Pubdate: Saturday, 14 Nov 1998 
Source: British Medical Journal 1 (Volume 317, Issue 7169) 
Copyright: 1998 by the British Medical Journal
Section: News
Contact:  
Website: http://www.bmj.com/
Author: Hugh Matthews, BMJ

UK REPORT RECOMMENDS MEDICAL TRIALS OF CANNABIS

Britain's House of Lords Science and Technology Committee recommended in a
report published this week that cannabis should be reclassified as a
schedule 2 drug, allowing research and prescription by doctors on a named
patient basis.

The report called for clinical trials of cannabis in the treatment of
multiple sclerosis and chronic pain but recommended that doctors should be
allowed to prescribe cannabis before its benefits are proved. The
recommendations follow an eight month inquiry, which concluded that
although there was no conclusive proof of the medical value of cannabis,
there was enough anecdotal evidence of its benefits for trials to be
started "as a matter of urgency."

Professor Leslie Iversen, specialist adviser to the committee, said: "As
scientists, we would like to have had objective evidence from clinical
trials," but he added that the weight of anecdotal evidence had led to the
recommendations being made for the medical use of cannabis on compassionate
grounds. However, the committee emphasised the need for alternative routes
of administration, as the dangers of smoking made it an unsuitable route
for a licensed medicine.

Under the misuse of drugs regulations, cannabis cannot be prescribed by
doctors, and clinical trials require a Home Office licence. The government
has said that it would be prepared to permit prescription if medical
benefit was proved, but this could take several years. The House of Lords
report has circumvented this delay by recommending reclassification of
cannabis, allowing research and prescription by doctors on a named patient
basis, although it would remain unlicensed. A spokesman for the Multiple
Sclerosis Society welcomed the report's call for trials to take place but
said that the drug should be evaluated like any other before the society
could recommend its general use (see p 1397). 
- ---
Checked-by: Richard Lake