Time to Treat Cannabis as Medicine

In “A Coordinated Approach to Cannabis Policy and Product Safety” (Issues, Fall 2025), Symone T. Griffith, Marisa L. Kreider, and Maxwell C. K. Leung critically point out the need for an evidence-based framework to guide cannabis policy and ensure product safety. As a physician who has spent years doing research and caring for patients of all ages utilizing cannabis therapeutically, I have witnessed firsthand the consequences of the nation’s fragmented and inconsistent approach to regulation.

Patients deserve access to safe, standardized, and properly tested cannabis products—just as they do for any other medication. The absence of federal oversight and unified standards has created unnecessary risk and confusion for patients, providers, and regulators alike. Descheduling cannabis—removing it entirely from the Controlled Substances Act, effectively ending federal prohibition—is the ultimate answer. Rescheduling cannabis could be an important first step, recognizing cannabis as having accepted medical uses, making federal research easier and potentially leading to more medical research and new therapies. In any case, true reform must involve federal-state coordination, clinician education, and a compassionate, patient-centered framework.

I strongly support the authors’ emphasis on product safety and laboratory integrity. Inconsistent testing practices, pesticide contamination, and misleading potency labels pose dangers for all, particularly for immunocompromised patients. We need federally accredited, independent laboratories; standardized good manufacturing practices designed to ensure that products are consistently produced and controlled to quality standards; and transparent, verifiable labeling to restore public trust and protect health.

Education is critical within the health care system itself. Every human being possesses an endocannabinoid system—a complex cell-signaling network that helps regulate how many of the body’s functions respond to cannabinoids—yet most physicians and health care providers complete their medical training without ever learning about it. Integrating cannabinoid science into undergraduate and continuing medical education is essential. Physicians and health care providers must be empowered to discuss cannabis openly and knowledgeably with their patients, free from stigma or fear of professional reprisal.

I also share the authors’ concern about the current barriers to meaningful research. We need studies based on the actual cannabis products patients are using—not solely government-supplied material that doesn’t reflect the diversity and potency of products available in today’s marketplace. Expanding National Institutes of Health funding; fostering collaborations among clinicians, universities, and industry; and supporting real-world evidence studies will help bridge the gap between science and policy.

Ultimately, cannabis policy must be rooted in compassion, education, and patient empowerment. We must ensure that regulatory reforms do not marginalize small, patient-focused producers or restrict affordable access for those who depend on medical cannabis for relief and healing.

In sum, the authors underscore what many of us in the medical cannabis field have been saying for years: Patients have been left behind by outdated policies and persistent stigma. It is time to treat cannabis as medicine—with the same rigor, respect, and responsibility afforded to all therapeutic substances. Moving forward, we must bring cannabis out of the shadows of prohibition and into the light of science, safety, and compassionate care.

Uma Dhanabalan