Does Cannabis Actually Have Medical Benefits?

OG article by Jasmine Laws

December 1, 2025

A comprehensive review in JAMA Network Open declares insufficient evidence for cannabis or cannabinoids treating most medical conditions, tempering enthusiasm amid rising therapeutic claims. Led by Dr. Kevin Hill of Harvard's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, the analysis sifted over 1,000 studies, prioritizing randomized trials and meta-analyses, concluding that beyond FDA-approved uses like epilepsy seizures, benefits remain limited and risks substantial. Despite popularity—27% of U.S. and Canadian adults use it medically, 10.5% for CBD—experts warn of overhyped promises from anecdotal reports and dispensary pitches.

Cannabis appeals for chronic pain, nausea in cancer patients, and appetite stimulation, yet the review highlights weak data and emerging dangers: nearly one-third of users develop cannabis use disorder, impairing daily life with distress. Daily inhalation elevates coronary heart disease, heart attack, and stroke risks, while interactions may undermine immunotherapy or fertility. Dr. Hill advocates third-line status only, stressing clinician-patient dialogues over commercial hype. Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon notes high-quality evidence for niche applications but critiques lax standards below FDA thresholds, countering optimistic advocacy.

Yasmin Hurd of Mount Sinai affirms alignment with National Academies reports on evidentiary gaps, while Dr. Igor Grant of UC San Diego acknowledges negatives but critiques the review's slant, citing counter-evidence on cardiovascular neutrality. As legalization surges, this synthesis demands balanced education: cannabis's broad effects tempt desperate patients, but unproven efficacy and side effects— from addiction to mental health exacerbation—often tip scales toward harm. Future research must prioritize rigorous trials to clarify viable roles, ensuring informed choices amid evolving access. Clinicians, policymakers, and users alike must navigate nuance, rejecting both prohibitionist fear and profit-driven exaggeration for science-led progress.