Summary: A Freedom of Information response from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) states it recorded 18 incidents where prescribed medical cannabis (CBPM) was seized across the 2024–2025 periods requested, and states none were returned because “all medication is disposed of”.
Source: GMP FOI response PDF, ref 01/FOI/25/016051/H
Request log: WhatDoTheyKnow thread
Key takeaways
- At least 18 seizure incidents recorded across the requested 2024 and 2025 periods, but GMP does not split the totals by year.
- Zero returns, with GMP stating none were returned because “all medication is disposed of”.
- Weak record tagging, GMP says there are no specific flags to reliably extract CBPM seizure data.
- Complaints search looks narrow, GMP describes a keyword search under a generic allegation category and reports 0 results.
- Training content is late and thin, GMP says CBPM content was introduced in 2025 and “has not recently been updated”.
The line that matters
The FOI response answers the “how many were later confirmed lawful and returned” question with “none”, then explains why: “all medication is disposed of”.
If that is accurate as written, it raises an immediate public-interest question: what exactly is being disposed of, under what authority, and what happens when an item is later identified as a lawful prescription.
What GMP says it recorded
- Seizures: 18 incidents of seizures of “varying amounts” across the periods requested.
- Returns: none returned, because all medication is disposed of in line with policy.
- Tracking: no specific flags to extract CBPM seizure data.
On its face, this is a messy combination. You cannot confidently talk about outcomes and returns while also admitting you do not have reliable tagging to extract CBPM seizures from your records. That is how lawful patients end up stuck in a bureaucratic black hole.
Training: “not taught specifically”, then a specific script anyway
GMP says student officers are not taught specifically about prescribed cannabis, but it also provides a “Prescription Cannabis” extract describing what officers should look for. It includes points like packaging details (name, strain, THC/CBD percentage, pharmacy) and the idea that bud is for vaporising.
GMP also states this content was introduced in 2025, delivered during student officer initial training, and “has not recently been updated”.
CBPM has been lawful by prescription in the UK since 2018. Training that arrives in 2025 and then sits there is not a flex, it is an admission that patients have been taking the hit for years.
Complaints and conduct: 0 results is not reassurance
The FOI request asked for complaints and conduct matters relating to seizure or handling of CBPM. In the request history, the scope was clarified to include public complaints, professional standards matters, and misconduct records arising from CBPM seizures.
GMP describes a keyword search under a generic allegation category and reports 0 results. Even if that is true within that narrow pathway, it does not automatically mean “no issues”. It may simply mean the force cannot retrieve CBPM-related complaints cleanly, or did not search the record sets where those complaints would normally be found.
Questions GMP now needs to answer
- How many of the 18 seizures occurred in 2024, and how many in 2025.
- What “disposed of” means in practice: destroyed, forfeited, transferred, returned to pharmacy, or something else.
- Whether any seized items were later verified as lawful prescriptions, and if so, what happened next.
- How much CBPM was disposed of, in whatever unit GMP records (grams, ml, exhibits, packages).
- Which systems were actually searched for seizures, outcomes, and complaints, and what search terms were used.
- Where the recorded guidance is, not just the name of a procedure.
Why this is public-interest material
This is not about demanding special treatment. It is about basic competence and legality. When a force seizes prescription medication, three things matter: whether it was lawful, whether the force recorded that properly, and whether the patient has a route to get their property back.
If the true position is “we dispose of it anyway”, then the public deserves to see the recorded policy basis, the decision logic, and the quantities. If that line was sloppy wording, then it still matters, because sloppy wording in official responses usually mirrors sloppy recording behind the scenes.
What happens next
- Internal review to force a proper year breakdown, proper search transparency, and a real answer on outcomes and returns.
- A focused FOI on CBPM disposal, asking how much was disposed of, why, what authority was relied on, and what proportionality and public-interest assessment exists.
If GMP wants this story to die, it has a simple option: publish the recorded basis, provide the numbers properly, and show the searches.
Useful links and tools
Receipts
TRA tools and reading
- CBPM Cost and Dosage Prototype
- Medical Cannabis on The Reasonable Adjustment
- Search TRA for “CBPM”
- Search TRA for “NPCC”
- Search TRA for “workplace drug testing”
Clinics
Examples, not endorsements. Do your due diligence on regulation status, costs, and suitability.
By Kieron JH, Founder, The Reasonable Adjustment
This article discusses aggregate recording, policies, training extracts, and governance. It does not publish personal data.
Be First to Comment