Dr Imogen Kretzschmar, consultant psychiatrist at Mamedica, examines medical cannabis’s mental health benefits for patients under specialist supervision.
As a psychiatrist, I think the debate around medical cannabis in mental health often begins in the wrong place. Too frequently, it starts with instinct: enthusiasm from those who believe it is being unfairly overlooked, and discomfort from those who associate it too quickly with recreational use. Neither response is enough. Prescribed medical cannabis is already part of UK healthcare for eligible patients, including those living with complex and treatment-resistant conditions. The more useful question is how psychiatry can better understand the patient outcomes, clinical patterns and lived improvements emerging from its use.
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
For psychiatry, medical cannabis is also a useful test of how seriously we take evidence drawn from real patient experience. Mental health care does not deal in simple outcomes. A patient may not describe recovery in dramatic terms, but in smaller changes that matter profoundly: sleeping through the night, feeling less physically gripped by anxiety, thinking more clearly, or returning to work after months of instability. These changes can be difficult to capture, but they are often the difference between functioning and not functioning.
Against a backdrop of rising demand across mental health services, the need to understand patient outcomes in a more detailed way becomes even more urgent. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported in 2025 that more than one billion people are living with mental health conditions globally, with anxiety and depression among the most common. In England, NHS England Digital reported that 2.24 million people were in contact with mental health services at the end of January 2026, with 485,675 new referrals received in that month alone. These figures describe systems under pressure to make better decisions about what works, for whom, and under what conditions.
Within this challenge, prescribed medical cannabis needs to be discussed with more precision than it often receives. Cannabis-based medicinal products are not interchangeable with recreational cannabis use, but public discussion still often treats them as though they are the same. Such stigma can distort clinical thinking, making some patients hesitant to ask about a legal treatment option, while also making some professionals more comfortable dismissing the subject than examining it properly. Jon Robson, CEO of medical cannabis healthcare platform, Mamedica, said: “The responsible question is not whether a treatment is culturally comfortable, but whether it can be assessed properly, prescribed appropriately and monitored safely. Medical cannabis belongs in that evidence-led, specialist-supervised conversation.”
Existing clinical data already show why this conversation deserves to be taken seriously and handled carefully. In a UK Medical Cannabis Registry case series of patients treated for generalised anxiety disorder, researchers found statistically significant improvements in anxiety, sleep quality and health-related quality of life at one, three and six months, while also noting that the absence of a comparator limits what can be concluded. More recently, a two-year registry case series in patients with depression reported improvements in depression, anxiety, sleep quality and quality of life, while stating clearly that observational data cannot establish causality.
The next priority is not to question whether these outcomes matter, but to understand them with greater clinical detail. NICE guidance on cannabis-based medicinal products remains specific in scope, covering areas including intractable nausea and vomiting, chronic pain, spasticity and severe treatment-resistant epilepsy. Meanwhile, a JAMA Internal Medicine review noted emerging evidence that cannabidiol alone may reduce anxiety in people with anxiety disorders, while also warning that THC-predominant cannabis carries substantial risks for some groups, particularly those with bipolar disorder, psychotic spectrum disorders or heightened vulnerability to harm. For psychiatry, this distinction is essential. Medical cannabis should not be treated as one uniform intervention, because formulation, cannabinoid profile, patient history, diagnosis and monitoring all shape the clinical picture.
Rather than framing medical cannabis through broad approval or broad rejection, psychiatry needs stronger, more nuanced outcome data that reflects the complexity of the patients clinicians actually see. Many people living with treatment-resistant mental health conditions also experience comorbid anxiety and depression, trauma histories, insomnia, chronic pain, previous medication failures, neurodevelopmental traits and social stressors. These are not marginal details. They often shape whether a treatment is tolerable, effective, inappropriate or worth considering as part of a wider care plan.
For medical cannabis in mental health, the next stage should depend on structured assessment rather than cultural instinct. Clinicians and researchers need to document diagnosis, symptom severity, previous treatments, comorbidities, formulation, dose, adverse effects, discontinuation rates and long-term outcomes. They also need to measure the things patients themselves often care about most: sleep, function, emotional regulation, ability to work, quality of life and confidence in daily living.
Importantly, none of this is an argument for broad or casual prescribing. Medical cannabis is not suitable for everyone. Some patients should not receive THC-predominant products, and some should not receive cannabis-based medicines at all. Screening, exclusion criteria, informed consent and close follow-up are essential. As Jon Robson said: “No serious clinic is claiming medical cannabis is right for every patient, and no responsible clinician would present it that way. Even so, for people who have tried multiple treatments without adequate relief, it deserves thoughtful consideration rather than reflex dismissal.”
Caution, therefore, should not become avoidance. In a stretched mental health system, clinically meaningful patient outcomes should not be ignored simply because they arise in an area that remains politically or culturally loaded.
Across healthcare, value, safety and effectiveness are increasingly being judged beyond narrow snapshots of clinical response. Mental health should be part of that shift. If a legally prescribed treatment is associated with improvements in sleep, anxiety, mood regulation, function or quality of life among carefully selected patients, those changes deserve to be documented properly. Where risks appear, those risks need to be recorded with equal seriousness. A more mature evidence culture would allow psychiatry to move beyond assumption and towards a clearer understanding of which patients benefit, which patients do not, and which patients require particular caution.
At present, the debate risks becoming too polarised to be useful. Some advocates speak as though medical cannabis is being held back only by prejudice. Some critics speak as though any psychiatric use is inherently unserious. Both positions flatten the reality. A more responsible approach accepts clinical complexity, strengthens evidence systems, and keeps the patient at the centre of the question.
In psychiatry, meaningful improvement is often quiet. It may not look like a cure. It may look like sleep returning, anxiety loosening, or someone feeling able to participate in ordinary life again. When medical cannabis contributes to those changes for carefully selected patients, psychiatry should be able to recognise, measure and understand them. The task now is to make patient outcome data strong enough to reflect real clinical experience.
