New Zealand removes cannabis medicines from political influence

New Zealand government ministers will no longer be involved in approving applications for cannabis-based medicines after delegating the authority to the Ministry of Health.

The move follows a long public campaign for better access to cannabis-based treatments that included a former Council of Trade Unions leader when she was terminally ill with cancer.

Campaigners had claimed that ministers, who were previously responsible for making such decisions, could be swayed by political, rather than medical, considerations over the use of cannabis-based drugs

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said Wednesday that the ministry was taking over decisions on applications to prescribe non-pharmaceutical cannabis-based products.

After the delegation of decision-making on pharmaceutical grade cannabis products "some years ago," ministerial approval was no longer necessary for all cannabis-based treatments, Dunne said in a statement.

Dunne said he had previously believed ministerial approval was appropriate "rather than exposing officials to risk, given the complicated and contentious nature of the issue."

However, guidelines had since been developed and simplified to give specialists "a clear, straight-forward and unobstructed pathway to acquiring the appropriate products."

He expected medical professionals consider the prescribing of cannabis-based products with an open mind.

"I also intend to include a list of internationally available cannabis-based products that are either pharmaceutical grade or Good Manufacturing Practice certified, to provide additional clarity on the issue," Dunne said.

Paul Smith, professor of neuropharmacology at the University of Otago, said the move was a positive step that brought New Zealand into line with many other countries such as the United States.

However, cannabis-based medicines were not "magic bullets," Smith said in a statement.

"The evidence that they work for some conditions like neuropathic pain is not entirely consistent or convincing, but they do appear to help some people. So, it is a question of benefit versus burden for a particular condition," he said.

"In the case of terminal illness, there is not much reason to have concerns because the harm will be minimal and the patient may benefit." Endit