The UK medical cannabis sector stands in the tension between what has been built over the past seven years and what must change for the field not to buckle under its own contradictions.
When cannabis-based products for medicinal use (CBPMs) were rescheduled in 2018, the intent was noble: to carve a legal, medically regulated path for patients who might benefit without opening floodgates to recreational misuse. Implementation hasn’t been perfect, but we do now have a very progressive system that is among the bets in the world.
However, the newly launched call for evidence from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) could change that. The ACMD is seeking input on whether the 2018 framework delivered its promises, and what unintended consequences have plagued the sector.
Given what we’ve seen so far – and what’s emerging behind closed doors – 2026 could be the moment when the UK either tightens its grip or steps into a more mature, equitable medical cannabis regime.
What’s Good, and What’s bad
In some respects, the sector has matured.
- Clinic expansion & capital flows. Over 25 private clinics have launched since 2018, and investment has followed.
- Supply pressure, pricing erosion. The flower market is “overstocked” – more SKUs, more variety, price downtrends.
- Patient growth. The community of patients using medical cannabis has steadily expanded.
But cracks remain.
- Access inequality. Only patients who can afford private clinics can navigate the system. The more disadvantaged or chronically ill are left out.
- Lack of consensus. Clinical trials remain limited in number and scale, and the evidence base is still contested. Many prescribers remain wary, and some policy actors demand more “gold-standard” trials before expanding.
- Regulatory ambiguity. The role of MHRA, oversight of imports, and quality consistency are contentious.
Two Visions for 2026 – Which Way Will We Go?
At the heart of the ACMD review is a set of binary policy inflection points. The path chosen will echo for a decade. Broadly, there are two competing visions:
1. Constrictive Correction
The narrative: “We tried liberalising too much, too soon. We saw risks. Let’s shore up safety, tighten prescribing, set volume/THC ceilings, and raise regulatory barriers.”
- Pros: Controls over misuse, consistent prescribing guardrails, and tighter quality oversight. A predictable regulatory environment.
- Cons: Many patients lose access, private clinics struggle, innovation stalls, and the stigma of “cannabis as dangerous drug” is reinforced. Access becomes even more gated as a treatment for the privileged few.
This is far from a fantasy: whispers in industry corridors suggest the MHRA is already considering stricter oversight, as regulators worry about creeping crossover with “consumer cannabis” lines.
2. Measured Opening (Reform + Integration)
The narrative: “The current regime is under-serving patients. Let’s refine but expand: allow NHS prescribing in limited cases, introduce subsidised pricing, and remove structural barriers.”
- Pros: More equitable access, reduced inequality, legitimacy through formal pathways, better clinical oversight (if done right). It could shift medical cannabis from a niche experiment toward accepted medical treatment in certain indications.
- Cons: Risk of political blowback, regulatory burden, increased scrutiny, and possible cost to public budgets.
Seize the Moment
2026 may already be the inflection point we’ll one day look back on: the juncture where the UK either embraced a reformed, scaled medical cannabis framework, or pushed it back into fringe territory.
For clinics, policymakers, patients, and advocates, there is no neutral position. Every piece of evidence submitted, every patient story told, every clinic audit or outcome data point will shape the ACMD’s recommendations. And thereby the next decade of policy.
Sign up to our free newsletter below, and we’ll send you a weekly update on all things weed in the UK – as well as our guide to accessing medical cannabis in the UK.
