Dear Sylvia Williams.
Thank you very much for your detailed response. Various matters arise:
1) Your letter states that the opinions expressed are personal and ought not to be construed to be Home Office official policy. Please advise me as to whom I should address correspondence to in order to receive officially sanctioned replies (please include an email address and contact name). It is likely that all correspondence will be used in legal proceedings at the High Court if it transpires that I am unfairly prejudiced from obtaining a suitable personal licence. Alternatively you may forward this e-mail to the person with such authority who may deal with the points detailed herein and advise me accordingly that you have so forwarded this letter and our previous correspondence.
2. Please note that the comments about low THC licences are immaterial to this enquiry as such plants are medically useless.
3. Section 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 ("the Act") does indeed prohibit the cultivation of cannabis, but as you are aware the government is obliged to administer regulatory apparatus with respect to that under Section 7 of the Act, and has additional complimentary powers under sections 22 and 31. Rational administration requires that Government should promulgate Orders with a view to balancing the targeting of the mischief the Act seeks to ameliorate (the causation of social harm through the misuse of all harmful drugs) whilst preserving a proportionate interference into personal liberty of drug users (as is experienced by the analogous drug users brewing alcohol and growing tobacco). The Act itself does not seek to extinguish peaceful activities with drugs whether they be recreational or medical uses provided they do not cause social harm and current policy would appear inconsistent with that.
4, With regards to The Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001 - I note that government has already made an exception to this order via the exemption awarded to GW Pharmaceuticals to grow and sell high THC cannabis. The Order is reversible through Statutory Instrument in any event where circumstances indicate that the regulation is unfit for purpose consistent with the Act and human rights.
5. I note you indicate that personal high THC licenses are theoretically available, yet the fee structure appears geared solely towards commercial enterprises. Please advise as to the correct fee for a very small domestic cultivation proposal and when fees are payable. Policy should be consistent with equality guidelines and reasonably ought not to prohibit disabled persons of limited means from seeking a personal licence.