|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Government response to petition 'medi-cannabis'
Prime Minister's Office
Friday 11 Jan 2008 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
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!