Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

The term "expertise" has been used a lot. What specific experience, knowledge or expertise do the Department of Health officials or the PSI representatives have in the area of medicinal cannabis, research in that area or clinical expertise in the specific area of medicinal cannabis products? My understanding - I am happy to be contradicted - is that they have no such knowledge, expertise or experience. Also, what specific experience, knowledge or expertise does the HPRA have in the area of medicinal cannabis products because it has cited none in its report and to my knowledge it has none. Again, I am happy to be contradicted.

Why do the Department of Health recommendations run counter to the evidence provided by people who have extensive knowledge and expertise in the area of medicinal cannabis, namely, Professor Mike Barnes, consultant neurologist, professor of neurological rehabilitation and author of the authoritative report on medicinal cannabis for the UK Parliament. According to Professor Barnes the evidence is strongest for the efficacy of medicinal cannabis in the area of pain whereas the so-called access programme being proposed excludes this cohort. Professor Mike Barnes and Professor David Finn, who has spent 16 years researching the area of medicinal cannabis, say that this is the area where the evidence is strongest yet this is the area excluded by the access programme.

I would like an explanation for how that could be the case.

Could the witnesses explain what they will do for the 800,000 people in Ireland who suffer from chronic pain, of whom 40% do not get relief from existing authorised pain killers, according to Professor David Finn. Do the witnesses believe it is acceptable that cohort, a very significant number of people who get no relief from existing authorised pain killers, should continue to be criminalised for using medicinal cannabis products? If we adopt the witnesses' recommendations, that will be the case. They will be criminals. They are currently criminals and they will stay criminals. Do the witnesses think that is acceptable?

How would the witnesses respond to a survey of GPs in this country which showed that 58.6% of GPs, the people who do not regulate and do not sell medicine but who actually prescribe it and are medical professionals, favour the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal use. An even higher proportion of GPs with advanced addiction specialist training level 2 agreed or agreed strongly that cannabis should be decriminalised, bringing the percentage to 60%. Do the Department of Health, the PSI and the HPRA think they know better than GPs, particularly GPs who specialise in the area of addiction? I put it to them that they do not. I find it incomprehensible that they are second-guessing them.

Could the witnesses tell us what they have done to look into the five other EU countries, subject to the same EU directives in terms of the regulation of medicines, which have adopted legislation similar to that proposed by Deputy Gino Kenny allowing for wide access to medicinal cannabis based on the prescription of certification of GPs and not requiring consultants? Could they confirm that consultants have no legal status in Irish law?

Could they tell us how many people die from products that are authorised pain killers or other drugs authorised by the HPRA, specifically benzodiazepines and opiates, every year in Ireland? That would be useful. Following that, could they then tell us how many people are known to have died from medicinal cannabis products anywhere, in Ireland or elsewhere? We have testimony from Professors Mike Barnes and David Finn that the side effects of medicinal cannabis products, and they acknowledge there were some, were moderate. Is that how they would describe the potential side effects or adverse consequences of the misuse of drugs that are already authorised, particularly opiates and benzodiazepines? How do they square that circle, or inconsistency, that we already regulate, authorise and sell drugs that are toxic, that kill people and that are regularly misused but that we propose to have a higher level of restriction on a medicinal product which although it may have some side effects, there is no evidence they are anywhere as serious as the effects of drugs already authorised and sold in chemists up and down the country on the basis of a GP's prescription?

Some red-herrings have been thrown into this debate. Could the Department of Health confirm that we have stated repeatedly in both public and private meetings, in the Dáil and elsewhere, that we are more than willing to amend this Bill in many of the areas on which concern has been raised. For example, we would be quite happy - in fact, we agree - that the Minister of Health is the Minister who should be referred to. The reason we referred to the Minister for Justice was because of the current criminalisation. All we want with this Bill is one that will allow access to people who could medically benefit from cannabis products on the recommendation, or prescription if people want to change it to that, of a medical professional and that it would be regulated. There would be continuous research in the area on an ongoing basis to establish the efficacy, effects and consequences of medicinal cannabis use. That is the centrepiece of this Bill. We are quite willing to consider amendments on everything else which has been raised, whether on penalties or on where in the Schedule it should go, and which are incidental to the central thrust of this Bill which is one to allow medical professionals, not just consultants, but GPs or other medical professionals to be able to prescribe or recommend medical cannabis to any patient who would benefit from it. That is the core of this Bill. Does the Department of Health not know that we are happy to accept amendments? Could it explain why that is problematic?