UK Political Chess Games
Theresa May was appointed the first female Chairman of the Conservative Party in July 2002. During her speech at the 2002 Conservative Party Conference, she explained why, in her view, her party must change. Her actions since speaking this words suggest that she too is a politician that ‘has behaved disgracefully:’ She stated:
"Most people in our industry said it was impossible to turn cannabis into a prescription medicine. We had to rewrite the rule book. We have the first approval of a plant extract drug in modern history. It has 420 molecules, whereas every other drug has one."
Mr & Mrs May – laughing their way to the bank?!
“You know what people call us? The Nasty Party. In recent years, a number of politicians have behaved disgracefully and then compounded their offences by trying to evade responsibility. We all know who they are. Let’s face it, some of them have stood on this platform” (1,2).
In March 2013, Theresa May, the Home Secretary at that time,
‘made a number of very significant orders in respect of Sativex and GW Pharmaceuticals. Sativex, as a schedule 1 drug, had previously been made available on an open general licence. It is now a schedule 4 drug and has been falsely distinguished from cannabis in what amounts to a subversion of the MoDA [Misuse of Drugs Act]. In addition, GW’s licence to cultivate cannabis issued in 1998 was for research purposes only. Since at least 2003, GW has been involved in commercial exploitation of cannabis and was therefore acting unlawfully. However, the Home Secretary has now retrospectively legalised GW’s licence [The license was backdated to cover 2003-2013]. GW, its directors and employees should have been subject to the same criminal penalties as anyone else producing a class B drug” (3).
So, why weren’t they…. ?
GW Pharmaceuticals PLC (GWP) was founded in 1998 – so around six years after scientists discovered the endocannabinoid system (ECS) and amidst scientific reports describing the role of this new system in human health and its enormous potential to treat or bring relief to many different diseases and health conditions. GWP managed to obtain special licensing from the British government that was specifically tailored to the firm’s business objectives – to profit financially from cannabis.
The company’s website states that this was achieved by ‘working closely with both the UK Home Office and the UK’s medicines regulatory authority on establishing [the] necessary licences and procedures so as to facilitate the progress of GWP’s cannabinoid research program‘ (4). This included the necessary approval of government bodies and organisations, such as the House of Lords and the Select Committee on Science and Technology. As such, the U.K government granted GWP special licensing that for the first time in British history enabled a private company and its shareholders to profit from an illegal drug that was listed on Schedule 1, while simultaneously criminalising and punishing members of the public that used cannabis.
The announcement that GWP’s Epidiolex, the U.K’s first plant-derived, cannabidiol (CBD-only) medication, had been approved, occurred just days after the media reports describing how British border guards had confiscated life-saving cannabis medication from parents of children with severe and rare forms of childhood epilepsy. Like many other people currently using medical cannabis illegally in the U.K, the parents of these children turned to cannabis after reading and/or hearing about its effectiveness in treating their child’s illness, and all of these families, without exception, claimed almost miraculous results that far surpassed those of pharmaceutical drugs. But now, suddenly, a cannabis-derived product made by GWP had been licensed within the same timeframe to treat exactly the same rare childhood condition; how very convenient.
Despite the families of these children winning the right to access the medical treatment they were being prescribed from abroad, these children were given GWP’s Epidiolex. Although clinical trials show that this product does reduce seizures, parents reported that it was nowhere near as effective as the product they were being prescribed abroad, and the same was true for other young patients that were participating in clinical trials. This is because Epidiolex, which is a CBD-only product, does not include the essential ingredient – THC.
Billy finally receives an NHS prescription for medical cannabis that includes THC (Dec. 2020), despite having won his right to this medicine more than two years previously in the British High Courts (June 2018). He frames it.
Although Epidiolex was shown to reduce epileptic seizures, clinical trials showed that ‘CBD alone was not sufficient to eliminate the most severe life-threatening seizures in 95% of children,’ because it failed to ‘manage the symptoms as well as medicinal cannabis products that contain additional cannabinoids’ (5). THC – the biggest healer in the cannabis plant – was present in the medicinal product that the families were trying to bring into Britain from overseas. It was a treatment that had been prescribed by medical professionals abroad, who, unlike their British counterparts, were able to study and learn about cannabis medicine because its use had been decriminalised or fully legalised. As such, the health professionals, like those in other places where medical cannabis has been available for years, knew what ratio of THC/CBD to prescribe. Despite this, the authorities decided to prescribe Epidiolex – a CBD only product that was far less effective.
The failure of Epidiolex to manage the symptoms as well as cannabis medicine that included THC, meant that these families had to continue fighting for their right to obtain the product that actually worked – despite the ruling of the British High Court. As such, more than two years would pass before Billy Caldwell (for example), was finally given a lifelong NHS prescription for cannabis oil that included the THC he needed. It is, however, ‘one of the very few NHS prescriptions for full-spectrum cannabis oil, which contains all the cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant in nature, rather than just cannabidiol (CBD), given to a patient since legalisation’ (6).
The entourage effect described by Professor Mechoulam (see above), is most effective when using cannabis plants (not hemp) because the presence of THC significantly increases the healing effect and therapeutic outcome – even when very small amounts are present. The British government is very aware of this fact. ‘In ‘The UK Review of Medical Cannabis: The Needs of a Nation’ (published April 2020), which was carried out by The Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group, the authors state: ‘Such products, which are sometimes referred to as “full spectrum,” contain multiple active compounds and are more difficult to study then isolated single-molecule drugs [..] Although many full spectrum products are unlicensed (U-CBPM), observational data supports the hypothesis that phytocannabinoids, such as CBD, THC, THCA, THCV, and CDBV, may have greater efficacy than single-compound products’ (7).
Cannabis as Standardised Herbal Products
Pharmaceutical companies have been trying to harness the healing power of cannabis for decades, but with limited success. Synthesised cannabis products, for example, fail to provide patients with the same therapeutic effect they experience when using natural cannabis, and many patients report very unpleasant side effects. Furthermore, MS patients report that Sativex (1-1 THC/CBD ratio) is far less effective than using natural cannabis, and Epidiolex, which is a CBD-only product, is also less effective than the full spectrum product (so including THC), the children had been prescribed abroad. In other words, medical cannabis works FAR better when it includes THC – and this fact is supported by research. After all, until very recently, researchers used cannabis that had been seized in police raids in their research – and that obviously included THC!
The Biggest Con of ALL - Cannabis Medicines are HERBAL Medicines
Medicinal products entirely derived from plants alone are herbal medicines. The UK Human Medicines Regulations (2012), state that:
‘a product is a herbal medicinal product if the active ingredients are herbal substances and/or herbal preparations only’
herbal substances; ‘a plant or part of a plant, algae, fungi or lichen, or an unprocessed exudate of a plant, defined by the plant part used and the botanical name of the plant, either fresh or dried, but otherwise unprocessed,’
and a herbal preparation ‘is when herbal substances are put through specific processes, which include: extraction, distillation, expression, fractionation, purification, concentration, and fermentation. The herbal substance being processed can be: reduced or powdered, a tincture, an extract, an essential oil, an expressed juice, and a processed exudate (rich protein oozed out of its source).’
In addition, ‘not all herbal products are medicines, some can be classified as food supplements or cosmetics’ (8), and those marketed as medicines must be licensed like pharmaceutical products.
The sharp rise in people using plant derived medication in recent years has led to standardising herbal medicines so that they can be licensed and marketed by pharmaceutical companies. Standardising is ‘the process of prescribing a set of standards or inherent characteristics, constant parameters, definitive and quantitative values that carry an assurance of quality, efficacy, safety, and reproducibility’ (9). However, the standardisation of herbal medicines is fraught with problems and, as such, fiercely contested by most practicing herbalists, and the practitioners of alternative medicines, such as Chinese medicine. These health professionals describe how standardisation processes fundamentally change the natural balance of the plant, which then reduces the plant’s therapeutic effect and does not work in the same way as a full plant extract (10). This is why a CBD-only product such as Epidiolex is less effective than medicine made from whole plant extracts (so including THC).
Standardisation follows the pharmaceutical pattern in that it is founded on the notion that isolated compounds are responsible for the therapeutic outcome. However, the healing power of the cannabis plant, like almost all medicinal herbs, had many different functions and addresses a multiplicity of health issues, including homeostasis, simultaneously, Furthermore, many of the hundreds of constituents within cannabis, like many other important herbal plants, have yet to be identified, and its internal chemical interactions are very poorly understood. It is for this reason that full extract products are commonly used in Chinese medicine, as well as other traditional forms of medicine, and are favoured by herbal practitioners worldwide.
“That’s not a drug – it’s a leaf!” Arnold Schwarzenegger
Medical cannabis health experts, like the vast majority of herbal practitioners, are ‘doubtful that standardised herbal extracts can exhibit the same full spectrum of use as the whole plant’ (11), with most prescribing natural cannabis or full spectrum products rather than the pharmaceutical products available – and it would seem that this is the case when considering patient reports about GWP’s products.
GWP’s CEO, Justin Gover, explains: ‘We don’t just plant seeds of cannabis. To get regulatory approval, we had to meet very strict standards. We had to know every vial of Sativex is identical.’ As such, ‘the two strains of cannabis are cloned and grown for eight weeks in a computer-controlled environment, so we end up with biological material that is entirely uniform’ (12). And herein lies the very possible reason that Sativex and Epidiolex (according to patients) are nowhere near as effective as using natural cannabis plant material (whether smoked or vaped), or full plant extracts that have not been standardised.
The bottom line is that pharmaceutical products made with cannabis are not as effective as using natural (raw) cannabis or tinctures/extracts made from whole plants because they are either standardised or synthesised to meet the requirements of licensing laws. The current way of licensing medicines, however, are not conducive with the complexity of herbal and botanical extracts. This is even more the case for the cannabis plant, which has been described as a ‘pharmacological treasure trove’ (13) and a ‘botanical powerhouse’ (14).
Over the past few decades, a model for drug development has emerged that demands a scientific approach that is: (a) solely based on evidence-based research, and (b) has been proven through randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials. Originally developed for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs made from single synthesised chemicals that could be patented and then marketed for huge financial profits, it is an expensive system that produces expensive drugs that the NHS cannot afford, and so only available to those with private health care. While this model of drug development is necessary for man-made chemicals, it has resulted in the widespread belief that ‘evidence-based medicine’ is the only way to develop and license drugs for medicinal use. As such, medicinal plants and herbal remedies are usually dismissed as unscientific and often vilified as folklore.
Although many different medicines were/are originally derived from trees, plants, flowers, or other elements of nature, they are made from a single compound within the plant that science has identified, isolated, and then synthesised into a medicinal drug that can be licensed and marketed. The bark of willow trees, for example, was once chewed or made into tea because people reported its effectiveness in treating pain. Although anecdotal, these reports encouraged scientific research that led to the discovery of salicylic acid – the compound that was achieving therapeutic relief – and ultimately the creation of aspirin or acetylsalicylic acid. While aspirin, which is now known to treat far more than pain, was/is a pharmaceutical success story, the same cannot be said for synthesised cannabinoid medications such as Drobinol (Marinol) and Nabilone (Cesamet).
As such, more than three decades would pass before the next cannabinoid medicine would achieve licensing. The pharmaceutical industry, like the British and American governments, has known for decades that the cannabis plant had powerful healing properties, but they couldn’t harness its healing power through their usual pathways (e.g. synthesised drugs). So, in the twenty or so years since GWP received special licensing, the company has been developing ‘pharmaceutical drugs’ such as Sativex and Epidiolex through standardising them into medicines that can be patented and sold for profit. These standardised pharmaceutical medicines, however, like synthesised products, fail to have the same therapeutic effect as natural cannabis, which is why more and more people are choosing to grow cannabis for medicinal purposes, despite risking criminal charges that could include prison.
Cashing In On Cannabis
Following the publication of ‘Cannabis: The Evidence for Medical Use’ in 2016, Home Secretary, Theresa May, authorised the British Home Office to publish the following statement:
“This government has no plans to legalise cannabis. There is a substantial body of scientific and medical evidence to show that cannabis is a harmful drug which can damage people's mental and physical health. The UK's approach on drugs remains clear - we must prevent drug use in our communities and support people dependent on drugs through treatment and recovery" (15).
All well and good, except it is not true! Even worse, the U.K government knows it’s not true! And there is NOT ‘substantial body scientific and medical evidence’ that shows cannabis to be dangerous in ANY way. In fact, scientists have recently reported that cannabis has anti-psychotic effects, and reports from countries in which cannabis has been fully legalised have nothing to say about this notion because nothing is happening!
Global cannabis reform is taking place because of the discovery of our endocannabinoid system and the ability of cannabis to interact with this system.
This system, which is the largest system in our bodies and in charge of ALL the others (e.g. immune, respiratory, and so forth), is responsible for balancing human health – a process known as homeostasis. And that is why medical cannabis can bring about healing and relief in almost every disease and health condition currently known. This knowledge, along with reports showing that both the American and British governments have been investing secretly in medical cannabis for years, while simultaneously denying its medicinal value, means that most people realise that we have been deliberately misled and deceived about the dangers of cannabis – not only in the U.K but also abroad.
As such, the governments in many other countries have acted accordingly – even correcting the criminal status of some cannabis users in some places (e.g. California). However, perhaps another reason for global cannabis reform is the understanding that it is morally wrong to withhold such a powerful and important medicine from people on notions of unproven and probably unfounded safety risks. In contrast to prescription drugs and treatments such as chemotherapy, cannabis use has a one hundred percent safety record. No one has ever died of an overdose when using cannabis – ever!. Furthermore, this impeccable safety record remains intact, even where cannabis has been fully legalised, thus showing that reforming cannabis has not caused the problems and risks predicted by those against legalising the plant.
Reports from places that have reformed their cannabis laws – whether medicinally or full legalisation – have been overwhelmingly positive. This is not just in relation to the ability of natural cannabis or full spectrum products to effectively treat people’s health needs, but also in relation to how cannabis reform has impacted society as a whole. Contrary to dire warning of possible negative outcomes, cannabis use among young people dropped, and still remains lower than it was prior to cannabis being legalised, traffic accidents have remained at their pre-legislation levels, and drug crime in general went down. This of course raises the question of why the British government insists on keeping cannabis illegal? And, as usual, it’s all about the money, money, money….
In 2015, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) announced that: “Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory.,” for the first time. They go on to state:
“Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumour growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumours to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.” LINK.
Trying to Fool a Nation..
‘The timeline for cannabis medication’s production and approval raises serious questions about whether the British government has been involved in insider trading, which is illegal in the UK’ (16)
"Most people in our industry said it was impossible to turn cannabis into a prescription medicine. We had to rewrite the rule book. We have the first approval of a plant extract drug in modern history. It has 420 molecules, whereas every other drug has one."
Theresa May, who was Britain’s Prime Minister during the 2018 changes in cannabis legislation, was/is widely known for her hard-line approach and strong opposition to cannabis reform. When serving as Home Secretary in 2016, May was accused of tampering with the wording of a ‘Whitehouse report after it concluded that there was no link between tough laws and the levels of illegal drug use’ (17) and therefore recommended decriminalising drug use. Media reports at that time described the Home Secretary’s behaviour as being aggressive and over-zealous, even describing how she often lost her temper and stubbornly refused to accept any cannabis-reform recommendations (18).
Theresa May’s professional conduct was also cause for concern. The Liberal Democrat Minister, Norman Baker, ‘accused May of suppressing proposals to treat rather than prosecute minor drug offenders from a report into drug policy commissioned by the Home Office’ (19), and he also resigned due to her being impossible to work with (20). May also ‘blocked the appointment of a drugs expert to the Home Office’s drug advisory panel’ in 2018 due to him being critical of government policy’ (21), and this apparently was not the first but the third time May had blocked such experts. Of course many people associated the Home Secretary’s behaviour with her strong, if somewhat idealistic, anti-drug views. Unfortunately, nothing could have been further from the truth.
GWP’s main shareholder is Theresa May’s husband’s company, which owns a whopping 22% of the pharmaceutical’s shares (22). This means that May and her family personally profit from a drug that is illegal to every other British citizen. Unfortunately, she is not the only politician financially benefiting from keeping cannabis illegal. Shortly after finding out about May’s links to the cannabis industry, it was also revealed that Victoria Atkins, the PM’s chief drug advisor (a barrister and former drugs prosecutor), is married to Paul Kenward, the CEO of British Sugar, which grows cannabis on a grand scale for the production of GWP’s cannabis medicines. Once this came to light, Atkins was forced to recuse herself from discussions/debates concerning cannabis, and her and May’s very outspoken anti-cannabis reform views were, quite rightly, seen as being “hypocrisy on a grand scale” (23, 24).
GWP currently holds 41 cannabis patents – except for two of these, all were applied for and awarded in the period that Mrs. May served as Home Secretary (2010-2016), including 5 for studying cannabinoids and cancer. So, while cannabis remains illegal and of no apparent ‘medical value,’ the British government is awarding Big-Pharma (GWP), with the licenses and patents it needs to commercialise cannabis on a grand scale, and also conducting cancer/cannabinoid research, despite claiming there is no evidence suggesting cannabinoids could be a potential treatment for cancer and insisting it remained listed on schedule 1. Meanwhile, anyone caught growing cannabis for no matter what reason, faces up to 14 years in prison and is marked as a criminal for the rest of their lives. Something is wrong somewhere!
Timeline: The Legalisation of Pharmaceutical Cannabis Medicines in the UK
1998: GW Pharmaceuticals is founded and licensed by the Home Office to research cannabis as potential medicine.
1999: GWP begins growing cannabis on a grand scale and conducting clinical trials.
2003: Despite only being licensed to research cannabis, GW Pharmaceuticals begins to commercialise and export its products illegally(see 2013). It is illegal because they have not been licensed to export cannabis, and as stated in a report published by the House of Lords, ‘Cannabis as a “Schedule 1” drug, cannot be used at all in medicine, except for research under special Home Office licence’ (25).
2010 Theresa May serves as Home Secretary. Sativex is approved. Despite being made entirely from the cannabis plant, the UK government insists it is not cannabis.
2011-2016 – GWP are awarded 41 cannabinoid patents and licenses during this period, including five for cancer treatments (some alongside chemotherapy). According to the patent register, these are the only patents they hold. So all, except two, were applied for during May’s term as Home Secretary.
2013: Mrs May, Britain’s Home Secretary retrospectively legalised GW’s licence. GWP, who had been exporting medical cannabis abroad since 2003, were not licensed to export their goods, and so were acting illegally. Mrs. May, therefore, backdated their license. This means that GWP, unlike any other British person or firm, will not face any criminal charges for illegally growing and selling cannabis on a massive scale for more than ten years. If it were you or me, we would be charged as dealers and imprisoned for a very long time.
2016 – Theresa May becomes Prime Minister.
May is married to financial investor Phillip May – his firm owns a 22 percent share in the world’s largest producer of cannabis, GW Pharmaceuticals.
2017 – Victoria Atkins is appointed by May as Parliamentary Under Secretary – despite having almost no government experience – and the PM’s chief drug advisor. It was widely believed that Atkins was chosen because she and May shared the same anti-cannabis views and strongly opposed any changes in cannabis law. However, it was later revealed that May isn’t the only politician who gains financially from cannabis remaining illegal.
Atkins’ husband owns British Sugar – The company that grows acres of cannabis for GWP.
2017: Britain becomes the world’s largest exporter of medical cannabis and still is today (2021), despite its illegality and status as a Schedule 1 drug.
2018 – Atkins Is Promoted To Home Office Minister
11 June 2018 – Border guards seize cannabis medication from a child at the airport – and despite this having happened before, the press are ‘alerted’ to the story, thus raising public sympathy. The Home Office returns the medication.
Billy’s case may have been just the headline grabber the government needed to put legislation allowing the consumption of cannabis in the UK in place. The more cynical, including me, might say that the government’s decision to confiscate the cannabis was calculated, callous, and used as an opportunity to gain public sympathy towards medical cannabis through the plight of these children. It was purely designed to bring about a change in the law that would enable them to profit financially cannabis while keeping cannabis illegal for everyone else (except those with the health conditions GWP’s cannabis products could ‘treat’).
16 June 2018 – The Home Office starts to make exceptions for children who need cannabis treatments to treat epilepsy
25 June 2018 – SO 14 DAYS AFTER THE MEDIA PUBLISHED THE STORIES RE CHILDREN WITH RARE FORMS OF EPILEPSY GW Pharmaceuticals announces the approval (licensing) of Epidiolex, a CBD-only medication it has made to treat the EXACTLY THE SAME RARE FORMS of childhood epilepsy. What incredible timing!
Epidiolex is also under review by a European body, which will allow GWP to market the CBD-only wellness product abroad as medicine. Meanwhile, May’s government tells the British public it is considering whether to make medical cannabis legal in the UK, thus raising the hopes of the huge community of people using medical cannabis illegally.
2019 – GW Pharmaceuticals cannabis medication, Sativex, is approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), despite it being derived from cannabis that includes THC (1-1 THC/CBD ratio).
2020 – GW Pharmaceutical products are being exported worldwide in massive quantities – so much so that Britain continues to be the world’s biggest exporter of cannabis products for the medical cannabis market abroad. Despite this, only a very tiny amount of people have been able to legally access cannabis medicines in the UK since the so-called 2018 medical cannabis ‘reform.’
A study in 2013 … found six cannabinoids were effective against leukaemia cells. The study reports
“These agents are able to interfere with the development of cancerous cells, stopping them in their tracks and preventing them from growing. In some cases, by using specific dosage patterns, they can destroy cancer cells on their own.” LINK
One of GWP’s cannabis farms
Cannabis, the UK Gov, and GW Pharmaceuticals
Just weeks from dying..
Cannabis and Cancer
Unfortunately, the 2018 changes in cannabis legislation did nothing for the 1.4 million people currently estimated to be using cannabis illegally for medicinal reasons, but did everything for the medical cannabis industry and, in particular, for GWP and its investors. The changes in cannabis laws in the UK ensured the profitability of pharmaceutical cannabis medicines (so Epidiolex (CBD-only) and Sativex (1-1 CBD/THC) by rescheduling them, while keeping cannabis itself illegal. This fact, as well as the patents they currently hold, means that GWP will soon be marketing other medicines made from cannabis alone for a wide range of health conditions, despite natural cannabis being more effective, easy to grow, and easy to make into medicine.
The fact that the Home Office granted GWP with five patents to study cannabinoids and cancer means that the U.K government is aware that cannabis is a very potential treatment for cancer. How can they not be? Especially as GWP, who have been conducting clinical trials re cannabinoids/cancer since around 2011, lists the research showing how THC-rich cannabis oil effectively fights cancer to support its patent applications (88). Despite this, every single government report claims there is no evidence, or very limited evidence, to suggest cannabis plays a role in actually treating cancer. Even the most recent government-commissioned review of evidence for medical cannabis makes no reference to the stack of preclinical scientific papers that have been published over the past twenty years re cannabis/cancer, and it makes no mention of the work being carried out by GWP, including the clinical trials that have been in operation since 2011. What the report does mention, however, is the lack of transparency on the part of the Home Office (26).
Cannabis laws in Great Britain are hypocritical and cruel. When Theresa May’s government agreed to reform cannabis law in 2018 so that people could access medical cannabis, the British public took the (then) Prime Minister at her word and believed they would be able to legally access cannabis-based medicines. Of course, Theresa May knew full well she was not going to allow the general public to access cannabis in any form – it would remain on Schedule 1, despite it being used to make pharmaceutical medications, and would also continue to be illegal for citizens yet legal for certain businesses. In other words, May rescheduled cannabis in ways that served and facilitated the agenda of GWP – a firm that May, her husband, and other politicians financially profit from (27). Your health, and mine, simply doesn’t matter.
May’s government could also be accused of using a form of Orwellian double-speech when considering the wording chosen by politicians to change British law in 2018. The term ‘raw’ cannabis, which is how the drug is described in Schedule 1, refers to the actual plant prior to being made into medicine, whilst actual medicines made with cannabis alone are not cannabis apparently. As one commentator states: ‘This ability to keep cannabis a proscribed substance of no medical value, while allowing GWP to market the only medical cannabis products available, comes in a recent rewording in schedule 1 of the MODA’ (Misuse of Drugs Act) (28). This changed the word “cannabis” to “raw cannabis,” allowing Sativex to be reclassified from schedule 2 to schedule 4, making it easier to sell and profit from’ (29). However, and no matter what is claimed or the wording used, the government’s reclassification of the cannabis plant in 2018 legislation is essentially meaningless because, at the end of the day, cannabis is cannabis – no matter how the government wants to dress it up.
When is Cannabis not Cannabis?
The British government claims that Sativex, which is made entirely with cannabis plants, is not cannabis. How can something that is one hundred percent made from cannabis, not be cannabis? In addition, government officials, health professionals, and other concerned parties, repeat GWP’s claim that no ‘high’ is experienced when using the product, despite GWP having listed an ‘euphoric mood’ as being a ‘common’ side effect! Besides this calculated attempt to misinform and mislead the British public, there is also a united attempt by medicine regulators and the British authorities to differentiate what they term as ‘pharmaceutical grade’ cannabis and their associated pharmaceutical products, from those that are grown and produced illegally. They do so by claiming that the cannabis grown for GWP is of a higher standard and quality than cannabis that is obtained through illegal channels – no matter whether for recreational or medicinal use – and that this higher grade naturally transfers to the cannabis-derived pharmaceutical medicines they produce. It is such a mish-mash of lies and half-truths but, fortunately, the British public is not so easily fooled.
The failure of synthesised cannabinoid drugs to provide the same therapeutic relief experienced by patients when smoking or vaping raw cannabis has led to the creation of pharmaceutical products that are made from raw cannabis alone. After decades of research, pharmaceuticals have had to concede that cannabis is a poly-compound that cannot be squeezed into a system designed for single substance medicines and, as such, they’ve had no option but to change their game plan in order to profit from the medical cannabis industry. GWP, which was founded very shortly after the discovery of our endocannabinoid system, was established with this knowledge in mind.
There is no doubt that the legislative changes that occurred in 2018 had nothing to do with the needs of sick children or anyone else needing cannabis for medicinal purposes. Although Theresa May claimed to be making changes that would facilitate better patient access to medicinal cannabis, the fact that only a very minute amount of patients have been able to access medicinal cannabis legally strongly suggests that the medicinal needs of sick British citizens were not the reason for the changes in the law. Instead, it is widely believed that the changes were made so that GWP – the only entity that has really profited from the changes – could market the cannabis products that were about to be licensed for the British market.
References:
- Online article (2020). ‘Theresa May.’ Retrieved 02/12/2020 from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasty_Party
- The Guardian Newspaper (2002). ‘”Nasty” Party Warning to Tories.” Retrieved 06/01/2021 from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/oct/08/uk.conservatives2002
- CLEAR (2011). ‘How to Regulate Cannabis in Great Britain. Retrieved 20/2/2020 from: https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/response_attachments/2015/03/CLEAR%20plan%20V2.pdf
- GW Pharmaceuticals (2020). Official website: ‘History and Approach.’ Retrieved 17/11/2020 from: https://www.gwpharm.co.uk/about/history
- Irish News (2020): Online article: ‘Billy Caldwell: victory for family as teenager finally given lifelong NHS medicinal cannabis prescription.’ Retrieved online 06/01/2021 from: https://inews.co.uk/news/health/billy-caldwell-lifelong-medicinal-cannabis-nhs-prescription-730571
- , Irish News (2020).
- The Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group (2020). ‘The UK Review of Medical Cannabis – the needs of a nation. Medical Cannabis Review 2020.’ Retrieved 11/12/2020 from: https://www.cdprg.co.uk
- The U.K. Human Medicines Regulations Act (2012). Retrieved 11/11/2020 from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/contents/made
- Ekor M. The growing use of herbal medicines: issues relating to adverse reactions and challenges in monitoring safety. Front Pharmacol. 2014;4:177. Published 2014 Jan 10. doi:10.3389/fphar.2013.00177. Retrieved 04/01/2020 from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3887317/
- Online article: Standardisation of Herbal Medicines Possible? Retrieved 11/01/2021 from: https://www.modernghana.com/news/606354/standardization-of-herbal-medicines-possible.html
- The Guardian Newspaper (2019). ‘The man who secretly (and legally) grows 20 tons of cannabis a year.’ Retrieved 17/11/2020 from: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/apr/17/gw-pharmaceuticals-justin-gover-cannabis-sativex-multiple-sclerosis
- Mechoulam, Professor (2018). Online Interview: ‘Raphael Mechoulam and the history of cannabis research.’ Retrieved 18/11/2020 from: https://www.ilae.org/journals/epigraph/epigraph-vol-21-issue-1-winter-2019/raphael-mechoulam-and-the-history-of-cannabis-research
- , Dr. Gordon (2020), p. 29.
- BBC (2016): Cannabis legalisation could raise £1 billion for the U.K.’ Retrieved 18/12/2020 from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38048282
- Newspunch (2018). ‘Theresa May’s Husband Set to Personally Profit from UK Cannabis Reform.’ Retrieved 07/10/2020 from: https://newspunch.com/theresa-mays-husband-profit-uk-cannabis-reform/
- The Guardian Newspaper (2014): ‘Nick Clegg Accuses Theresa May of Tampering with Report.’ Retrieved 05/12/2020 from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/17/nick-clegg-accuses-theresa-may-drug-report-conservatives
- Online article: ‘Theresa May’s Tenure as Home Secretary.’ Retrieved 06/01/2021 from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May%27s_tenure_as_Home_Secretary
- The Guardian Newspaper (2014).
- The Guardian Newspaper (2014).
- The Guardian Newspaper (2014).
- Ibid.
- Researching Reform (2018). Online article: ‘Theresa May’s Husband Set To Profit From New Cannabis Medicine After Government Relaxes Ban.’ Retrieved 06/01/2021 from: https://researchingreform.net/2018/07/02/pharma-company-majority-owned-by-uk-pms-husband-announces-new-cannabis-medication-days-after-home-office-relaxes-ban/
- Online article (2018): The Real Reason Our Government Won’t Allow Medical Cannabis.’ Retrieved 05/12/2020 from: https://www.exponentialinvestor.com/technology/governments-cannabis-corruption/
- House of Lords Report (1998). ‘Lords say Legalise Cannabis for Medical Use.’ Retrieved 26/01/2021 from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldsctech/151/151p03.htm
- Official Report, 2020 (commissioned by UK gov): ‘Cannabis: The Evidence for Medicinal Use’ (2020). p. 78. Retrieved 02/12/2020 from: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/26086/1/Cannabis_medical_use_evidence.pdf
- Online article (2018): The UK Government’s Hypocrisy Over Medical Cannabis. Retrieved /12/2020 from: https://cannpass.org/blogs/the-uk-governments-hypocrisy-on-cannabis-as-medicine/
- Online article (2018): ‘Philip May’s Capital Group profits from British weed-growing op while patients denied access.’ Retrieved 07/01/2012 from: https://www.rt.com/uk/429637-may-husband-capital-cannabis
- Ibid.
- PHYTOCANNABINOIDS IN THE TREATMENT OF CANCER – European Patent Office – EP 2544682 B1. GWP. Retrieved 04/12/2020 from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/54/d4/15/3a276c41104658/EP2544682B1.pdf
- , CLEAR (2011).
