The full government
UK Home Office response to our
#GrowYourOwn petition for CBPM patients:
Homegrown cannabis is not a safe or appropriate substitute for regulated Cannabis Based Products for Medicinal Use and there are no plans to change the law to permit its use.
The Government sympathises with patients suffering from painful and debilitating conditions and can understand their desire to seek the best and most affordable treatment available. However, homegrown cannabis cannot be substituted for Cannabis Based Products for Medicinal Use (CBPMs) and we have no plans to allow this.
In line with the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Cannabis-Based Products for Medicinal Use were rescheduled to Schedule 2 under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (the 2001 Regulations) on 1 November 2018. If the CBPM product is unlicensed (i.e. without a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with the medicines legislation applicable in the UK) and is being ordered otherwise than for a clinical trial, the decision to order/prescribe the medicine can only be made by a doctor on the Specialist Register of the General Medical Council.
The law itself does not restrict which conditions CBPMs may be prescribed for and there is no legal impediment to specialist doctors prescribing CBPMs where clinically appropriate and in the best interests of patients. It is important to remember that only products meeting the definition of a CBPM, in accordance with medicines legislation, were rescheduled.
Products not meeting this definition (other than cannabis-based medicines that have received marketing authorisation and have been separately scheduled) remain Schedule 1 drugs under the 2001 Regulations. Schedule 1 drugs cannot ordinarily be possessed or supplied except under a Home Office licence. Cannabis cannot be cultivated except under a Home Office licence and the Home Office does not grant licences to grow cannabis for personal consumption.
Expert advice does not support the substitute of home grown or street cannabis for CBPMs. In July 2018 the then UK Government’s Chief Medical Adviser, Professor Dame Sally Davies considered the available evidence of the therapeutic and medicinal benefits of cannabis-based products in “Cannabis Scheduling Review Part 1: The therapeutic and medicinal benefits of Cannabis based products – a review of recent evidence” (
https://gov.uk/government/publications/cannabis-scheduling-review-part-1…) and concluded that:
“Cannabis has many active chemicals and only cannabis or derivatives produced for medical use can be assumed to have the correct concentrations and ratios. Using other forms, such as grown or street cannabis, as medicine for therapeutic benefit is potentially dangerous. The evidence that cannabis and some of its derivatives can be addictive and harmful has been known for some time and is not disputed by recent science, so I believe the reasons it is a controlled drug in the UK stand.” (Paragraph 1.3)
“This review covers only medical cannabis and cannabis based medicinal products designed specifically for medicinal use. Grown cannabis has over 100 active drugs, which can have a wide variety of concentrations and ratios creating different and often severe side effects… Because different forms of grown cannabis have different concentrations and ratios of these drugs, grown or street cannabis cannot safely be substituted for medicinal cannabis.” (Paragraph 2.4)
While this legislative change enabled access by prescription, by or under the direction of a specialist clinician, it did not change the processes that ensure
NHS funding is prioritised for medicines proven safe and clinically and cost effective – that is medicines, such as the cannabis-based medicines Sativex and Epidyolex, that are approved by the
MHRA (
MHRA) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
NICE states that more research is the key to building the evidence base to support the use of CBPMs. Until we see robust evidence on the safety, quality, and efficacy of these products, clinicians will remain reluctant to prescribe them and the
NHS will not be able to make decisions on routine funding. That is why we continue to encourage manufacturers of unlicensed products to conduct research to support the use of their products and seek regulatory approval, and why we offer scientific and research advice from
MHRA and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).
The barrier to accessing these products on the
NHS is one of evidence, not government regulation, and the Department of Health and Social Care is working closely with regulatory, research and
NHS partners to establish clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy of these products.
We'll have further comments and feedback after proper review and consideration.
, the UK government must respond to our 
