Cannabis’s changing legal position both for medicinal
and recreational use
|
Tony Moffat: much more research
still needs to be undertaken
|
Professor Tony Moffat, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
chief scientist, gave congress participants an overview of the position
with regard to the use of cannabis as a medicine. Speaking at a pharmaceutical
sciences symposium on September 3, he explained that once evidence could
be provided that cannabis had a therapeutic benefit, the way would be
open for the World Health Organization and governments around the world
to change the legal position of the drug.
There were many examples of decriminalisation of
the drug, he said. In the United Kingdom 20 years ago, the possession
of cannabis might have attracted a period of imprisonment on conviction.
But over the years, suspended sentences had been given, and later police
cautions issued instead of bringing a case to trial. Now, police in some
areas simply confiscated the cannabis without taking any further action.
Perhaps the most well known example was in the Netherlands,
where “soft” drugs had been decriminalised in 1976. Under Dutch law, up
to 5g of cannabis could be bought in “coffee shops” so long as no nuisance
was created. Belgium was also going to decriminalise cannabis. All possession
or growing of cannabis for personal use would be legal. Cannabis would
be tolerated among those aged over 18 years unless it led to “problematic”
consumption, created a social nuisance or posed risks to others by, for
example, encouraging children to use the drug or driving while under its
effects.
In the United States the situation was more complicated
because of the country’s federal structure. In 1996, California had passed
a law allowing state residents to grow and use cannabis. Since then, eight
other states had passed laws allowing cannabis to be used for medical
purposes. But in 2001, the US Supreme Court had ruled that there was no
medicinal exception to federal law prohibiting the sale of cannabis because
it had no legitimate medical use.
Professor Moffat said that Canada was probably the
country that had made the greatest change to its legislation. In 2000,
following a case where an individual had used cannabis to control his
epilepsy, the Court of Appeal for Ontario had declared that the prohibition
of the possession of cannabis in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
was unconstitutional and of no force and effect. After that ruling, patients
could apply for an exemption from the Act for medicinal purposes with
the support of their medical practitioner. However, cannabis was still
prohibited for recreational purposes. The law was changed again this year
so that Canadian patients with terminal or chronic condition could use
cannabis for medical purposes. A disused mineshaft in Manitoba was used
to grow the plants under a special licence. The new regulations also allowed
those who are granted permission for its use to grow cannabis at home
or designate others to supply it.
Concluding, Professor Moffat said: “As we move forward
in the medicinal use of cannabis there will still be the need for good
scientific evidence for its use, an much research still needs to be undertaken
to provide patients with a medicine that is safe, efficacious and of an
appropriate quality. Pharmacists are taking their place in providing this
information.”
Back to Top
|
