Pharmacist Struck Off for Persistent Cannabis Use and Lack of Remorse

Date of Decision: February 20, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Possession of cannabis resin found in the registrant’s motor vehicle.
Admission by the registrant that the cannabis was for personal use.
Issuance of a police cannabis warning.
Continued use and justification of cannabis use by the registrant, despite its classification as a Class B drug.

Outcome: Removal from the Register

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner.

Case Summary

Allegations

This case concerns a pharmacist who was initially suspended for misconduct following a police incident in which cannabis resin was discovered in his vehicle. The registrant admitted that the drug was for his personal use and accepted a formal police warning. At the time of the original hearing in 2017, he openly stated that he occasionally used cannabis and did not see it as problematic, showing a troubling lack of awareness regarding the professional and legal implications of such behaviour.

The original fitness to practise panel concluded that the registrant’s use of cannabis—a Class B drug—was misconduct serious enough to warrant suspension, especially given his lack of insight, remorse, or understanding of the reputational damage such conduct could cause the pharmacy profession.

Findings

The principal hearing in August 2017 established misconduct based on two key facts: possession of cannabis and the registrant’s acknowledgment of its personal use. The panel found that this behaviour was in violation of legal standards and public expectations of pharmacists. Aggravating factors included a complete lack of remorse and a misguided belief that cannabis use was compatible with professional responsibilities.

At a follow-up review hearing in May 2018, the registrant again failed to attend. Despite being informed of the importance of engagement and the need to demonstrate remediation, he neither responded meaningfully nor submitted any evidence of changed behaviour. The review panel concluded that his fitness to practise remained impaired, noting that:

“It is wholly unacceptable for a member of the pharmacy profession to consider the use of a Class B drug to be appropriate.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

By the time of the final review in February 2019, the registrant had still not engaged with the GPhC in any substantive way. There was no evidence of reflection, insight, or remedial action. He failed to provide a personal statement, proof of abstinence from cannabis, or any professional development activity to indicate ongoing competency or understanding of pharmacy standards.

The Committee reviewed Rule 5(2) of the GPhC Fitness to Practise Rules, determining that the registrant’s conduct:

(a) presented a potential risk to patients and public due to possible impairment from drug use,
(b) brought the profession into disrepute,
(c) breached fundamental principles of pharmacy by failing to engage professionally with the regulator.

The panel concluded that without evidence of changed behaviour or a willingness to meet professional expectations, the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired.

Sanction

The Committee was tasked with determining an appropriate sanction under Article 54(3) of the Pharmacy Order 2010. Options ranged from extending the suspension to removal from the register. The registrant had already served two consecutive 9-month suspensions (18 months in total) and failed to provide any of the previously requested materials, including:

A reflective statement about his misconduct,
Objective evidence of abstinence from cannabis (e.g., regular drug testing),
Demonstration of current pharmaceutical knowledge and CPD,
Evidence of understanding the implications of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Given the sustained lack of engagement, the Committee concluded that continued suspension would be futile. The registrant’s behaviour was deemed fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. “It is in his interests to do so or he risks removal of his name from the register,” the previous Committee had warned. However, this warning went unheeded.

Consequently, the Committee ordered the registrant’s removal from the Register, citing the need to uphold public trust and ensure that only those committed to the standards of the profession remain registered.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Substance Use is Incompatible with Registration: Any use of illegal drugs, particularly while on the register, reflects a severe lack of judgment and contravenes both legal and professional standards.
Engagement with the Regulator is a Professional Duty: The GPhC expects registrants to fully cooperate with investigations and hearings. Failing to respond or update contact information undermines the integrity of regulatory processes.
Insight and Remediation are Critical: Demonstrating remorse, understanding the impact of misconduct, and actively working to remediate are essential steps in maintaining or restoring fitness to practise.
Repeated Non-Compliance Signals Disregard for Professionalism: Multiple missed opportunities to correct behaviour—especially when outlined clearly by previous panels—reflect a disregard for the profession and will likely result in removal.
CPD and Professional Development are Non-Negotiable: During periods of suspension, pharmacists are expected to maintain their competencies. Failing to demonstrate continued professional development can contribute to a finding of ongoing impairment.

This case underscores the GPhC’s firm stance on substance misuse and the necessity for registrants to take proactive responsibility for their conduct, fitness to practise, and continued engagement with regulatory processes.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.