Subj:  UK: OPED: Let GPs prescribe the weed



Date: Wednesday November 11, 1998 



Source: The Guardian, UK





Leader



Let GPs prescribe the weed 



Who says scientists should not use common sense? The House of Lords Select

Committee on Science and Technology caused a considerable kerfuffle in

scientific circles yesterday. They concluded in their latest report that

there is insufficient scientific evidence to prove the medical value of

cannabis but even so recommended that the Government should reclassify the

drug to allow doctors to prescribe it as an unlicensed medicine on a

named-patient basis. This was not a collection of hereditary nobodies but a

notable panel heavily weighted with distinguished medical scientists (a

biologist, chemist, physicist, medical researcher, neurologist, pathologist

and practising fertility specialist) advised by Oxford University's

visiting professor of pharmacology. In an unequivocal conclusion they

declare: "We have received enough anecdotal evidence to convince us that

cannabis almost certainly does have genuine medical applications,

especially in treating the painful muscular spasms and other symptoms of MS

and in the control of other forms of pain." 



The British Medical Association was not amused. It criticised the Lords for

failing to distinguish between the active constituents of cannabis and

cannabis itself. It noted cannabis had many toxic ingredients and 60-plus

cannabinoids. It believed there should be no change to its legal position

until further research had established which cannabinoids had therapeutic

value so that new cannabis-based drugs could be developed. It opposed the

use of crude cannabis because of the "unpredictable nature of its effects".

But "unpredictable" is the wrong word. Although there is only one small

clinical trial on the medical benefits of cannabis there is a mountain of

evidence from MS sufferers that cannabis does ease their pain. The reason

why cannabis has these effects may be "unknown" but the effects are not

"unpredictable". This was one of the reasons why the Lords came out in

support of using the drug. Even the medic about to conduct the clinical

trials into cannabis, who spoke out against the report yesterday, conceded

the anecdotal evidence was impressive.



The Lords should be congratulated for listening to patients rather than

researchers. Cannabis was used medically for centuries before being

overtaken by more powerful drugs but it still provides relief for a small

category of ailments where modern drugs have little effect. Knowing why it

works would be helpful but making it illegal until we know why is wrong.