Last Week In Weed Issue 24
Published May 24th 2021
In this week’s issue of Last Week in Weed, we’ll be looking at Oxford Cannabinoid Technologies planning to launch on the LSE, EU intergroup to tackle ‘medical cannabis’ stigma, and the DEA set to finally end the monopoly on ‘medical cannabis’ research supply.
Oxford Cannabinoid Technologies to launch on London Stock Exchange
Oxford Cannabinoid Technologies the biotech firm that is developing synthetic cannabis-based drugs that emulate the painkilling effects of raw cannabis announced last week that it is to float on the London Stock Exchange.
Oxford Cannabinoid Technologies was founded four years ago with venture capital to research the therapeutic effects of cannabis at Oxford University. The company hopes to raise £16.5 million from its heavily oversubscribed IPO, which is expected to be worth £51.5 million once trading begins.
Don’t get confused by its origins, OCT was paying for research at Oxford University on a ‘fee for service’ basis which means that OCT retains all intellectual property or discoveries made in the prestigious university facilities. Oxford University has no financial stake in the company.
OCT plans to use the money from its IPO to fund clinical trials on its two most promising drugs in the third quarter of 2022. They also plan to have two more compounds begin trials in 2023 and 2024.
The company was set up by Kingsley Capital but now has some interesting investors and backers. 47.8% of the company is owned by rather wealthy individuals, Kingsley Capital retains 32.2%, Tobacco company Imperial Brands owns 16.9%, and the remainder is owned by Snoop Dogg’s investment firm Casa Verde.
The company is targeting neuropathic pain caused by nerve damage or disease which they believe represents a £7 billion a year market. They hope to create novel synthetic cannabinoids that act as raw cannabis does to reduce and manage neuropathic and chronic pain.
The move follows several other companies that have already found a home on one of Europe’s largest stock markets. These including; Kanabo, Cellular Goods, and MGC Pharmaceuticals who were the first to float on the LSE back on Feb 9th, 2021.
These companies can trade on the LSE thanks to changes made by the FCA last September which allows for ‘medical cannabis’ companies that do not have ‘recreational’ exposure to sell shares on the LSE. To trade companies must have a market capitalisation of at least £700,000, put up at least 25% of the company’s shares, and have their prospectus rigorously vetted.
There are currently several other ‘medical cannabis’ and CBD companies eagerly awaiting their chance to float on the LSE, which now looks set to become the capital of the European ‘medicinal cannabis’ market.
EU intergroup to tackle ‘medical cannabis’ stigma
Some good news out of the EU last week seems to indicate that a new cross-party of European politicians has been formed to help tackle the stigma and taboo of ‘medical cannabis’ in Europe.
The new cross-party group is made up of 40 lawmakers from various European political parties – including representatives from countries that already have established access to ‘medical cannabis.’
It has been created to help end the stigmatisation of ‘medical cannabis’ and to increase access to those most in need of the therapeutic benefits of cannabis.
One of the group’s leaders Maltese MEP Agius Saliba told the website EURACTIV that;
“It does not make sense to keep treating patients who direly need these prescriptions as second, third, or fourth class patients.” Adding that “the group would include a number of MEPs from countries where medical cannabis is widely accessible (Germany and Malta, for example), and also if he had to choose, he would like a more structured system like Germany.”
“These colleagues could bring good practices from their countries, and we can see whether their models can be replicated horizontally in the EU. “The biggest problem is that we cannot pick and choose between the pilot project system and the structured one, as we are starting from scratch at the EU level.” First, the group will need to have to work hard on the basics. The first questions should be to determine what medical cannabis exactly is.”
“While there are some countries where medical cannabis is no longer a “taboo”, the group will aim to “advance the demands of a resolution that the European Parliament adopted in 2019 in which MEPs called on the EU executive and national authorities to provide a legal definition of medical cannabis.” He said: “That resolution was very important and carried a strong message. But, frankly speaking, nothing has really changed since 2019 when it comes to definitions, harmonisation, and better access to medical cannabis.”
The new intergroup has said that they will start working with EU umbrella organisations, NGOs, and the industry immediately to be representatives of patients and their rights in Europe. Just how effective or how pro-whole plant they will be remains to be seen.
“We want to have wider representation and more contact with NGOs representing patients’ voice while collaborating with the industry when it comes to research and legislative harmonisation” –Maltese MEP Agius Saliba
DEA to finally end the monopoly on ‘medical cannabis’ research supply
Finally this week, we’ll take a look at some news coming out of the offices of the DEA, The Federal Drug Enforcement Agency in America. It was announced a few weeks ago that the DEA was to finally end the monopoly on the supply of cannabis for federal research and trials by allowing other companies to become license holders.
Since the DEA was founded in 1973 it has only allowed one manufacturer to cultivate cannabis for federal cannabis research. The University of Mississippi grows cannabis under contract for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and with DEA approval. This monopoly created a difficult situation for researchers that were limited to using the poor quality, low-grade, and often moldy cannabis in their studies.
A study in 2019 found that the cannabis being cultivated by the University of Mississippi is closer to that of the industrial ‘hemp’ cultivars being used in fibre and seed production than that of the cannabis sold in the countries dispensaries. This discrepancy has long been argued to be one of the ways the DEA is seeking to prevent federal ‘legalisation’ of cannabis from ever happening in the US.
During the Obama presidency in 2016, it was announced that they would allow for other companies and researchers to apply for a research cultivation license from the DEA. However, no applications or licenses were granted during either Obama’s or Trump’s time in the oval office.
This lack of competition leads to a lawsuit by Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI) in 2019 and another by Dr. Cracker in 2020. Both companies were amongst several dozen others that had applied for a license under the DEA to cultivate cannabis for research purposes.
SRI filed another lawsuit against the DEA in March 2021 claiming that the agency had used a secret document to delay the approval of manufacture applications. They say this is evident in the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel document, which was released last year as part of a settlement in the original case. It also revealed that even the agency itself feels that its current licensing structure for cannabis cultivation has violated international treaties for decades.
Then last week the New York Post broke the story that the DEA had notified several companies that they are moving towards processing their applications for research cultivation licenses. It is not yet known how many companies were contacted or how many will get final approval.
“DEA is nearing the end of its review of certain marijuana grower applications, thereby allowing it to soon register additional entities authorized to produce marijuana for research purposes. Pending final approval, DEA has determined, based on currently available information, that a number of manufacturers’ applications to cultivate marijuana for research needs in the United States appears to be consistent with applicable legal standards and relevant laws. DEA has, therefore, provided a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to these manufacturers as the next step in the approval process” – DEA statement
Time will tell if these MOA’s materialise into actual licenses or not. After all, this could be just another attempt by the antiquated agency to retain some semblance of control and relevance in the twenty-first century.
Written By Simpa For The Simpa Life
