cbd and covid

[andipandi]

3rd October 2024


1. This factsheet provides guidance on the domestic control measures, including licensing and exemptions applicable to cannabis, cannabidiol (CBD) and controlled cannabinoids under drugs legislation (namely, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and associated secondary legislation).

2. Important Note: This is intended as general guidance only relating to controlled drugs; it is not legal advice. This factsheet does not provide guidance on regulatory or legal requirements applicable under other (non-drugs) regimes such as medicines or foods. Anyone in doubt should seek their own independent legal advice to ensure they are compliant with any and all relevant legislation.

General legislative position​

3.Cannabis is a Class B controlled drug under Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA 1971). Cannabis is defined in section 37(1) of the MDA 1971 and is, in essence, the plant or any part of the plant with limited exceptions (the exceptions are the mature stalk; fibre produced from the mature stalk; or the seed of any such plant). It is also listed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (“MDR 2001”) and designated under the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015 (2015 Order). As such, it is unlawful to possess, supply, offer to supply, produce, import or export this drug except under a Home Office licence. It is also an offence to cultivate any plant of the genus Cannabis except under a Home Office licence.

4. In addition to cannabis being controlled, a number of cannabinoids (i.e. the active chemical compounds found in the cannabis plant) are controlled as Class B drugs under Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the MDA 1971. Cannabinol is a Class B drug under Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the MDA 1971. Cannabinol derivatives are Class B drugs under Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the MDA 1971, including tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC or “THC”). Cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives are defined in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the MDA 1971.

5. Cannabidiol (“CBD”) is a cannabinoid present in the cannabis plant. Pure CBD, as an isolated substance, is not controlled under the MDA 1971. However, the legal status of CBD products varies depending on what the product is. Preparations or products containing controlled drugs are, themselves, controlled. The Home Office agrees with the assessment made by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that, due to difficulties in isolating CBD from other cannabinoids, consumer CBD products also contain varying amounts of controlled cannabinoids, such as THC and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-C3 (THC-V).

6. Any CBD products which contain controlled cannabinoids will be classified as Class B controlled drugs under paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the MDA 1971. However, if a product meets the “exempt product” definition in Regulation 2 of the MDR 2001, it will not be subject to the prohibitions on importation, exportation, production, supply and possession under the MDA 1971. This is explained further in paragraphs 26 to 36 of this document.

7. “Cannabis-based products for medicinal use in humans” (“CBPMs”) are defined in Regulation 2 of the MDR 2001. They are any preparation or product which is, or contains, cannabis, cannabis resin, cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives (not being dronabinol or its stereoisomers), which is produced for medicinal use in humans and is a medicinal product, or a substance or preparation for use as an ingredient of, or in the production of an ingredient of, a medicinal product. Note that this definition excludes the cannabis-based medicines referred to in paragraph 8 below. CBPMs were placed in Schedule 2 to the MDR 2001 in 2018. CBPMs are Class B drugs, subject to additional controls in the MDR 2001 (see Regulation 16A), and Home Office licensing requirements relating to these products are outlined below [footnote 1]. A Circular was issued in 2018 explaining the changes to the MDR 2001, and can be found on legislation.gov.uk at the following link: Circular 018/2018: rescheduling of cannabis-based products for medicinal use in humans - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

8. In addition, some cannabis-based medicines have received marketing authorisation, granted in accordance with medicines legislation, and been separately scheduled in the MDR 2001 following ACMD advice. These are Sativex (captured by paragraph 5 of part 1 of Schedule 4 to the MDR 2001), and Epidyolex (captured by paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the MDR 2001).
..................

Cannabidiol (CBD) and CBD products​

20. CBD as an isolated substance, in its pure form, is not controlled under the MDA 1971.

21. However, cannabis is a Class B drug under Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the MDA 1971; and a number of cannabinoids (i.e. the active chemical compounds found in the cannabis plant) are controlled as Class B drugs, including cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives, such as THC and THC-V.

22. The Home Office view is that it is nearly impossible to extract and isolate CBD from the cannabis plant or to create CBD synthetically without traces of other controlled cannabinoids, such as THC and THC-V. It is therefore highly likely that CBD products will contain controlled Class B cannabinoids, such as THC and THC-V.

23. CBD products that meet the definition of a CBPM will be Class B controlled drugs and subject to Regulation 16A and the relevant restrictions for Schedule 2 drugs [footnote 5]. CBD products that meet the definition of a cannabis-based medicine that has been separately scheduled will be Class B drugs in the appropriate schedule (such as Epidyolex, which is a Schedule 5 drug). Otherwise, CBD products that contain controlled cannabinoids will be Class B, Schedule 1 controlled drugs under the MDA 1971 and the MDR 2001 and therefore subject to the restrictions for Schedule 1 drugs [footnote 6]

24. A Home Office licence is required to lawfully import, export, supply, produce or possess a CBD preparation or product (including, if they are to be manufactured, the materials used to make it) under Regulation 5 of the MDR 2001, unless it meets the “exempt product” definition. Licences would not ordinarily be issued to enable the use of Schedule 1 controlled drugs unless the licence holder can provide evidence of a product with a lawful route to market. Exceptions may include, for example, use in bona-fide research or a recognised UK clinical trial.

25. Where an end product benefits from the exempt product definition or is a CBPM or a cannabis-based medicine, a Home Office licence will be required to cultivate cannabis or import, export, supply or possess controlled drugs (which are not themselves exempt products) in the process of producing such products. This could include, for example, the cultivation of the cannabis plant or possession of controlled parts of the cannabis plant in order to produce exempt products.

Drug licensing factsheet: cannabis, CBD and other cannabinoids

www.gov.uk

 

[zouzounaki]

My thinking and views arent really based around amounts of money. It's more of an influence, networking thing.
.........................

Drug firms giving MPs ‘hidden’ funding, research shows​

Pharmaceutical industry has “hidden web of policy influence” over dozens of all-party parliamentary groups

Drug companies are giving groups of MPs and peers that campaign on health issues hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in “hidden” funding that could hand them “undue influence”, research has found.

The pharmaceutical industry has built up a “hidden web of policy influence” over dozens of all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) at Westminster by making hundreds of “non-transparent” payments to them, as part of the industry’s wider effort to lobby those in power, researchers claim.


The findings raise questions about the independence of APPGs, the voluntary special interest cross-party groups of members of both houses of parliament that seek to influence ministers and government departments through reports, inquiries and meetings at Westminster.

Fifty-eight APPGs focusing on different aspects of health received 468 payments totalling just under £2.2m in direct and indirect funding from pharmaceutical firms between 2012 and 2018, academics from the University of Bath found. APPGs receive no money from parliament to support their activities, which often involve ministers being questioned and being sent reports.

“In the context of health-related APPGs, payments from the pharmaceutical industry represent institutional conflicts of interest as they create circumstances where the primary interest, policymaking in the interests of public health, is at risk of being unduly influenced by he secondary interest, the pharmaceutical industry’s goal of maximising profits”, the authors conclude, in a paper published on Thursday evening in the medical journal PLOS One.

Drug companies can use their close relationship with APPGs to contribute to their inquiries, argue for policies that favour their commercial interests and have that reflected in reports, all without the public knowing about those links, according to Emily Rickard and Dr Piotr Ozieranski, from Bath University’s department of social and policy sciences.

They uncovered the long history of funding by examining parliament’s register of APPGs and drug company payment disclosure reports. Both sources contain information about big pharma’s funding of APPGs, and also its financing of health charities, which often act as the secretariat for APPGs. But the details given were often vague, incomplete and hard to understand, the authors said.

Their research found:

• 16 health-related APPGs received 168 payments from 35 drug firms worth £1.2m in 2012-18 – one-sixth of their total funding
• Two APPGs, on health and cancer, accepted more than £600,000 in that time
• 50 health-focused APPGs received almost another £1m in 304 payments from patient organisations or health charities, which themselves take sums of money from big pharma

“We are not attacking any APPG or alleging any impropriety. However, there is a dilemma. The APPGs are a key part of policymaking and it is clear that corporate money is entering the APPG bloodstream”, Rickard and Ozieranski told the Guardian.

“Something must be done to mitigate against potential influence which normal citizens or NGOs won’t be able to exert.”

The revelations led to calls for greater openness about where APPG funding comes from.

“APPGs have an important role to play in holding the government to account and shaping policy by bringing together voices from across the political spectrum and from a range of stakeholders”, said Dr John Chisholm, the chair of the British Medical Association’s medical ethics committee.

“However, it is vitally important that there is full transparency around who is behind these groups and what is driving their calls for change. This is especially important for the development of health policy, which must be underpinned by the principle of improving the health of the population, and not risk being swayed by other conflicting interests.”

Justin Madders, a shadow health minister, said: “It is hugely concerning if big pharma and other vested interests are using the cover of these groups, which were set up with the best of intentions, to circumvent the normal rules on probity and transparency.

“There is a need for clearer rules on funding and conflicts of interest to ensure important health issues are not used as a vehicle to push private interests.”

But Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, a Labour peer and the treasurer of the all-party parliamentary health group, countered that APPGs’ lack of funding from parliament left them reliant on external organisations.

“APPGs need a lot of support to be run effectively. There is no funding available so its inevitable that outside organisations are asked to fund”, he said.

“In these circumstances it is an imperative on the parliamentarians who serve as honorary officers to make sure that financial sponsors do not improperly influence the outcome of APPG work.

“That is certainly the case with the APPG on health, where the sponsors come nowhere near our decisions on programmes.”

Elliot Dunster of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said: “APPGs facilitate discussions between MPs, peers and stakeholders in an open and transparent way. A number of these groups are supported by charities, trade associations and companies to carry out research, reports and meetings.

“There is strict parliamentary guidance on APPGs and a complete register – there is no hidden funding from pharmaceutical companies for MPs.”

This article was amended on 26 June 2021 to add a statement from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry that was provided after publication.

Drug firms giving MPs ‘hidden’ funding, research shows

Pharmaceutical industry has “hidden web of policy influence” over dozens of all-party parliamentary groups

www.theguardian.com

aye, this happens in all areas of government activity. they are quite corrupt.

but it’s hardly covering up the benefits of cannabis to rake in billions of pounds from the pharmaceutical companies, as was stated above.

 

[CBD Flowers Direct GB]

aye, this happens in all areas of government activity. they are quite corrupt.

but it’s hardly covering up the benefits of cannabis to rake in billions of pounds from the pharmaceutical companies, as was stated above.

Sure it's more or less covering it up. The fact's are there in front of your eyes to see. It's plain and simple. I am guessing you are a Tory . Cannabis is illegal to the public but then you have private clinics set up by the Government to sell medical Cannabis products. Is this not part of the corruption? and god knows what they are adding to these products behind closed doors.. Cannabis should be legalized in the UK like most other countries. In-stead the Government says no in the UK being the dinosaurs that they are,So they can generate billions from it. Oh i forgot to mention, Then you have if you get caught with Cannabis you get a jail term. But it's okay for the Government to set up private clinics and sell it to private clients who pay a monthly subscription.

Makes me laugh the UK Gov are idiots and always will be.

 

[andipandi]

Makes me laugh the UK Gov are idiots and always will be.

They're not idiots, they're cunts.

 

[andipandi]

aye, this happens in all areas of government activity. they are quite corrupt.

but it’s hardly covering up the benefits of cannabis to rake in billions of pounds from the pharmaceutical companies, as was stated above.

I never mentioned billions , you did, or maybe the article did, I only saw millions mentioned here and there. I'm criminalised, as is a granny with sciatica, because we buy our medicine, base product on the black market/ from illicit dealers. If we were well off/ rich we could buy from dealers, approved by government/ the authorities, even as under the tories, sold to us by Government ministers, their family members, friend, cohorts and cronies.

In fact despite having the money there are so many health conditions that would not meet the criteria for an approved prescription many people are left either in agony, using street dealers, or end up off their nut on pharma meds that cause more problems than they solve.

 

[zouzounaki]

@andipandi, cbd flowers mentioned “taking in billions”.

the idea that cannabis is illegal in the uk because the pharma industry is paying billions to the gov is stupid.

and no @CBD Flowers Direct GB i’m not a tory.

 

[CBD Flowers Direct GB]

@andipandi, cbd flowers mentioned “taking in billions”.

the idea that cannabis is illegal in the uk because the pharma industry is paying billions to the gov is stupid.

and no @CBD Flowers Direct GB i’m not a tory.

I think you are getting a little confused. Did you not read what i said in various posts? The Government is taking in billions by setting up private Cannabis Clinics around the UK. Do some Googling and you will see what it's all about.

 

[zouzounaki]

I think you are getting a little confused. Did you not read what i said in various posts? The Government is taking in billions by setting up private Cannabis Clinics around the UK. Do some Googling and you will see what it's all about.

maybe you can help my confusion by explaining how it is that the gov are recieving billions a year from these private cannabis clinics?

 

[CBD Flowers Direct GB]

maybe you can help my confusion by explaining how it is that the gov are recieving billions a year from these private cannabis clinics?

I don't have these clinics or there data on there systems, about how many clients they have but i am sure we are talking millions of people who take medical cannabis for obvious reasons every day. There set up with a Subscription kind of service through a private cannabis clinic and they pay the subscription monthly. Now can you imagine millions of people buying this every month? Then you have Doctors prescribing it to patients as-well. So the Government are not getting a massive slice out of this nice big Cannabis Cake? Of course they are. I'm not surprised if most of the money comes from medical cannabis related activities through these private clinics and big pharma.

 

[RAPTOREX]

I don't have these clinics or there data on there systems, about how many clients they have but i am sure we are talking millions of people who take medical cannabis for obvious reasons every day. There set up with a Subscription kind of service through a private cannabis clinic and they pay the subscription monthly. Now can you imagine millions of people buying this every month? Then you have Doctors prescribing it to patients as-well. So the Government are not getting a massive slice out of this nice big Cannabis Cake? Of course they are. I'm not surprised if most of the money comes from medical cannabis related activities through these private clinics and big pharma.

So you’re, at the very best, guessing. But it could be just as accurately called making stuff up.

There’s more likelihood that some MPs and some mover s and shakers, in U.K. business, are involved in the import and growing of cannabis .
And neither is in any way likely.

There is an imperative in our law enforcement though. The war on Grass, is a handy way to cover up racism. As two of our top athletes found, just recently found.
So comes with bottomless funding.