Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, absolutely, but a suggestion was made that the Bill was immoral in its import, which is an extraordinary statement to make. What is Deputy Kenny's view of comments to the effect that the Bill is immoral and so on? As I understand the Bill, and I have read it, it explicitly states that it will be an offence for people to use cannabis-based products other than on the grounds set out in the Bill. Can Deputy Kenny confirm that? There has been an attempt to suggest that somehow this Bill is a back door for recreational use when, for example, section 14 specifically refers to the prohibition of unlicensed sale of cannabis for medicinal use and the prohibition of unlicensed transportation of cannabis and that all of those things will be offences. Is it not clear that making anything other than the medicinal use of cannabis, as recommended by a doctor and only when recommended by a doctor, is the purpose of this Bill? That is my first question.

Second, much of the muddying of the waters in terms of the Bill centred around the question of possible side effects and unintended consequences, the leakage effect and so on. My question is to the experts. What is their opinion of the potential of all of those to happen with existing drugs, even drugs sold over the counter? For example, Solpadeine, which is sold over the counter, has serious side effects and the potential for addiction, misuse and so on yet that product is authorised. There is also a range of other drugs like anti-depressants and so on which we know are misused on quite a wide scale and potentially have serious side effects. Is there any reason to believe that there should be a different set of criteria and a higher bar set for cannabis based medicinal products than for those drugs that are already sold either over the counter and have not been authorised or that are sold on the basis of people having a prescription? Is there any reason to believe that a higher bar should be set for cannabis-based products?

Do the witnesses know of any authorised products that a general practitioner, GP, cannot currently prescribe and that only a consultant can prescribe? They might tell me what those products are because there seems to be a suggestion here that it is somehow legitimate to say that for cannabis-based medicine we have to have a consultant but for all sorts of other medicines a GP's prescription is fine. As we know, in the case of Vera Twomey, a GP has prescribed it for her daughter but the legal position is such that that GP's prescription is not good enough, given the legal set up here. For the benefit of the public and for the committee, will the witnesses tell us whether this bar in terms of a consultant having to prescribe applies to any other medicine?

With regard to the HPRA report, does Dr. O'Grady find it surprising that there is direct conflict between what it says about cannabis-based products and what Professor Barnes says? The report says that to date, there is an absence of scientific data demonstrating the efficacy of cannabis products. Professor Barnes says the opposite, namely, that they have "found good evidence for one or more of the cannabis products or 'natural' cannabis in the management of chronic pain, including neuropathic pain; spasticity; nausea and vomiting, particularly in the context of chemotherapy; and in the management of anxiety". He goes on to say: "We have found moderate evidence in sleep disorders; appetite stimulation in the context of chemotherapy; fibromyalgia; post-traumatic stress disorder", and some evidence in dementia, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, childhood epilepsy, bladder dysfunction, Tourette's syndrome and so on. He goes on to say that we need more research in those areas. Does Dr. O'Grady have any comment on that contradiction?