It seems that anyone who’s anyone in the world of health and wellness has an opinion on medicinal cannabis - so here’s ours. Before we look at whether or not the widespread use of medicinal cannabis for a wide variety of conditions is a feasible option, let’s start with the most confusing element of all – the upcoming referendum on the personal use of marijuana.

After the 2017 general election, the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour Party and the Green Party included an obligation for the government to undertake a referendum on cannabis law reform. This agreement was to "Increase funding for alcohol and drug addiction services and ensure drug use is treated as a health issue" and "have a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis at, or by, the 2020 general election". This agreement followed on from statements made by the Green Party in December 2016, that if it formed a government in the 2017 election it would legalise cannabis. "Under its proposal, people would be able to legally grow and possess marijuana for personal use". The party would also "urgently amend the law so sick people using medicinal marijuana were not penalised."

Two different debates = maximum confusion

The thing is, the referendum on recreational cannabis and the sale of medicinal cannabis are, and should continue to be, two completely different debates. 

People will vote on the recreational cannabis referendum based on issues around personal freedoms, the benefits of decriminalisation, their personal desire to get whacked at the weekend or any number of other reasons.

The Drug Foundation’s recent campaign has highlighted this point even more, and here is where the lines get blurry. We believe that the Foundation is acting with the interests of the wider community in mind, but the reference in their campaign to a positive vote in the referendum leading to improved access to medicinal use of cannabis needs to be challenged. In fact, it has been, and although the Advertising Standards Authority found in favour of the campaign overall, there was a split vote on the issue of improved access for medicinal use.

We favour the view of the minority in this case – “The minority said it was misleading to include the statement that the reform of cannabis legislation “could give those that would benefit from medicinal treatment much better access”. This is because the referendum is about the control and regulation of cannabis, including how people can produce, supply, or consume cannabis. The Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill, which has already been drafted, does not cover medicinal cannabis, hemp, driving while impaired or workplace health and safety issues. These are covered by existing laws. Medicinal cannabis is already legal under the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme. The minority said the inclusion of a reference to medicinal treatment serves to blur the issues in a way that is likely to confuse consumers”

The issue of Medsafe registering well researched brands of medicinal cannabis is far more pertinent to wider access.

Will medicinal cannabis be The El Dorado We’ve been promised? 

Helius, the company that has made the most noise in this space, has a much more optimistic (perhaps Pollyannaish) view than we do of patient access to the drug. The Medicinal Cannabis Scheme introduced by the Ministry of Health that come into being on April 1 2020 – (yes, April Fool’s Day), was designed to “increase access to medicinal cannabis products, through increasing the supply of products by establishing a licencing regime enabling the cultivating of cannabis in New Zealand and the manufacture and supply of medicinal cannabis products made to quality standards”. For the Scheme to meet these objectives, it must deliver quality products to patients and be commercially sustainable – let’s see how that goes.

Will medicinal cannabis work?

Renowned medical researcher, speaker, blogger and author, Shaun Holt has recently published an excellent beginners guide to the subject, simply named “Medicinal Cannabis”. Shaun is a proponent for medicinal cannabis but he is also very true to his long stated views that for any health product to be taken seriously, there needs to be some serious research to back it up. That’s the issue here, the body of evidence is getting bigger all the time, but it’s not vast. 

Medsafe are well known for their conservatism (long may that continue), so approved indications are likely to be only those where the evidence points to a positive outcome, and only in certain patient groups. Our view is it will be available, but maybe not as widely as some are proporting.

Who will pay? and how much?

Then there’s the issue of PHARMAC. Will they fund multiple brands? – No chance. Will they fund just one brand? – Possibly but the price they’re prepared to pay may not meet the individual companies’ business plans. It’s likely it will be completely unfunded so the cost will have to be borne by the patient. In that case, will they pay the asking price or call 0800 Green Fairies and get a bag of dope? Time will tell. And then of course how will that funding (or lack of) it affect local business, where the patient’s ability and desire to pay is the limiting factor to the top line.

Perhaps The Green Party have a line of funding yet to be unveiled, but we doubt it. The benefits of funding medical cannabis will be weighed up against the many other worthy pharmaceuticals already in the PHARMAC system, and as we know, that system does not move rapidly.

and let’s not forget the gp

From a marketing perspective, the key target audience and battleground will be general practice. We don’t know what the final classification will be, but it is likely to preclude DTC advertising. So, as exciting as this new category is, the marketing battle will be based on some grand old principals set in stone by various industry codes and by years of experience talking to doctors. 

You’ll need good science, a point of difference and compelling creative – sounds easy, but a few of the new players in the medical cannabis game will have to school up on the dos and don’ts of effective medical comms, or risk being ignored. (Of course that’s our bread and butter – check it out here).