u/HandsFreeWeeWee

I had an appointment with Dr Apfel at Curaleaf. I was happy with the previous prescription since I now understand the nonirridated problem but wanted to start reducing doses. He was trying to encourage me to order more often and increase the strength of THC. This sounds like the clinics giving kick backs to the doctors for meeting quotas of how much to give each patient. Im shaking and anxious afterwards cos I hate any conflict even when not arguing. My usual doctor Mari wasnt available and I was forced to see him to try to make a change to my meds.

I had my review today and asked to try Cereal Milk by Mamedica. It was refused cos I have severe asthma and the doctor told me its not clean enough to be imported for vaporising and is imported to be used as a tea with boiling water but some clinics are giving these out for vaporising anyway.

Is this actually true and how do clinics get away with this? Has anyone else been prescribed non irradiated strains with asthma?

EDIT

Ok so I plugged this into chat GPT:

In UK medical cannabis, the debate around irradiated vs non-irradiated flower is more complex than simply “clean vs unclean”.

Medical cannabis flower exists in a regulatory grey area between a pharmaceutical inhalation product and a herbal medicinal product. Because of this, non-irradiated cannabis is often assessed using European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) herbal medicine microbiological standards, particularly chapter 5.1.8.

These standards were originally designed for herbal medicinal products and allow higher microbial limits than would typically be accepted for conventional inhaled pharmaceutical products.

This becomes important because cannabis flower is commonly vaporised. Some clinics and pharmacies therefore take the view that products intended for inhalation should meet stricter microbiological expectations, particularly due to concerns around moulds, yeasts and organisms such as Aspergillus, which may pose a greater risk when inhaled directly into the lungs.

Irradiation is one method used to reduce microbial contamination and improve consistency. However, there is currently no UK regulation stating that non-irradiated cannabis cannot be prescribed for vaporisation, and many non-irradiated products continue to be legally prescribed for inhalation across the UK and Europe.

The real debate is therefore not whether non-irradiated flower is automatically “unsafe”, but how inhaled cannabis should be regulated and what microbiological standards are appropriate for a botanical medicinal product.

Second edit

A key issue in the irradiated vs non-irradiated cannabis debate is the difference between European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) chapters 5.1.8 and 5.1.4.

Ph. Eur. 5.1.8 applies to oral herbal medicinal products. These are naturally derived plant products and the standards accept that some low-level microbial presence is unavoidable. The permitted microbial limits are therefore less strict.

Ph. Eur. 5.1.4 applies to non-sterile pharmaceutical products and generally uses much tighter microbiological limits, particularly for products intended for inhalation. This reflects the increased risk of delivering contaminants directly into the lungs.

Non-irradiated cannabis flower may meet 5.1.8 standards while not necessarily meeting the stricter expectations associated with 5.1.4 inhalation-style pharmaceutical standards.

This is why some clinics and pharmacies prefer irradiated flower for vaporisation: irradiation helps reduce yeast, mould and bacterial counts to levels more compatible with stricter inhalation-focused standards.

However, there is currently no simple UK rule stating that non-irradiated cannabis cannot be vaporised. Different clinics, manufacturers and regulators interpret the appropriate standard differently because cannabis flower sits somewhere between a herbal product and an inhaled medicine.

This all makes sense to me now and TBH I dont think I want to use the dirtier stuff. Ive been on ITU once and dont want to return again. Hopefully its useful to someone else.