How cannabis-based drugmaker GW cracked US

GW Pharmaceutical’s efforts to develop medicines from cannabis, and win the approval of regulators, are paying off.


The earliest comments on this article are noteworthy; below is one from David Raynes…

“Jayelle Farmer & Peter Reynolds, both seem to campaign, each in their own way, for cannabis to be fully legalised for what is referred to as “recreational use”.

So we should be entitled to be suspicious when, while supporting “Medipot” they each attack GW Pharmaceuticals for producing standardized cannabis based prescribable medicines and also attack UK Governments for being far sighted enough to license that scientific process.

The two also seem to be at daggers drawn, as can be seen by Googling this expression, Jayelle Farmer + Peter Reynolds. The vituperative exchanges are astonishing, even entertaining. There is a lot out there.

Reynolds seems to be absolutely hated by other drug legalization lobbyists.

What is going on?

Well the Medipot debate about pharmaceutical quality standardized products has, I suggest, been high jacked, to be used in the promotion of general drug legalization. Just as it was in the US.

It is viewed by activists as “The Trojan Horse” that will get cannabis legalized.

This is no way to decide on medicine and no way to take advantage of some sick people.

Reynolds talks about a “confidence trick”. it looks very much as though he is engaged in a giant one. He also speaks one thing in one place and another here.

On Friday last, I debated medical cannabis with Peter Reynolds on BBC Wales. Here at this link for another 5 days:…

About 20 minutes into the program Reynolds says absolutely clearly and without equivocation that :

“Sativex Is an excellent product”

The UK has a rigorous scientific system for determining what is and what is not a suitable medicine, in what dose & when a drug should not be prescribed (e.g. during pregnancy) etc etc

The products that come through this system are of known quality. Doctors can prescribe with reasonable certainty, the products can be reviewed for efficacy, by the National Institute for Clinical ,Excellence (NICE).

It is a pretty good system, possibly as good as any such in the world, but even then it goes wrong e.g Thalidomide.

What Reynolds wants it seems, despite his high praise for Sativex and implicitly the manufacturing process, is a special plea for raw cannabis.


He debated wider cannabis legalisation at Exeter University with me and Peter Hitchens against him. He lost.

Raw cannabis is pretty nasty stuff, with high potential for abuse, for addiction, for damage, particularly mental damage. If cannabis based medicine is to be developed, surely it make sense to do that with proper scientific tests and controls.

Why should raw cannabis be a special case?”