6 minute read
Should Cannabis be Legalised for Medicinal Purposes?
key difference here is that these protests are directly attacking politics. They are hard to ignore with such huge turnout despite COVID-19 and harsh police retaliations. Indeed, they threaten to drastically change Poland’s structure of power, because they call for greater equality and inclusion of women and minorities in policy making rather than the patriarchal system which is currently in place.
Advertisement
By Ria Patel, Year 12 North London Collegiate
Cannabis is a psychotropic drug that stems from a cannabis plant and is used predominantly for recreational purposes. However, as many studies and investigations have suggested, there
has been an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to the pain relief properties of the drug. It has been proven by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that cannabis can minimise the symptoms that patients experience.
Over recent years there have been demands for governments to legalise the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Globally, countries have adopted differing regulations regarding the legalisation of cannabis; some states have opted for legalising its recreational and medicinal usage, some have only chosen to legalise its medicinal practices and some states have refused to legalise any form of cannabis and instead those involved in such substances will be severely punished due to the draconian laws.
Those who oppose the use of cannabinoids argue that the drug leads to a slippery slope effect as it is considered a gateway drug to far more harmful substances. People also claim that it can lead to patients facing an addiction as people become reliant on the psychoactive effects which the THC accounts for. However, due to the fact that the proportion of CBD is far higher than that of THC, it means that there are less psychoactive effects, signifying that the use of cannabis in medicine would be regulated more than its counterpart that is being sold illegally.
Moreover, supporters of using cannabis to ease pain argue that it is a safer alternative to using painkillers, which a myriad of research has also suggested. Pain killers can be addictive, which can cause many complications such as gastrointestinal issues, blindness, allergic reactions, organ failure, or internal bleeding. There is a possibility that it could even end fatally due to an overdose. Medical cannabis allows for patients to be able to reap the benefits by controlling the
symptoms one endures without the added concern regarding addiction, overdose, or serious side effects which could be identified with a pharmaceutical drug. Pain killers like Morphine or Oxycodone contain opioids, which can be addictive and fatal, insinuating that it is a riskier alternative.
The legalisation of cannabis will automatically lead to regulation but it does not necessarily mean that there will be an increase in the recreational use of the drug. Despite the absence of an approval of the FDA in the US, state legislatures have allowed the use of cannabis and CBD for medical treatment in 33 states. The legislatures require a recommendation or prescription from a licensed physician by law and since its introduction in Colorado, the state has seen a rapid decline in the illicit cannabis market. People looking for cannabis, as a means of pain relief, are often forced to turn to the black market. By legalising the drug, it would also result in a decrease in activity on 60
the black market, which could reduce violence associated with it as well as improve the tax structure surrounding the product. Boosting the industry leads to industrial growth, allowing for the more employment via the distribution and the cultivation of the drug, more jobs surrounding research and development and in terms of legal changes and agreeing on the official legal framework. Not only could it bring medical benefits but benefits to communities by providing employment. Therefore, cannabis should be legalised as the benefits outweigh the risks and concerns associated with the drug.
Prescription Drug Prices: Who is Responsible?
By Talya Samji, Year 12 North London Collegiate
Prescription drug prices in America are known to be significantly higher than other OCED member states and there has been much debate over who should be held accountable for the exponentially rising prices. Whilst many argue that the pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the increase in prescription drug prices, other believe that it should be within the government’s role to control and regulate prices to make them affordable for the 130 million Americans that require them in their daily lives. During the run up to the Presidential Election, 62% of Americans said that healthcare is the most or second-most important issue. As a result of the high prices of prescription drugs, people are forced to ration their medication which can be life
threatening or even travel to Canada because they are unable to afford the medication in America.
Figure 1 shows spending per capita on drugs of a variety of countries, showing America to be drastically ahead of other countries
In United States, laws state that drug patents can be extended if the drug is slightly altered or changed, implying that the drug does not need to be improved to apply for an extension of the patent. The majority of drug patents in America are owned by the three leading pharmaceutical companies Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis. The Washington Post in 2018 found that "78% of drugs … with new patents were not new drugs", highlighting that pharmaceutical manufacturers are not improving medicines, only slightly altering the drug to block out competition; this strategy is called 'evergreening'. Not only does this result in reduced competition, not stimulating to the economy, but it means also that 62
when one company raises prices, the other two follow, which results in millions of Americans spending an unsustainable amount of money on medication which they need to survive.
Whilst pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that the price of prescription drugs has gone up, they do not think that they are reason it has. They blame PBMs (Pharmacy Benefit Managers), their role is difficult to explain, but the easiest moniker to give them is middlemen, although PBMs dislike that term. They negotiate with health insurance providers to determine how much a customer should pay, but often it cheaper for a customer to purchase the medication 'out of pocket' instead of having their health insurance provider to pay for a portion. As they determine the actual price the majority of customers pay, it is easy to see why many think that they are responsible for the increase in drug prices.
Finally, in July of 2020, after much time of declaring that the cost of prescription drugs is too high and pledging to bring them down, President Trump announced and Action Plan to lower drugs costs for patients. This was enacted in late September, the HHS (Health and Human Services) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) stated that this Action Plan is "to help provide safe, effective, and more affordable drugs to American patients as part of the Safe Importation Action Plan, fulfilling the aspect of the July Executive Order on drug pricing to complete the rulemaking to allow states to import certain prescription drugs from Canada." (FDA) This legislation "describes two pathways to provide safe, lower cost drugs to consumers." The first would save money by allowing companies to import drugs from Canada that are FDA approved and the second would also allow the import of FDA approved drugs that are the 63
same as the US versions. However, this Safe Important Action Plan does not deal with the issue of either pharmaceutical companies or PBMs
These two pathways would make America more reliant on other nations for something so basic which America should be able to produce cost effectively and sell at a reasonable price similar to other OCED countries. Perhaps the Trump administration could have been more creative and 'hands-on' when lowering drug costs. This issue is very close to many Americans' hearts and might not be dealt with so eagerly at the start of Biden's administration because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and Biden and Xavier Becerra (Biden's elected Health Secretary) will have to decide what to prioritise.
