Recent media coverage has raised serious questions about how medical cannabis is prescribed in the UK.

Public scrutiny of healthcare is important. Journalism plays a vital role in holding industries accountable, asking difficult questions and encouraging transparency. Those conversations should continue.

But they must also be grounded in evidence.

Too often, coverage of medical cannabis relies on outdated language, incomplete understanding and assumptions that do not reflect the clinical reality of prescribing cannabis-based medicines in the UK. Rather than informing public discussion, this kind of reporting risks reinforcing stigma around a treatment area that remains widely misunderstood.

As Community Manager at Cantourage UK, I spend every day engaging with patients, healthcare professionals and members of the public. One thing has become increasingly clear: the language we use shapes perception.

The words chosen in headlines, news articles and public debate influence whether people feel informed or intimidated, whether they ask questions or dismiss a treatment option entirely, and ultimately whether patients feel confident discussing medical cannabis with their healthcare team.

That is why the language surrounding medical cannabis matters.

Headlines Should Inform, Not Reinforce Stigma

Medical cannabis has been legal for specialist prescription in the UK since November 2018. Almost eight years later, much of the public conversation remains rooted in outdated narratives rather than modern clinical practice. While the regulatory framework has evolved, misconceptions about how cannabis-based medicines are prescribed, monitored and used in patient care continue to shape public perception.

One of the first things that stood out to me in recent coverage was not simply the criticism of private clinics. It was the language.

Describing medical cannabis as being "handed out" immediately creates the impression of casual prescribing, weak safeguards and minimal oversight. That simply is not how prescribing works in the UK.

Every medicine should be scrutinised. Every healthcare provider should be accountable. But scrutiny should begin with an accurate understanding of how that healthcare is actually delivered.

Language that ignores clinical reality does not encourage informed debate. It creates misconceptions before the facts have even been considered.

Medical Cannabis Is Part of Modern Healthcare

One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding medical cannabis is that it exists outside mainstream healthcare.

It does not.

Medical cannabis is prescribed within an established regulatory framework. Initial prescriptions can only be issued by specialist doctors on the General Medical Council's Specialist Register, following structured consultations, detailed clinical assessments and ongoing review. Prescribing takes place within frameworks overseen by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and the Home Office.

These medicines are not prescribed casually.

They are not exempt from regulation.

They are not outside the healthcare system.

As a prescription-only 'Special', medical cannabis is typically considered when conventional licensed treatments have either been ineffective or caused unacceptable side effects. Like many other unlicensed medicines used across UK healthcare, prescribing decisions are based on individual clinical need and specialist judgement.

That context is essential.

Words Carry History

Language does not just describe healthcare.

It shapes how healthcare is perceived.

One example is the continued use of the term "marijuana."

Many people may not realise that this word carries historical baggage, having long been associated with political campaigns designed to provoke fear rather than understanding.

As our Co-Founder Niall Ivers has said, using this language "immediately signals a lack of understanding of both the medicine and its history." Cannabis has been used therapeutically across China, India, the Middle East, Africa and many other regions for thousands of years. Reducing it to a stigmatised term rooted in political and cultural fear undermines informed discussion and reinforces outdated narratives.

Today, we are talking about prescription medicines prescribed by specialist clinicians.

Our language should reflect that.

Patients Deserve Better Conversations

One aspect of recent reporting concerns me more than anything else.

It is the potential impact on patients.

Many of the people accessing medical cannabis today have spent years living with chronic or complex health conditions. They have often tried numerous licensed medicines, undergone multiple treatments and worked closely with healthcare professionals before discussing cannabis-based medicines with a specialist.

Medical cannabis is rarely the first step.

For many patients, it is one component of a carefully considered, clinician-led treatment plan with ongoing monitoring and accountability.

When headlines suggest these medicines are simply being "handed out", they ignore the reality of those patient journeys.

More importantly, they risk discouraging people from asking questions about a legitimate treatment option that may be appropriate for their individual circumstances.

No patient should feel embarrassed or stigmatised for exploring evidence-based healthcare with their clinician.

Debate Should Be Driven by Evidence

Healthcare evolves through research.

Questions should be asked.

Claims should be challenged.

Evidence should always come first.

That is no different for medical cannabis.

From a scientific perspective, medical cannabis is neither experimental nor unsupported. Over recent decades, a growing body of research, including systematic reviews and real-world evidence studies, has examined the role of cannabinoids in symptom management, quality-of-life outcomes and a range of medical conditions. Like every area of medicine, that evidence base continues to evolve.

That continued research deserves recognition.

As highlighted in our recent open letter, the medical and scientific community should be recognised for remaining open-minded enough to rigorously study cannabinoids, allowing their efficacy, safety and appropriate use to be assessed through proper scientific research.

Discussions about the wider impact of medical cannabis should also be grounded in evidence rather than speculation.

As our Co-Founder Gabriel Newman has said, we should welcome further independent research into patient outcomes, healthcare costs and the wider social and economic impact of medical cannabis. Constructive debate should always begin with data, not assumption.

The Industry Also Has a Responsibility

It is easy to focus solely on media reporting, but our industry also has responsibilities.

We should welcome scrutiny.

We should support independent research.

We should communicate transparently.

We should never shy away from difficult conversations.

Education has always been one of the biggest challenges facing medical cannabis.

Explaining how prescribing works. Clarifying what "unlicensed" actually means. Helping people understand regulation. Sharing evidence as it develops. Answering questions honestly.

Building trust takes time, and that trust is built through transparency, consistency and evidence.

That is something we all have a role in.

Looking Ahead

Medical cannabis in the UK continues to evolve.

Clinical evidence continues to grow. Healthcare professionals continue to develop expertise. Regulatory standards continue to strengthen.

Public understanding is improving, but there is still work to do.

That work starts with better conversations.

Not conversations built on fear. Not conversations built on outdated stereotypes. But conversations grounded in evidence, clinical expertise and respect for patients.

As an industry, we should remain open to collaboration, education and evidence-led discussion, because that is how healthcare evolves.

Final Thoughts

Journalism matters.

It encourages accountability. It asks difficult questions. It pushes industries to improve.

Healthcare benefits from all of those things.

But when reporting perpetuates stigma or misrepresents how prescription medicines are regulated and prescribed, it deserves to be challenged.

Medical cannabis should be held to the same standard of reporting as every other prescription medicine, grounded in evidence, clinical practice and respect for the patients and healthcare professionals it affects.

As Community Manager at Cantourage UK, I believe the future of medical cannabis will not be shaped by sensational headlines. It will be shaped by better research, greater transparency, thoughtful journalism and open, evidence-based conversations between patients, clinicians, policymakers and the wider public.

Because the words we choose do not simply influence public opinion.

They influence trust.

They influence understanding.

And sometimes, they influence whether someone feels able to seek the care they need.