Chairman of the House of Lords
Science and Technology Committee
Criticizes UK Government’s Rejection Of Report On Medical Marijuana
– 2 Articles With 2 of the Worst Prohibitionist Arguments
(Marijuananews note: The UK government rejected
the Lords committee recommendations immediately, but the subject is not going to go away.
It is interesting that this BMJ article did not mention the BMA’s rejection of the
report. Maybe they were too embarrassed, as they should be. See the second article below.)
From the British Medical Journal 1998;317:1663 December 12, 1998
Medicopolitical digest
Lords criticise government’s response to cannabis report
See
The House of Lords
Press Release On Medical Marijuana; Medical, Yes; Legalization, No
and
Lords Say Clinical
Trials Of Whole Cannabis
Should Be Launched "as a matter of urgency for compassionate reasons"
-- Call For Rescheduling – Major Breakthrough
The chairman of the House of Lords science and technology committee, which produced a
report on cannabis last month (14 November, p 1337), has called on the government to "give more mature consideration to our recommendations."
Miss Claire Rayner, chairman of the Patients Association (PA),
told the Central Consultants and Specialists Committee that she would like to set up a
consensus conference on risk benefit of different conditions to help educate patients. She
hoped that from now on doctors and patients could work together in a more consensual way,
and said that the PA was encouraging the development of patient liaison groups.
She criticised the fact that there was only one lay person on primary care
groups and suggested that the PA and the BMA should protest jointly to the government
about the lack of resources
The committee recommended that cannabis should be reclassified as
a schedule 2 drug, allowing research and prescription on a named patient basis.
Lord Perry of Walton told the Lords that doctors and pharmacists would be able to
prescribe and dispense the drug legally. The government rejected this and said that it
would not allow prescription of any drug "which had not been tested for safety,
efficacy and quality."
Lord Winston, professor of fertility studies at the
University of London, said that cannabis might have some rare dangers, "but those
risks are clearly much less than with many other drugs." Many patients who have given
evidence of potential benefit were often desperately ill or dying. Lord Winston said that,
given proper controls, there was not the slightest evidence that implementation of the
recommendations would increase recreational use. He criticised the government for ignoring
a serious committee, which includes fellows of the Royal Society and a Nobel prize winner.
A former head of a police drugs squad, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, sided
with the government. He said that the United Nations had defined cannabis as a
dangerous narcotic. "It should remain such here until we are properly satisfied by
evidence to the contrary."
(Marijuananews note: Of course, never mind that there are many other drugs that the UN
has "defined as a dangerous narcotic" are used medically. Citing the UN as a
reason to arrest sick Britons in a country that jealously guards it sovereignty against
the EU is certainly a desperate argument, but it is finishes a distant second to the
BMA’s argument below. It is the worst ever.)
From the Chemistry & Industry Magazine of the UK
webletters@chemind.demon.co.uk
http://ci.mond.org/current/home.html
December 7, 1998
LORDS BACK CANNABIS FOR PAIN RELIEF
Medicinal use of cannabis has come a step closer in the UK. A report by the science and
technology select committee of the House of Lords has called for doctors to be legally
allowed to prescribe the drug for multiple sclerosis and chronic pain.
Committee chairman Lord Perry of Walton said the Lords had made the decision
‘primarily for compassionate reasons’ despite accepting that there was a lack of
rigorous scientific evidence that cannabis relieves pain.
While hundreds of patients in the UK smoke cannabis illegally for
its therapeutic benefits, clinical trials will not determine the efficacy of the drug for
at least another five years, the 53-page report concluded. ‘We consider it
unjustifiable and inhumane to make them wait quite so long before they can get supplies
legally,’ said Perry, a former pharmacology professor.
The committee said it had heard sufficient anecdotal evidence of the pain-relieving
qualities of cannabis to warrant downgrading it from the list of schedule 1 drugs - which
can only be used in medical research - to schedule 2, meaning it could be prescribed by
doctors and pharmacists.
Although the committee was not convinced about the drug’s
effect against glaucoma, asthma and epilepsy, doctors should still be free to prescribe it
as they see fit,
said Perry.
The report will add to the pressure on the government to relax the blanket ban on
cannabis introduced in 1973. But the findings have split the medical community.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which is about to begin
clinical trials of the drug, supported the Lords’ call for legal cannabis
prescriptions but said the drug must be given in a standardised form.
The British Medical Association said it was disappointed that the Lords had not made
the distinction between cannabinoids, the active ingredient in cannabis, and the crude
form of the drug which contains a number of toxins.
Making the drug widely available could hamper research
into its effectiveness by limiting the number of patients available for clinical trials,
said William Asscher, chairman of the BMA’s board of science and education.
The association, however, said it was broadly sympathetic to the report.
See
Manchester
Guardian Editorial Supports Lords’ Call For Medical Marijuana;
Mocks British Medical Association’s Rejection
(Marijuananews note: When I first saw the press reports on the
BMA’s rejection of the Lords Committee report, I only saw the part that said that
allowing the use of whole cannabis could interfere in developing new drugs, but not their
reason as to why this would happen. This is just appalling.
What they are saying is that if patients are using whole cannabis, then there
would fewer patients willing to be guinea pigs in testing new pharmaceuticals.
In other words, they are admitting that whole cannabis works well, and yet –
actually therefore -- they want to continue arresting people who use it so that
they will be willing to be "available for clinical trials" of cannabis
derivatives or other pharmaceuticals.
The patients exist for medicine, not medicine for the patients.
No one seems to have picked up on this, but it is even worse than the DEAland argument
that medical marijuana isn’t necessary anymore since the development of
certain pharmaceuticals.
No one ever seems to notice that this argument effectively admits that medical
marijuana was necessary for decades before these new drugs. For example, an article from
the Drug Czar’s office that I posted last week said that "Marinol, --- the real
‘medical marijuana’ --- has been available for 15 years."
Okay, then what about the people who suffered without it prior to the approval of
Marinol? The article goes on to say that Marinol "isn’t prescribed often because
new and better medications --- such as ondansetron and denisetron, which have fewer
side effects --- have been invented…"
Okay, but again this admits that the government suppressed medical marijuana for
decades before these "new and better medications" were invented.
In fact, even the manufacturers of these drugs do not claim that they are 100%
effective, and they are very expensive and beyond the reach of millions of people around
the world.
What that really means is that the government is admitting to suppressing a medicine in
the past when it was needed even more than today, so why should we believe that they are
not still doing it now?
See
Lester Grinspoon
Attends Two Conferences On Medical Marijuana In Germany
And Our Drug Czar Says that Medical Marijuana Is A Hoax To Legalize Drugs – Analysis
Plus 2 Articles
The BMA is going even one step further. They are advocating the continued suppression
of medical marijuana precisely because they admit that it works better than existing
drugs and perhaps even future drugs!
One of the oddest things about the prohibitionists is that they
do not seem to understand what they themselves are saying.)
The Department of Health rejected the committee’s proposals, saying it would not
countenance the use of a drug that has not undergone clinical trials.
Copyright: 1998 Society of Chemical Industry
Supported