An interesting thread from Reddit, we've used ChatGPT to shrink down the text slightly for easier readability below: https://old.reddit.com/r/ukmedicalcannabis/comments/1lcv4id/whos_fuelling_these_nice_workplace_policies_helen/…
Over the past 18 months, a significant shift has occurred in how large UK employers approach cannabis-based medicinal products (CBPMs) in the workplace. Spearheading this movement is Dr Helen Vangikar, a toxicology consultant with deep ties to the Society of Occupational Medicine (SOM). Through her leadership of SOM’s Drugs and Alcohol Special Interest Group and partnerships with organisations like GTS MedOH and Greys Specialist Recruitment, she has actively promoted a risk-averse narrative about CBPMs. Her presentations, citing concerns over prescription authenticity, impairment, and job safety, have influenced corporate drug and alcohol policy revisions—often without public scrutiny.
Much of this policy push is anchored in narrow interpretations of official guidance, particularly NICE NG144, which restricts CBPMs to four medical conditions. Vangikar has used this and changes to Network Rail's internal guidance—where she appears to have had privileged early access—to frame private CBPM prescriptions as legally and medically ambiguous. Her seminars cast doubt on the legitimacy of many prescriptions, especially those from clinics like Curaleaf and Alternaleaf, implying they may be falsified or lack medical rigor. Despite acknowledging that verification and context matter, she frequently emphasises concerns about the form, dosing, and potential workplace visibility of CBPM use.
A key element of her argument draws from a 2023 update by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), which recommends stringent restrictions on cannabis use in safety-sensitive roles. Though based on U.S. federal illegality, ACOEM’s framework is being cited by UK organisations—including Network Rail—as a defensible standard for policy-making. This importation of American guidelines into the UK context risks oversimplifying the issue, especially given the UK’s distinct legal, clinical, and regulatory landscape for medical cannabis.
Critics argue that Vangikar’s approach conflates stigma with safety, framing CBPMs as indistinguishable from street cannabis and downplaying the clinical legitimacy of private prescriptions. She has discouraged accepting prescriptions not signed by GMC-registered doctors, despite legal equivalence, and casts doubt on dosage accuracy for cannabis flower compared to oils or pastilles. This has led many occupational health teams to draft pre-emptive bans or severe restrictions, often under the guise of due diligence and "education"—while potentially disregarding evidence-based nuance.
The broader impact is a growing trend of UK employers quietly adopting restrictive policies on CBPMs, often with limited clinical engagement or transparency. While Vangikar does occasionally call for case-by-case reviews, the overarching message from her sessions has led to default exclusion, not accommodation. With major entities like Network Rail setting precedent, and others following suit, the debate over CBPMs in the workplace risks being shaped more by fear and liability management than by balanced, evidence-led policy.
Over the past 18 months, a significant shift has occurred in how large UK employers approach cannabis-based medicinal products (CBPMs) in the workplace. Spearheading this movement is Dr Helen Vangikar, a toxicology consultant with deep ties to the Society of Occupational Medicine (SOM). Through her leadership of SOM’s Drugs and Alcohol Special Interest Group and partnerships with organisations like GTS MedOH and Greys Specialist Recruitment, she has actively promoted a risk-averse narrative about CBPMs. Her presentations, citing concerns over prescription authenticity, impairment, and job safety, have influenced corporate drug and alcohol policy revisions—often without public scrutiny.
Much of this policy push is anchored in narrow interpretations of official guidance, particularly NICE NG144, which restricts CBPMs to four medical conditions. Vangikar has used this and changes to Network Rail's internal guidance—where she appears to have had privileged early access—to frame private CBPM prescriptions as legally and medically ambiguous. Her seminars cast doubt on the legitimacy of many prescriptions, especially those from clinics like Curaleaf and Alternaleaf, implying they may be falsified or lack medical rigor. Despite acknowledging that verification and context matter, she frequently emphasises concerns about the form, dosing, and potential workplace visibility of CBPM use.
A key element of her argument draws from a 2023 update by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), which recommends stringent restrictions on cannabis use in safety-sensitive roles. Though based on U.S. federal illegality, ACOEM’s framework is being cited by UK organisations—including Network Rail—as a defensible standard for policy-making. This importation of American guidelines into the UK context risks oversimplifying the issue, especially given the UK’s distinct legal, clinical, and regulatory landscape for medical cannabis.
Critics argue that Vangikar’s approach conflates stigma with safety, framing CBPMs as indistinguishable from street cannabis and downplaying the clinical legitimacy of private prescriptions. She has discouraged accepting prescriptions not signed by GMC-registered doctors, despite legal equivalence, and casts doubt on dosage accuracy for cannabis flower compared to oils or pastilles. This has led many occupational health teams to draft pre-emptive bans or severe restrictions, often under the guise of due diligence and "education"—while potentially disregarding evidence-based nuance.
The broader impact is a growing trend of UK employers quietly adopting restrictive policies on CBPMs, often with limited clinical engagement or transparency. While Vangikar does occasionally call for case-by-case reviews, the overarching message from her sessions has led to default exclusion, not accommodation. With major entities like Network Rail setting precedent, and others following suit, the debate over CBPMs in the workplace risks being shaped more by fear and liability management than by balanced, evidence-led policy.
but no worries and it's relevant in both sections .
. What's your take on it?
