Cannabis presciption and court cases in the UK

Recently there have been several interesting and possibly progressive results in court regarding the acquisition of cannabis for medicinal uses since the Home Secretary changed the law to allow cannabis on prescription in 2018.

Since the law was changed, very few people in the UK and with recognised medicinal needs have been able to get prescriptions for cannabis, and when they do it is done privately and at great monthly cost.

Legal cannabis: why only 18 people have been given a prescription in the UK despite the law changing Recently, as a result of legal action in the High Courts in London, Charlotte Caldwel, the mother of epilepsy sufferer Billie Caldwel, secured a major breakthrough in her High Court battle to obtain medicinal cannabis for him on the NHS. The judge was told that a London-based paediatric neurologist is prepared to write the prescription for teenager Billy Caldwell - if his trust gives him the green light.

She wanted a declaration that a GP or clinician can lawfully write prescriptions for cannabis-based treatment under the direction of an expert in epilepsy diagnosis and management. Other experts have already provided an opinion on the benefits of the treatment for Billy. "All that's missing is the doctor to be told he can do that. That seems to be the only impediment," she said.

So it seems that despite the change in law, the issue was that doctors were unable to write the prescription.

In the meantime, Ms Caldwell had travelled abroad to get cannabis oil for his son and illegally imported it to the UK, which could have sent her to prison. Although licenses (a prescription) were legally available, she had been refused.

This reminded me of a case in Norwich back in the 1970’s.
Michael Smith wanted to sell hot dogs from a street stall and was told he would need a license. He applied and was refused. He was told that although Norwich City Council could issue licenses for street trading, they didn’t.

So Michael set up his stall and sold his hot dogs,ensuring all health and safety regulations were fulfilled.

He was arrested and taken to court.

In court he argued that he had tried to buy a license but the council did not issue them, so to be convicted of not having a license would be unjust as it would be punishing him for not doing something that it is impossible to do. He was given a one pound fine.

This was repeated several times, each time he was fined just one pound, until Norwich City Council decided to issue licenses.

At one day people had to buy a dog license to possess a dog, otherwise it was an offence because they could have bought one, but did not. The same for fishing licenses – you cannot be charged with fishing without a license if there are no licenses available, only if there is.

With TV licenses they say it is an offence to watch TV without a license (which is itself arguable) but once again it is possible to buy one so it becomes possible for it to be an offence not to buy one, if you watch TV or even own a TV in working order.

In conspiracy law, one cannot be convicted of conspiring to do something that it is impossible to do.

Many court cases about cannabis involve charges of cultivation without a license when it is a fact that licenses are issued to big companies such as British Sugar Corporation and GW Pharmaceuticals (coincidentally part-owned by prominent Conservative politicians’ husbands) but refused to individuals that apply.
Once again, how can it be an offence to not do something that it is impossible to do?

Another case that attracted attention was that of R v Lezley and Mark Gibson at Carlisle Crown Court.

In this case Lezley, who had previously been supplied on prescription with Sativex, a full-extract cannabis produced by GW Pharmaceuticals, and later it was withdrawn. She then decided it was essential to grow her own to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. Acting on “Information supplied”, the couple were raided by police and found with a few small cannabis plants and home made cannabis chocolate, arrested and taken to court. It took the CPS many months and through several court appearances which were themselves devastating to Lezley’s health, whilst she had no cannabis either.

But when Lezley was allowed a private prescription for cannabis, promising a cost of £700 a month, the CPS decided not to offer any evidence and the charges were dropped and Lezley and Mark declared not guilty.

The prosecution said the couple were now accessing a medicinal form of the drug legally and it would therefore not be in the public interest to continue the prosecution.

Prosecuting barrister Brendan Burke insisted that the couple had broken the law and warned that they would be prosecuted if they did so again.

The Gibson’s charge would have been the cultivation of cannabis without a license which they could not get. Possession of cannabis without a prescription when it had not been possible to get a prescription. Obviously to deny a seriously ill person that can show the beneficial effects of a medicinal plant that it was not legally possible to get, a license (prescription) and then punish for trying to grow their own plants would be unjust.

So long as Lezley gets her cannabis on prescription, albeit expensive and many many times more costly as growing her own) she will not be prosecuted, but if whilst on prescription she also grows her own, she may be prosecuted again.

Weighing that up: in need but unable to get a license (prescription) charges dropped; can get a license but grows ones own, court case.

It sounds more like the Mafia: now you can buy from us at greatly inflated prices we will send round the heavies to punish you if you source it cheaper.

There are a couple of other cases coming to court where people in dire need of cannabis that I they find effective against illness and are unable to get prescriptions or licenses are being dragged through the courts unjustly and it is argued that those prosecutions (in fact the arrests and charges) are unjust and what is certain is that these people and nobody else are not being helped, they are being punished for trying to stay well, even stay alive, without harming or risking others. That would only happen under tyrants.

Pensioner arrested over cannabis possession says he grew plants to 'save his life'

Michelle X convicted of growing cannabis at her home twice

When it comes to the nitty-gritty, many cases of possession or cultivation of cannabis are actually about lack of licenses or prescriptions, they are not about victims. They exist dues to political whim, not Justice and Rights – such cases defy Justice and Rights.

In many cases it is the authorities that are guilty of infringing upon our Rights and making court cases against doing something that the Government is able to allow them to do, in their private lives.

And all at public offence whilst politicians spouses make massive profits from doing the same on a massive scale.

My message to Adam Lotun, independent candidate in Corby by-election

my message to Adam Lotun, independent candidate in Corby by-election 

 I think you will make a mistake by limiting your call for law change to people with certain illnesses or conditions or by saying that they should get doctor's permission to be allowed to possess or use cannabis for their own use in their own homes.

TWO points - sick and hail people should have equal rights - the issue ought to be the question has their possession, use, cultivation - done any harm to or put at risk other people or their Rights, property etc - if not then they should all be left alone by the authorities - in fact they deserve the protection of the law when buying cannabis from licensed premises where quality is assured, credible information provided, and PROFITS taxed.

secondly, cannabis has a great vale as it relieves stress - it is a preventative medicine for all users - stress being one of the biggest causes of illness, violence, absenteeism and even premature death - why should well people be banned from such a substance?

I believe you would do well to STAND UP for all victimless cannabis users - in fact all victimless drug users - and also to promote the CANNABIS SOCIAL CLUB proposal:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cannabis-Social-Clubs-Proposal/145368762174099?v=info&edit_info=all#!/pages/Cannabis-Social-Clubs-Proposal/145368762174099?v=wall

Good luck in the election - please be our voice in the name of freedom of choice



Adam Lotun's Manifesto on Drugs

• It is my opinion that there should be a Royal Commission set-up to investigate, once and for all, the question of drugs use in our society, with it being clear that current prohibition through criminal sanctions is not working. In the interim, I call for an immediate suspension of all prosecutions for cannabis possession and use where it can be shown to be used for treating an illness where cannabis is recognised as a beneficial treatment, i.e. MS, Fibromyalgia, Cancer, Aids, neurological pain, Glaucoma & Epilepsy, (the list goes on). This can be done before primary legislation is passed by recommendations to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). It is morally wrong that a person should be persecuted and prosecuted for their choice in using what is proven to be a safe and effective alternative medicine for their illness, i.e. with Sativex, a tincture of cannabis plant extract that is licensed for medicinal use is so expensive that many PCT’s refuse to fund prescribing it. (Sativex is a cannabis derivative that is no different to what can be cheaply produced in any home kitchen).
• There needs to be more “honest” education in schools and public information about drugs and the changes in recreation drug use. Much of what is currently taught about drugs is propaganda, and not evidence based truths.
• There needs to be a change in the Law on Alcohol, so that the sale of Alcohol can only take place between 11am to 3pm and 7pm to 11am in local community public houses, clubs, supermarkets and off licences. There will be an argument for some venues that will continue to hold special all day licence, but this move will mean that local communities will not be subjected to drunken anti-social behavior at all hours of the day.
• It is my opinion that there should be smoking and non-smoking pubs and clubs, so that people can make their own choice as to where they go and what they choose to do or not do. Expanding the Royal Commission remit to look into all addictive drugs would help to ensure that a balanced view and cascading of educational information to support such ideas.

Valid medical use for cannabis

Evening News, Norwich

Tuesday 20 Sep 2011
In reply to my previous letter published in the Evening News on Sept 8 ("Ease up on cannabis laws") Mr E Staniland suggested that "he fails to mention the damage done to young people who use cannabis from an early age. (Evening News, Sept 12, "Drug can lead to a living hell")

Yes, I have worked a "mental hospital" as he calls them and yes there are patients there that have used cannabis at an early age, usually having come from broken homes and having also used alcohol and other substances.
But that is no reason to punish them - or the people that use it with no ill effect or even those that use it to ease pains.
In fact, whole cannabis plant extract is now available on prescription through many health authorities in the form of a spray called Sativex.
Furthermore, the plant itself is available on prescription in The Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Israel,Canada and other countries, without problem; also in the US through clinics.
Dr Willy Nottcutt and many other doctors and users will testify to the efficacy of this remarkable plant.
This bad law punishes people who have done no harm to others.
----------------------------------------------

please respond to:  EveningNewsLetters@archant.co.uk

http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=16533

see original letter and replies here
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=16510  Ease Up On Cannabis Laws
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=16523   Drug can lead to a living hell

Wheelchair-bound 73-year-old 'used cannabis to ease pain in his legs'

How strange and unjust that a UK court will punish a man that has used a plant product to try to ease his pains and done no harm to anyone else .("Wheelchair-bound 73-year-old 'used cannabis to ease pain in his legs', Bristol Evening Post, 2 May)

Euvil Smith from St Pauls was arrested in February at his home in Byron Street for the second time in three years after police executed a search warrant. He pleaded guilty at Bristol Magistrates Court on Wednesday but was given a conditional discharge after the court heard about his medical condition.

In other words, if Mr Smith uses the cannabis plant to ease his pains and gets caught by police again (in his own home), he risks prison.

So, instead, to secure his continued freedom from prison if not freedom from the pain, he is going to have to use doctors and expensive pharmaceutical alternatives - which may or may not be as effective - and which may well be considerably more dangerous with unpleasant side-effects.

So who pays and who profits?

The taxpayer pays - both for the arrest and court procedure and criminal justice system employees and for the pills from the doctor.

Who gains - well of course the police and court officials that get paid - and then the shareholders of the drug companies.

Who loses?   Mr Smith and the taxpayers.

Is This Why They Bust Cannabis Growers

Every day we read in our papers that another cannabis growing operation has been closed down - not just the large professional and profiteering growers but also those run by people in dire medical need of the relief from much of their pain and suffering.

Cannabis the plant is now well known and widely accepted as having medicinal and pain-easing properties, used effectively and safely by many tens of thousands of sufferers of a wide-range of ailments from Multiple Sclerosis to Epilepsy, pain to loss of appetite or sleeplessness, depression and even cancers.

In fact it has been used for hundreds of years and was listed by Culpeper in his"Complete Herbal and English Physician" in 1826 where he wrote 

"It is so common a plant, and so well known by almost every inhabitant of this kingdom, that a description of it would be altogether superfluous."

That was until 1971, when the UK, as lacky to the UN Single Drugs Convention of 1961, banned the sale of the medicine (then available as a tincture", claiming that cannabis had no medicinal value and was being misuses as a "recreational drug".

Since then the Government has fought tooth and nail to stop people from gaining medical benefits and pain relief from the plant they can easily and cheaply grow at home - despite literally thousands of testimonials and acceptance in countries such as the USA,  Canada, The Netherlands, Italy, Germany,and Israel.

Then, a few years ago, along comes a Pharmaceutical giant to produce extracts and test them - now they produce "Sativex", an alcohol and peppermint spray containing exactly the same beneficial chemicals (THC and CBD) found in the plant itself - and of course charging extortionate fees and making huge profits for their shareholders - at public expense.

It seems to me that the UK taxpayer loses out all round for they must pay both the NHS bill for the prescription medicine and the cost of seeking out and prosecuting the growers.

So one is forced to ask - is the potential profits for the same people that sell us highly priced and dangerous fuels to heat our homes and run our cars, the toxic chemicals dumped as side-products of the environmentally-damaging plastics and other synthetics the reason for the prohibition of the possession or cultivation of the plant  - described by one of the world's foremost experts on cannabis, Professor Lester Grinspoon of Harvard University, as "remarkably safe".

It may not be coincidental that the cannabis plant, also know as hemp, can also enable production of safe and cheap alternative fuels, plastics and even foodstuff.

see How cannabis was criminalised.