May refuses to back Hunt on changing medicinal cannabis laws

Original post by TheMcSame

How about you read my post in it's entirety rather than cherry picking for you own means... CBD oil helps with seizures. Unless she's tried CBD oil that's legal to purchase in the UK, this story holds no water.

I think the cannabis oil her son needs requires THC for it to work there is no legal limit of THC in the uk its just banned. Also people under 18 are not legally allowed to have it so your point is invalid for this case. The concentraion of CBD in these oils is also extremely low so it would be very unlikely to help anyone with such symptomps as said by the people who sell the oil themselves. Also he has taken the oil but it has failed to help him in anyway so he needs that type of oil.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 5

the beer

What a ****.

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Tories are pro epilepsy and the causes of epilepsy. :yy:

They're very pro cannabis when it's in their greenhouses making them money.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 6

ChaoticButterfly

OP

20

Original post by TheMcSame

How about you read my post in it's entirety rather than cherry picking for you own means... CBD oil helps with seizures. Unless she's tried CBD oil that's legal to purchase in the UK, this story holds no water.

Mr Hunt doesn't agree.

Reply 7

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jun/18/hunt-admits-brexit-divident-wont-be-anything-like-enough-to-fund-pms-20bn-boost-for-nhs-politics-live

This was brought up recently due to a mother of an epileoptic child being denied access to the cannabinoid based treatment for her epileptioc son.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/11/epileptic-boys-mother-barred-from-bringing-cannabis-oil-into-uk

Tories are pro epilepsy and the causes of epilepsy. :yy:

There is no doubt that "medicinal" use of cannabis has been a stalking horse for legalisation elsewhere.

The government is right to oppose the situation where any doctor with a medical registration can write a private prescription for whatever formulation of "medicinal" cannabis, the market is willing to offer, for whatever conditions the doctor and patient decide can be treated with it.

It seems to me there is no need to change the law. The Home Secretary can grant a licence for the medicinal use of cannabis. What needs to change is that obtaining such a licence should not need a press campaign, a publicity stunt and a junior minister making stupid comments.

Guns are generally illegal in the UK but the Home Secretary licences the holding of prohibited weapons. I once met a man with enough AK47s to arm a battalion.

The problem with medicinal cannabis is the absence of a system whereby a consultant can make an application (an urgent one if necessary) and get a Home Office licence. You would think an application should be made to the Chief Medical Officer who should then internally advise the Home Office to grant or refuse the licence application.

Reply 8

LL2018

13

Original post by nulli tertius

There is no doubt that "medicinal" use of cannabis has been a stalking horse for legalisation elsewhere.

The government is right to oppose the situation where any doctor with a medical registration can write a private prescription for whatever formulation of "medicinal" cannabis, the market is willing to offer, for whatever conditions the doctor and patient decide can be treated with it.

It seems to me there is no need to change the law. The Home Secretary can grant a licence for the medicinal use of cannabis. What needs to change is that obtaining such a licence should not need a press campaign, a publicity stunt and a junior minister making stupid comments.

Guns are generally illegal in the UK but the Home Secretary licences the holding of prohibited weapons. I once met a man with enough AK47s to arm a battalion.

The problem with medicinal cannabis is the absence of a system whereby a consultant can make an application (an urgent one if necessary) and get a Home Office licence. You would think an application should be made to the Chief Medical Officer who should then internally advise the Home Office to grant or refuse the licence application.

Ah, so it's a problem for a doctor with a medicinal degree to prescribe a drug that has caused zero cases of (overdose) deaths ever but it's perfectly okay for the local off-license to prescribe tobacco and alcohol, both of which cause hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide annually?

Reply 9

Original post by LL2018

Ah, so it's a problem for a doctor with a medicinal degree to prescribe a drug that has caused zero cases of (overdose) deaths ever but it's perfectly okay for the local off-license to prescribe tobacco and alcohol, both of which cause hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide annually?

Yes, its a problem. The drugs we allow and the conditions under which we allow them are matters for Parliament and the government. Those who do not support those decisions should not be allowed to circumvent those decisions. If they want the law changing they can campaign for that. However, the policy of Parliament should not prevent the granting of exceptions in truly exceptional cases.

Reply 10

the beer

Original post by nulli tertius

There is no doubt that "medicinal" use of cannabis has been a stalking horse for legalisation elsewhere.

The government is right to oppose the situation where any doctor with a medical registration can write a private prescription for whatever formulation of "medicinal" cannabis, the market is willing to offer, for whatever conditions the doctor and patient decide can be treated with it.

It seems to me there is no need to change the law. The Home Secretary can grant a licence for the medicinal use of cannabis. What needs to change is that obtaining such a licence should not need a press campaign, a publicity stunt and a junior minister making stupid comments.

Guns are generally illegal in the UK but the Home Secretary licences the holding of prohibited weapons. I once met a man with enough AK47s to arm a battalion.

The problem with medicinal cannabis is the absence of a system whereby a consultant can make an application (an urgent one if necessary) and get a Home Office licence. You would think an application should be made to the Chief Medical Officer who should then internally advise the Home Office to grant or refuse the licence application.

Why should cannabis be a special case we don't put these barriers against opiates?

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 11

Ladbants

This is usually what leads to legalisation. In the US, loads of people claim they have “medical issues” to get a medical marijuana card- and many of the states that had these laws are now progressing on to legalisation of cannabis. I don’t think the same should happen in the UK.

Reply 12

Original post by the beer

Why should cannabis be a special case we don't put these barriers against opiates?

Parliament chose to make it a special case.

The medicinal use of opiates was well established. I think Parliament was sceptical about the claimed medicinal uses of cannabis.

That does not mean sceptical about the medicinal properties of cannabis but sceptical that in the absence of campaigns to legalise cannabis for recreational purposes, it would be the preferred treatment for any or many patients. Parliament almost certainly viewed medicinal use of cannabis as a stalking horse for recreational legalisation in a way that morphine wasn't.

Even with the poor boy, we only know that cannabis works and the first line treatments tried by the clinicians didn't. Given time, which the boy might no longer have, other drugs might also have shown themselves effective on his condition. The Home Secreatry's decision was a humane one but might never have had to be made if the mother had not been so forcefully campaigning for the use of cannabis for the last couple of years.

Reply 13

the beer

Original post by nulli tertius

Parliament chose to make it a special case.

The medicinal use of opiates was well established. I think Parliament was sceptical about the claimed medicinal uses of cannabis.

That does not mean sceptical about the medicinal properties of cannabis but sceptical that in the absence of campaigns to legalise cannabis for recreational purposes, it would be the preferred treatment for any or many patients. Parliament almost certainly viewed medicinal use of cannabis as a stalking horse for recreational legalisation in a way that morphine wasn't.

Even with the poor boy, we only know that cannabis works and the first line treatments tried by the clinicians didn't. Given time, which the boy might no longer have, other drugs might also have shown themselves effective on his condition. The Home Secreatry's decision was a humane one but might never have had to be made if the mother had not been so forcefully campaigning for the use of cannabis for the last couple of years.

That's mad, so his suffering is politically motivated, a punishment for his mothers views?

Reply 14

ChaoticButterfly

OP

20

Original post by nulli tertius

There is no doubt that "medicinal" use of cannabis has been a stalking horse for legalisation elsewhere.

If only there was any good reason outlawing recreational cannabis use.

We already use opium for medical use for ****s sake. Stop denying potential treatments for stuff. IF only so I can be pumped full of mind altering drugs when I am dieing.

Reply 15

meme373267

Original post by Ladbants

This is usually what leads to legalisation. In the US, loads of people claim they have “medical issues” to get a medical marijuana card- and many of the states that had these laws are now progressing on to legalisation of cannabis. I don’t think the same should happen in the UK.

Why because weed ruins families and the other nonsense you read in the paper it’s people like you that cause thousands of deaths due to a futile drug war because members of your family and friends are incapable of personal responsibility

Reply 16