By removing the coca leaf from Schedule I, governments and international bodies can reduce these pressures and redirect efforts toward harm reduction, public education, and sustainable agriculture practices. This shift could stabilize communities and contribute to drug control policies that are more humane and effective.
Scientific distinctions extend beyond pharmacology to include sociopolitical dynamics, where the conflation of coca and cocaine has often been wielded as a tool of social control. The perpetuation of stigmatizing narratives has facilitated aggressive eradication campaigns, which have decimated local ecosystems and productivity, disrupting cultural lifeways and economic security. The authors call for a decolonizing approach to drug policy, one that centers Indigenous voices and integrates traditional knowledge systems alongside scientific methodologies.
In conclusion, the distinction between coca and cocaine is not merely semantic but foundational to crafting equitable and scientifically grounded drug policies. The work of White and colleagues signifies a pivotal moment in international drug governance, opening pathways to reforms that honor both evidence and tradition. The ECDD’s impending decision could pave the way for a paradigm shift, one that disentangles cultural practices from the criminal justice apparatus and fosters policies that promote human rights, scientific progress, and sustainable development.
Such a shift challenges entrenched legal frameworks and global political will but represents a movement toward justice and rational drug policy. As global conversations around drug reform continue to escalate, the reassessment of the coca leaf by the WHO’s ECDD stands as a beacon for policies that reflect complexity, respect, and reason. This historic opportunity may ultimately redefine the global drug landscape, facilitating more effective, compassionate, and informed governance of psychoactive substances.
Subject of Research: The scientific, cultural, and legal distinctions between the coca leaf and cocaine, and their implications for international drug policy reform.
Article Title: Scientific distinctions between coca and cocaine support policy reform
News Publication Date: 16-Oct-2025
Web References: 10.1126/science.aeb2948
Keywords: Coca leaf, cocaine, drug policy reform, Indigenous rights, pharmacology, WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, cultural heritage, international law, 1961 UN Single Convention, descheduling, ethnobotany, addiction, public health
