Petition - Legalise Medical Marijuana in the UK

  • A life long friend has started a campaign as a result of talking to loads of folk who have medical problems that would be eased if not cured by medical marijuana.
    He has glaucoma, that is not susceptible to Cbd (the only currently legal cannabinoid) but can be greatly helped by use of cannabis containing THC, which is currently banned under UK law. Sure, some police forces are turning a "blind eye" to possession but growers are still being sent to prison with resulting damage to themselves, their families and burdening the prison system.
    It prevents many from obtaining it who do not have the courage to search for a source and purchase it.
    It limits the chance to be aware of quality and strength and has a risk of purchasers buying chemically sprayed product.
    It does not enable a trustworthy supply chain for treatment which may be needed for years.
    The illegality results in growers and dealers requiring much more profit than would result if there was legal cultivation, so forcing up the price of an important medicine.
    Also of course it places restrictions on research.


    THC is the ingredient in marijuana responsible for its pain-relieving effects, especially effective against neuropathic pain, or nerve-related pain. An inexpensive natural substance of proven use for many of those suffering epilepsy, appetite loss, sleep apnea, menstrual cramps, and more.
    Please sign and share onwards...


    https://you.38degrees.org.uk/p…dical-marijuana-in-the-uk

  • As long as one can afford a caution a number of plants can be grown (it was six when I last researched the topic). Uk judiciary were not prepared to prosecute individuals for a personal grow so the CPS would not pursue.


    I interpret this as a wise nod from a liberal judiciary demonstrating anti hypocritical and anti elitist democracy......why government will not respond to this cue and decriminalise personal grow or use is something to do with the continuation of relative slavery.


    Who cares if it is medical. I understand the need to justify and rationalise but there should be no need for justification and no need for any caution or legal proceedings against personal use.

  • Indeed, I've always been in favour of full decriminalisation rather than legalisation. The idea behind this petition is that it seems likely that legalisation for medical purposes will be easier for MP's to accept as a first step, as has been the case in the USA. We'll be compiling a list of MP's for and against.


    On Tuesday next week 10th Oct at 2pm, Paul Flynn MP will be at Parliament Square and has called on all medicinal cannabis patients to come and use cannabis medicinally with him there in protest at the UK govt’s denial of medicine to the British People.



    http://volteface.me/interview-…advocate-cannabis-reform/

  • Drugs are available and in development. But I guess you mean not on prescription. If cannabis is legalised and there is no risk of punitive measures, who is going to take all the drugs that have cost pharmaceutical companies a freaking fortune to research and develop?


    Not the most imaginative piece of reporting but hey ho....


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bus…m-gw-pharma-storms-ahead/


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/


    That paper is a bit old. Epidiolex was granted orphan drug status which must have had GW Pharma dancing in the aisles.


    There are also issues from a pharmacokinetic point of view with inhalation and oral delivery.


    Regards glaucoma, although there is an initial reduction in ocular pressure, the effects appear to wear off with chronic use.


    Very sick of arguing the toss about this in some American epilepsy forums, most trials are inadequate, with participants still on anticonvulsants out of necessity. CBD inhibits the clearance of many anticonvulsants, thus the anticonvulsants are in your system longer. So is it the benefit of CBD or the longer exposure to the uncleared anticonvulsant? Maybe a drug review would sort it.


    I'm not against legalisation, I tend agree with Prof. David Nutt on cannabis.


    https://www.theguardian.com/po…adviser-david-nutt-sacked


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…us-than-horse-riding.html


    Look what the government did to him though, bunch of bloody huntsmen/women....maybe equasy was a mistake....

  • PMSL. "equasy" Last link in above post. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…us-than-horse-riding.html



    Prof Nutt told The Daily Telegraph: "The point was to get people to understand that drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life.
    "There is not much difference between horse riding and ecstasy."
    In the article, titled "Equasy: An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms", Prof Nutt wrote that "equasy", short for "Equine Addiction Syndrome", had caused 10 deaths and more than 100 road traffic accidents a year.
    Through hunting, it also led to "gatherings of users that often are associated with these groups engaging in violent conduct.
    "Dependence, as defined by the need to continue to use, has been accepted by the courts in divorce settlements," he wrote. "Based on these harms, it seems likely that the ACMD would recommend control under the MDAct perhaps as a class A drug given it appears more harmful than ecstasy."
    He wrote that the risks of horse riding showed that society "does not adequately balance the relative risks of drugs against their harms".
    He said: "Making riding illegal would completely prevent all these harms and would be, in practice, very easy to do.


    Daisysmum. Your spot on with your analysis and insight. We know too little of the bigger picture and small 'field' trials often only tell us what we think want to hear.


    If the patient is willing to trial it, them allow them to become test subjects, while the rest monitor the outcome on a broad spectrum of human beings.


  • Drugs are available and in development. But I guess you mean not on prescription


    I hope that like many States in the US, Doctors will be permitted to prescribe unprocessed grass and hash where appropriate:).


    I know people who can't afford street prices, which of course are inflated because of the risks to liberty. With sativex being ten times more costly than street cannabis, and with an apparent lack of clarity of when they can prescribe it, it's home office licence hasn't helped much.


    "Sativex remains just as illegal in Britain as herbal cannabis. Even though it has received MHRA approval for use in the treatment of MS spasticity and may be prescribed by a doctor, it remains a schedule 1 drug under the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971. The Home Office has indicated that it intends to amend the law but has not yet done so. This means that any pharmacist who dispenses Sativex at present would be guilty of exactly the same criminal offence as any street dealer in weed or hash.The Home Office will, of course, turn a blind eye to this but not to medicinal herbal cannabis even though, in every sense, it is identical to Sativex (except that Sativex also contains alcohol and peppermint oil). Most PCTs and health authorities are refusing to fund Sativex because of the extraordinarily high price that GW and its UK distributors Bayer want to charge the NHS."


    So this petition is based on making it legal to prescribe, not because I think it needs to be controlled by Doctors, who are busy enough anyway, but because of reckoning many MP's can will permit a change to the law on medical grounds but not yet for recreational use.

  • Post by Daisysmum ().

    The post was deleted, no further information is available.
  • Post by Daisysmum ().

    The post was deleted, no further information is available.
  • Actually, Sativex is a Class B Schedule 4, Part 1, controlled drug. Dihydrocodeine is also a Class B drug, Schedule 2/5


    The website that you copied your information from https://www.clear-uk.org/the-truth-about-sativex/
    was dated October 2010. I may be a cynic but I would be slightly suspicious of their impartiality. It would be like me putting this link below in about the virtues of Sativex.


    https://www.gwpharm.com/products-pipeline/sativex


    It would be like that, so I wouldn't put a pharmaceutical companies product info page link in.....well unless it was funny.


    It is now legal it prescribe, as a registered health professional with a current license, qualified to prescribe medication, Sativex. It is also legal for a registered pharmacist to supply Sativex to someone with a prescription from a registered health professional.
    No-no's are scamming for Sativex when you don't need it, passing on your prescription of Sativex to a third party and owning Sativex passed on to you that you do not have a prescription for. Please see very long boring link below.....


    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...dicine-sativex


    Totally agree that often whether something is prescribed or not is not about whether it is controlled or not it is about money and how much the drug costs to make. Each 10ml bottle of Sativex costs the NHS £125. 8 tablets of Dihydrocodeine cost £2.24. Yup, it's pricey but it isn't the priciest so I would argue the 'extraordinarily high price'. It isn't prescribed so much because it isn't a first line drug. Sorry to hark back to my area of expertise... I appreciate this is probably boring everyone to death but it is the only example that immediately springs to mind. For primary generalised epilepsy first line drugs - used to be - Sodium Valproate (Epilim) and Carbamazepine (Tegretol), Epilim was usually the first pick. In trials, it is an excellent drug for stopping seizures in drug naive patients stone dead. It is effective. It is also cheap as chips. Carbamazepine is also very effective, however, it aggravates myoclonic seizures (I get them if I really don't sleep they are a bit crap, you break a lot of stuff). Epilim was knocked on the head by the MHRA due to the fact it is a teratogen. Oddly I was told this by my doctor back in the 80's...but...so... first line for women of childbearing age became lamotrigine or levetiracetam. IF patients can't tolerate or aren't controlled on those drugs another is usually tried or an adjunct is added. Basically, on the little graphs your 5th drug has as much likelihood of success as your 1st drug. But you have to go through the increasing unlikelihood of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th not working. Sativex is, likely due to its price, probably 5th in line, or the one you try after you have tried combos, and they haven't worked either. Likely this depends on the patient's state of health (you can all wake up now....)
    Knock yourself out, I think it's fascinating:


    http://gmmmg.nhs.uk/docs/cost_comparison_charts.pdf


    Regards what is in Sativex...another interest of mine; excipients can make the difference between tolerance and innate tolerance


    https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/23262


    6.1 List of excipients
    Ethanol anhydrous.
    Propylene glycol.
    Peppermint oil.


    Yup there is ethanol and peppermint oil (bleugh!) the rest and liquid CO2 as an extraction solvent but the thing is it is a measured dose.


    If I truly, truly wanted to I could go outside hunt around for ages until I found some Valerian, or source my own seeds and grow the stuff. Then source the procedure used for extracting valproic acid from valerian root, It has to be in one of those damn text books. Hunt for the tox book to find out the LD50 for Valproic Acid so that I don't accidentally poison myself.... I am not saying that you are going to OD on cannabinoids. But however accurately you measure stuff out no matter what you think, however sure of your accuracy you won't match a drug company - they have a lot at stake if they fu*k up. I'm lazy, I'm happy to let someone else measure out my daily dosages - I truly couldn't be arsed, I'm doing pharmacology, not chemistry. Though when drug companies do f*ck up they tend to do it in big style. Currently doing a research project on Thalidomide and the search for safer analogs to treat anti-inflammatory conditions....

    Happy story, I suppose this is a start.....


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/he...-a7711436.html

  • Oh yeah, for a price comparison of pricey drugs... I looked this up.


    I thought one of my epilepsy drugs might be quite good as they always kick up a bit when I want a supply for the 4 months of the summer break; you either have to lie and say you are going abroad or they almost beg you to sign on as a temporary resident wherever you are going. I have to take the branded as we found out the hard way I had an innate tolerance of the generic.


    So....


    Please bear in mind these prices came from a 2011 price list... and in case anyone ever wants to bore themselves silly with prices of E drugs which will no doubt have gone up.
    https://www.nice.org.uk/guidan…osts-antiepileptic-drugs2


    Topamax 200mg tablets (60 tablets in a bottle, approx 1 month) - £110


    Not the dearest by a long shot, 30 tablets of Zebinix are £154 and the drug that my last neurologist wanted me to go onto Lacosamide is £144 for 200mg for a 28 day supply.


    Now Sativex 10ml spray lasts about 22 days at £125, that isn't bad in comparison.


    Unsurprisingly, through other forums, I know rather a lot of people on Lacosamide (one of the reasons I balked on it), a few on Zebinix (it is meant to have better results if you are older) and Topamax is becoming very popular. Topamax is a great drug, if you don't get the linguistic issues. memory issues and cognitive issues - I was lucky I missed all them I thought it was fab, but it if a be careful what you wish for drug, if it suppresses your appetite you really will not feel hungry. Barstewards originally had 'anorexia' on the side effects list; medically it just means loss of appetite. It must have freaked out too many people and caused adherence issues because it was changed to 'loss of appetite'.


    Ah sorry rambling...


    Thing is these drugs have been 'run in' too.


    Even after the drug companies have said 'Hey its safe, clinical trials and all!' It has still been tested on animals, healthy people and sample groups with the actual disease. The yellow card scheme wouldn't exist if there was a 100% confidence margin. Doctors tend to be cautious people - anyone who has ever tried to get a straight answer out of one of the buggers should know.


    The way prescribing is done is either wrong or insane. Prescribing what your chums down the hall prescribe, what the drug rep who did the presentation in the nicest hotel with the best sandwiches recommended - not a bribe but it was the best break and VERY educational. Ben Goldacre is good on it. He is also very easy on the eye.


    Drugs always seem to start out, in my 11 years of experience of chatting on forums with other people sad enough to discuss medication, with a very small minority who are classed as refractory are put on the drug, some are actually part of a trial. Then you get a few more 'my doctor/neurologist has recommended '*****' for me has anyone heard if it/what is it like?' Then you get, I've been on '*****' for and I'm getting sideeffectssideeffectssideeffects is this normal? The usually I pitch in. Then often with some drugs the floodgates open and the world and his wife his up on it or trying it (levetiracetam) or it occasionally crops up when some people are talking about their meds (Zebinix). I have a couple of mates on a forum for information regarding drugs involved in mental health, pretty much the same thing happens.


    The medical profession gradually, over time, realise they have a new toy that they love, and they play with it relentlessly, regardless of how many things it breaks.


    Bitter and twisted enough?

  • One Of My Big Sisters Who Lives In Canada "Works Legally For The Giant Pharmacutical Companies" And Is A "Big Wig Cannabis Grower/Developer" etc


    She Splices The Cannabis Cells And Does All Sorts To Produce "Stronger Both In "The Plant (Making It Hardier And Bigger ) ..And Stronger In "Its Effect" etc etc...


    She Gets Paid A Tonne Of Money For This And Only Works For Them For 3months Of The Year Until She Is Satisfied With The First Few Crops That Are Harvested ...As She Does Not Want To Work No Longer Than 3 Months ..Each Time...So Off Course They Let Her Do What She Wants As Her "GREEN FINGERS" So To Speak Are Worth Billions To Them.


    Its A Massive Business And Common To See The Walk In "Cannabis Shops" Which Stock All Types ..All Strengths Etc Etc In USA and Canada...
    You "Have To Have A Sort Of Prescription Slip" From Doctor/Consultant Etc To Be Able To Go And Buy It...Because You Cannot Walk In Off The Street As Then That Makes Both "The Cannabis Shop And Buyer Illegal".


    I Think Its A Good Idea If It Helps People And Eases Peoples Pain Etc Etc ..And Its Grown Safely With No Nasty Chemicals Etc In Some "Dodgey Back Room And Garages Where Who Knows What Has Gone On It And People Do Not Get Ripped Off By Greedy Dealers ..And Its "Pure And Fresh" Not Stale And Old Etc Etc ..So In My Eyes Its Safer Both The Cannabis And Buying The Cannabis For The People Who Need It To Help Them And Better Quality So It Will Help Them More...
    And Because There Is Sooo Many Types And Strengths It Can Help People That Cannabis Normally Makes Them
    "Paranoid Etc" Because With The Legal Cannabis Prescription Places And Herb Itself ..It Is Totally Different Than What Is Brought Off The Street By A Dealer Etc Etc ..Sooo Very Different It Really Is .

  • Daisysmum wrote:

    If I truly, truly wanted to I could go outside hunt around for ages until I found some Valerian, or source my own seeds and grow the stuff. Then source the procedure used for extracting valproic acid from valerian root, It has to be in one of those damn text books. Hunt for the tox book to find out the LD50 for Valproic Acid so that I don't accidentally poison myself.... I am not saying that you are going to OD on cannabinoids. But however accurately you measure stuff out no matter what you think, however sure of your accuracy you won't match a drug company - they have a lot at stake if they fu*k up. I'm lazy, I'm happy to let someone else measure out my daily dosages - I truly couldn't be arsed, I'm doing pharmacology, not chemistry.


    Luckily with cannabis, its much simpler. The seeds are readily available, there's a ton of books on cultivation and thousands of articles on the web. There's stores all over the Country that can supply growing equipment and if you don't want to grow it, well every town has its dealers.
    It's impossible to overdose on cannabis and many of us have decades of experience of using it. My friend who suffers from glaucoma was able to find numerous articles on the minimum dosage required and how often to take it.


    Daisysmum wrote:

    It is now legal it prescribe, as a registered health professional with a current license, qualified to prescribe medication, Sativex. It is also legal for a registered pharmacist to supply Sativex to someone with a prescription from a registered health professional.


    Unfortunately, unlike NHS Wales, NHS England won't subsidise Sativex due to its high cost, so its just not available for patients.


    If I suffered from a medical problem that cannabis could help me with, I wouldn't want a prescription for Sativex. I've always hated wasting money and that applies to wasting the NHS budget as well. I'd much prefer to smoke it or prepare some 'cannabutter' at a tenth of the cost.

  • As long as one can afford a caution a number of plants can be grown (it was six when I last researched the topic). Uk judiciary were not prepared to prosecute individuals for a personal grow so the CPS would not pursue.


    I interpret this as a wise nod from a liberal judiciary demonstrating anti hypocritical and anti elitist democracy......why government will not respond to this cue and decriminalise personal grow or use is something to do with the continuation of relative slavery.


    Who cares if it is medical. I understand the need to justify and rationalise but there should be no need for justification and no need for any caution or legal proceedings against personal use.


    I think your last paragraph says where ive always been on the issue,,, plus got caution fot 5.
    I dont want the gov permision to get stoned ive managed for years perfectly well without it ,,,, no disrepect to medical mary users....

  • Ive tried sativex and various cbd oils and theyve just been a completely pointless exercise in pain relief.Its always struck me as grossly hypocritical of governments to allow everyone over 18 to self medicate with toxic POMs only medications ie opiates and several bottles of alcohol a week/day with all the lasting side effects and health implications and only marginal pain relief but so resistant to legalisation of weed.IMO it should be legal in all its forms for all purposes medical or otherwise.

  • Still I'll pester you to sign the petition Stinkypete:D. I agree there's no need for any law (except in regard to under 16's) but still there's people going to jail. Another lovely guy I know who deals is due in Court this week and worried he wont get to see his family in Jamaica this Christmas or even get deported permanently. Another friend who's too hard up to buy it often is instead using shitty drugs from the NHS to deal with his pain.


    I'm not someone who thinks the campaign for medical use is the only campaign that's worthwhile, but its the most likely first step that MP's and political parties are willing to back right now. The Greens and Libdems are on board, Corbyn has said it should be legal for those with medical needs and so have a few of those scummy Tories. MP Paul Flynn and a couple of others joined a 'cannabis tea party' across the road from the Houses of Parliament last week ;)

  • Signed. I have personally seen the effects of it as well as experienced. As someone who has arthritis and fibromyalgia it would be great to see this legalised and not have the stress of the “stoner” label thrown out anytime you mention it. I have grown up watching my granny and my mum suffer through the pain of arthritis as well, watched members of my family pass with cancer and have a close friend who suffered a very bad accident where he lost an arm and has sever nerve damage and all have to suffer needlessly. Doctors just prescribe painkiller that are as adictive as they are useless. Let’s get something that both works and doesn’t have all the shitty side effects :)


  • If I suffered from a medical problem that cannabis could help me with, I wouldn't want a prescription for Sativex. I've always hated wasting money and that applies to wasting the NHS budget as well. I'd much prefer to smoke it or prepare some 'cannabutter' at a tenth of the cost.


    Have your friends found the details of this on the internet or would you like me to elaborate?


    Scroll up.


    Quote

    There are also issues from a pharmacokinetic point of view with inhalation and oral delivery.


    So the price of all anticonvulsants that I pointed out that cost more or equivalent to Savitex, and any other drug on the link I posted are a waste of NHS funds too? Hmm?


    Possibly I should stop taking them to resolve all guilt issues?


    The cost of a month of Topamax is further up, feel free to check out a months supply of Lamictal Dispersible 100mg BD on top of that:
    https://www.nice.org.uk/guidan…osts-antiepileptic-drugs2)


    Also, primary generalised epilepsy with focal elements that is mainly well controlled isn't the kind of thing they are looking at trialing the cannabinoid drugs on....


    I'll pass your comments on to others on the epilepsy forum so we can all feel suitably chastised because we are wasting the NHS funds.


    Lets put us all onto Valproate, why don't we. Nice cheap, effective broad-spectrum anticonvulsant....shame about some of the side effects - especially at higher dosages if you become pregnant on it.

  • Let’s get something that both works and doesn’t have all the shitty side effects :)


    Give over, coffee has side effects with chronic and acute use, as does alcohol - some of the side effects may not be completely unpleasant and there may be some people who are affected more than others.


    You are talking about a drug. As yet no one has invented/found a drug that is 100% perfect and side effect free.


    If you do find one, let me know first....

  • Lol, my predicted choices if faced with an illness that could be helped by cannabis are based on my decades of cannabis consumption but truly scientific research of my preferences is limited. I would never dream of chastising others whose serious condition is best served by a particular level of treatment with a given ration of CBD & THC according to peer reviewed research.


    What I can say is that there are many people who use or have used cannabis that would prefer to medicate by using the plant itself rather than a distillate. Now obviously if their Doctor is sure that they should instead use a pharmaceutical product exactly tailored to their needs established by research, those people will listen. But otherwise there is no need for them to be prohibited from using the plant itself and doing so would save the NHS a lot of money. It may not be appropriate advice for certain serious conditions, but for milder conditions such as pain relief its worthy of consideration but not worthy of guilt tripping. A personal choice.

  • Luckily with cannabis, its much simpler. The seeds are readily available, there's a ton of books on cultivation and thousands of articles on the web. There's stores all over the Country that can supply growing equipment and if you don't want to grow it, well every town has its dealers.
    It's impossible to overdose on cannabis and many of us have decades of experience of using it. My friend who suffers from glaucoma was able to find numerous articles on the minimum dosage required and how often to take it.


    Sure, personal choice, but to raise a point from a previous post of yours.
    There are lots of books and articles on the web - yep, the web, in particular, is a mine of misinformation.
    Even if I had a regular dealer, I would be as wary of a consistent supply of product as I would be of buying MY drugs of a website. Hell, even the pharmacists try to palm us off with parallel imports and generics which means altering the excipients in the regular supply of drugs which can affect their efficacy.
    Regards glaucoma, there is an initial relief of ocular pressure but chronic use does not maintain the effect. The web might tell you dosages but it doesn't tell you the research.
    Also at the risk of sounding like a parrot - there are bioavailability issues related to smoking and ingestion. Will happily bore you with the details.
    Also, no drug is free from side effects - some people are affected more than others - and differently. Anyone who has taken the anticonvulsant levetiracetam and gotten the bum's rush will tell you.


    But, yeah it's personal choice whether you choose to take any of the above into consideration. Most people don't even consider the patient information leaflets in prescription meds. My doctor just gave me something to use for 3 weeks, inside packaging says only use for 7 days and if symptoms persist see your doctor..... usual doctor fob of bollocks.

  • Daisysmum wrote:

    the web, in particular, is a mine of misinformation...........Regards glaucoma, there is an initial relief of ocular pressure but chronic use does not maintain the effect. The web might tell you dosages but it doesn't tell you the research.


    Your assumptions are tending towards the cynical, maybe justifiably so from your experience on the medical forums. I went to look at the thread on Social media where Eddie, myself and others had discussed glaucoma and cannabis back in September. This is the link I had provided to counter some do-gooders that had dropped by to comment (erroneously) that CBD oil does all that cannabis can do. It's from the US National Library of Medicine (National Institutes of Health). While complex to understand, it does inform you about the peer reviewed research with references, and looks at whether long term use affects its efficacy.


    Quote

    An earlier report on the effect of smoked marijuana indicated the possibility of tolerance. Thus, the IOP reduction appeared to be inversely related to the duration of marijuana use.30 In contrast, Dawson et al31 reported on their ophthalmological findings comparing non-users with long term users of marijuana (10 years or more). After applying the water loading test to both groups, the reduction of IOP associated with marijuana treatment was similar between users and non-users.


    Cannabinoids and glaucoma: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  • I really think it’s time to relax the UK laws governing cannabis and increase its potential use for health treatment via the health service.


    Our GP’s have for many years prescribed a variety of controlled drugs with far more reaching consequences to the user/patients and families of.


    I’m more than aware of the longterm consequences of drug abuse and potential loss of life through OD’s. Self prescribing and zero quality controls is a huge problem yet to be faced.


    In my view we have reached a point of chemical saturation with cross counter purchase, prescribed and street/black market drug
    supplies. Making cannabis and cannabis derivatives available on the NHS is hardly going to bring the house tumbling down through Pharmagedon.