Scheduling Sativex cannabis

By Jo Martin Moss

Let me get this straight … and this is really going to confuse many tabloid readers, the Government confirms that Sativex (which is made from whole cannabis) has medicinal benefits and has issued a Scheduling notice for Sativex, which acknowledges that there is a recognised medicinal or legitimate use”

Sativex high strength herbal cannabis tincture.

Sativex cannabis.

… yet the following still applies.

  • Herbal Cannabis remains – Class B, Schedule 1 
  • Sativex (a concentrated oil suspended in alcohol) is scheduled- Class B, Schedule 2

How on earth can the government differentiate/ discriminate between the two, when fundamentally they are one and the same thing? If anything Sativex is alleged to produce more negative side effects than well produced herbal cannabis. There is something decidedly strange going on here, don´t you agree?

The following excerpts from “Scheduling of the cannabis-based medicine ‘Sativex’ ” explain the scheduling of Sativex.

Organisation: Home Office Published:27 March 2013

Implementation Date 10th April 2013

“Sativex” is the first cannabis-based medicine (oral spray) recognised in the UK to have medicinal properties. The production of the cannabis used in the manufacture of “Sativex” is carried out under a Home Office licence for ‘research or other special purpose’.

“Pending marketing authorisation, in 2006 the Home Office issued a licence to enable doctors, at their own risk to privately prescribe, pharmacists to possess and dispense, and named patients who have been prescribed “Sativex” to possess the drug under a clinical trial (clinical trials have ended). The Medicines Healthcare Regulatory products Agency (MHRA) issued a marketing authorisation (MA) for “Sativex”, specifically as add-on treatment for symptom improvement in patients with spasticity due to multiple sclerosis in June 2010. Doctors can also prescribe “Sativex” for other indications outside of the marketing authorisation at their own risk.

´´The Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (Amendment No. 2) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2013 amends the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001 (the 2001 Order) by placing “Sativex”, as defined, under Part 2 of the Schedule to the 2001 Order with the effect that “Sativex” is now excepted from section 7(4) of the 1971 Act, essentially because “Sativex” has a recognised medicinal or legitimate use”

“S.I. 2013/625 excepts “Sativex”, as defined, from the definition of cannabis in Schedule 1 to the 2001 Regulations and places “Sativex” in Part I of Schedule 4 to the 2001 Regulations. The effect is that “Sativex”, as defined, is distinguished from cannabis in its raw form which continues to remain a Class B and Schedule 1 controlled drug under UK legislation.”

Sativex” is placed in Part 2 of the Schedule to the 2001 Order

“S.I. 2013/624 places “Sativex”, as defined, in Part 2 of the Schedule to the 2001 Order with the effect that the designation provisions under Section 7(4) of the 1971 Act no longer applies. This has the result that a Home Office licence “for research or other special purpose” is no longer required for the possession, supply etc of “Sativex”. A Home Office licence “for research or other special purpose” is still required for cannabis in its raw form. “

So, in a nutshell, when Cannabis is grown (still schedule 1) and produced by a large pharmaceutical organisation, under license, and a product, Sativex, is created from the herbal cannabis, and sold at great expense, it then has medical benefits and the product is scheduled as schedule 2. Yet when it is grown for consumption by an individual for the same medical benefits, it ceases to have medical benefits and stays a schedule 1 substance all the way.

This has me scratching my head,  although for a while I had been wondering how they would deal with the issue of scheduling/classifying Sativex. I believe this opens a door for pressure and leverage, arguing that herbal cannabis should be privy to the same scheduling as Sativex, as they cannot logically defend such a ludicrous assertion that there is such a significant difference between both substances, that requires them to be scheduled differently.

Geoffrey Guy's huge cannabis skunk factory located at GW Pharms's legal grow room.

Skunk factory of GW Pharmaceuticals who are legally allowed by the Government to produce high strength cannabis for a huge profit.

Does this also open the floodgates now for other cannabis preparations made by the large pharmaceutical companies, to be licensed and available on prescription by postcode lottery?

So many campaigners believe cannabis possession or supply of cannabis is illegal, because our governments believe their own propaganda that cannabis is harmful, when the exact opposite is probably closer to the truth. They already know that cannabis has many medical benefits, but if everyone grew their own and helped themselves and their friends, the need for pharmaceutical products would diminish swiftly, as would the opportunity for Big Pharma to profit.

It is entirely possible to make your own product similar to Sativex, but based on a cannabinoid content profile to suit the patients individual medical needs, at a fraction of the cost. There will be further details on this shortly.

Posted in News, Women´s Alliance and tagged , , , , , , , .

39 Comments

  1. its ok for the government to grow this high class weed and we cant its a fucking sham.your not tell me the cunt who is growing this weed is not smoking it and knocking the odd bit out ye like fuk he are she not JOKERS R US

  2. I’m going to go back to basics & though it might confuse some readers, I hope those that are confused go back & search this out, please do NOT take my word for it…do your OWN research & all will become clear.

    When we are born our parents wrongly REGISTERED us at birth. Now because we are taling LEGAL matters here, you can NOT use a normal dictionary, you MUST use a law dictionary, because many words we think to be English are in fact what we call LEGALESE, same word, different meaning.

    So what does registration mean? It means giving up ownership/title of that which is ours. Let’s take a very easy example…your car?
    Ask yourself..”Are you the owner or registered keeper”? OK, now you know that you are NOT the owner, but only the registered keeper, maybe you can see that you do NOT own your children, you are but a registered keeper.

    What does all this have to do with cannabis you ask? Well the Birth Certificate creates the LEGAL FICTION, that We all think is our name…WRONG! anything all written in capitals is dead, a fiction. Look on tomb stones, how are the names…all in capitals…just like ANY legal document, your driving license, your birth certificate, you credit cards, your loans, your N.I. card…the list goes on & on.

    The fiction is your LEGAL self, your PERSON & has nothing at all to do with your name as a man/woman. Now look at the ACTS created by government..they apply to the PERSON & not the man/woman.
    When a copper arrests you he gives you 1 right..the right to remain silent…hang on where have my other rights gone??? then he finishes with “Do you understand”…99.99% of people will say “Yes”. By answering yes, you agree to stand under(understand) what the cop has said…so NEVER answer that you understand, you ALWAYS overstand a copper…you don’t get any rights if you don’t claim them, so claim them & then remain silent. Acts/statutes only apply to the PERSON, so stop being the person…it’s all contract law & in a magistrates court only things that are LEGAL can be heard, they can NOT hear lawful! Lawful must be heard buy a court of your peers (crown court & above).

    • I thought it was an offence not to register a birth? What do you mean my parents “wrongly registered” me? So are you saying not to bother and forgo all documentation such as birth certificate, passport, NI number, benefits, NHS number, Driving License etc I’m surprised NormlUK will allow such curious advice to stay on the site.

      • Unlike a certain other group, NORML UK doesn’t really censor much on this web site, and most comments are automatically allowed up, so if something needs removing, it might not be done instantly.

        In this case, I think it would be a gross invasion of this posters free speech to censor his opinion, even though it’s not one I would necessarily share. So it’s staying up.

        I find it ironic you complained about people slagging off PR for his odious right wing views, yet you are asking us to censor on the NORML UK web site … tsk tsk Darryl. – Chris.

        • You probably find it ironic due to petty personal battles skewing your every waking moment Chris. I am against misinformation, and freedom of speech isn’t about hosting people to give absurd legal advice which is in substance nothing more than trolling, nor is it about making OTT allegations about individuals to suit your own purposes.

          • You are a hypocrite and a liar, since I do not spend my every waking moment skewing petty personal battles, there’s nothing more to add. – Chris.

    • Ross Of’TheClan Mckinnon

      Have you ever tried arguing any of this in a court of law?

      I would strongly suggest that you do not!

      I am not going to try and change your understanding, but what I will mention is that you are wrong on the most important point, the definition between lawful and legal is not how the freemen tell it.

      Quod pro minore licitum est, et pro majore licitum est. What is lawful in the less,
      is lawful in the greater. 8 Co. 43.

      Omnia
      praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium. All things are presumed
      to be done legitimately, until the contrary is proved. Co. Litt. 232.

      • I knowq many who have succeeded in court, but its hard to win in a magistrates court…if they get you in the door, they have already won. It’s nothing at all to do with freeman stuff, just what I have seen with my own eyes, hence why I ask people to search it out. I could post va video showing a guy who refused to give a breathaliser…you know they always find you guilty…but he was released the next day..NO CHARGE! So if you know how these things work, you can overcome. The UK is a corporation, hence why policy is used to control us.

        • Your comments seem to be contradictory to me.
          “You know many who have succeeded in court, but it is hard to win at a magistrates court.” So you know many who have succeed even though it is hard to?
          “If they get you in the door, they have already won”
          We how did these people you know succeed in court then, how did they do so without even attending?
          “It’s nothing at all to do with freeman stuff, just what I have seen with
          my own eyes, hence why I ask people to search it out. I could post va
          video showing a guy who refused to give a breathaliser..”
          That is funny because it sounds exactly like freeman literature, full of contradictions.
          “but he was released the next day..NO CHARGE!”
          I was caught growing weed, released the next day with no charge. Big wow wosh, that does not mean I was not later charged.
          “So if you know how these things work, you can overcome. The UK is a corporation, hence why policy is used to control us.”
          That is the only logical thing you have said, and that is why I have taken the time to learn the law to know exactly how policy is constructed and by what authority, I also know how you can challenge policy in a court of law without pissing the judge off to the point of contempt. I can assure you that if you follow the freeman literature that you quote, you will end up in Jail. Rusty used to crack me up, especially arresting the judge, but one has to ask what happened when he went to court for Cannabis, as the judge did not seem to see the same significance in his freeman argument as many others have. Common law is judges law, trust me, you do not want to argue with them what is the common law.

  3. That’s because the Government tell Fibs and pork pies the fuckwits wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked em in the face !!!Sativex s put cannabis into a spray so they they put a patent on a spray as they can’t patent a plant,still its a start and gives the rest of us something to grumble about!!!! I currently devloping the electric spliff this bad boy can be smoked anywhere and runs on pure oil !!!!

  4. Yes there is a point to complain about this corruption, but please at least deal with the issues as they have presented it: 1. Herbal cannabis – unknown variety, purity, potency of various cannabinoids, not titrated into doses, produced and consumed without medical approval, usually smoked. “. Sativex – titrated ‘pure’ dosed specific cannabinoid spray formulation on prescription only.

    • But what about somebody like me Darryl, I can grow weed as good and clean as GW & with very little equipment produce a near enough exact copy of Sativex as not to matter, why should I be discriminated?

      • Darryl Bickler does not even know that you have a right to health, how can you expect a rational answer from someone that denies self evident laws?

        Article 25 part 1 of the universal deceleration of human rights is pretty clear about this!

    • 1 irrelevant if by construct it is corrupt.
      2 irrelevant if by construct it is unlawful.

      For a non practising solicitor you do not seem to have a very good understanding of law. I have asked before and I will now ask again, are you a dis information agent Darryl Bickler ?

    • Because we all know how safe corporately produced pharmaceutical products are – they never make mistakes, and never substitute inferior materials or methods in production. They have a 0 death record from centuries of safe use by humans….oh, wait, that’s cannabis – not pharmaceuticals. Sativex causes oral ulcers in a small percentage of users, is harder to self-titrate and is an alcohol solution. The right to possess, cultivate and consume cannabis on private property is an unalienable human right. Cannabis is a beneficial plant, not a dangerous drug.

  5. Was just saying on another post, my friends been trying for sativex for her ms for s while now and won’t get it but she could get it private if she pays £500 a month, the drug she is on just now that does nothing for her is £1500 a month on the nhs, it’s crazy, I still fell if I could, I could supply her for about £20 a month

  6. To me a judicial review is needed here and will show this desision for the sham it is, even the most bent judge will recognise this for the travesty it is…

    • Sativex is available by NHS or private prescription for certain medical conditions. We suggest you contact your GP or consultant for further information and costs involved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *