The Mixed Blessing of Medicalised Cannabis
Dr Dee
The UK seems on the cusp of a "quiet" revolution, as it looks as though "cannabis derived medicinal products" are going to be made available (as per Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommendations). For anyone unable to read between the lines, this is not all that it may seem to be. Allow me to help clear up any misunderstandings you may have.
As many of you reading this will already know, cannabis currently sits in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, meaning that it's considered by the law and the lame duck Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to have absolutely no medical benefit or effectiveness whatsoever, a position which is indisputably a nonsense. In this respect, cannabis is placed alongside other substances such as LSD and MDMA, both of which are currently being found to have some quite significant medical benefits and effectiveness.
It seems that what is being proposed is to move specific - to use the ACMD's own term - "cannabis derived medicinal products" from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2.
The wording of this is important and significant; what they're talking about are cannabis derived products as opposed to cannabis itself, and what will result in is a very much double edged sword.
On the one hand, it will mean that a limited range of cannabis derived (rather than cannabis) products will be available for those who require them, such as children with particularly severe forms of epilepsy, and of course this is to be welcomed, albeit with caution.
But on the other hand, there are a whole lot of problems, both potential and actual.
One of these is going to be the cost to the NHS. Sativex apparently costs £375 a month, so £4.5K a year per person (possibly going up depending on individual needs). An acquaintance of mine was recently telling me how he had asked his GP about it, to be told that it's too expensive. He looked into the possibility of a private prescription, but this was going to be closer to £600 a month, or around £7K a year.
Another issue is that other Schedule 2 drugs include heroin and cocaine. These aren't Schedule 1 because they have proven medical benefit, but they are also dangerous, having a very high potential for dependence and/or fatal overdose. This quite correctly means that there are very strict rule governing their storage and administration. It just seems perverse to me that cannabis is being classed along with potentially lethal substances, when we all know that it's not. Okay, so there's still a question mark over cannabis dependence, though personally I'm highly sceptical. But as for fatal overdose? Come off it. They'll be trotting out the old "gateway to using other drugs" chestnut next.
Anyhow, the point is that many chemists and pharmacies don't keep supplies of heroin or coke because of all the red tape and paperwork hassles attached, and so it's not unreasonable to make the assumption that they'll take the same view of "cannabis derived medicinal products".
The last problem with all of this I'm going to mention is, for me, the most significant: people who use the cannabis plant medicinally will continue to be regarded as criminals in the eyes of the law.
It's all sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors, on the part of the government: give people what they think they want.
We have the knowhow to grow strains of cannabis aimed at specific health requirements. If what's required is, say, equal ratio THC and CBD, with a particular amount of CBG in the mix, it can be done, at home, and all for a few quid an ounce.
And that's the crux of the thing right there: while free access to cannabis is great for the population at large, it's very bad for the vested interests who continue to profit from illness.
Another issue is that other Schedule 2 drugs include heroin and cocaine. These aren't Schedule 1 because they have proven medical benefit, but they are also dangerous, having a very high potential for dependence and/or fatal overdose. This quite correctly means that there are very strict rule governing their storage and administration. It just seems perverse to me that cannabis is being classed along with potentially lethal substances, when we all know that it's not. Okay, so there's still a question mark over cannabis dependence, though personally I'm highly sceptical. But as for fatal overdose? Come off it. They'll be trotting out the old "gateway to using other drugs" chestnut next.
Anyhow, the point is that many chemists and pharmacies don't keep supplies of heroin or coke because of all the red tape and paperwork hassles attached, and so it's not unreasonable to make the assumption that they'll take the same view of "cannabis derived medicinal products".
The last problem with all of this I'm going to mention is, for me, the most significant: people who use the cannabis plant medicinally will continue to be regarded as criminals in the eyes of the law.
It's all sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors, on the part of the government: give people what they think they want.
We have the knowhow to grow strains of cannabis aimed at specific health requirements. If what's required is, say, equal ratio THC and CBD, with a particular amount of CBG in the mix, it can be done, at home, and all for a few quid an ounce.
And that's the crux of the thing right there: while free access to cannabis is great for the population at large, it's very bad for the vested interests who continue to profit from illness.
