Did your opinion change? Looking back.

[felter]

About the only way my opinion on this matter has changed, is that I was even more sure that medicinal cannabis should have been made legal a long long time ago. So it is great news that the UK Government has finally joined the 20th century (I know it's the 21st but this should have been done last century) in announcing that the use of medicinal cannabis is to be legalised. I wonder if my brother will get a prescription for it, as I do think it would help him a lot.

[Antilogic]

So it is great news that the UK Government has finally joined the 20th century (I know it's the 21st but this should have been done last century) in announcing that the use of medicinal cannabis is to be legalised. I wonder if my brother will get a prescription for it, as I do think it would help him a lot.

Unfortunately it's not that good. It's a very limited number of products to patients with "extreme needs" only, so there will be a huge number of hoops to jump through.

We will need a change in Government for actual medicinal cannabis to be a thing here.

[Morkonan]

...We will need a change in Government for actual medicinal cannabis to be a thing here.

I know medical stuffs is very different in the UK vs how it is in the US. So, what is the sort of thing one has to do there in order to obtain what is now "legal" vs the difference you'd want to see made in the future?

Heck, I don't even know how pharmacies are handled there. I assume you have them, but are the privately or publicly owned? Would "legal weed" be sold by private or state-run shops/facilities/etc?

I find the idea of "Government Weed"... hilarious for some reason. IIRC, there is one person in the whole of the United States that actually receives legal, government, weed. One person, who is the last of only a handful that was given a prescription that is actually filled by a government agency dedicated to providing it. I'm sure the story is out there on the 'net, somewhere.

My ignorance regarding the intricacies of UK health topics is fairly vast and deep - An entire ocean of ignorance. It's pretty impressive, really.

[Antilogic]

So at the moment the only thing that is legal are a very small number of people, children, who have licenses for a specific drug which have some cannabis properties. This licences are so hard to get they must be approved by the Home Office and usually only happens after a media storm.

Recently there has been a lot of media activity around a pair of children who have had the medication granted/removed/granted again and again.

So now the government, only in light of all the media frenzy (Given that these are children and it's an easy heartstrings puller to run on the front page) has announced that these specific medications will be slightly easier to obtain. As in, they will be legal without licenses excepting them from the law, but will be massively hard to obtain though normal medical channels.

It's a step in the right direction, but it's only happened because the government doesn't want to deal with the public outcry if a child dies due to not being able to access these medications (they don't care if an adult dies).

The change of government is required because the current ruling party, the Conservative Party are the only major party against full legalization of medicinal cannabis. The Conservatives are running their policy on ideology, not scientific fact.

[Observe]

The change of government is required because the current ruling party, the Conservative Party are the only major party against full legalization of medicinal cannabis. The Conservatives are running their policy on ideology, not scientific fact.

Generally, that seems to be the pattern everywhere. First there is unbending opposition, next rare medical cases, moving on to wider medical acceptance, followed by full legalization. This unraveling of decades of anti-marijuana propaganda takes time. Slowly but surely, sanity seems to be claiming victory.

However, I am concerned about potential increase in psychological addition with recreational legalization. The more socially acceptable a drug is, the more prevalent will be its use and abuse.

[Hank001]

Morkonan:

I find the idea of "Government Weed"... hilarious for some reason.

The Fed program shut down with a "grandfather" clause.
DOJ made medical pot illegal again and is sactioning states with MM programs as hard as states that made pot legalfor recreational use.

Yeah say Bullsh@$! They can't. They do:

https://www.safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-c ... -laws.html

https://www.vox.com/cards/marijuana-leg ... a-schedule

STRANGE BUT TRUE. Fed employees will lose their jobs if they start using Medical Marajuana!

[Chips]

About the only way my opinion on this matter has changed, is that I was even more sure that medicinal cannabis should have been made legal a long long time ago. So it is great news that the UK Government has finally joined the 20th century (I know it's the 21st but this should have been done last century) in announcing that the use of medicinal cannabis is to be legalised. I wonder if my brother will get a prescription for it, as I do think it would help him a lot.

It should be pointed out that medicinal cannabis was only made illegal in the UK during 1971. So for the majority of the 20th Century Doctors were free to prescribe it. The legality of it was in response to the United Nations and international treaties on drugs, and not due to our own Government going off it's own bat.

History, eh?

[Morkonan]

...Yeah say Bullsh@$! They can't. They do:..

An example of the differences between States and the Federal Government where interpretations of the Law are concerned. While the Federal Government has certain regulatory authority, they still have to be willing to act on that authority. So far, while it's illegal according to Federal Law, the government has done comparatively little to step into this big pile of poo that has been created by legalization efforts in various States.

I don't know if anyone really wants to drag this up the chain and force a decision that defines both Federal and State laws regarding this. I think everyone would rather it to remain "unseen" by Federal Agencies until there is a particularly egregious violation or legitimate trafficking concerns where they can apply existing laws to great effect to prevent "a worse evil."

[Hank001]

Morkonan noted:

I don't know if anyone really wants to drag this up the chain and force a decision that defines both Federal and State laws regarding this. I think everyone would rather it to remain "unseen" by Federal Agencies until there is a particularly egregious violation or legitimate trafficking concerns where they can apply existing laws to great effect to prevent "a worse evil

Too Right! Back to ol' redneck Jeff Sessions and his pronouncements. He can draft policies all he wants that apply to the Fed. The states control their programs and techically if the FBI tries to bust me for posession the local cops could arrest THEM under Illinois law.

However I'm in the VA medical program and they just look the other way and keep me farmed out to civilian clinics (thank God).

So you're statement isn't the half of it. I think Sessions might have pressed it up to the Supreme Court if he thought they'd rule Fed over States, but not likely to fit into that whole "constutionist" thing the Tea Party is yacking about.