|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Seven Years for Progress, Four Days to Undermine It: The UK's Cannabis Media Storm Ben Steven Business of Cannabis Wednesday 21 Jan 2026 Patients, industry and the police all celebrated this as an imperfect, but overwhelmingly positive step in the right direction for all concerned, recognising the complexity of the issue and the central tenet that law enforcement should approach interactions with a ‘patients first, suspects second’ mindset. Its author Richard List QPM, a retired veteran police officer who used to lead the UK’s drugs squad, said himself: “In a liberal democracy, if you’re a patient and you’ve had a controlled drug that’s legitimately prescribed by a doctor, you shouldn’t have to worry about any interference from the police.” Despite this, it took just days before multiple mainstream media outlets had either mischaracterised the guidance, or ignored it entirely in favour of sensationalist stories painting medical cannabis patients as ‘benefits claimants’ using ‘shocking loopholes’ to obtain ‘super strength cannabis’. While cannabis stigmatisation in the mainstream press is nothing new, a number of patients reached out to our sister publication Cannabis Health to share concerns about this coverage, especially in the wake of long-awaited recognition from law enforcement. Rupa Shah, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer at UK medical cannabis clinic Releaf, told Business of Cannabis: “It’s frustrating for us… that narrative needs to change. “We obviously want to promote our services, but when trying to educate and remove stigma, that’s difficult for us because of the unique restrictions on advertising. We are a commercial company, and by virtue of that, it makes it slightly more difficult. Ideally, trade bodies should be working with government and policy makers, but it’s something we’re still waiting on.” “We’re in a unique position where I can have access to the people who might be able to change the narrative. But we’re still working within a system that is very, very heavily regulated.” Why accurate coverage matters Recently published (November 2025) peer-reviewed research from Lindsey Metcalf McGrath and Helen Beckett Wilson, paints a clear picture of the impact both a lack of police education and the continued stigmatisation in the mainstream press have on patients. The study, ‘Training the police on legalised medical cannabis: lessons in building public trust, reducing harm, and avoiding reputational damage’, found that of the 94 police constable apprentices, all around 18-months into operational duties, 9 in 10 (88%) said they knew ‘little or nothing about prescribed cannabis, with many having been misinformed during training. The research, which used data from clinics including Releaf, documented cases where untrained officers caused serious harm to patients: one was reported to social services with her fitness as a parent questioned, despite her legal cannabis prescription helping control epileptic seizures to the point where she no longer needed family support to care for her child. Black patients expressed particular anxiety about police encounters, given differential stop-and-search rates. “Situations where police handle things incorrectly and insensitively are particularly harmful given the high proportion of people being prescribed cannabis for anxiety disorders,” the researchers noted. The study also revealed the deeply entrenched prohibitionist attitudes officers bring to cannabis encounters. Before training, when asked to write the first three words that came to mind about ‘cannabis users,’ officers’ responses included ‘baghead’ (pejorative UK slang for a drug user), ‘addict,’ ‘young,’ and ‘illegal.’ The researchers found that officers held ‘prohibitionist beliefs that cannabis possession is always synonymous with criminality’, beliefs they traced directly to their training. One officer stated bluntly: ‘Anyone is getting locked up. It is illegal to possess.’ “Prohibitionist narratives and stereotypes are correlated with pejorative beliefs which result in the stigmatisation of patients,” the study found. As a prime example of this dynamic, Shah points to a recent case which ended in a formal complaint being brought against a senior police officer over comments linking the smell of cannabis to criminality. In response, advocacy group PatientsCann UK submitted a formal complaint against senior policing figures, arguing that such statements ignore the legal status of prescribed medical cannabis and could influence frontline policing attitudes. “If that’s what police officers are bringing to their interactions [with] patients, [that’s a] massive problem,” Shah said. The encouraging finding was that evidence-based training dramatically shifted both knowledge and attitudes. After a three-hour workshop covering the 2018 regulations, patient experiences, and proper verification procedures, 67% of officers said they knew “a lot” about prescribed cannabis, while use of the term ‘baghead’ dropped from 10 mentions to zero. References to ‘medical’ rose from three to 39. The November 2025 research concluded that ‘the updating of police training and procedures are crucial step in the implementation of legal reforms’ and that this remains ‘overdue in the UK’, with its absence ‘causing harm to patients and damaging the reputation of the police.’ Misleading media coverage adds another layer of confusion to an already complex implementation challenge, one that will play out across 43 police forces over months and years. The media storm One of the only mainstream publications to cover the news directly was the Telegraph, which ran a story titled ‘Police told not to arrest cannabis users if they say it’s medicinal’. While in relative terms, this story was the most factually accurate, its framing still suggested police were being instructed to be lenient, rather than being given a new multi-stage verification protocol. Just days later (January 09), the Daily Mail ran a 2000+ word story focused more broadly on the UK’s medical cannabis market, moving well beyond questionable framing into full misrepresentation. The article, titled ‘Thousands of Britons prescribed super-strength CANNABIS for mental health conditions including anxiety and depression – with benefits claimants offered free consultations and discounts on their monthly weed prescription’, pointed to the ‘de facto legalisation of the drug’, and suggested police were now being instructed ‘not to arrest users… if there are “justifiable grounds” for believing it could be for medical use.’ ‘De facto legalisation’ Medical cannabis was legalised on 1 November 2018 under the Misuse of Drugs (Amendments) (Cannabis and Licence Fees) (England, Wales, and Scotland) Regulations 2018 with cross-party support, and operates within one of the most heavily regulated frameworks in the UK. Cannabis-based products for medicinal use can only be prescribed by specialist consultants on the General Medical Council’s Specialist Register, GPs cannot prescribe them. All prescribing clinics must be registered with and regulated by the Care Quality Commission, using identical standards to NHS services. Products must be approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with import licenses granted by the Home Office. Prescriptions are recorded and tracked through the NHS Business Services Authority. ‘Police told not to arrest’ The guidance establishes verification protocols to distinguish lawful prescriptions from illegal possession. It explicitly states officers should take action if they have justifiable grounds to believe possession is not lawful. “Justifiable grounds for believing it could be for medical use” The guidance requires verification of actual lawful prescriptions through documentation, including packaging, dispensing labels, prescription letters, and contacting healthcare providers if needed. This is an evidence-based verification process, not discretionary enforcement. Recent Daily Mail coverage suggests that medical cannabis is being “handed out” through private clinics, implying weak safeguards, minimal oversight, and casual prescribing. This framing does not reflect how cannabis-based prescription medicines are regulated, prescribed, or monitored in the UK, and it perpetuates stigma through language that lacks both clinical and historical understanding. As our Co-Founder Joshua Cuby has stated, this kind of coverage “isn’t journalism, it’s lazy scaremongering. It spreads mistrust, reinforces tired stigma, and conveniently skips the boring bit, regulated doctors, proper consultations, strict compliance, and patients whose lives have genuinely changed and improved”. The repeated use of the term “marijuana” is particularly telling. As our Co-Founder Niall Ivers has said, this choice of language “immediately signals a lack of understanding of both the medicine and its history”. Cannabis is not a modern trend or a loosely defined substance. It has been used therapeutically for thousands of years across China, India, the Middle East, Africa, and other regions as part of established medical traditions. Reducing it to a stigmatised term rooted in political and cultural fear undermines informed discussion and reinforces outdated narratives. Medical cannabis is strictly regulated here in the UK, and this is something we are very proud of, as it reflects the professionalism of the industry. As a prescription-only “special”, it is typically considered when conventional, licensed treatments have been tried but result in either adverse effects or insufficient efficacy. In this context, prescribing decisions are made solely by specialist doctors regulated by the General Medical Council, following structured consultations, clinical assessments, and ongoing review, within established CQC, GPhC, MHRA, and Home Office frameworks. From a scientific perspective, medical cannabis is neither experimental nor unsupported by evidence. Over the past few decades, a growing body of research, including systematic reviews and real-world evidence studies, has examined the role of cannabinoids in specific conditions, symptom management, and quality-of-life outcomes. As all our Co-Founders have noted, the medical and scientific community deserves recognition for remaining open-minded enough to rigorously study cannabinoids, allowing efficacy, safety, and appropriate use to be assessed through proper research. That evidence base continues to evolve, as it does across many areas of medicine. The article also suggests that prescribed medical cannabis may place a greater burden on the NHS and policing. As our Co-Founder Gabriel Newman has said, “this assumption is not supported by evidence. In fact, we believe the opposite may be true. We welcome further independent research to assess the social and economic impact of medical cannabis within a regulated healthcare framework, including its potential to reduce healthcare costs, lessen strain on public services, and improve patient outcomes. Constructive debate should be grounded in data, not speculation”. Importantly, the suggestion that these medicines are being “handed out” ignores the reality of patient pathways. Many patients accessing medical cannabis have long-term or complex conditions and have often cycled through multiple treatments over many years. For them, medical cannabis is not a shortcut or a trend, but one component of a carefully considered, clinician-led treatment plan, with ongoing monitoring and accountability. There are also factual clarifications worth making. The range of cannabis-based prescription medicines available in the UK is often overstated. In practice, there are approximately 200 CBPMs available to prescribers, each subject to strict quality, manufacturing, and regulatory controls. All products imported into the UK require Home Office and MHRA authorisation, with full traceability and oversight across the supply chain. Public discussion around medical cannabis is important, particularly as patient demand and clinical interest continue to grow. Journalism is important, but when it perpetuates stigma and can lead to suboptimal patient outcomes, it must be called out. Medical cannabis should be held to the same standard of reporting as any other prescription medicine, grounded in evidence, clinical practice, and respect for the patients and healthcare professionals it affects. We remain open to collaboration, education, and evidence-led discussion, because that is how healthcare should evolve. The guidance explicitly states: “The smoking of medicinal cannabis is strictly prohibited by the legislation.” Smoking is illegal; vaping is the lawful inhalation method. “Licensed products – which do not contain the whole plant” Sativex, the most well-known licensed medical cannabis product, is whole-plant cannabis extract containing high levels of both THC and CBD in a 1:1 ratio. ‘Super-strength’ terminology throughout As prescribing pharmacist Navinder Singh Dhesi noted on LinkedIn: “The term ‘strength’ is meaningless without pharmacological nuance. Cannabinoid medicines are prescribed with specific cannabinoid profiles, controlled dosing, and clear titration plans.” THC percentage alone doesn’t determine therapeutic effect. Cherry-picked expert opinion (Sir Robin Murray warning of psychiatric risks) No mention of the 50,000+ peer-reviewed studies on cannabis therapeutics or UK Medical Cannabis Registry research showing sustained mental health improvements over 24 months in prescribed patients. As one concerned patient told us: “The article depicts cannabis patients who are ‘signed off work with anxiety and depression’ as being ‘handed out super-strength cannabis’ by clinics, feeding into the narrative that cannabis patients are ‘lazy-stoners’ living off benefits… This is a dangerous and cruel narrative that couldn’t be further from the truth.” JP Doran, Chief Executive Officer of Crucial Innovations Corp (CINV) and a long-standing advocate for patient-centred medical cannabis regulation, told Business of Cannabis: “Much of the coverage around police interactions and medical cannabis still blurs the line between illegal use and legally prescribed treatment, which doesn’t reflect the reality for patients. “Medical cannabis in the UK is a regulated, clinician-prescribed therapy used by people living with serious, diagnosed conditions, not a cultural or criminal issue. When this distinction is missed, it reinforces stigma and creates unnecessary stress for patients who are simply trying to manage their health lawfully and with dignity.” On 10 January – the same day as the Daily Mail‘s front-page story, GB News published an almost identical piece titled ‘Benefits claimants handed discounts on ‘super-strength’ Cannabis for mental health conditions’ using the same data, the same ‘super-strength’ framing, and the same focus on benefits claimants. The coordinated nature of this coverage was highlighted by Jack Bradburn, a medical cannabis patient who works 60+ hours weekly as a Gas Emergency Engineer. He told his MP: “On 6th January 2026, the National Police Chiefs Council approved guidance instructing officers to treat medical cannabis patients as ‘patients first, suspects second’… Four days later, on 10th January, the Daily Mail ran a front-page headline describing legitimate prescriptions as a ‘shocking loophole,’ with coordinated coverage across other outlets using identical framing and data.” https://businessofcannabis.com/seven-years-for-progress-four-days-to-undermine-it-the-uks-cannabis-media-storm/
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!