{"id":15232,"date":"2019-03-11T18:48:30","date_gmt":"2019-03-11T18:48:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/?p=15232"},"modified":"2019-05-08T18:22:34","modified_gmt":"2019-05-08T18:22:34","slug":"open-letter-to-all-australian-politicians-regarding-new-version-of-medicinal-cannabis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/2019\/03\/open-letter-to-all-australian-politicians-regarding-new-version-of-medicinal-cannabis\/","title":{"rendered":"OPEN LETTER TO ALL AUSTRALIAN POLITICIANS REGARDING \u2018NEW\u2019 VERSION OF MEDICINAL CANNABIS"},"content":{"rendered":"

For those who are still concerned about \u2018evidence based science\u2019 and \u2018best medical and pharmaceutical practice\u2019\u2026the following \u2018open letter\u2019 with attachments was sent to all Federal Senators, NSW and Victorian Premiers last week.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Dear Senator,<\/span>
\n\u00a0<\/span>
\nIn the coming weeks\/months, you will no doubt be presented with a Bill to consider changing both law and process to permit a new version of \u2018medical marijuana\u2019. On behalf of our Institute and a concerned public I would like you to carefully consider the following.<\/span><\/p>\n

Firstly I write with some concerns about the consultation conducted on behalf of Victorian State government by the VLRC in Melbourne on May 6th this year and the now subsequent recommendations that have emerged from this very small Melbourne meeting (Less than 60 people in attendance! – This issue was directly raised with Victorian Health Minister earlier this year).<\/span><\/p>\n

Whilst we gleaned from radio interviews with VLRC representatives prior to the consultation that the public discussions on the potential introduction of a new form \u2018medical marijuana\u2019 (different to existing medicinal forms of cannabis derived pharmaceuticals already in the Australian market) were not for changing laws to suit a particular agenda. It was instead implied that the purpose was to look at potential redundancies that might hinder best practice.\u00a0 It was to be, for all intents and purposes an unbiased mechanism to: glean evidence, perspectives, opinions and ideas from the general public for consideration in the higher and more important discussion of wise, evidence based, best healthcare practice before making any move on the release of another version of therapeutic cannabis.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conversely, our affiliate\/colleagues experience of the very small Melbourne consultation did not reflect any of the above expectation. Rather those of our affiliates who attended observed the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A seemingly deliberately emotively charged atmosphere, in favour of getting cannabis legalised for medical purposes. The tone seemed to be set to that end from the outset.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. The meeting was facilitated by representatives of the VLRC who appeared to have a bias toward the legalisation of \u2018medical marijuana\u2019 in manner that suited the self-medicating option, regardless of evidence based science.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. When attempts were made to present evidence contrary to the seemingly predetermined agenda of these facilitators, they were either quickly shut down (if they dared to speak in the first place) or continually ignored; apparently, dissenting opinions were not welcome. Whilst at the same time, proponents for \u2018self-medication\u2019 use of cannabis were given complete and unfettered access to the floor, producing statements such as:<\/span>\u201cMany, many people have been cured \u2013 from just about anything and everything.\u201d<\/span>
    \n\u201cWhat would you rather have \u2013 infertility or 35 seizures a day?\u201d<\/span>
    \n\u201cRandom workplace drug testing is wrong.\u201d<\/span>Not only are these statements (now on record) outrageous, they are also utterly unsubstantiated by any legitimate clinical trial. This very small contingent of pro-cannabis lobbyists were permitted to simply spruik anecdotes with no evidence based presentation yet also had their evidenced-deprived opinions affirmed and validated by the facilitators.<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. The facilitators appeared to infer that the Government (of Victoria, at least) already has legislation in place with this current \u2018consultation\u2019 process simply in play to validate those changes and therefore it is in essence a forgone conclusion. There was also a strong indication that either the A.M.A. or T.G.A. recommendations or processes would be ignored and negated wherever possible by simple legal changes.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Senator, it is a concern that if this particular experience of ours was repeated in other consultations with the same consensus manufacturing agenda, then this consultative process is a travesty.<\/span><\/p>\n

    If a government negates not only good evidence based science, but also established protective, best practice medical processes to enable a legal rite of passage for self-medication, it is placing itself at an extremely high risk of litigation. Future law-suits are likely, from the \u2018victims\u2019 of self-medicating regimes who will cite the changes in law that were NOT based on proper clinical trial or TGA and AMA recommendations and protocols.\u00a0 When emotionally charged vitriol combines with vote chasing and misguided sympathies, it is the recipients of these untested substances that will be the final casualties \u2013 especially children! Compassion and wisdom dictate that all fair and democratic processes be engaged to maximise help and minimise harm, especially to children who will be the ones at greatest risk of an ill-advised self-medicating regime.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Senator, for purposes of clarification about the possible national legalisation of \u2018another\u2019 route\/process\/protocol for medicines are you able to confirm or deny that:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The representations by the facilitators at the Melbourne consultation are in fact reflective of the pre-ordained intent of the public consultation documented above in not only Victoria, but other States and Territories?<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. If not, will a review of the practice\/method\/behaviours be made into this particular process and subsequently the clearly questionable recommendations that have emerged from such narrow, non-evidence based and seemingly biased processes?<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. A fair and proper representation of all views on this matter be gleaned from these meetings\/consultations and interpreted and represented fairly without prejudice?<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. A.M.A. and T.G.A. processes and protocols for best practice on medicines will be upheld and engaged, or simply ignored and by-passed?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Finally Senator, it is of grave concern that a pattern seems to be emerging from this \u2018populist\u2019 process, that best practice, evidence based protocols may simply be ignored and by passed.\u00a0 If this is indeed the plan and the use of VLRC type agencies is the vehicle to do so, then the following must be raised.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The Dalgarno Institute ask:<\/span><\/p>\n