From Mr J. C. Gould, MRPharmS
SIR,—Following recent clinical trials of cannabis in six healthy adults,
researchers have concluded that “there are no safety concerns” regarding
the use of this drug.
In light of this and other research, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
chief scientist, Professor Tony Moffat, believes that cannabis will be legalised
for medical use within two years. It was suggested that, once legalised, there
could be pressure to allow social (recreational) use of cannabis in the way
that alcohol already was used.
This news arrives at the same time as an opinion poll conducted recently (October
13 and 14) by MORI revealed a dramatic liberalisation in the public’s view
of the drug. For the first time, there was a majority of two to one, in favour
of decriminalising cannabis for personal social use and nearly nine out of 10
believed that it should be available for medical purposes.
Remarkably, more than half of those interviewed said that it should be available
for sale in Government-licensed shops. There is, given these findings, substantial
pressure on the Prime Minister to respond; and that a Royal Commission will
be established to examine the issue now seems a fait accompli.
But where, I wonder, do pharmacists themselves stand in this controversial debate?
While I am sure that colleagues have given considerable thought to the matter;
as far as I can see we have had, to date, no clear statement of the Society’s
position.
In short, I would be very interested to hear from our elected representatives
on Council, either individually or collectively, whether or not they are in
favour of this drug, cannabis, being decriminalised; that is, granted a legal
license for sale to individuals for social (or “recreational”) use?
We pharmacists are often, and quite rightly, reminded of our status as the community’s
experts on medicines. This is a status which, I believe, obliges us, if necessary,
to become active participants in any public debate regarding the use or abuse
of medical substances. With their extensive experience and knowledge of medicines,
pharmacists are ideally placed to help in advising and guiding the public dialogue
on medicines, in particular when the public debate on an issue is as extensive
and controversial as is the current case with cannabis.
While the public are undoubtedly ready to scrap the current laws prohibiting
this, we have yet to hear, and I am sure that both pharmacists at “street
level” and the general public alike, would be most grateful for, and interested
in, the expert opinions of our profession’s elected representatives on
this exquisitely controversial question.
I look forward to the Council responding to this request; they are after all,
like politicians in this country, democratically elected officials, and therefore
duty bound, I feel, to provide some kind of honest and meaningful response to
a vitally important public issue that will, one way or the other, have profound
ramifications for us all, and quite possibly sooner rather than later.
Finally, I believe there has to date been a quite sufficient evidence (scientific,
social, economic, legal and other) collected, for us to expect more in a response
than the kind of evasive, embarrassing, “no comments”, recently promulgated
by most members of the Cabinet.
Nor, given the importance and momentum of this debate would a “fence-sitting”
return of, “let’s wait-and-see”, be particularly useful or responsible
at this point in time.
John Gould
Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire