.
Does anyone have a link to the new patent informaiton? I've been following GW for years, CO2 extracted honey oil in a spay solution. They mix strains (indica/sativa) to get the cannaboid mixture they want. A guy I know spends $800 a week on Sativex (actually his medical insurance does), a very similar product could be made in the kitchen with a bottle of grape seed oil and a mickey of everclear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqje5StAhCI&feature=related
.
"The drug companies want control, rather than just a ban, for they know the medicinal benefits of marijuana. They have attempted to substitute synthetic derivatives for the raw herb, because the raw herb cannot be patented."
- Ed Rosenthal and Steve Kubby, Why Marijuana Should be Legal.
.
Cannabis: "new" and "distinct"
There are indications that this partnership could allow GW to attempt a medical cannabis monopoly. Even if GW does not move in this direction, some other company will likely do so.
In an interview with Pot-TV, law professor Ikechi Mgbeoji of the University of British Columbia agreed that it was possible that big drug companies could try to patent currently illegal medicinal plants, such as poppies, coca and cannabis. These plants, or extracts thereof, could be reintroduced with the claim that they've been gone from the market long enough to qualify as "new" and "distinct" species under the 1961 Plant Patent Act, and thus be subject to patent law.
Professor Mgbeoji explained: "There is in fact the possibility that, if the use of cannabis is decriminalized, and some of the varieties that had been known to farmers who farmed in secret are now available to those with the means, it is possible that they could lay claims to have discovered these strains... they can in fact apply and obtain plant variety protection."
Attempts have already been made by others to patent the ayahuasca vine (a tool for hallucination and visions), the neem tree (a powerful antibiotic) and tumeric (an anti-inflammation tool and the main ingredient in curry). These attempts to patent natural plants have had varying degrees of success, depending on the amount of opposition.2
Canada's patent law – unlike that in the US – does not allow as much latitude to patent medicinal plants outright. Canada requires some "purification" process here first. Hence, in Canada we will see the THC patented as "Tetranabinex" and CBD patented as "Nabidiolex." The outright strain patent on, say, "Panama Red" would be reserved for the US.
Mgbeoji warned that Bayer could attempt to "'polish up' the cruder aspects of the whole thing [marijuana] and repackage it as a new invention and put a patent on it. The same thing was done with Aspirin."
Monopoly games
The Plant Patent Act was written the same year as the first global drug law – the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs – and may very well be designed to create a medicinal plant monopoly. 1961 was also the year of the Thalidomide scandal – where a synthetic sedative for pregnant mothers (arguably a cannabis substitute) was linked to birth defects in the western world.
This was the origin of the expensive "safety and efficacy tests" that determine if pills (and now herbs) are allowed on the legal market. 1961 may mark the start of the shift away from a medicine monopoly through synthetics, and the start of a medicine monopoly through patents. Who wants to keep all their monopoly money wrapped up in pills when it looks like everyone will soon see that herbs do it cheaper, more effectively and without birth defects?
Incidentally, 1962 was the year Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF established the Codex Alimentarius Commission – an attempt at a monopoly on all the herbs and vitamins.
http://cannazine.co.uk/cannabis-news/united-states/does-the-partnership-of-gw-pharmaceuticals-and-bayer-mean-bad-things-for-the-med-pot-movement.html
.