Posts Tagged ‘MP’
The UK Government’s Very Last Excuse For Denying Access To Medicinal Cannabis.
Essentially, UK government policy on cannabis hasn’t altered since 1971. Despite the vast amount of new evidence published since then and revolutionary change, particularly on medicinal use, all across the world, successive governments have stubbornly and obstinately refused to consider any sort of reform.
It doesn’t matter which party has been in power, Conservative, Labour or the coalition, it’s a subject that ministers and MPs simply refuse to engage with. It’s easier that way for them and be in no doubt: laziness, fear of a media backlash and deeply ingrained prejudice are the key factors in this impasse.
Grubby, Corrupt Deal Between Brown And Dacre
We had the downgrade to class C in 2003 and then back up to B in 2009 but this was a turgid and useless effort. No notice was taken of any evidence arising from this experiment. It was enacted to enable police to concentrate more on class A drugs and reversed based on Gordon Brown’s ‘Presbyterian conscience’ and a grubby, corrupt deal with Paul Dacre to win the Daily Mail’s political support. In fact, use went down while cannabis was class C and back up again when it was upgraded but governments have no interest in facts or evidence on this subject, only in political expediency and spinning advantage with the media.
The clamour for medicinal access has increased enormously, just as the evidence for its safety and efficacy has become overwhelming. The UK is now virtually isolated amongst first world countries with a cruel, inhumane and anti-evidence policy which makes us a laughing stock with all who are properly informed. It’s not a laughing matter for the victims though. For those persecuted by this nasty policy it is tears, pain, suffering, disability – all of which could be alleviated to at least some extent just by a stroke of the Home Secretary’s pen. It is sickening that all those who have held that office over the last 45 years escape without any shame or opprobrium on their character.
Home Secretaries Have A Lot To Answer For
CLEAR receives hundreds of letters and emails every year from people who have written to their MP about medicinal cannabis and it is astonishing that unlike almost every other policy, exactly the same words are used by all MPs. They slavishly repeat the Home Office line which is ruthlessly enforced across party lines.
There have been some subtle changes. The marketing authorisation issued for Sativex in 2010 has led to a minor change in the tired and inaccurate line ‘there is no medicinal value in cannabis’. It’s now become ‘there is no medicinal value in raw cannabis’. This is scientifically and factually incorrect. Pharmacologically, Sativex and the ‘raw’ plants from which it is made are identical. It is whole plant cannabis oil and its authorisation by the MHRA as an extract of THC and CBD is fundamentally dishonest. GW Pharmaceuticals reveals it contains more than 400 molecules, the MHRA says it only contains two and “unspecified impurities”.
More recently, and in the face of an explosion of supportive evidence, another line has been added. This states that ‘the UK has a well established process for the approval of medicines through the MHRA and that any company wishing to bring a medicinal cannabis product to market should follow this procedure. In fact, inside sources suggest that the government is very keen to see new cannabis-based medicines approved by the MHRA. It would take the wind out of the sails of the medical cannabis campaign
This is the very last excuse for denying access to medicinal cannabis. It is nothing but an excuse and one that is misleading and based on deception. If we can expose how weak, inappropriate and fake it is, the government will have nowhere else to hide.
Firstly, as demonstrated with Sativex, the MHRA process is incapable of dealing with a medicine that contains hundreds of molecules. It is designed by the pharmaceutical industry for regulating single molecule medicines, usually synthesised in a lab, which have the potential to be highly toxic. CLEAR rejects the tired, boring theory that ‘Big Pharma’ is engaged in a massive conspiracy to deny access to cannabis and to ‘keep people ill’ so it can continue to sell its products to the NHS. The MHRA isn’t engaged in such malevolent conduct, it’s simply incapable of 
properly evaluating a whole plant extract through its existing methods.
The bright, shining truth of this, that totally demolishes the government’s position, is that in every jusrisdiction throughout the world where medicinal cannabis has been legally regulated, it is through a special system outside pharmaceutical medicines regulation. Every other government that has recognised the enormous benefit that medicinal cannabis offers has come to the same conclusion: cannabis is a special case. It is far more complex but much, much safer than pharmaceutical products.
Of course, there is also the ludicrous status of cannabis as a schedule 1 drug, which prevents doctors from prescribing it. If it was moved to schedule 2, alongside heroin and cocaine, or to schedule 4 alongside Sativex (the logical choice), doctors could be prescribing it tomorrow and high-quality, GMP and EU regulated medicinal cannabis from Bedrocan would be immediately available.
So the MHRA is the final excuse, the last obstacle to a revolution in healthcare in the UK. We need an ‘Office of Medicinal Cannabis’ as there is in the Netherlands, or ‘Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations’ as administered by Health Canada. Colorado has its ‘Medical Marijuana Registry Program’ and other US states have similar arrangements. Israel’s Ministry of Health has its ‘Medical Cannabis Unit’. In Australia, its equivalent of the MHRA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, has established its own set of medical cannabis regulations.
This is now the most important factor in achieving medical cannabis law reform. Next time you contact your MP or in any advocacy or campaign work you do, this is where to focus your energy. Cannabis is a special case, it is not like other medicines. Once we can open the eyes to this truth the path ahead will be clear.
The Facts About CBD In The UK. December 2016.
On 3rd October 2016 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued notices to a number of CBD suppliers stating that cannabidiol (CBD) was being designated as a medicine and that sale of all CBD products must stop within 28 days, ostensibly by the 1st November.
A lot has happened since. Most importantly, the Cannabis Trades Association UK (CTAUK) has been established to represent the industry and protect the interests of CBD consumers but there remains great confusion as to the legal status of CBD and whether these products will still be available. This article sets out the facts and explains how the market is likely to develop. The most important point is that there is no need for panic. There will be some changes but no one will lose access to CBD for the foreseeable future.
Background
Through the summer of 2016, rumours and half stories had been swirling around about the MHRA taking action on CBD. When the news broke it caused real panic, both for the thousands of people using CBD products and for those working in CBD businesses. It looked like a real disaster for everyone. On the one hand the government, through the MHRA, was finally recognising the truth that CBD and cannabis are medicine. On the other, it seemed that the whole industry was going to be shut down, businesses would close, people would lose their jobs and, most importantly, those who rely on CBD products for maintaining their health were going to suffer real harm. If CBD was going to be regulated as a medicine it would require the investment of hundreds of thousands of pounds to obtain the necessary authorisation to put any products on the market.
It quickly became clear that the MHRA was unprepared for the reaction it received. Its switchboard was swamped by worried callers. Social media exploded with the inevitable Big Pharma conspiracy theories and even the national press covered the story demonstrating that medicinal cannabis is now an issue of mainstream interest.
CLEAR took action to rally our friends and colleagues in the legitimate cannabis business and this led to the creation of CTAUK. The same day the news broke we wrote to the MHRA notifying it of the formation of the trade association and seeking a meeting.
On 13th October, the MHRA issued a statement on its website explaining its actions.
CLEAR’s advisory board members, Professor Mike Barnes issued a statement to the media and Crispin Blunt MP wrote to Dr Ian Hudson, the chief executive of the MHRA. Even the British Medical Journal covered the story.
On 19th October the MHRA finally confirmed a meeting with the CTAUK to take place on 3rd November. On 21st October, Dr Ian Hudson replied to Crispin Blunt’s letter. CTAUK appointed solicitors who in turn obtained counsel’s opinion and on 28th October a solicitor’s letter was sent to the MHRA formally objecting to its action. On 1st November the MHRA updated its statement on its website softening its position by claiming that its notices to CBD suppliers were merely its “opinion” that it should be designated as a medicine.
The meeting took place at MHRA headquarters on 3rd November. It was cordial and constructive and on 16th November CTAUK wrote to the MHRA formally proposing a system for the regulation of CBD. Essentially this suggests that CBD products with daily adult dosage of up to 200mg should continue to be marketed as a food supplement. Products with a daily adult dosage of up to 600mg would require a Traditional Herbal Registration and higher dosage products would require a full Marketing Authorisation. We await the MHRA’s response.
The MHRA has since written to CBD suppliers requiring them within seven days to provide samples of their products along with various information about them. However, CTAUK has been able to negotiate that our members have until the end of January to comply. This is excellent news and demonstrates recognition of the association by the MHRA.
Is CBD Legal In The UK?
Yes, CBD is not a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, neither is it covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. As long as it is marketed as a food supplement without any medicinal claims it is perfectly legal to sell and to buy.
Is The MHRA Going To Ban CBD?
No, the MHRA will have to assess each product on its own merits, particularly taking into account how it is marketed and whether any claims of medicinal benefit have been made.
What Will Happen In the Future?
We hope that the MHRA will accept our proposals for a system of regulation, meaning that only the highest dose products, such as GW Pharma’s soon-to-be- released ‘Epidiolex’ will require a full Marketing Authorisation. However, even if the MHRA tries to take formal action about any other products, this is going to take many months and probably a much as a year before anything changes. We remain confident that we will come to an agreement that will enable everyone to continue to access CBD products.
We May Be Leaving The EU But The Soviet State Of Britain Is Already Here.
Email to my MP, Sir Oliver Letwin, concerning the Investigatory Powers Bill
From: Peter Reynolds
Sent: 25 November 2016 15:01
To: Oliver Letwin
Subject: The Investigatory Powers Bill
Dear Oliver,
Perhaps you can explain to me on what basis of reason, justice or liberty the following organisations will shortly have access at will to my (and your) internet browsing history?
This is an outrageous intrusion into my private life and completely unacceptable. I think it’s time we started a UK campaign for the right to bear arms. Every day it seems the government is becoming more and more of an oppressor. I reject this entirely and it does not have my consent.
Metropolitan Police Service
City of London Police
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
GCHQ
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
Seriously, how can any MP with any integrity or honour vote for such Soviet-style government snooping?
Kind regards,
Peter Reynolds
Crispin Blunt Asks Parliamentary Question On Medicinal Cannabis, 22nd November 2016.
Crispin Blunt MP
Q. To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether (a) his Department and (b) the Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has reviewed the latest evidence, including evidence on different regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions, for the use of medical cannabis.
Nicola Blackwood MP. Minister Of State For Health
A. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reviews evidence submitted by a company seeking a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in the United Kingdom. One product containing extracts of cannabis, Sativex, has been licensed as a medicinal product by the MHRA. However, no such application has been received in respect of herbal cannabis, and therefore the MHRA has undertaken no review of the evidence for its medicinal use. Outwith the MHRA licensing process, the Department has not conducted or commissioned a review of herbal cannabis or its regulation in other jurisdictions.
Cruel And Irresponsible Response from UK Government To Parliamentary Report On Medicinal Cannabis.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, the response to the recent call from MPs and peers to legalise cannabis for medicinal use has come straight from the top. Theresa May’s longstanding reputation as a denier of science and evidence on drugs policy is reinforced by her peremptory dismissal of the expert report. It seems that, at least in the short term, the UK government is sticking by a policy that is discredited, ridiculous and deeply cruel.
It fell to Sarah Newton MP, minister of state at the Home Office, to respond to a parliamentary question from Roger Godsiff, Labour MP for Birmingham, Hall Green.
Roger Godsiff MP
“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will respond to the recommendations of the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform Accessing Medicinal Cannabis: Meeting Patients’ Needs, published in September 2016.”
Sarah Newton MP
“The Prime Minister responded to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform’s report ‘Accessing Medicinal Cannabis: Meeting Patients’ Needs’ on the 27 October.
Cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and, in its raw form, currently has no recognised medicinal benefits in the UK. It is therefore listed as a Schedule 1 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
It is important that all medicines containing controlled drugs are thoroughly trialled to ensure they meet rigorous standards so that doctors and patients are sure of their efficacy and safety. To do otherwise for cannabis would amount to a circumvention of the clearly established and necessary regime for approving medicines in the UK.”
In other words, this is nothing more than a re-statement of the same position that the UK government has held since 1971 when legal access to medicinal cannabis was halted. Quite clearly the government has given no consideration at all to the vast amount of scientific evidence and international experience that has accumulated over the last 45 years. The latest report which took nine months to produce, took evidence from over 600 witnesses and included a review of over 20,000 scientific studies is simply cast aside. To be honest, I doubt whether it has even been read by Ms May or anyone in the Home Office or Department of Health. This is the standard that now prevails in the UK – government of the people by an unaccountable, out-of-touch, unresponsive cabal of individuals elected by a deeply flawed system that gives democracy a bad name.
On the face of it, the claim that all medicines must be thoroughly trialled seems plausible – but it is not. It is a misleading half-truth clearly intended to squash the call for access to medicinal cannabis by painting a false picture.
Doctors are allowed to prescribe any medicine, licensed or unlicensed, as they see fit, based on their own judgement. But prescribing of cannabis is specifically prohibited by Statutory Instrument despite the scientific consensus that it is far less dangerous than many, probably most commonly prescribed medicines.
So it’s not a level playing field. It’s a policy that is based on prejudice and scaremongering about recreational use of cannabis. Ms Newton’s answer is at best disingenuous but then she probably doesn’t even realise that herself. For many years Home Office policy has been systematically to mislead and misinform on cannabis and evidently under Ms May’s successor, Amber Rudd MP, such dishonesty continues.
Theresa May MP
Something will eventually force the government’s hand to change its absurd position on cannabis. Sadly the very last consideration will be scientific evidence or the will of the people. Such factors hold no sway with UK governments. Only when enough of the political elite open their eyes and examine their conscience, or some key individuals or their family members, experience the need for medicinal cannabis will change become possible. Alternatively, political upheaval may present an opportunity. The Liberal Democrats were too cowardly, weak and concerned with building their personal careers when in coalition to advance the cause they now so bravely advocate. Perhaps the SNP, with 56 MPs, all in favour of medicinal cannabis may be our best hope.
Sarah Newton is merely a puppet of the Home Office bureaucracy. Theresa May’s mendacious position on all aspects of drugs policy is well established and she is as stubborn and bigoted as they come on such matters. Only when she, in person, is subject to sufficient pressure will this cruel, ignorant and hateful policy change.
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.
Professor Mike Barnes Speaks Out On the CBD Ban.
Professor Mike Barnes, Scientific and Medical Advisor to CLEAR
Professor Mike Barnes, neurologist, scientific and medical advisor to CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform, has issued the following statement.
“It is encouraging that the MRHA is recognising that CBD has medicinal value but it is concerning that many people benefitting from CBD now will suffer in the short term as good quality manufacturers have to stop production pending MRHA approval”
A redacted copy of the letter now being sent to all CBD suppliers can be seen here.
For some weeks, rumours and half stories have been swirling around about the MHRA taking action on CBD.
Initially a number of suppliers were warned about making medicinal claims, even testimonials from satisfied customers were ruled as unlawful. Anything which suggested that CBD was a medicine or provided therapeutic effects was ruled out under UK medicines legislation.
Responsible CBD suppliers have known this for some time and were scrupulous in ensuring no such claims were made, even including disclaimers explicitly stating that their products were not for medical use. But as CLEAR has reported many times before, the CBD market is full of cowboys, get-rich-quick scam artists that tell bare faced lies about their products as well as making outlandish claims for the medicinal benefits. The crackdown from the MHRA was inevitable when these fools put their short term gain ahead of developing a responsible and self-regulating market in which CBD could continue to be sold as a food supplement.
We have seen every sort of bad practice it is possible to imagine. Some suppliers have attacked all of their competitors, stating that they are the only ‘ethical’ supplier and everyone else is telling lies. MediPen put all its resources and efforts into marketing and PR without providing proper information to customers about what its product contained. It achieved great coverage in tabloids like the Metro and the Mirror and even managed to spin a wholly misleading story that the NHS was “trialling” its product (In fact it was at last using an NHS accredited laboratory to test its product contents, that is all). Another supplier called Sacred Kana was rebranding cheap and nasty Romanian hemp extract and selling a bottle for just over £50, claiming it contained 10,000 mg of CBD. Testing showed that it actually contained less than 200 mg. Wrapped up in a warm, cuddly hippy-style marketing campaign, they were trying to pass themselves off as the Rick Simpson of CBD when all they are is conmen.
Responsible suppliers did include CBD information on their websites and often linked to scientific studies and research. Clearly, even this has become too much for the MHRA and now the market is being closed down. You can thank the greedy idiots, the conmen and the barrow boy salesmen trying to pretend they were scientists.
Of course the truth is that CBD is medicine, so the MHRA isn’t wrong. Most CBD products are, in fact, low-THC, whole plant extracts, so they were, effectively, a legal form of cannabis. The therapeutic benefits they offered were not just from CBD but from the ‘entourage effect’, recognised by science as the synergy between all the different components of cannabis. Unfortunately, we even had some companies promoting the fact that their so-called ‘CBD oil’ actually contained significant proportions of THC and CBN, both ‘controlled drugs’ under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The crackdown was inevitable but it may leave tens of thousands of people with real health problems as they are no longer able to obtain what they were legitimately using as a food supplement.
Crispin Blunt MP, Political Advisor to CLEAR
Of course, designating CBD as a medicine is inconsistent with the UK government’s position that cannabis has “no medicinal value” but it’s been common knowledge that this is untrue for many years. The only good news coming out of this debacle is that this could be the beginning of proper, honest regulation of cannabis as medicine. But if we’re looking at clinical trials before CBD can be marketed again, it could be many years away and that’s after someone or some company decides to invest the £250,000 or more that could cost.
CBD products will still be available offshore and you probably will be able to order online and have them delivered by post. The price is bound to go up and you will be committing a criminal offence by importing an unlicensed medicine but no doubt may will choose to take this risk.
CLEAR is working with the UK Cannabis Trade Association and our Advisory Board members Professor Mike Barnes and Crispin Blunt MP, to try and persuade the MHRA to enter a consultation process and allow CBD to remain available as a food supplement in the short term.
In the longer term, as we know far too well, the only solution is for a proper system of regulation for cannabis. including its use as medicine.
CLEAR’s Submission To The Parliamentary Inquiry Into Medicinal Cannabis
This was the response that CLEAR submitted to the APPG in February 2016. In March 2016, Roland Gyallay-Pap, then managing director of CLEAR and Peter Reynolds, president, were called to give oral evidence to the Inquiry.
A PDF copy of this document may be downloaded here.
Introduction
In June 2015 the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform (APPG) published a short report arguing for a rescheduling of cannabis to make it more widely available for medical use. Following the publication of that report there are a number of key questions remaining that it would like to address by means of a Short Inquiry.
CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform has been asked to submit evidence to the Inquiry in answer to these specific questions:
- Whether switching the medical status of cannabis from schedule 1 to a less restrictive schedule would be beneficial?
- What do you understand to be the range and extent of unofficial use of cannabis for medical purposes?
- What has been the impact of the current schedule 1 status on research into the medicinal uses of cannabis?
- Is there useful evidence emerging from the regulation of cannabis in over 20 US states and elsewhere and what does it tell us about the case for cannabis to be included in the UK pharmacopeia?
- What would be the implications of licencing cannabis for medicinal use following a change in Schedule?
- What role could EU regulations play in developing the potential for the medicinal use of cannabis?
We have also added a further response with additional information.
- Access to prescribed Bedrocan medicinal cannabis is already possible based on careful use of loopholes and errors in existing English law.
Whether switching the medical status of cannabis from schedule 1 to a less restrictive schedule would be beneficial?
Yes, we consider that switching cannabis from schedule 1 to a less restrictive schedule would be beneficial, both so that it could be prescribed by doctors as medicine and so that it could more easily be used in research into its use and effects.
Cannabis has been in schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations1 (MoDR) since the Misuse of Drugs Act 19712 (MoDA) came into force. Drugs in schedule 1 are specified as having no medicinal value. However, an inquiry by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published in 19983 recommended that doctors should be permitted to prescribe cannabis and that it should be moved to schedule 2. Strangely the government’s response to this recommendation was further to tighten restrictions by the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 20014, which designates cannabis under section 7(4) of MoDA so that it is unlawful “for a doctor, dentist, veterinary practitioner or veterinary surgeon, acting in his capacity as such, to prescribe, administer, manufacture, compound or supply” it.
In fact, cannabis has already been re-scheduled into schedule 4 under the international non-proprietary name of nabiximols (Sativex)5. Although this is specified as being an extract of THC and CBD, it is clear from statements by the manufacturing company, GW Pharmaceuticals, that nabiximols is whole plant cannabis. Dr Geoffrey Guy, founder and chairman of GW, is on the record:
“Most people in our industry said it was impossible to turn cannabis into a prescription medicine. We had to rewrite the rule book. We have the first approval of a plant extract drug in modern history. It has 420 molecules, whereas every other drug has just one.”6
GW pharmaceuticals has confirmed that this quotation is accurate.7
The MHRA has chosen to issue a marketing authorisation8 for nabiximols (Sativex) by regarding it as only a two molecule medicine. The marketing authorisation is therefore at best inaccurate, at worst dishonest.
What do you understand to be the range and extent of unofficial use of cannabis for medical purposes?
In 2011, CLEAR commissioned independent, expert research from the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit (IDMU). The report, ‘Taxing the UK Cannabis Market’9, reveals there are three million people using cannabis in the UK regularly (at least once per month). Since then CLEAR has regularly polled its members and followers and consistently one in three of respondents claim at least some part of their use is for medicinal reasons. It is reasonable to estimate therefore that there are up to one million people using cannabis for medicinal purposes in the UK. It is certain that there are hundreds of thousands of medicinal users and previous estimates in the region of 30,000 are far too low.
The most common indications for medicinal use declared by our respondents are chronic pain, fibromyalgia, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis and cancer.
Our interpretation of the responses we have received is that generally cannabis is used as a palliative agent. Some people find it so effective that they consider it to be a ‘cure’ as long as they keep using it. Others find it extremely helpful in reducing the amount of toxic and/or dangerous pharmaceutical medicines they are prescribed. Often the side effects of pharmaceutical medicines are severe and debilitating and cannabis offers a way of minimising these.
CLEAR maintains a Medicinal Users Panel10 which members join in order to gain support in lobbying their MPs and/or attempting to obtain prescribed Bedrocan medicinal cannabis. The active membership of the panel varies between 20 to 80 people. Panel members have also been involved in delegations to meet government ministers and other parliamentarians
What has been the impact of the current schedule 1 status on research into the medicinal uses of cannabis?
In the UK there is very little research into the medicinal uses of cannabis, except that undertaken by GW Pharmaceuticals11. There has been some research carried out into single cannabinoids but the evidence is that the therapeutic effects of cannabis depend on the whole plant ‘entourage effect’.
The allopathic, reductionist approach to medicine, which is reflected in the way that the MHRA regulates medicines, is the fundamental, establishment doctrine that impedes research into cannabis.
Sadly, one of the biggest trials of MS patients, the CUPID study at the University of Plymouth12, intended to look at the many anecdotal reports of benefit, used synthetic THC and consequently the results were disappointing and irrelevant to the claims it sought to test.
It is far easier to obtain funding for research into the harms of cannabis which is undertaken with an almost absurd degree of repetition, most notably by the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London (IOPPN).13 It is also worth noting that IOPPN regularly and consistently overstates the results of its research, encouraging the media to report causal effects between cannabis use and mental illness which its research does not support.14
There is a huge stigma around cannabis, largely due to inaccurate, misleading and hysterical press coverage. For instance, neither of the pre-eminent MS patient groups, the MS Society and the MS Trust, will take a stand in support of patients, despite the fact that many use cannabis. Similarly, despite extraordinary human clinical trial results on Crohn’s disease, none of the Crohn’s patient groups will engage with the campaign. Mention cannabis and calls are not returned, people are scared by the stigma. The immediate reaction from all such patient groups is to overlook evidence of benefit and refer to risks to mental health which, in fact, are very low compared to pharmaceutical products. The press, unchallenged by politicians in its disproportionate attention to these risks, bears a heavy responsibility for this stigma and the lack of research.
Unlike many within the reform movement, CLEAR recognises and values the expertise and achievements of GW Pharmaceuticals. However, any doctor or scientist that expresses any interest in medicinal cannabis in the UK is immediately retained or contracted by GW. We receive hundreds of reports of doctors, GPs and consultants, who tacitly and sometimes explicitly support their patients’ use of cannabis but it is impossible to find any doctor who is prepared to speak out publicly. In the few instances where doctors have spoken out on behalf of patients, they have been contacted by Home Office officials and warned. One GP reported that he felt “intimidated”. By contrast, there are tens of thousands of doctors across Europe, Israel and North America who advocate for the use of medicinal cannabis and further research into its applications.
The security and record-keeping requirements for cannabis as a schedule 1 drug15 are wildly disproportionate to the real potential for harm, requiring a high security safe for storage and an audit trail fit for Fort Knox.
In addition the fee for a high THC licence is currently £4700.00 per annum and applications can take more than a year to process. These requirements, delays and corresponding costs severely impede research into medicinal cannabis.
Recently, in response to two government e-petitions, the Home Office issued the following statement:
“In 2013 the Home Office undertook a scoping exercise targeted at a cross-section of the scientific community, including the main research bodies, in response to concerns from a limited number of research professionals that Schedule 1 status was generally impeding research into new drugs.
Our analysis of the responses confirmed a high level of interest, both generally and at institution level, in Schedule 1 research. However, the responses did not support the view that Schedule 1 controlled drug status impedes research in this area. While the responses confirmed Home Office licensing costs and requirements form part of a number of issues which influence decisions to undertake research in this area, ethics approval was identified as the key consideration, while the next most important consideration was the availability of funding.”
We consider this response to be disingenuous and misleading. Cannabis is a special case. It is a combination of hundreds of molecules, unlike other schedule 1 drugs, most of which are single molecules. Also, as is well established in written and archaeological evidence, cannabis has been used effectively for at least 5,000 years as medicine without any evidence of harm.
Furthermore. ethical approval and funding are difficult largely due to the evidence-free scaremongering about cannabis and the consequential stigma, in which the Home Office plays a leading role. Ethical approval and funding do not seem to be a problem in researching potential harms of cannabis. Indeed, as noted above, there is a massive amount of such research even though much of it is repetitive and inconclusive.
Until it is recognised that for many years, under successive governments, the Home Office has been systematically misleading and scaremongering about cannabis, it is difficult to see how an evidence-based decision can be reached. The Home Office regularly makes assertions about cannabis that are completely without evidential support. There is an established prejudice and determination to misinform and this must be tackled at root as it amounts to misconduct and corruption.
Is there useful evidence emerging from the regulation of cannabis in over 20 US states and elsewhere and what does it tell us about the case for cannabis to be included in the UK pharmacopeia?
There is a vast amount of peer-reviewed, published evidence of the safety and efficacy of cannabis as medicine. Much of this arises from research carried out in the USA, the Netherlands and Israel, where medicinal cannabis regulation has been in place for many years.
It is a populist myth, promoted by the Home Office, the press, the BBC and the prohibitionist lobby, that there is no evidence supporting the use of cannabis as medicine.
In February 2015, a delegation of medicinal cannabis users from CLEAR met with George Freeman MP, the life sciences minister, at the Department of Health who is largely responsible for medicines regulation. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr Freeman requested CLEAR to produce a summary of the available evidence.
The result is the paper ‘Medicinal Cannabis:The Evidence’16 (MCTE) which has received international acclaim, so much so that in association with Centro de Investigaciones del Cannabis (CIC), a Colombian non profit association, a Spanish language version has been published.
MCTE was submitted to George Freeman MP in April 2015. Since then he has repeatedly refused to meet CLEAR again or respond to us directly, even after multiple requests from individual MPs representing CLEAR members. His only responses, received through third parties, fail to address the evidence at all. He simply refers to the legal status of cannabis, the theoretical availability of Sativex and the MHRA process for issuing marketing authorisations in respect of medicines.
This refusal to engage, acknowledge or properly consider the very large amount of evidence that is available is indicative of an inexplicable prejudice within government. Although conspiracy theories abound, it is difficult to understand why ministers adopt this position.
Cannabis was one of the most used medicines in the British pharmacopeia until only about 100 years ago. It could be restored immediately by a stroke of the Home Secretary’s pen to remove it from schedule 1. This would immediately make it possible for doctors to prescribe medicinal cannabis from Bedrocan17, the Netherlands government’s exclusive contractor.
Bedrocan cannabis is carefully regulated by the Netherlands government’s Office of Medicinal Cannabis. It is available in five different THC:CBD ratios. It is already exported to many countries in Europe and the company has established itself in Canada as well. It is less than a tenth the cost of Sativex for equivalent cannabinoid content and can be consumed either by a medical vapouriser or as an infusion.
No minister in this or any previous government has ever presented a coherent reason for the refusal to allow cannabis to be used as a medicine. Their only response is to fall back on largely spurious or exaggerated claims about the harms of recreational use.
What would be the implications of licencing cannabis for medicinal use following a change in Schedule?
Cannabis would not need to be ‘licenced’ for medicinal use following a change in schedule. As soon as it removed from schedule 1, doctors would be able to prescribe it and businesses interested to grow, process and develop cannabis medicines would be able to obtain cultivation/possession licences from the Home Office.
Medicines are no longer ‘licenced’ in the UK. The MHRA grants marketing authorisations. The initial fee, simply for filling in the application form is £103,000.00, thus prohibiting any but the very largest, established businesses from even considering such a venture. The very term ‘marketing authorisation’ reveals the mindset of medicines regulators which is now more about commercial interests than the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of medicines.
The MHRA does have a regulatory scheme for ‘Traditional Herbal Registration’ (THR) but it only applies “if the medicine is used for minor health conditions where medical supervision is not required.”. An application for a THR for cannabis could not be made while it remains in schedule 1 but, if granted, would not permit its use for many conditions where there is excellent evidence of its efficacy.
The MHRA is locked in an inflexible, unscientific and restrictive process which can only evaluate medicines which are either one or two molecules. Its process is designed for synthetic, potentially very dangerous molecules and is entirely unsuitable for a plant based medicine such as cannabis. This is why, as explained above, Sativex has been improperly regulated as containing only two molecules: THC and CBD.
When the Sativex (nabiximols) patent expires, independent analysis of the medicine would certainly demonstrate that it is whole plant cannabis oil. Presumably alternative and/or generic versions could then be produced. However, by any standards, for all parties, the regulation and scheduling of Sativex is inaccurate, if not dishonest, and needs revision.
If cannabis is removed from schedule 1, most appropriately to schedule 4 alongside Sativex, in our judgement there will be a large number of businesses applying for cultivation/possession licences for research which will eventually result in applications for marketing authorisations. In the meantime, it can only be described as cruel and evidence-free not to permit doctors to prescribe Bedrocan, a safe, effective medicine already regulated by another European government.
It is likely that enabling the prescription of Bedrocan would result in substantial savings to the NHS medicines budget. However, any idea that this could be quantified based on existing evidence is fanciful. Certainly, compared to existing prescription medicines and Sativex, Bedrocan is very inexpensive, probably less than 10 euros per patient per day. However, the complexity of calculating which medicines it could replace by individual, partly or wholly and for how long makes the exercise so hypothetical as to be meaningless.
It must be true that once local, UK-based cultivation of medicinal cannabis was permitted, prices would reduce even further.
What role could EU regulations play in developing the potential for the medicinal use of cannabis?
Aside from France and Ireland (which is moving rapidly towards drugs policy reform), every other EU country has a more intelligent, compassionate and evidence-based policy towards medicinal cannabis. Based on existing policy and its record, the UK government would simply refuse to comply with any EU regulation of medicinal cannabis.
Under the Schengen Acquis (of which UK is a signatory, though not to the full Schengen Agreement), if a medicine is prescribed to a resident of a member state, that resident may travel to other member states with up to three month’s supply under the protection of a Schengen certificate. The effect of this is that a resident of the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, etc. can bring prescribed cannabis, likely Bedrocan, into the UK and use it without restriction.
The crucial test here is residency, so it is not possible for a UK resident to travel to another country, obtain a prescription and then return to the UK legally with cannabis. Presently, a Schengen certificate for a UK resident has to be issued by the Home Office. Strangely and in contravention of this explicit provision, Norway (Non EU but a signatory to Schengen) does permit its residents to obtain prescriptions, usually in the Netherlands, and return home with cannabis.
It is also likely that given the hostility towards EU regulation, adding cannabis into that debate would be counterproductive. It would be used as another stick with which to beat the EU.
Access to prescribed Bedrocan medicinal cannabis is already possible based on careful use of loopholes and errors in existing English law.
As some members of the APPG are aware, CLEAR has been involved in trying to obtain legal access to prescribed Bedrocan since 2012. We now have approximately a dozen members who regularly receive private prescriptions from their doctors (both consultants and GPs) and travel to the Netherlands to have them dispensed.
In all instances, these individuals have either declared their medicine at customs and/or have made prior arrangements with the Border Force, producing supporting documentation.
This is possible because of errors and inconsistencies in the MoDA and the MoDR. All English drugs legislation, including the recent Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, is badly drafted, contradictory and scientifically illiterate.
The principle active ingredients of cannabis are delta-9-THC and cannabidiol (CBD). Bedrocan products are specified with different ratios of these substances. While cannabis is classified in schedule 1, so is delta-9-THC but it is also in schedule 2 described as dronabinol, which is the international non-proprietary name (INN) for delta-9-THC. CBD is not a controlled drug.
Therefore, if a doctor is prepared to write a prescription e.g. dronabinol (Bedrocan 22%) or dronabinol (Bediol 7.5%), three month’s supply of the medicine may be legitimately imported as a schedule 2 drug.
In the past four years only one CLEAR member has been frustrated in this. He had his medicine seized but he was not prosecuted. An appeal against the seizure failed.
Clearly, the vital factor in this scheme is a doctor who understands the law and the science and is prepared to write the prescription.
References
1. Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/3998/contents/made
2. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/contents
3. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report 1998 http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldsctech/151/15101.htm
4. Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/3997/made
5. Nabiximols (Sativex) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabiximols
6. Cambridge News, 24th Jan 2012 http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cannabis-company-enjoys-major-growth/story-22509041-detail/story.html
7. Email corres with Marc Rogerson, GW Pharma, 160312. Attached.
8. Sativex (nabiximols) marketing authorisation, MHRA , 2010 http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/par/documents/websiteresources/con084961.pdf
9. Taxing the UK Cannabis Market, IDMU, 2011 http://clear-uk.org/media/uploads/2011/09/TaxUKCan.pdf
10. CLEAR Medicinal Users Panel http://clear-uk.org/pages/medicinal-panel/
11. GW Pharmaceuticals website http://www.gwpharm.com/
12. CUPID study, University of Plymouth, 2015 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25676540
13. Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London website http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/index.aspx
14. King’s College Confirms Institute of Psychiatry Misled Media On Cannabis Brain Study. CLEAR, 2015 http://clear-uk.org/kings-college-confirms-institute-of-psychiatry-misled-media-on-cannabis-brain-study/
15. Controlled Drugs (Supervision of management and use) Regulations 2013, Dept of Health https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214915/15-02-2013-controlled-drugs-regulation-information.pdf
16. Medicinal Cannabis: the Evidence, CLEAR, 2015 http://clear-uk.org/static/media/PDFs/medicinal_cannabis_the_evidence.pdf Attached
17. Bedrocan BV website http://www.bedrocan.nl/
Chip Somers, Drug Therapist Charlatan. Ignorant? A Liar? Or Both?
It takes a lot to get me angry these days about attitudes towards cannabis. Many people are simply misinformed and are themselves victims of a relentless propaganda campaign by governments and the gutter press. Today though I watched the Victoria Derbyshire show on catch up from last Tuesday, the day that Parliament published published its report on medicinal cannabis. In the studio were CLEAR member Lara Smith, UPA member Faye Adams and Chip Somers, described as a ‘government advisor’, was on Skype from his home in Hampstead.
You can watch the programme on BBC iPlayer here. The segment runs from 1:22:09 to 1:33.58.
Now this is the BBC, which is always pro status quo and has a dreadful record on inaccurate reporting about cannabis. It’s also the Victoria Derbyshire show, which is a long way from serious news and is more like a cross between Jeremy Kyle and Woman’s Hour – but give them credit for covering the issue
You can’t blame people who have been misinformed and whose prejudice is deeply ingrained from years of brainwashing. This applies to many MPs, journalists, even doctors and scientists. Remember, the endocannabinoid system. one of the most important physiological systems, isn’t even taught in UK medical schools, so ignorance is widespread, even amongst those you would expect to be well informed.
Chip Somers
There can be no excuse for this mendacious and wicked man, Chip Somers, though. He is, you will remember, the addiction therapist who grandstanded over his work with Russell Brand a couple of years ago. He advocates the total abstinence route to recovery which has been so eagerly embraced by the judgmental puritans at the Home Office and has led directly to the highest ever rate of drug overdose deaths, only released last week. Is the man simply a complete fool or is he deliberately dishonest? I think it has to be both. No one with the experience he claims could be so stupid. For some reason: misplaced morality, corrupt influence of money, government pressure, self-promotion of his therapy business – he is engaged in deception.
I’m not going to analyse every one of his miserable words. Watch him for yourself but prepare to be appalled. Suffice to say that his only tactic was to argue against medicinal use with ‘dangers’ that apply only to recreational use by children – a transparent disinformation strategy. He was also nothing less than abusive to Faye’s and Lara’s testimony and his dismissal of Professor Mike Barnes’ evidence review, which analyses 20,000 scientific papers, was just laughable.
Chip Somers is a liar, a charlatan, a confidence trickster and a deceiver. If only some such donkey of a faux therapist would seek recourse in the courts for such descriptions of him. Then we would have the opportunity to prove that he is a man of bad character and evil motivation.
Senior Conservative MP, Crispin Blunt, Joins CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform.
Crispin Blunt, Conservative MP for Reigate, has joined the advisory board of CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform as political advisor.
CLEAR is the largest drug policy reform group in the UK with more than 685,000 registered supporters. It was formed in 1999 and its main aim is to “To promote as a matter of urgency and compassion the prescription of medicinal cannabis by doctors.”.
Crispin Blunt is a graduate in politics from the University of Durham and an ex-Army officer. He has represented the constituency of Reigate, Surrey as a Conservative MP since 1997. He is presently chair of the foreign affairs select committee.
He commented on his appointment:
“I am pleased to join the board of CLEAR. It is wrong that people with a range of conditions are missing out from medicinal benefits of cannabis because of the UK’s out-of-date drug laws. We need a new approach and a sensible regulatory system to support patients and their healthcare professionals in accessing safe and effective medicinal cannabis products.”
Mr Blunt’s appointment comes a few days in advance of the publication of a Parliamentary report on medicinal cannabis. It is to be announced in the House of Lords, committee room 2 at 11.00am on Tuesday 13th September 2016. Alongside the report, Professor Mike Barnes, the world-renowned neurologist, who is also a member of the CLEAR advisory board, will be publishing a comprehensive review of the evidence of the medicinal applications of cannabis.
Peter Reynolds, president of CLEAR, said:
“This is what we need, a forward-thinking, Conservative MP, Crispin Blunt, alongside an eminent scientist and clinician, Professor Mike Barnes. Very shortly, we will also be appointing a human rights barrister to our advisory board. We aim to shake up the cruel, anti-evidence policy that denies British people access to cannabis as medicine. The UK is in the dark ages on this compared to most of Europe, the USA, Canada, Israel and Australia.”
Peter Reynolds 