Iranian Psychiatrists See Both Promise and Risk in Treating Cannabis Addiction Without Medical Labels

Four main themes emerged: advantages of demedicalization (reduced stigma, enhanced patient empowerment, less dependence on pharmacological treatments), disadvantages (increased treatment challenges, worsened social damages), sociocultural impacts (improved social interactions, shifting cultural attitudes), and policy recommendations (modified legal approaches, comprehensive multifaceted treatment models).

Qualitative phenomenological study using in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 Iranian psychiatrists experienced in addiction treatment, analyzed using inductive content analysis via the Graneheim and Lundman approach.

As global cannabis policy evolves, the question of whether cannabis use disorder should remain a medical diagnosis has real implications for treatment access, insurance coverage, and social stigma. This study captures expert clinical perspectives from a country with strict prohibition, offering a counterpoint to Western-centric policy discussions.

The demedicalization debate extends beyond cannabis to broader questions about how societies define and respond to substance use. The Iranian psychiatrists' balanced view, seeing both benefits and risks in moving away from a strictly medical model, reflects tensions felt in many countries.

Small qualitative sample from a single country with strict cannabis prohibition, limiting generalizability. Psychiatrists' views may reflect the specific Iranian legal and cultural context. No patient or consumer perspectives were included.