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.

UK prescription cannabis farce leaves out many thousands in need

Whatever happens in the "medical cannabis" campaign, I personally think that some people that want to use cannabis to benefit themselves and their health will be left out and fear that they will still be subjected to arrest and prosecution for growing a few plants at home or possession - until the campaign focuses on equal rights for all. EVERYONE must be allowed their Rights to private life and choice and practice or beliefs, whther they want to use cannabis as a medicine, sacrament or just for fun, inspiration, relaxation, socialisation etc. 

Then, when everyone is allowed to grow their own, the law on medicine prescriptions will be eased. Otherwise we will be in the same position with cannabinoids as we are with opiates.

on the rescheduling of cannabinoids in the UK

Recently the press has widely reported that medicinal cannabis is to be rescheduled to allow specialised doctors to prescribe pharmaceutical-grade cannabis products and extracts to a limited number of patients that have tried all other available treatments and pills for their illnesses.

The UK Government recently announced this decision.

Although this move may lead to the availability of pharmaceutical cannabis products for some, it itself does nothing to address the lack of justice in the treatment of other victimless cannabis consumers.

Let all adults be allowed to grow cannabis for themselves, families and friends: let carers grow it for their craes; let private cannabis clubs be allowed to grow for members and allow consumption in clubs as well as in private houses. Let doctors prescribe cannabonoids and pharmaceutical products for those that need and choose them over the natural plant. Protect cannabis consumers in the same ways as the law protects those that choose to drink alcohol. Ultimately license shops with consumer protection laws applied and tax their profits.
 
Looking at that as my ideal, and I believe the ideal of many others, this rescheduling is a small step in the right direction, but the problem is that it really puts cannabis into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and profiteers and I don't think does much for the campaign for recognition and protection of our individual rights or equal justice for all.
 
My fear is that it will put back that campaign for justice: just as people say that doctors prescribe opiates but that does not mean people can make their own, people may say: "if you need medicinal cannabis, go see your doctor"; the doctor may or may not send the patient to a specialist, and they will only prescribe it for certain ailments after all other medications have failed (last resort), a very limited number of patientes, bless them, will get it ... and everyone else is in the same position as now and maybe having to disclose their private information on their state of health or illness in court in mitigation, same as now.

BUT of course I am happy for those loads of people that will benefit although not so pleased that one of them is the prime minister's husband's bank account.


UK: Insider Trading? Theresa May’s Husband Set To Profit From New Cannabis Medicine After Government Relaxes Ban

Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform
Researching Reform

Monday 02 Jul 2018

GW Pharmaceuticals, a company whose largest investor is UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s husband, Philip May, has received FDA approval for Epidiolex, a new cannabis derived drug to treat childhood epilepsy. The announcement comes just days after the Home Office relaxed the UK’s strictly controlled ban on the medication for two children suffering from related conditions.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid issued a licence for a batch of cannabis oil, which is illegal in the UK, to treat Billy Caldwell, who suffers from violent epileptic seizures. Shortly after the move, Alfie Dingley was also granted a license for the oil, to treat his epilepsy. Alfie had previously been denied the medication.

The Home Office licenses were issued in the middle of June, with FDA approval of GW’s new medicine being announced on the 25th June, in a GW press release aimed at London and California. The approval for Epidiolex would have been given before the 25th.

FDA approval means that the drug can be purchased within the 30 current states in the US which allow medical marijuana once the chemical compound within the medication gets its classification status. California was the first state to allow the consumption of cannabis for medicinal purposes, which it did in 1996. It also has the largest maximum limit for possession in the US.

GW’s move to include London in the press release is not an accident. Epidiolex is under review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and a decision on whether to recommend approval is likely to be made at the start of 2019. The UK government is also preparing a consultation on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

The timeline for the cannabis medication’s production and approval raises serious questions about whether the government has been involved in insider dealing, which is illegal in the UK:

2016 – Theresa May wins the general election
May’s husband owns the majority share in the world’s largest producer of cannabis, GW Pharmaceuticals
2017 – Victoria Atkins Becomes Parliamentary Under Secretary – despite almost no government experience
Atkins’ husband owns British Sugar – The company that produces the main ingredient GW uses for its cannabis medication
2018 – Atkins Is Promoted To Home Office Minister
June 2018 – The Home Office seize cannabis medication from a child at the airport, and then return it after the press are alerted to the story
16 June 2018 – The Home Office starts to make exceptions for children who need cannabis oil to treat epilepsy
25 June 2018 – GW Pharmaceuticals announces the FDA has approved cannabis medication it has made, to treat childhood epilepsy
The cannabis medication is now being reviewed by a European body, whilst the government considers making cannabis medication legal in the UK.
Early 2019 – GW Pharmaceuticals finds out if their cannabis medication has been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Researching Reform wrote about GW Pharmaceuticals last month, when it was revealed that several husbands of senior government officials, including Theresa May and Home Office Minister Victoria Atkins, had substantial interests in GW, whose chairman is a conservative party donor. Disgraced Family Court psychiatrist George Hibbert is also an investor in the pharmaceutical company.

Very many thanks to Janie Doe for sharing the press release with us.

https://researchingreform.net/2018/07/02/pharma-company-majority-owned-by-uk-pms-husband-announces-new-cannabis-medication-days-after-home-office-relaxes-ban/

CANNABIS: POSSIBLE LEGAL SUPPLY ROUTES

In discussing and advocating the repeal of cannabis laws we must go beyond the issues of possession or cultivation for own use: there is clearly no justification for any authority to interfere with Private Life activities that pose no threat to public order, health or the Rights of others.However, when it comes to supply, I think it essential that any future control of cannabis should be based upon consumer protection and taxation (only on profits, to my mind).

Whether the cannabis is gifted or sold, the receiver deserves the protection of law just as everybody does with other goods.So what are the alternative systems of supply that would best suit the customers without putting unnecessary burdens on commercial cultivation or supply.

Presumably there would be a system of license or registrations allowing conditions to be put on businesses to ensure hygiene, freedom from, accuracy of weights, maybe even labelling requirements. There would need to be avenues of recompense for breaches.

“Grow-your-own!” has become a mantra for many within the cannabis law repeal fraternity and “Cannabis Social Clubs” (CSC's)

 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cannabis-Social-Clubs-Proposal/145368762174099) have been proposed as an extension of that.

A CSC is a non-profit making collective of people that grow communally for their own needs; they are transparent to authority with accounts and details of membership and production and distribution.

Many CSC's now operate in Spain and more are starting up in Belgium, France and Italy. Many are already growing cannabis and distributing to members.

In the UK, many CSC's are newly formed groups of users and campaigners in various counties, cities or towns across the country and it is possible that eventually they may lead to organised growing similar to the Spanish model. Of course that would be no problem after legalisation.

Previous to prohibition though, there were no CSC's. People either grew there own or picked it wild.

Countries such as India had Government shops that sold hashish, and New York once had hashish bars.

Since prohibition and until recently, there has been no country in the world that allows the legal sale of cannabis – even in the Netherlands with all their policy of tolerance for “Coffeeshops”, they have no legal supply routes into the premises. It's a sort of half-way-house (grey area) where adults can go to buy and sometimes smoke small amounts of cannabis but the only control on quality is through reputation. Most are great places to visit and I would love to see them in every city, enabling people to buy and smoke cannabis when away from home, or even in their own towns. It is estimated that 30 to 40% of Dutch smokers buy from Coffeeshops, the rest grow their own or buy from house dealers – there is also some punting of cannabis to tourists on the streets – something likely to increases if the Dutch Government implement their backward-planning for restrictions against tourists and the citing of venues.

Cannabis, grown and irradiated by the Dutch pharmaceutical company under the name Bedrocan, has been available on prescription in The Netherlands and Italy and sold through pharmacies. It is granulated bud. Unfortunately, it is more expensive than the Coffeeshops, and although residents of countries that prescribe Bedrocan can travel freely with it throughout the UK, it remains an offence for residents of the UK to go and buy it and bring it back – the UK Government are still in the stone age when it comes to recognising the true medicinal values of cannabis.

So in the UK the supply of all natural cannabis remains in the hands of “criminals”, whether simply profiteers or people trying to help the sick and injured.

Now, in 2014, changes are afoot in some countries.

In Uruguay the Government has attempted to take control of cannabis and stop the illegal dealing by allowing people to grow a few plants of their own, and otherwise the Government will grow and supply the plant themselves. That said, they still have to work out which strains to grow, packaging and pricing, and how to stop resale.In California and other States in the US, cannabis has been supplied through “clinics” requiring a doctor's prescription for a number of years: unlike

The Netherlands however, prescriptions are much easier to get and the cannabis is not radiated – hash, cookies, foodstuffs and other cannabis products are often sold through the same clinics.. Under federal law, however, it all remains illegal and it remains to be seen what Obama will ultimately do about it – get heavy-handed or turn a blind eye?

After a powerful vote last year, Colorado and has gone one step further in defiance of federal law has allowed cannabis shops to open up and sell the plant in its many forms without the Californian pretence of medicinal prescription for almost anyone – the supply is legal, consumers are protected as are all consumers, profits taxed.  Adults over 21 can buy for “recreational use” and thousands of people in medical need are also heading that way – the revenue raised is already impressive, within days.

Cannabis is subject to the same regulations as all products to which the public is exposed. http://youtu.be/lS-ijtvVaCAI guess the Colorado legalisation could be called a free-for-all within the law, without the criteria of non-profit making of the Spanish CFC model, beyond the policy of the front room tolerance but back door crime of the Dutch Coffeeshops, side-stepping the question of purpose of use, protecting the consumer, taxing the profits --- it seems just the sort of system many campaigners said we could never have.

We may have to wait a while now to see how it develops in California, Colorado, Uruguay and the Netherlands, and then we need to convince our own Government that such systems are better for everyone except the criminals – just wait and see how they react when we learn just how much revenue is raise through tax on profits and how much is saved on policing! Many people think that in these times of supposed fiscal crisis, money will be the key to change, rather than Rights or health issues – after all, Government raises huge sums from selling cigarettes and alcoholic drinks, why not weed?

Ask which system of distribution I prefer from the above: simple: any and all of them.I would like to see private cultivation, group cultivation,medicinal supply, Coffeeshops for supply and toking and clinics or shops for supply = such systems are not mutually exclusive.

LINKS

http://www.encod.org/info/-English-en-.html

http://ukcsc.co.uk/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cannabis-Social-Clubs-Proposal/145368762174099

http://www.ccguide.org/index.phphttps://www.facebook.com/CCGUIDE

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Alliance-of-Cannabis-Hemp-Activists-ACHA/119868538117932

http://www.coffeeshop.freeuk.com/

http://norml-uk.org/