11/01/2008 00:00:00
UK: Government response to petition 'medi-cannabis'
---
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14230.asp
We received a petition asking:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to STOP THE PROSECUTION
OF MEDICAL PATIENTS WHO USE CANNABIS."
Details of Petition:
"On Saturday, February 22, 2003 Mr Blair was asked about cannabis use by
medical patients, the Telegraph reported Mr Blair responding to an MP'S
question "We understand that there is potentially a distinction between
those who need cannabis for medicinal purposes and those who do not,"
the Prime Minister said. "I am sure that people will take a sympathetic
view of the position of the honourable gentleman's constituent, although
that must remain a matter for the authorities, not the Government."
Despite a change in classification, many ill people are facing
prosecution now medical necesity has been removed as a defense. We ask
Tony Blair to keep to his word, and allow medical users to use cannabis
without fear and prosecution. We ask him to begin by recognising that
the prosecution of THC4MS is wrong and these people should not be
criminals for their inspirational work."
The Government's view that the drugs subject to our misuse of drugs
legislation, including cannabis, are controlled for good reasons. It
makes sense, on health grounds, for them to remain controlled drugs
whose unauthorised production, supply and possession are and will remain
illegal.
The unauthorised supply of cannabis (as in the THC4MS case to which you
refer) or possession of the drug for any purpose is a criminal offence.
Any persons engaging in such activity are liable to prosecution whatever
their motive for doing so. It is reasonable to believe that they will
have some knowledge of the possible consequences of this unlawful activity.
It is for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, not the Government,
to decide whether to prosecute people who possess cannabis for
therapeutic purposes, subject to both the evidential and the public
interest test.
The Government has no plans to review the legal situation regarding the
medicinal use of cannabis and, in particular, no intention of legalising
the use of cannabis in its raw form for medicinal purposes. However, it
recognises that there are people with chronic pain and debilitating
illnesses, such as multiple sclerosis, who are looking to alleviate
their symptoms and who may not find adequate relief from existing
medication.
That is why the Government has said that it would seek Parliament's
agreement to make any necessary changes to the law to enable the
prescription of cannabis-based medicine for the purposes of relieving
pain. However, this could not happen without product approval being
granted by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
It would not be appropriate for the Government to circumvent or
undermine the well-established process attached to the evaluation of the
safety, quality and effectiveness of all prospectively prescribable
products by the MHRA. It is a process that is designed to protect public
health. Doctors must be confident about the products they prescribe. In
order to protect public health, the Government faces difficulty in
making any changes to the law unless, and until, it is satisfied that
the benefits have been formally established by the statutorily
recognised means. This position is supported by the British Medical
Association.
The company GW Pharmaceuticals has been seeking a licence for their
cannabis-based medicine, Sativex, and on a previous occasion their
application was refused on the grounds of insufficient efficacy. It is
for the company to generate further supporting data to demonstrate
efficacy of the product in order to obtain product approval.
In the absence of a marketing authorisation issued by the MHRA, Sativex
is available in the UK as a non-licensed medicine. As a cannabis-derived
product, it is controlled under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs
Regulations 2001 until such time as the necessary approval has been
granted. This means that it can only be supplied under Home Office
licence when prescribed to individual patients for therapeutic purposes
under their clinicians' personal responsibility.
The Government position in relation to the prescribing of Sativex is to
ensure that there are as few problems as possible, insofar as the
requirements of the misuse of drugs legislation are concerned, in making
the drug as easily available as possible. To this end, the Home Office
Drugs Branch Licensing Section issued a general licence in 2006 to cover
(upon application with the relevant patient details) any doctor wishing
to prescribe Sativex, the pharmacist to dispense the drug and the
patient to possess it without the requirement to be individually licensed.
Whether it is a patient or doctor who first contacts our Licensing
Section about the prescribing of Sativex, the Home Office asks for the
doctor to supply patient details (name and address) and a brief
indication of the clinical requirement for the drug. This information is
then passed to GW Pharmaceuticals who will contact the doctor to discuss
treatment and suggest prescribing regimes. In some instances the doctor
may contact GW Pharmaceuticals directly. In either scenario, all those
in the chain (i.e. doctor, pharmacist and patient) will be covered
automatically under the licence.
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14230.asp
Source:
http://www.ukcia.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=13138
Author:
Prime Minister's Office via UKCIA
|