DHSC FOI-1688183 response 17 April 2026

JBD request: 23 March 2026 · JBD filing reference: FoI_1D1a · Authority case reference: FOI-1688183

Authority case reference

FOI-1688183

Open or download the complete original

Patient information and clinical responsibility

• DHSC FOI-1688183 response 17 April 2026
• GMC IR1-5469823870 response email 16 July 2026

Document text

The complete original retains the page layout and any redactions.

 
 
Freedom of Information Team 
Department of Health and Social Care 
39 Victoria Street 
London SW1H 0EU 
 
www.gov.uk/dhsc 
 
Mr Pete Lindsay 
By email to: pete.lindsay@justicebydesign.org.uk 
   
17 April 2026 
 
Dear Mr Lindsay, 
 
Freedom of Information Request Reference FOI-1688183 
 
Thank you for your request dated 23 March to the Department of Health and Social Care 
(DHSC) a copy of which can be found in the accompanying annex. 
 
Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). 
 
1. Whether DHSC holds any recorded information identifying a public authority, 
department, regulator, or office-holder with responsibility for ensuring that patients 
are informed of this legal consequence.  
 
DHSC holds information relevant to your request.  
 
As outlined in our previous response (our ref: FOI-1683941), responsibility for informing 
the patient how to take their medicine rests with the prescriber and dispensing pharmacy, 
and DHSC would expect this to include information that patients must not smoke 
prescribed cannabis-based products for medicinal use (CBPMs).  
 
We would also expect product labels and clinics providing services involving the 
prescribing of CBPMs to communicate information on the correct route of administration.  
 
To clarify, DHSC would expect this to specify in clear terms that smoking is illegal, and 
therefore a criminal offence.  
 
As the information held by the department is in the public domain, we will, under section 
21 of the FOIA (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means), refer 
you to the published source.  
 
There are examples of private cannabis clinics providing additional information on their 
website on the law and consequences if a patient chose to smoke their prescribed 
medication. For example, Can You Smoke Medical Cannabis in the UK? | Releaf UK. 
 
2. If such responsibility has been formally allocated, please identify the relevant 
authority or body and provide any associated recorded information.  
 
DHSC holds information relevant to your request. 
 
 

 
 
As the information held by the department is in the public domain, we will, under section 
21 of the FOIA (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means), refer 
you to the published source.  
 
As outlined in our previous response, Healthcare regulators, such as the General Medical 
Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, and Care Quality Commission, are responsible 
for ensuring that registered healthcare professionals and providers of health services meet 
professional standards and guidance. These regulatory bodies have been established 
under primary legislation approved by Parliament, and the powers and functions of these 
bodies are derived from the Medical Act 1983 and Health and Social Care Act 2008.  
 
Copies of this legislation are available to view at: www.legislation.gov.uk and professional 
and clinical standards are published on the following regulator websites: 
 
General Medical Council - www.gmc-uk.org 
General Pharmaceutical Council - www.pharmacyregulation.org 
Care Quality Commission - www.cqc.org.uk 
 
3. If no recorded information exists allocating such responsibility, please confirm 
this explicitly.  
 
N/A 
 
4. Whether DHSC holds any recorded information indicating that consideration was 
given, during the development or implementation of SI 2018/1055, to how patients 
would be informed of the legal consequences arising from Regulation 16A(3).  
 
DHSC holds information relevant to your request.  
  
However, to provide the information as it is currently framed would exceed the appropriate 
cost limit set out in the FOIA.  
  
Section 12(1) of the FOIA means public authorities are not obliged to comply with a 
request for information if they estimate the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate 
limit. The appropriate limit for DHSC is set at £600, which represents the cost of one 
person spending 24 working hours determining whether we hold the information, and 
then locating, retrieving and extracting the information.  
  
As part of assessing whether the Department held information within scope of your 
request, we undertook a sample search to estimate the volume of material and the cost of 
compliance. This sample search covered the policy mailbox, the wider team mailbox, and 
the emails of one policy official. 
 
The sample search identified approximately 640 files as potentially within scope. Based on 
the time required to review these records, we estimate that the cost of completing this 
exercise would be £553.33 for the sample alone. 
 
Given that this represents only a partial search, we estimate that conducting a full and 
comprehensive search across all relevant mailboxes and records would exceed the £600 
cost limit set out in section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 
 

 
 
We are therefore unable to comply with this part of your request and have applied a 
section 12 exemption. Consequently, we will not be answering your request.   
  
Although we cannot answer your request at the moment, we may be able to answer a 
refined request within the cost limit. You may wish to consider, for example, focusing your 
request on a specific aspect of the regulations or by reducing the time period covered. 
Please be aware that we cannot guarantee at this stage that a refined request would fall 
within the FOIA cost limit, or that other exemptions will not apply.  
 
We have additional information which we are providing to you on a discretionary basis. 
This is outside the scope of the FOIA and not subject to internal review.  
  
As stated in response to question 1 of your request, information is already in the public 
domain stating that it is illegal to smoke CBMPs.  
 
Published information, regulations and advice (as outlined in the previous response) is 
available to all healthcare professionals and health care providers.  
 
As with all medicines, the legislator will know that it is the responsibility of healthcare 
professionals and healthcare providers to inform patients how to take their medicines.  
It is therefore the responsibility of any healthcare professional or healthcare provider who 
decided to prescribe or supply these products subsequent to the law change to meet all 
legal and professional duties associated with their activities. This would reasonably be 
expected to include the understanding that smoking of these products is prohibited and 
subject to criminal offences, which should be communicated to patients. 
 
Criminal sanctions in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 is a matter for the Home 
Office Home Office - GOV.UK and the police.  
 
The circular published on 1 November 2018 entitled 'Rescheduling of cannabis-based 
products for medicinal use in humans' Rescheduling of cannabis-based products for 
medicinal use in humans (accessible version) - GOV.UK states that “The Regulations 
continue to prohibit smoking of cannabis and cannabis-based products for medicinal use”. 
A list of offences and punishments is listed in Schedule 4 of the Act Misuse of Drugs Act 
1971.  
 
The National Police Chief's Council has also published guidance for police officers and 
staff concerning medicinal cannabis and states that "The smoking of medicinal cannabis is 
strictly prohibited by the legislation" NPPC – Medicinal Cannabis and the Police - 
Guidance for Officers and Staff - February 2025. 
 
If you are not satisfied with the handling of your request, you can request we undertake an 
internal review. If doing so, it would be helpful for you to be explicit which areas of the 
Freedom of Information response you consider dissatisfactory. Complaints to us should 
be sent to freedomofinformation@dhsc.gov.uk or to the address at the top of this 
letter and be submitted within 40 working days of the date of this letter. Please remember 
to quote the reference number above in any future communication.  
  
If you are not content with the outcome of your internal review, you may complain directly 
to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Generally, the ICO cannot make a 
decision unless you have already complained to us about our original response and 

 
 
received our response to your complaint and, if applicable, our internal review decision. 
You should raise your concerns with the ICO within six weeks of your last substantive 
contact with us.  
 
Guidance on contacting the ICO can be found at https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us and 
information about making a complaint can be found at https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint. 
  
Yours sincerely,  
  
Freedom of Information Team  
freedomofinformation@dhsc.gov.uk  

 
 
Annex 
Dear DHSC FOI team,  
  
Please find the attached clarification request (our reference FOI_D1a - DHSC) in relation 
to your response to the above FoI request.   
  
Kind regards 
  
Pete Lindsay 
  
Dear DHSC Freedom of Information Team,  
 
Thank you for your response of 16 March 2026 to request FOI-1683941.  
 
Having reviewed your reply, I consider that the request has been misunderstood.  
 
The request did not concern general prescribing responsibilities or how patients are 
instructed to take their medicine.  
 
It concerns whether any public authority, department, regulator, or office-holder holds 
responsibility for ensuring that patients prescribed cannabis-based products for medicinal 
use (CBPMs) are informed of the legal consequence arising under Regulation 16A(3) of 
the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (as amended by SI 2018/1055) — namely, that self-
administration by smoking results in withdrawal of the statutory exemption and may re-
engage criminal liability under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.  
 
For clarity, this request relates to a regulatory framework in which a prescribed Schedule 2 
cannabis-based product may, depending on the mode of administration, cease to benefit 
from the statutory exemption and thereby fall within the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 
1971. This is a framework in which non-adherence to the prescribed mode of 
administration may directly expose a patient to criminal liability.  
 
In a related Freedom of Information response, (HO ref FOI 2026/03226), the Home Office 
has confirmed that advice from officials regarding the smoking of cannabis based products 
for medicinal use was provided to Ministers during the policy development phase of SI 
2018/1055.  
 
This response also states that; Matters relating to prescribing practice and patient 
communication fall within the remit of the Department of Health and Social Care (‘DHSC’) 
and the healthcare system.  
 
To avoid any ambiguity, I am not asking:  
• who advises patients not to smoke a prescribed product  
• how clinicians communicate route-of-administration guidance  
 
I am asking:  
• whether any authority is responsible for ensuring that patients are informed that smoking 
a prescribed CBPM may result in loss of the statutory exemption and exposure to criminal 
liability. FoI_1D1a 23/03/2026  
 
Accordingly, please confirm, based on any recorded information held by the Department:  

 
 
1. Whether DHSC holds any recorded information identifying a public authority, 
department, regulator, or office-holder with responsibility for ensuring that patients are 
informed of this legal consequence.  
2. If such responsibility has been formally allocated, please identify the relevant authority 
or body and provide any associated recorded information.  
3. If no recorded information exists allocating such responsibility, please confirm this 
explicitly.  
4. Whether DHSC holds any recorded information indicating that consideration was given, 
during the development or implementation of SI 2018/1055, to how patients would be 
informed of the legal consequences arising from Regulation 16A(3).  
 
This clarification relates specifically to governance responsibility for communicating the 
legal effect of Regulation 16A(3), rather than clinical guidance on route of administration.  
 
Kind regards,  
Pete Lindsay JusticeByDesign.org.uk