Okay guys, thanks for enlightening me. The "advertisements" have presumably gone, so hopefully the cannabiniod companies now know where the line is drawn between providing public information on what they do, and promoting the product that they make. I'm happy to agree with all contributors here that non-compliance with the law was careless and don't defend that.
One of the reasons I am a shareholder (and maybe get a bit worked up) is that I have family members who appreciate the benefits of CBD oil (with or without THC) for a range of disorders, evidently without the side effects or addictiveness associated with other drugs they have tried. Some of these people have had to outlay over $300 to find an authorised doctor and buy a 50mL bottle of the stuff. I could do much more damage to my health with any number of over-the-counter drugs, herbal remedies, supplements, alcohol, tobacco, fatty food or sugary drinks which aren't on the TGA hit list (yet). To me it seems odd that the TGA can cave to pressure to fast-track certification of "pop-up" Covid-19 vaccines of dubious benefit and safety in under six months, and yet cannabinoid products whose medicinal benefits have been known for a few thousand years remain uncertified and are still classified in Australia as Schedule 8 poisons (alongside addictive opioids and opiates). Many other first-world jurisdictions including NZ, Canada and parts of the USA seem to have eased access to cannabinoids without catastrophic consequences, in the latter case possibly to alleviate a tsunami of opiate abuse which has seen the withdrawal of OxyContin. If Australia's failure to do so yet is not because someone is sitting on their hands, it may be because big pharma have tied them together.Thanks for the TGA link. How reassuring to see that "Ensuring compliance with the import, advertising and supply requirements of the Act in relation to medicinal cannabis is a priority for the TGA". It smacks a bit as though the revenue stream from cannabinoids is more important than their assessment and approval.Thanks for the Therapeutic Goods Act link. This is an incredibly turgid document of 300+ pages dating back to a time when nearly half of Australia's present population weren't even born. The Act seems to include warning provisions, which if bypassed by the TGA in this instance may increase the possibility of successful appeals. Section 42DLB(1) which the companies apparently ran foul of is near the middle; the wording is the same as Section 42DL(2) and also 42DL(3) above it, although penalties under these sections for evidently identical offences vary from a slap on the wrist to a year in jail. How any sane person is intended to interpret this gobbledegook is beyond me.You seem to support the TGA position that GPs should be the sole source of medicinal information and that their patients should bow in ignorance for the benefit of their wisdom; I don't. There are plenty of inexperienced, ignorant or just obstinate GPs out there who would hesitate to recommend anything that didn't come with a big pharma label, and just as many patients who know what works (and doesn't work) for them without having to "demand" it from the GP that they manage to see when they run out of it. In some ways it would be healthier if patients could see the advertising and incentives that doctors are exposed to, so as to make the entire process more transparent and less corruptible. A distinction could usefully be made between unsolicited "in your face" paid advertising in TV, magazines, billboards, etc and that which is presented to someone looking for relevant information on a company website, as in these cases. In any case, safeguards are available under consumer protection and trade practices legislation.
All just MHO.
Expand
