Patients’ Access to Medical Cannabis in Australia and the United States

Abstract

This article aims to publish part of the research report in the project “Law and Policy on the Cannabis Use for Medical Purposes and Regulatory Measures”. The report was written when cannabis was still a drug under Thai law and the drug laws were amended to allow cannabis to be used for medical purposes. Nevertheless, the amended rules lacked clarity and imposed limitations on access to medical cannabis in certain respects. Therefore, the research was carried out to study policies, laws, and mechanisms that regulate the use of medical cannabis in other countries so as to gather academic information that could support the development of Thai laws on this matter. This article is written to present some of the information from the research report. It specifically describes the measures that regulate patients’ access to medical cannabis, as these measures in Thailand are still unclear due to the free cannabis policy that does not define cannabis as a drug, causing any access to medical cannabis fall outside appropriate regulating mechanisms. The presentation of this information is therefore beneficial for formulating rules and mechanisms that are appropriate for patients whose access to medical cannabis is of medical necessity in Thailand.

This article is divided into four parts. The first part discusses the necessity for appropriate measures to control access to medical cannabis in Thailand. The second part explains the rules and mechanisms that regulate access to medical cannabis in two countries, namely, California and Colorado in the United States and Queensland and Australian Capital Territory in Australia. The third part compares the rules and mechanisms that are described in the second part, in order to illustrate their similarities and differences. The last part summarizes the key points of this article and suggests which countries’ regulatory measures Thailand should adopt so as to restrict access to cannabis to only medical purposes.

This article shows that difference in the fundamental ideas of regulating access to medical cannabis has resulted in different rules and mechanisms between these two countries, with respect to the nature of regulation, the nature of rules, and the persons who have a key role in accessing medical cannabis. Given the similarities between these two countries, cannabis is defined as a drug by their laws and is regulated to prevent cannabis from being used for purposes other than treatment, while patients’ access medical cannabis is facilitated. This article eventually suggests that, if Thailand intends to restrict access to cannabis to only medical purposes, it should categorize cannabis as a Class-5 drug and impose additional rules to ensure that medical cannabis is accessed within appropriate limits. It should also adopt Australia’s approach for regulating medical cannabis and prohibit patients from growing cannabis themselves.