Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
CLEAR Statement Concerning Cannabis Legalisation Measures In US Election.
“This is marvellous news for liberty, health and human rights. The USA, unlike Britain, has a functioning democracy where the will of the people prevails rather than the bigotry and self-interest of politicians. It is wonderful to see that truth, justice and evidence is winning out over the lies and misinformation we have been fed about cannabis for almost 100 years.
In 1971, the British government abdicated all responsibility on cannabis and abandoned our communities and our children to criminal gangs. Since then all the harms have multiplied exponentially. The laws against cannabis fund organised crime, promote dangerous hidden farms which are fire risks, the destruction of rental property, selling to children, contaminated ‘moonshine’ cannabis, gang violence, lives ruined by criminal records and the cruel denial of safe, effective medicine that can relieve pain, suffering and disability.
Donald Trump has supported access to medicinal cannabis all along. Many British politicians who consider him to be an unreasonable person should now look to themselves and ask whether they are being reasonable by supporting prohibition, even for medical use.
It is time for Theresa May, Amber Rudd and the UK government to take responsibility for the £6 billion pa cannabis market. The tide of legalisation is now unstoppable and it would be deeply irresponsible for them to fail to act. They must grasp this nettle now!”
Peter Reynolds, president of CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform
CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform Accounts 2015.
Income
Compared to the previous year, CLEAR’s regular income in 2015 was up 79% to £17,074. The majority of income continues to come from memberships, with the remainder coming from donations, merchandise and Google advertising.
Regular income: £17,074
Expenditure
CLEAR spent a total of £12,023, a decrease of 11% on the previous year.
Total expenditure: £12,023
Administration: membership administration, stationery, postage, telephone & internet, meeting expenses, etc. Administration costs have increased as an overall proportion of expenditure as there were no dedicated campaigns during the year.
Travel: expenses incurred meeting government ministers, MPs, agency representatives, media engagements, boards meetings, also re-imbursement of travel costs for Medicinal Use Panel members
Fundraising costs: PayPal fees and other fundraising costs
Promotion: Facebook advertising, printing of leaflets, design work, etc.
Report Of Meeting With MHRA On Regulation of Cannabidiol (CBD).
Tom Whettem, Canabidol; Anthony Cohen, Elixinol UK; Tom Rowland, CBD Oils UK; Karl Spratt, Hempire; Peter Reynolds, CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform; Mike Harlington, GroGlo Research & Development
Yesterday, 3rd November 2016, six delegates from the UK Cannabis Trade Association (UKCTA) met with Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) representatives at the agency’s headquarters in Victoria.
We were courteously received. The meeting was cordial, productive and enabled both sides to clarify their positions and better understand each other’s perspective.
In summary, in my opinion, there is no immediate threat to to CBD consumers or businesses. The MHRA has now extended until 31 December 2016 the date by which businesses should voluntarily comply with its opinion, either by withdrawing existing products from the market, or by complying with necessary regulation. Thereafter, the next step would be to begin the process of statutory enforcement. This would take a matter of some months and I believe, even were this to be started, we are looking at more than a year before any impact would be felt. More importantly, based on the meeting, I think the outcome is likely to be that we can negotiate a form of regulation that will work for everyone.
The MHRA team was led by Gerald Heddell, Director of Inspection, Enforcement and Standards. Also present were regulatory advisors David Olszowska and Chris Groutides; Dr Chris Jones, Manager of the Medicines Borderline Section; Greg Markey, Senior Medical Assessor and Malcolm Evans, Head of Patient, Public and Stakeholder Engagement. Mr Heddell opened the meeting by thanking us for bringing to the agency’s attention just how many people are using CBD, some for quite serious medical conditions.
The MHRA set out its reasons for its opinion that products containing CBD used for medical purposes are medicines. Greg Markey explained the mechanisms of action and pharmacology that had been considered and Dr Jones explained that the Borderline Section existed to deal specifically with products where it was difficult to determine whether they should be regarded as medicines or food supplements. The example was offered of vitamin C where if it was being used to treat scurvy then it was clearly a medicine, whereas if it was used to supplement a normal diet it could be regarded as a food supplement. We were able to explain that all so-called CBD products on the market, with the exception of crystals, are actually whole plant extracts from low-THC cannabis, usually industrial hemp. We pointed out that the growth in the CBD market had been driven by people seeking the therapeutic benefits of medicinal cannabis which until now had been denied by the British government.
The nub of the issue is really the nature of the condition for which CBD is used. The MHRA has already issued orphan designations for CBD for Dravet Syndrome, graft versus host disease and perinatal asphyxia. Orphan designations are granted where the benefit of a medicine can be recognised even though necessary regulatory processes have not yet been completed. It is important to understand that this is what has guided the MHRA’s opinion, viewing CBD as a medicine for very serious conditions.
We discussed a range of options whereby, at the lowest level, CBD products could continue to be marketed as a food supplement. For minor conditions, not requiring medical supervision, it may be possible to obtain a Traditional Herbal Registration (THR) at a cost of a few hundred pounds. A third option is a ‘Specials’ exemption where a doctor or prescriber has specified and taken responsibility for an unlicensed medicine for a particular patient. Finally, the highest level is a Marketing Authorisation (MA) where the costs including fees and clinical trials are probably a minimum of £250,000.
It is our view that CBD products should be regulated at all these different levels dependent on the purpose for which they are used and the concentration at which CBD is present. We have agreed that we will write formally setting out these proposals and the MHRA will respond accordingly.
The UKCTA and a number of individual companies have now obtained legal advice including counsel’s opinion. We have shared this with the MHRA and formal solicitors letters have already been served. In essence, the advice is that the MHRA has failed to comply with its own guidelines and requirements in issuing its opinion to CBD suppliers and that any requirement to comply with regulations would have to be addressed on an individual, product by product basis.
So, all in all, we believe the meeting was a success. We demonstrated that the new trade association is to be taken seriously and that we will work constructively with the agency. There was visible surprise at the level of professionalism we presented, particularly with the legal advice we had obtained. I believe we convinced the MHRA that we could establish a set of rules, guidelines and standards that would enable the industry to comply with its requirements.
The CBD market in the UK is presently worth several million pounds a year. If it is to continue to grow, provide safe, effective products for consumers and patients and job security for its workers, then we need to establish UKCTA so that it effectively represents the whole industry. We need to show that we are responsible, we care, we are professionals and we are ready to put our collective head above the parapet as a legal, ethical and regulated industry.
MHRA Backtracking Super Fast On CBD Ban.
In advance of the meeting between the UK Cannabis Trade Association (UKCTA) and the MHRA on Thursday, there has been a flurry of activity which amounts to a climb down by the regulator.
This statement was published on the MHRA website at lunchtime today.
“Update 1 November 2016
An MHRA spokesperson said:
While MHRA has given its opinion that products containing cannabidiol (CBD) used for medical purposes are medicines, we have also carefully considered the needs of individuals using CBD products to treat or manage the symptoms of medical conditions.
Our primary concern is patient safety. In order to ensure that products remain available until individuals have the opportunity to discuss their treatment with their doctor, companies now have until 31 December 2016 to voluntarily operate within the law, by withdrawing their existing products from the market, or working with MHRA to satisfy the legal requirements of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
We have today written to the manufacturers of CBD to make them aware of the timeline for engagement.
It is vital that medicines meet safety, quality and efficacy standards to protect public health.”
Originally the MHRA wrote to CBD suppliers in threatening terms:
“You must cease to sell, supply, promote, advertise or process orders for the above products until appropriate authorisation has been granted for them. You must confirm this in writing within 28 days from the date of this letter that you have taken the above steps.”
So quite a change in tone. The MHRA seems to have recognised that contrary to its declared mission ‘to improve health’, its original statement actually endangered the health of tens of thousands of people.
Additionally, solicitors representing the UKCTA have now written to the MHRA seeking clarification of its intentions and making three crucial points:
- The letters to CBD suppliers and the MHRA’s original press statement have caused serious financial damage to the CBD industry.
- The MHRA has conducted no effective consultation with stakeholders.
- The MHRA’s own guidelines require it to consider each product on a case by case basis and a blanket ban on products containing CBD would be unlawful.
Professor Mike Barnes
Professor Mike Barnes, scientific and medical advisor to CLEAR, commented:
“The MHRA’s new stance is an improvement from their previous position. However, I cannot see any value in delaying only a few months. Some patients might be able to find an alternative medicine from their doctor but many people will have already tried alternative medications and found that CBD is the only satisfactory treatment for their condition. This is the case, for example, for children with epilepsy who will have almost certainly have been under the care of a specialist and tried available anticonvulsants and found that CBD is the only treatment that works for them. The MHRA does not seem to realise the impact of this arbitrary and rushed decision which will clearly be detrimental and potentially have very serious (and in some cases life threatening) implications for some people. The MHRA need to work with the manufacturers and the medical profession to determine the best way forward that both recognises that cannabis based products have medicinal value, and as such need proper trials of efficacy and safety, yet on the other hand does not place existing users at risk of harm”.
Home Secretary’s Refusal Of Orgreave Inquiry Is Brazen Cover-Up Of Police Corruption.
Amber Rudd is following faithfully in Theresa May’s footsteps by spurning evidence in her role as Home Secretary.
With such powerful prima facie evidence of organised police violence and systematic collusion over their witness statements, it is vital to justice and the rule of law that an inquiry is held. If Ms Rudd doesn’t have the courage to support this then she is not acting in accordance with the purpose of her office. That would mean she is corrupt, so I fervently hope she will do the right thing and reverse this dreadful decision.
Orgreave 1984
There is no doubt that in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, corruption was endemic within British police forces. Other than general trend in society towards more openness I’m not sure we can be certain there has been much improvement. My perception is that trust in the police is at an all time low and while there are many ‘good cops’, established practices, such as the police complaints system, are still deeply flawed and embed bias and cover-up. The number of deaths following ‘police contact’ and no officers ever held to account is a national scandal.
I remain very impressed with Theresa May’s leadership since she was appointed PM but it is a myth that this was after a successful period as Home Secretary. The only ‘success’ she achieved was to remain in post for six years but disasters with immigration, the Border Force, the Passport Office and virtually everything the Home Office touched tell a different story. Her drugs strategy has now been proven as a public health catastrophe with the highest rate of drug overdose deaths since records began and evidence-free bigotry defining policy, particularly on medicinal cannabis where the UK is now a third world country.
If the Home Office and the police are to regain the trust and respect of the British people, Amber Rudd needs to start making her own mark and not by following meekly in Theresa May’s kitten heels. Neither of them are pussy cats and that’s not what we want. We want strength, integrity, compassion and honour, that is what Ms Rudd must strive for.
UK Cannabis Trade Association Meeting With MHRA This Week.
MHRA Headquarters
After all the speculation, many misleading and false reports and a plethora of attempts to interpret the MHRA’s actions concerning cannabidiol (CBD), this week the chips are down.
On Thursday 3rd November, at MHRA headquarters in Victoria, six representatives of the UK Cannabis Trade Association (UKCTA) will sit down with those responsible for the agency’s statements on CBD. We will be armed with counsel’s opinion on the legality of the MHRA’s action but most importantly we hope to secure clarification for those who rely on CBD as a food supplement. We will publish details of the outcome of the meeting as soon as we can.
Those attending as UKCTA representatives are:
Anthony Cohen, Elixinol UK
Mike Harlington, GroGlo Horticultural Research & Development
Peter Reynolds, CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform
Tom Rowland, CBD Oils UK
Karl Spratt, Hempire
Tom Whettem, Canabidol
VIDEO. ‘This House Would Legalise Cannabis’. Reynolds v Hitchens. University Of Southampton, 29th September 2016.
Recording of a debate on the legalisation of cannabis which took place on Thursday 29th September 2016 at the University of Southampton, hosted by Southampton Debating Union.
MHRA Confirms Meeting With CBD Industry Representatives.
Today, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), has arranged a meeting with representatives from the UK Cannabis Trade Association (UKCTA) to discuss its designation of cannabidiol (CBD) as a medicine.
A request for a meeting was was first made in writing on 20th September 2016, when the possibility of the MHRA’s action was still little more than a rumour. Nearly six weeks later, after repeated requests, complaints and lobbying from many companies, individuals and MPs, the meeting has been fixed for 3rd November 2016.
The main aim of the meeting will be to discuss interim arrangements for people currently using CBD as a food supplement. Clearly, we will also address concerns over the impact of this decision on many small businesses and the people they employ.
How Much So-Called ‘Anti-Semitism’ is Actually Opposition To Israeli War Crimes?
Yes, On This Subject I Am A Corbyn Supporter
It suits supporters of Netanyahu’s gangster regime to characterise any and all opposition to it as anti-semitism. It’s also true that much of that opposition and emotional outrage is badly framed and expressed so that it can be easily or deliberately misinterpreted as opposition to the Jewish people and their religion. But the Israeli regime itself plays fast and loose with the confusion between state, race, nationality and religion. It twists and distorts anything to justify its apartheid policy and genocide of the Palestinian people.
Personally, I see very little anti-semitism. In fact I cannot remember the last time I saw any words, behaviour or actions that could properly be described as such. On the other hand there are daily examples of the brutal discrimination, oppression, murder, land theft and extra-judicial execution of Palestinians.
So I call total balderdash on the invented stories of anti-semitism within Labour. In this instance, I believe Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabati are absolutely in the right. Of course, there are the loony left extremists in Labour who are a danger to the whole of our society. They undoubtedly push their delusional agenda of a Jewish banker mafia but they are bonkers anyway. We all have to deal with their idiocy on a daily basis. The far greater danger they pose is their already-achieved elimination of any effective parliamentary opposition.
No, the accusations of anti-semitism, including from the Home Affairs Committee, come from the pro-zionist apologists for Israeli war crimes. I really don’t believe that amongst decent, honourable British people of all political persuasions, there is any significant anti-Jewish prejudice or actions. Obviously I’m not saying it never happens but it’s largely Israeli government propaganda.
The answer is to root out the corrupt Israeli lobby in the UK Parliament and in US Senate and Congress. Stand up to Netanyahu and the despicable conduct of so many in the Knesset. Give the Israeli people back the freedom to live in peace with their neighbours and for the nation to flourish without the hatred and oppression which constrains it today.
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Features The CLEAR Medicinal Cannabis Campaign.
By Nigel Hawkes
“Muddled thinking” over cannabis leaves patients in limbo, warn campaigners
BMJ 2016; 355 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5556 (Published 14 October 2016) Cite this as: BMJ 2016;355:i5556
Companies selling cannabis based products have been told to remove them from the market within 28 days, after a review by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) determined that they were medicinal products.
Campaigners for cannabis law reform welcomed the recognition that cannabidiol (CBD) had medicinal properties but warned that the MHRA’s action would deprive thousands of users of a product they relied on. They said that it was impossible to obtain marketing authorisation in the timescale given and may never be possible given the high costs of clinical trials and lack of patent protection for a product that contained many components.
“In the long term, it’s a good thing,” said Peter Reynolds of the pressure group CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform. “But my immediate concern is for the tens of thousands of people who use CBD and have become reliant on it. We urgently need interim measures so that supplies can continue.”
The MHRA sent letters on 3 October to 18 companies that sold CBD, saying that it had concluded that CBD met the definition of a medicinal product as defined in the Human Medicines Regulations as “any substance or combination of substances which may be used or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting, or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological, or metabolic action or to making a medical diagnosis.”
This meant, the letter said, that CBD products required a marketing authorisation before they could be sold. Marketing authorisation for drugs requires lengthy clinical trials, only justifiable if the product has patent protection. An alternative route is under the traditional herbal medicines regulations, but that requires evidence that the product has 30 years of use and applies only to minor conditions, where medical supervision is not required. Reynolds said that he thought it unlikely that CBD could qualify by this route.
Mike Barnes, a neurologist and former NHS consultant and chief executive, is clinical adviser to CLEAR. He said, “The decision by the MRHA to treat CBD products as medicines has also been done without thought to the consequences for many thousands of people in the UK who currently benefit from the products. It will have very significant, and in many cases terminal, impact on the many legitimate businesses that provide high quality products.
“The government must now act to sort out their muddled thinking and try to help those people with long term and often painful conditions who benefit from the ready and hitherto legal availability of natural cannabis products. It is ironic that in acknowledging the therapeutic benefits of CBD, the MRHA is effectively suspending access to a product that has enhanced the lives of thousands for many years.”
Crispin Blunt, an MP and CLEAR supporter, has written to the MHRA saying that the decision to designate CBD as a medicine is directly contradicted by the Home Office’s position that cannabis has no medicinal value.
“It is vital that we do not let this anomaly in government policy cause harm to people’s health,” his letter said. He asked for details of how the decision was reached, the consultations undertaken, which specific regulatory regime MHRA proposed for these products, and whether the continued supply of these products, regulated as food supplements, could be ensured until such time that medicinal marketing authorisations could be obtained.
The MHRA has not yet posted details on its website about the decision. In a statement it said that people who used CBD should speak to their GP or other healthcare professional. “We can provide regulatory guidance to any company who may wish to apply for a licence,” the statement added.
Peter Reynolds 