The 2018 reforms were meant to enable prescription cannabis — yet Regulation 16A(3) banned its most effective form. The result is a framework that criminalises lawful patients and risks breaching equality and human rights duties. These questions draw on Discrimination by Design and its annexes to examine where the law diverged from principle.
The clause was inserted during the 2018 drafting process without accompanying equality analysis or consultation. It created an internal contradiction within the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 that persists today.
There is no record of a formal PSED review despite the foreseeable differential impact on disabled patients. The briefing explores how this omission may constitute a continuing breach of Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.
Under Section 19 of the Equality Act, a neutral provision with disproportionate impact requires objective justification. Discrimination by Design analyses why no lawful justification currently exists.
Regulation 16A(3) interferes with bodily autonomy and medical decision-making, triggering Article 8 scrutiny. The annex assesses proportionality and margin-of-appreciation arguments in the medical context.
The analysis traces overlapping responsibilities across the Home Office, DHSC and DfT and outlines potential routes for redress, from Parliamentary committees to judicial review.
A lawful medicine should not operate outside the rule of law. Discrimination by Design examines how this anomaly arose — and how it can be remedied. Click the button below to view and/or download our Discrimination by Design briefing document.