Sally Hamwee has been writing for Politics Home about her attempts to have Cannabis legalised for medicinal use. She firstly outlined the need:
Medicinal herbal cannabis is very effective for many people (not all) suffering from some very severe and debilitating conditions, the spasms and cramps associated with multiple sclerosis and spinal cord damage, Parkinson’s Disease and some of the symptoms of cancer and of the treatment of cancer among them.
It is available in 23 states of the USA, Canada, Israel and Netherlands from where it is exported to several other countries of the EU. But not – legally – the UK. The Dutch have used genetic alteration to maximise the benign content and eliminate the dangerous, psychosis-inducing component.
No wonder that so many British people go to great lengths to go abroad to get hold of it. The cannabis-based drug licensed in England is much more expensive and only prescribed on a “named basis” as NICE regards it as not cost-effective (it is approved in Wales).
And then she outlined how both Conservatives and Labour in the House of Lords wouldn’t accept her ideas:
I had no expectation that our amendments (I have tried twice, at different stages of the Bill) would make any progress, though some powerful voices were raised in support. I did not argue that cannabis should go from illegal to unlicensed, unregulated use overnight, but rather that for the purpose of prescribing it should have the same classification as heroin. The Labour front bench were non-committal and “unconvinced”.
The Minister relied on “clear scientific evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can damage people’s mental and physical health, and which can have a pernicious effect on communities”, and emphasised the need for an evidence base. I don’t dispute that, though whether the British are significantly different physiologically from the Dutch, I do wonder. And when the Government’s whole Bill seems to be based on evidence which, at best, is being questioned, this is particularly ironic. The issue won’t go away – but I am sorry not to have been able at this point to advance the cause of those whose suffering could to some extent be alleviated.
You can read Sally’s whole article here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers Diary: The only estate in England with a breeding population of corkindrills
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
John Grout
Cassie
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
18 Comments
Personally I have no issue with legalising cannabis for recreational use.
Saying that though, the medicinal argument is a bit of a red herring, where a cannabinoid is scientifically proven to be effective a more mainstream pharmaceutical approach is preferable. There are already companies developing and delivering prescription cannabinoid medicines for a range of conditions such as the British company GWPharma http://www.gwpharm.com/
Smoking plants is not an optimal drug delivery system; the doses vary widely , there are numerous side-effects and the approach itself is carcinogenic. All the basic arguments which saw modern medicine supplant herbalism in the first place.
Legalise recreationally for sure, there is no need to muddy the argument with scientifically dubious medical claims, where cannabinoids could be useful safer alternatives exist or soon will do.
Police helicopters could be replaced by drones. Add heat-seeking equipment and find unoccupied houses with all the curtains drawn. Inside there may be huge numbers of powerful lights heating cannabis plants and maybe one person, at the bottom of the hierarchy in a criminal organisation, but afraid to inform on others.
Modern strains of cannabis are many times stronger than previously.
I agree with ‘passing through’:
I think extracts of the active chemicals from cannabis resin have been available for many years. There is absolutely no rationale for smoking cannabis for health purposes. Smoke, by its very nature contains a wide range of partly oxidised products that inevitably contain significant carcinogens. The obvious delivery system would be an aerosol inhaler of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).
Legalise Cannabis, full stop. But, baby steps I suppose….
Disagree with you on that, David Faggiani. It needs some restrictions around use: in short – ingestion good, smoking bad. I like Martin’s inhaler system suggestion.
Smoking cannabis forces others around you to consume it too. People you share a home with or who live in the same block of flats. People who have not consented to do so. The stuff permeates like crazy.
I always get confused about which is the “positive liberty” and which the “negative liberty”, but where the two cannot be reconciled I’m pretty sure my freedom not to consume a drug should trump others’ freedom to do so.
We need a consistent approach to drugs. Legalise Cannabis or ban alcohol and tobacco.
Walking up the street in Ladbroke Grove, London, the smelll of the stuff was coming out of semi-basement flats.
All the police needed to do was knock on the door/s.
If they did not perhaps they were short-staffed, perhaps they did not care.
I won’t vote for any party unless they promise to legalise cannabis and sell it in the shops.
The lib dems have played political football with cannabis in the past and flip flop on the issue, it’s used like a political dog whistle to rally the base then when the mainstream listen they change their tune again. I don’t believe you guys would legalise cannabis, even if you won 400 MPs off the back of a pledge to do it I don’t believe the lib dems would ever do this.
One day I believe the UK will legalise cannabis, but I think it will be the Labour Party that does it. This point in time is far away though 🙁
Everyone who has commented that a purified medical product is preferable to smoking random plant material seems to have missed the point that such purified product either simply isnt on offer because of restrictions, or is vastly more expensive than raw plant. If you intend to make cannabis medical products readily available over the counter as are aspirin (and at similar prices), that would be well and good, but I dont think that alternative is being proposed?
The long and the short of it, is that cannabis is not really dangerous and can be well managed by individuals left to their own choices. This is especially true if the public has access to standardised comercially produced product. Somehow a pretty harmless recreation became demonised and outlawed, and anyone who takes the view that people should not be allowed free choice in such matters, isnt interested in scientific reasoned argument. Banning medical cannabis, frankly, is barbaric. I don’t really understand how anyone can dispute that.
This is mad stuff. I very firmly believe in legalisation, but claiming cannabis is a viable medical treatment is pure quackery. Some of the compounds in cannabis may have medicinal uses in terms of pain relief but to claim they can treat cancer is not just misguided, but profoundly dangerous.
Danny
Everyone who has commented that a purified medical product is preferable to smoking random plant material seems to have missed the point that such purified product either simply isnt on offer because of restrictions, or is vastly more expensive than raw plant. If you intend to make cannabis medical products readily available over the counter as are aspirin (and at similar prices), that would be well and good, but I dont think that alternative is being proposed?
If they are to be sold as pharmaceutical drugs, then they have to pass the burden of proof for efficacy and safety that all other medical products do.
Very few compounds derived from cannabis have passed these tests.
Smoking cannabis puts you at a massively increased risk of cancer, heart disease and other illnesses compared to not-smoking. How can you possibly argue that medical use should be allowed for the herbal product with these risks, and no proof of efficacy?
Isn’t this all academic, given that the lib dens would never do this even if they could?
To change the law on drugs a party would have to have the will and strength to face up to the opposition they would encounter and over come it. The reason the lib send are now speaking up on cannabis is because at the moment nobody is listening to the except their members.
But once the lib dens start winning more seats again the media and the public will start listening and comments about cannabis like these won’t just make the lib dem voice they make it onto the bbc. When that happens these type of comments will start attracting criticism and guess what? The party will fold and change its position again.
I have to disagree with Passing Through.
GW Pharma’s flagship product, Sativex, contains whole-plant extracts from two strains of cannabis, and contains a full cannabinoid, flavonoid, and terpenoid profile. It is nothing more than over-priced and glorified cannabis oil. One can stick it in a bottle with a shiney label and a flashy box and call it a pharmaceutical product all day long, but this doesn’t make it so.
With regards to the comment about ‘smoking plants not being an optimal drug delivery system’, I’d suggest you ask the patients who administer cannabis via the lung daily. It is far easier to titrate dose via this method of delivery, and relief comes on almost instantly. When cannabis medications are administered orally (cannabis infused edibles / medibles, as well as with Sativex in part), any present THC is metabolised by the liver into a compound known as 11-Hydroxy-THC, which is reportedly up to three times more potent. This statement also completely ignores the use of vaporizers, which deliver vaporized medicinal compounds straight from herbal cannabis, retaining all of the beneficial compounds necessary for the entourage effect to take hold. This method of delivery also eliminates any carcinogenic potential posed by combusted material. Vaporizer technology has been around for years now, it’s nothing new, one popular model known as the Volcano is a recognised medical device both in the EU and Canada.
Chris Coomer, co. Decriminalise it – Jersey / Cannabis, The Science Behind The Magic (Facebook)
In response to g, have you looked at GW Pharma’s patents ? They have patents regarding the “anti-tumoural” effects of Cannabinoid combinations, particularly THC and CBD. So it’s far from quackery.
Also, thank you to Baroness Hamwee, for pushing for reform regarding medical cannabis. It will help so many sick people.
David Wallace: i spent more than a year canvassing in a target seat in euro-elections and general election, almost every day. Cannabis was not mentioned once.
@richard underhill.
I’d be surprised if it was, most cannabis users would not complain about their persecution to strangers. I don’t imagine many gay people told strangers on their door steps that they were homosexual and felt persecuted and discriminated against in the 1950’s either.
If you look at how gays achieved equal rights you’ll see that it wasn’t politically easy. Tony Blair essentially won that battle for gay people though. There was strong well financed and well organised opposition to the repeal of section 28, civil partnerships and equalising the age of consent. Tony Blair won all those battles and after that the rest was politically easy, so we got equal marriage from Tories and lib Dems.
Legalising cannabis will be very difficult. Any serious attempt to make any meaningful change in the law will come up against the wrath of the gutter press and a well financed and well organised opposition. The lib dems would simply not have the mettle to do it. Once the Labour Party change their minds and get the hard work done then the lib dems and the Tories won’t be able to get on the band wagon quick enough. No one wants to be the last inquisatadore.
The only reason the lib dems have been talking about this now is because nobody bar their members are listening.
Tommy
Drug companies patent at an early stage because this is why they do, why spend Bns developing a compound you don’t own the rights too? But most compounds don’t make it out of basic research, let alone Phase I trials.
THC and CBD may have effects in cell culture experiments, many compounds do that turn out not to work when given to living organisms. Thus far, there are no human trials on the use of these as anti-cancer drugs because they have not passed the basic research hurdles necessary to justify the expense of these trials.
David Wallace 24th Jul ’15 – 8:18am i have read that gays are “born that way”.
Using narcotics is a matter of choice. Even heroin users can come off using it by gradually reduced doses.
The real problem is the undelying lifestyle. A pity Billie Holiday did not.