LET GPS PRESCRIBE THE WEED

Who says scientists should not use common sense?

The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology caused a
considerable kerfuffle in scientific circles yesterday.

They concluded in their latest report that there is insufficient scientific
evidence to prove the medical value of cannabis but even so recommended that
the Government should reclassify the drug to allow doctors to prescribe it
as an unlicensed medicine on a named-patient basis.

This was not a collection of hereditary nobodies but a notable panel heavily
weighted with distinguished medical scientists (a biologist, chemist,
physicist, medical researcher, neurologist, pathologist and practising
fertility specialist) advised by Oxford University's visiting professor of
pharmacology. In an unequivocal conclusion they declare: "We have received
enough anecdotal evidence to convince us that cannabis almost certainly does
have genuine medical applications, especially in treating the painful
muscular spasms and other symptoms of MS and in the control of other forms
of pain."

The British Medical Association was not amused.

It criticised the Lords for failing to distinguish between the active
constituents of cannabis and cannabis itself.

It noted cannabis had many toxic ingredients and 60-plus cannabinoids. It
believed there should be no change to its legal position until further
research had established which cannabinoids had therapeutic value so that
new cannabis-based drugs could be developed.

It opposed the use of crude cannabis because of the "unpredictable nature of
its effects". But "unpredictable" is the wrong word. Although there is only
one small clinical trial on the medical benefits of cannabis there is a
mountain of evidence from MS sufferers that cannabis does ease their pain.
The reason why cannabis has these effects may be "unknown" but the effects
are not "unpredictable". This was one of the reasons why the Lords came out
in support of using the drug. Even the medic about to conduct the clinical
trials into cannabis, who spoke out against the report yesterday, conceded
the anecdotal evidence was impressive.

The Lords should be congratulated for listening to patients rather than
researchers. Cannabis was used medically for centuries before being
overtaken by more powerful drugs but it still provides relief for a small
category of ailments where modern drugs have little effect.

Knowing why it works would be helpful but making it illegal until we know
why is wrong.

Checked-by: Rolf Ernst