Dear Sir or Madam,

Please treat this as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This request concerns cannabis-based products for medicinal use (CBPMs), particularly dried cannabis flower prescribed in private healthcare settings.

I am seeking recorded information about whether any national, regulatory, clinical, inspection, safety, licensing or policy guidance exists in relation to maximum THC percentage limits for prescribed CBPM flower.

Please provide the following information.

1. Recorded guidance on THC percentage limits

Please provide any recorded guidance, policy, inspection guidance, regulatory guidance, internal briefing, position statement or other recorded information held by your organisation which refers to:

a. maximum THC percentage limits for prescribed CBPM flower;
b. THC percentage thresholds such as 20%, 22%, 25%, 26%, 28%, 30% or similar;
c. whether prescribers or clinics should restrict patients to a maximum THC percentage;
d. whether higher-THC CBPM flower requires additional clinical justification, approval, review, risk assessment or governance oversight.

2. Basis for any THC percentage cap or threshold

If your organisation holds information suggesting that THC percentage caps or thresholds are used, recommended, expected or considered good practice, please provide recorded information explaining:

a. the clinical, regulatory or evidential basis for those caps or thresholds;
b. whether such caps are mandatory, advisory, discretionary, or left to prescriber judgement;
c. whether any cap differs depending on diagnosis, age, psychiatric history, prior cannabis use, tolerance, treatment response, dose, route of administration, or risk of misuse/diversion.

3. Private clinic prescribing governance

Please provide recorded information held by your organisation about how private CBPM clinics are expected to justify, review, audit or document decisions involving higher-THC flower.

This includes any recorded information about:

a. prescribing governance;
b. multidisciplinary review;
c. specialist sign-off;
d. audit requirements;
e. risk assessments;
f. patient-specific clinical rationale;
g. situations where a clinic restricts product strength or THC percentage.

4. No information held

If your organisation does not hold any recorded information setting, recommending, endorsing or discussing a maximum THC percentage limit for prescribed CBPM flower, please confirm this explicitly.

For clarity, I am not requesting patient-identifiable information, individual prescribing records, or information about any specific patient.

Please provide the information electronically.

Yours faithfully,
Jamie Halliday