Review Argues Cannabis Abuse Risk Under Medical Supervision Is Comparable to Other Prescription Drugs

The review identified and examined five broad assumptions in the abuse liability literature: (1) a standard cannabis formulation, (2) standard routes and potency, (3) a standard pattern of use, (4) a standard user, and (5) standard vulnerability to misuse. The authors concluded that unpacking these assumptions reveals the evidence does not support treating cannabis as uniquely high-risk for abuse when used under medical supervision.

Narrative scoping review of over 350 articles (approximately 90% published after 2002) identified from databases using terms related to cannabis abuse, misuse, and dependence. Abstract analysis narrowed the selection to approximately 50 papers based on relevance as judged by an experienced clinician and a public health toxicologist.

Cannabis scheduling and regulation debates often rest on assumptions about abuse potential. This review argues that much of the existing abuse liability research fails to distinguish between recreational and medical use, different formulations, routes, and patient populations, leading to an oversimplified picture of cannabis risk.

The distinction between recreational and medical cannabis use is often blurred in policy discussions. This review suggests that the abuse liability of cannabis under proper medical supervision may be no different from that of benzodiazepines, opioids, or stimulants that are routinely prescribed with appropriate monitoring.

Narrative review with author-selected papers rather than systematic methodology. Only two authors assessed relevance. May underweight evidence supporting higher abuse potential. "Comparable to other pharmaceuticals" is a broad claim given that some pharmaceuticals have significant abuse liability.