• A friendly and supportive community, register today. Our forums use a separate account system.

(REDDIT) Who’s Fuelling These NICE Workplace Policies? - Helen Vangikar & the Society of Occupational Medicine (SOM)

joint_account

Branching Out
Messages
238
Likes/Reactions
528
Clinic
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Alternaleaf
Hi Everyone,

I was browsing Reddit this morning and saw quite an interesting discussion surrounding the future of Medical Cannabis in the workplace.

@GrownHealth I'm not sure if I've posted this under the right category.

The Discussion thread on reddit is here.

TL: DR -

Over the past 18 months, many large UK employers have quietly rewritten their drug and alcohol policies to heavily restrict or outright ban medical cannabis (CBPMs), mainly due to the influence of Dr Helen Vangikar. She's a former toxicology consultant and key figure in the Society of Occupational Medicine’s Drugs and Alcohol group, promoting a stigma-heavy narrative that equates prescribed cannabis with illegal use. Backed by corporate sponsors, she’s been briefing occupational health teams with inside information (like Network Rail’s upcoming policy change) and encouraging bans based on NICE guidance (NG144), which only covers four narrow uses.

Vangikar’s messaging is spreading across industries, leaning on U.S. policy (like ACOEM’s impairment guidelines) despite major legal differences. Her seminars often question the legitimacy of private prescriptions and portray patients as self-medicating or lacking proper oversight. She dismisses the accuracy of dosing cannabis flower, implies risk from passive exposure (like in car parks), and frames workplace cannabis use as a capability issue rather than a matter of legal medicine.

The broader effect is a corporate shift toward zero-tolerance cannabis policies, often under the guise of safety and risk management, despite limited scientific backing. Critics argue these approaches are outdated, stigmatizing, and ignore patient realities.
 
Pretty sure it will turn out to be illegal as a blanket thing anyway since it's prescribed medication

Evidence of impairment would be required at least hopefully
 
Back
Top