finalfullthesisdjpotter

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 1 Introduction as ideal settings for such research. This option was further supported by the observation that mixtures of the cannabinoid THC and the opiate morphine had exhibited synergistic analgesic activity (Cichewicz, 2004). To facilitate trials it was stated that the World Health Organisation should advise the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs to reschedule certain cannabinoids under the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and in response the Home Office should alter the Misuse of Drugs Act accordingly. In the absence of such action from the WHO, the government was advised to consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow prescription of cannabinoids to patients. In the light of heightened interest in cannabis, and particularly the report by the BMA and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (HLSCST) under the chairmanship of Lord Perry, was requested to examine the scientific and medical evidence to determine if there was a case for relaxing some of the existing restrictions on the medical uses of cannabis (HLSCST, 1998a, b). The Committee considered was that if there is a clinical benefit accruing from the use of cannabis or one of its constituents, then it should be regarded as a medicinal substance. Legally, under the Medicines Act, medicinal substances could only be supplied properly if they have been assessed by the Medicines Control Agency (now the Medicines Health Regulatory Agency – MHRA) and a license issued by the regulatory authority. It very strongly recommended that government should provide an environment in which interested parties could research and develop cannabis-based medicines. If their quality, safety and efficacy were adequately demonstrated, the developers should be allowed to apply for a Medicines Act License and supply the product on prescription. One stated criticism of an otherwise excellent report was that the BMA had focused on single molecules. As pointed out, herbal cannabis contains a mixture of active compounds, more than one of which possibly contributed to the therapeutic action. Sensible patients who appeared to be benefitting from herbal cannabis did not report an equal benefit when given just one of the active ingredients. Possible synergy between active compounds was a possible explanation. The action of herbal cannabis itself still needed definition (Wall, 1998). 1.6 International Legal Attitudes to Medicinal Cannabis The United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Schedule IV made cannabis the subject of special restrictions 1961. Article 2 stated that individual countries should protect their public using whatever means were regarded appropriate according to conditions prevailing in their country. Protection of the public could necessitate 11
Chapter 1 Introduction prohibition of the production, manufacture, export or import, trade in or possession of any such drug - except for amounts which may be necessary for medical and scientific research only (including clinical trails). In some countries it could be felt appropriate to tolerate the possession of small quantities of the drug for recreational use. In 1998, the UK legal regime regarding medicinal use of cannabis could be described as one of the most restrictive in the world (HLSCST, 1998a). The following review of the international legal status is not intended to be comprehensive, but describes the history and current situation in a number of major countries. 1.6.1 USA In the early 19 th Century physicians in the USA (the world’s largest pharmaceutical market) prescribed cannabis freely and several preparations were widely available. In 1894 the Indian Hemp Commission Report talked favourably of cannabis drugs and recommended that cannabis should be controlled through taxation and regulation rather than prohibition. However, as in Europe, newly discovered opiate-based drugs were eclipsing cannabis as a medicine and its use declined. Through the early 20 th Century recreational cannabis use in the States was commonly linked with hard-drug addiction, and it came to be increasingly regarded as an unwelcome practise favoured by undesirable elements in society. (Bonnie and Whitebread, 1970). In the 1930s Harry J Anslinger, the first commissioner of the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics, cultivated society’s belief that cannabis threatened to destroy the country’s moral fabric. One result of this was the introduction in 1937 of the Marijuana Tax Act, which placed such draconian burdens on those attempting to use cannabis for medicinal purposes that its use almost ceased. During the 1960s opinions in the States were beginning to change. President Nixon appointed The Shafer National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse to review US policy and their subsequent report, entitled Marijuana, a Signal of Misunderstanding 1972, recommended a relaxation in the laws controlling cannabis use. Little changed however. President Nixon had declared a ‘War on Drugs’ and he rejected the report before even reading it (Russo, 2003). A number of patients with a firm belief in medicinal cannabis remained outspoken and one of these Robert Randall successfully brought a suit against the Federal Government seeking medically supervised access to cannabis. Citing ‘Compassionate Use’ he and others were granted legal access to ‘research grade material’ grown under government supervision in Mississippi. In 1983 thirty four States had enacted legislation making cancer and glaucoma patients eligible to apply for medicinal 12
Page 1 and 2: THE PROPAGATION, CHARACTERISATION A
Page 3 and 4: Cannabis sativa L cv Gayle CBD Chem
Page 5 and 6: List of Publications Potter, D.J.,
Page 7 and 8: CHAPTER 2 CHARACTERISATION OF ILLIC
Page 9 and 10: 3.5.3 Effect of capitate stalked tr
Page 11 and 12: 5.4.2.7 Plant Weight Assessment ...
Page 13 and 14: 6.7.3.4. Effect of Harvest Date and
Page 15 and 16: Figure 2.4. (a) A herb grinder in c
Page 17 and 18: Figure 3.11. (a) Secretory cells st
Page 19 and 20: Figure 3.23. The mean CBN content (
Page 21 and 22: Figure 5.12. Effect of Daylength on
Page 23 and 24: List of Tables Table 1.1. Examples
Page 25 and 26: Table 4.9. The cannabinoid profile
Page 27 and 28: Table 6.6. A comparison of the terp
Page 29 and 30: CBDA Cannabidiolic acid CBG Cannabi
Page 31 and 32: xxx
Page 33 and 34: Chapter 1 Introduction According to
Page 35 and 36: Chapter 1 Introduction commenced cl
Page 37 and 38: Chapter 1 Introduction Pakistan to
Page 39 and 40: Chapter 1 Introduction containing a
Page 41: Chapter 1 Introduction 1999a). Most
Page 45 and 46: Chapter 1 Introduction GW Pharmaceu
Page 47 and 48: Chapter 1 Introduction proportion o
Page 49 and 50: Chapter 1 Introduction cannabigerov
Page 51 and 52: Chapter 1 Introduction monoterpenes
Page 53 and 54: Chapter 1 Introduction endocannabin
Page 55 and 56: Chapter 1 Introduction glutamate ot
Page 57 and 58: Chapter 1 Introduction Six, the dif
Page 59 and 60: Chapter 2 Characterisation of Illic
Page 79 and 80: Chapter 3. Cannabis trichome form,
Page 93 and 94:
Chapter 3. Cannabis trichome form,
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Chapter 4. The Function and Exploit
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Chapter 5. Indoor Propagation of Me
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Chapter 6. The Outdoor Propagation
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Chapter 7 General Discussion Chapte
Page 207 and 208:
Chapter 7 General Discussion be at
Page 209 and 210:
Chapter 7 General Discussion to be
Page 211 and 212:
Chapter 7 General Discussion photos
Page 213 and 214:
Chapter 7 General Discussion that a
Page 215 and 216:
Chapter 7 General Discussion who ha
Page 217 and 218:
References Baker, R., 2002. Commerc
Page 219 and 220:
References Cerniak, L., 1985. The G
Page 221 and 222:
References Dayanandan, P. & Kaufman
Page 223 and 224:
References Fairbairn, J.W., 1972. T
Page 225 and 226:
References Ghosal, S., Singh, S., B
Page 227 and 228:
References Henderson, S.M., 1973. E
Page 229 and 230:
References Johnson, J.R. and Potts,
Page 231 and 232:
References Mahlberg, P.G., Hammond,
Page 233 and 234:
References de Meijer, E.D.M., 1994.
Page 235 and 236:
References Page, C.P., Hoffman, B.,
Page 237 and 238:
References Raman, A.R., 1998. The C
Page 239 and 240:
References Russo, E. B., Jiang, H.
Page 241 and 242:
References Struik, P.C., Amaducci,
Page 243 and 244:
References UNODC. United Nations Of
Page 245 and 246:
References Wilkinson, T. J., 2006.
Page 247 and 248:
Appendix 8.1 Analysis of cannabinoi
Page 249 and 250:
Appendix 8.1 Analysis of cannabinoi
Page 251 and 252:
Appendix 8.2 Analysis of terpene co
Page 253 and 254:
Appendix 8.3 A Comparison of the St
Page 255:
Appendix 8.5 Definitions of Social
show all

finalfullthesisdjpotter

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?