Pubdate: Tue, 19 Aug 2014
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Page: 19
Copyright: 2014 Telegraph Media Group Limited
Contact:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/114
Author: Philip Johnston
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?323 (GW Pharmaceuticals)

WHY NOT LET CANNABIS EASE SUFFERER'S PAIN?

Our Inflexible Laws Are Denying MS Patients Access to a Drug That
Could Change Their Lives

The letters columns of The Daily Telegraph do not immediately spring
to mind as a rallying point for the liberalisation of this country's
drugs laws. But two correspondents yesterday drew attention to what
must be the most irrational and unjust restriction of all: the ban on
the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Just as there is plenty of evidence that cannabis is harmful (as,
indeed, are tobacco and alcohol) it also has palliative qualities.
People suffering from multiple sclerosis, for instance, find that
cannabis, or substances based on the drug, help relieve symptoms.
Jacquie Langham, an MS sufferer from Holt in Norfolk, wrote about how
she had been forced to buy Sativex, a legal cannabinoid that is
administered in spray form, from the internet because two GPs would
not prescribe it for her.

"I could scream with frustration and desperation," she
added.

Why should people be expected to suffer when the wherewithal exists
for relief; or be forced to break the law to obtain a natural
substance that will make them feel better?

This debate was rekindled last week when Norman Baker, the Liberal
Democrat MP, urged the Health Department to review the medicinal
properties of cannabis. "I've seen more and more evidence that
cannabis can provide genuine medical benefits to treat a number of
conditions," he said. It was tempting to dismiss his intervention as
another bid for legalisation from a party with a tradition of
supporting softer drugs laws. However, Mr Baker is actually the
minister responsible for drugs policy in the Home Office - but a
minister without any clout or authority, it would seem. A Government
spokesman immediately issued a statement saying there were "no plans
to legalise cannabis or to soften our approach to its use as a medicine".

Why on earth not? Surely this policy is untenable; and simply to shut
down all debate on the subject is an insult to those "credible
people", as Mr Baker described them, who "tell me that cannabis is the
only substance that helps relieve their condition". For the life of me
I cannot understand the reasoning here. The Health Department said
there was "clear scientific and medical evidence that cannabis is a
harmful drug which can damage people's mental and physical health".
But that is true of morphine, which is administered for pain relief.
It is also true of tobacco, for that matter, whose use has declined
massively not through banning it but through cultural change and
greater understanding of the risks of smoking.

In any case, we are not talking about recreational use of cannabis.
The arguments for and against decriminalising or legalising the drug
have been gone over many times and it is clear that no government is
going down that route this side of the next millennium. Just look at
the pickle Labour got into when it simply tried to recategorise
cannabis from Class B to Class C. But why should that stop its
medicinal use? No proper explanation is ever given, so I am assuming
that the reasons are the usual ones: that cannabis is a "gateway" drug
to harder substances; or acknowledging it as a palliative would
"normalise" it in the eyes of impressionable young people.

Perhaps there is some merit in these points but it still doesn't
explain why someone in pain should be denied by the state the
opportunity to alleviate it if they choose.

Bizarrely, cannabis in its herbal form is not recognised in UK law to
have any medicinal or therapeutic value, even though it has been used
for pain relief from the time of the ancient Egyptians. Plenty of
older people will not go near the drug, even if it would give them a
better quality of life, precisely because it is illegal.

This blanket, unthinking, never-to-be-discussed ban is unfair on them;
and nor is it the view taken in many other EU countries and North
America, where the medicinal benefit of cannabis is recognised.

There is confusion here in the UK even over whether to prescribe
Sativex, which is produced under licence by GW Pharmaceuticals. The
NHS in Wales is now expected to use the product widely to relieve
muscle spasms in multiple sclerosis following a recent decision by the
Principality's medicines board.

But in England there is no clear guidance for clinicians. Indeed, the
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (Nice) has
recommended against the use of Sativex in multiple sclerosis, though
it may yet change its position.

I can just about see the strength of the arguments used by Nice to
limit the prescribing of expensive drugs on the NHS for people with
terminal cancers, though I doubt I would be so sanguine if it was me
who needed them. But since the health service does not have limitless
funds, some rationing is needed and has been inherent in the system
right from its inception.

Furthermore, it is always open to people to buy these drugs themselves
if they can afford to, including Sativex, though they are usually
beyond the price range of most. However, if Nice is not going to allow
people in pain to obtain licensed cannabisbased relief on the NHS, how
can the state in all conscience then deny them the chance to get it
elsewhere without going to a street criminal and risking jail? Perhaps
ministers are simply terrified of losing votes if they relax the laws.
If so, they should remind themselves that they have the support of
Telegraph letter writers, a sensible bunch if ever there were one. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D