The Sunday Mirror has reported that David Cameron is "relaxed" about licensing cannabis for medical purposes if the scientific evidence is there to justify such a move. The report is based on an answer Mr Cameron gave to a question to his WebCameron site. The Conservative leader rejected a wider decriminalisation of cannabis - saying that it would only increase availability still further and that it was already difficult enough for parents to keep their children away from drugs. A recent report from the party's social justice policy group pointed to the strong link between cannabis use and destructive behaviour. He repeated his belief that drugs policy should be based on more education - particularly delivered by victims of drug use - and rehabilitation. On a previous occasion Mr Cameron has refused to rule out shooting galleries.
Also in the latest set of answers to the 'AskDavid section of WebCameron', Mr Cameron said that, although he voted against the smoking ban, it was now a settled issue and he did not favour overturning it. He also spoke out against proportional representation. Our current system of first-past-the-post elections ensured a direct link between the electorate and their member of parliament, he said, and enabled decisive changes of government - of the kind seen in 1997.
well if he's been on the 'holy herb' he's going to be "relaxed" isn't he.
Posted by: nonrasta | January 21, 2007 at 20:29
I've watched this on WebCameron, and thought it was measured and sensible.
If there is scientific evidence that cannabis or an active compound from it can be of medical benefit, it should be licenced on a similar basis to other controlled prescription drugs. I would guess we're talking about another method of administration of the active ingredient, as obviously rolling the resin with tobacco to smoke it introduces potential for harm of its own.
To keep cannabis as an illegal drug is I think the right thing to do, especially with the increasing strength of some strains. My only caveat is that drug classification going forward must be similarly based on scientific evidence regarding relative levels of harm. There has been concern in the past that some classifications have given mixed messages in the past when compared to the relative potential for harm from different drugs.
Posted by: Richard Carey | January 21, 2007 at 21:02
All seems very sensible to me. Well done Cameron!
Posted by: malcolm | January 21, 2007 at 21:51
Agree with all the above posts, LOL at nonrasta's comment!
Richard, I could be wrong but I think that there has been particular focus on the benefits for people who have MS. IIRC it seems to help the constant discomfort and muscle spasm that they suffer from.
Posted by: Scotty | January 21, 2007 at 22:49
"There has been concern in the past that some classifications have given mixed messages in the past when compared to the relative potential for harm from different drugs."
Meant to add that it is important for a more in depth look at the long term use of cannabis, because of concerns that it increases the risk of mental health problems.
Posted by: Scotty | January 21, 2007 at 22:53
purification, and manufacture of cannabis as a prescribed medication for the spasms of multiple sclerosis would be a good use of it. It known to be effective. Any other use/abuse is to be absolutely verboten. It is a dangerousdrug on its own account, and leads to the use of harder drugs, which lead to criminal behaviour to obtain said hard drugs, and a self perpetuating cycle is started which can prove fatal.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | January 21, 2007 at 23:09
This is just a sensible approach that ought to be welcomed and supported.
Posted by: Matt Davis | January 22, 2007 at 00:28
I'm not sure why this merits a ToryDiary? Politician says "if pharmacological agent is shown to be safe and effective it should be made available on prescription to those patients for whom it has shown said benefit" - umm, like every other medicine - is not what I would call this most riveting news of the day.
Regulations surrounding the approval and marketing of psychoactive pharmacotherapy with real or potential addictive properties are extremely detailed and of a very high hurdle. Tabloid newspapers which attempt to link serious medical research - aimed at meeting some of the most horrendous unmet medical need - with illicit drug usage should be ashamed of themselves; it's not difficult to explain things clearly but oh! so much more fun to go for the sneery headline that leaves casual readers uninformed.
Personally I wouldn't give the Mirror houseroom after the debacle that lost Morgan his job.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | January 22, 2007 at 05:08
Very good move indeed!
Posted by: jorgen | January 22, 2007 at 07:45
When we consider that a version of a much stronger and more dangerous drug, Morphine, has been in use as a painkiller for a very long time, I cannot see what there is to get excited about.
The big problem here, is that under the kind of strict testing that new drugs need to go through, I doubt it would pass.
Nonetheless, I would love to see the side effects listed for this drug.
1) May induce a belief that you know the answer to all the worlds problems
2) May make you talk non stop
3) May make you incredibly boring to anyone not using the same medication.
4) May stop you talking completely
5) May lead to eating urges, at strange times of the night.
Posted by: Serf | January 22, 2007 at 08:27
Thin end of spliff though 'innit? Hopefully.
ConservativeHomies apparently voted for prohibition. Could Tim tell us by what margin? Because I encouraged a few people to vote in that...
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | January 22, 2007 at 09:54
Dave Cameron certainly knows what he is talking about.
Posted by: Hug a Druggie | January 22, 2007 at 15:13
He doesn't know what he is talking about, but he knows how to talk.
Posted by: PR Smoothie | January 23, 2007 at 15:41