Cannabis Health Symposium 2025 – Key Takeaways Part 2

The afternoon sessions at Tuesday’s inaugural Cannabis Health Symposium 2025 moved beyond the fundamentals of cannabis medicine and its potential, to the practical realities of prescribing this relatively new medicine in the UK.

These in-depth talks spanned everything from pharmacy standards and product quality to the specific challenges of prescribing for women’s health, pain management, and vulnerable patient groups.

What became abundantly clear throughout the day was that this is, and always has been, an industry driven by patients and their powerful stories, a theme that came into sharp focus during the day’s closing panel discussion.

Read part one here 

Zul Mamon, Partner at Pharma Experts and Senior Responsible Person, opened the afternoon by illustrating the fragility of the current patient experience through the story of Sarah, a 45-year-old patient with chronic pain.

After finally securing a prescription, Sarah was left with delays, silence from both clinic and pharmacy, and no idea how to use her medication. Mamon stressed that her journey is “far more common than we like to admit.”

Referring to the October 2025 General Pharmaceutical Council inspection report, Mamon noted:

Without access to patient history, Mamon warned, pharmacists cannot reliably identify contraindications, drug interactions, or duplication of therapy.

Mamon outlined that the pharmacist’s role begins long before dispensing:

Currently, CBPM dispensing has ‘devolved into putting it in a box and shipping it,’ with little or no pharmacist-patient contact.

Solutions included digital stock-tracking, proactive clinic-pharmacy communication, robust procurement processes, and shared patient information resources using plain-language explanations.

Mamon proposed a sector-wide framework built on:

He closed by reimagining how Sarah’s journey would have changed if she had been supported by a well-trained pharmacist with clinical records, clear communication lines, and an active role in care.

Dr Niraj Singh explored the use of CBPMs in mental health and neurodivergent populations, an area he described as promising but complex.

Singh outlined that psychiatric presentations vary widely and often overlap with neurodevelopmental disorders, including anxiety and depression, PTSD, OCD, autism, ADHD, intellectual disability, and dyspraxia. These conditions rarely exist in isolation, and individuals often present with intertwined biological, psychological, and environmental factors.

The evidence base is heterogeneous but growing, with studies covering anxiety, PTSD, ADHD, agitation, mood instability, and autism-related symptoms. Real-world data suggest meaningful improvements for selected patients.

THC and CBD show different benefit-risk profiles, and matching patient phenotype to formulation is critical.

Singh cautioned that psychiatric patients may respond in non-linear or unexpected ways, so careful titration and monitoring are essential.

Key insights:

The emphasis was on personalisation and recognising that ‘one size does not fit all.’

Singh highlighted the need for clinicians to understand vulnerabilities such as co-morbid trauma, emotional dysregulation, or sensory sensitivity. The importance of informed consent and close follow-up cannot be overstated, and future research should focus on granular subgroups, not broad diagnostic labels.

Dr Callie Seaman, plant scientist and formulation chemist, delivered a densely informative deep-dive into how pharmaceutical-grade cannabis is grown, processed, and standardised.

Seaman outlined three core chemotypes:

She noted emerging Type IV/V products rich in minor cannabinoids (e.g., CBDV), though few appear on UK formularies.

Male plants produce little biomass and minimal cannabinoids. The medically relevant compounds reside in glandular trichomes of unfertilized female flowers, which contain cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids, lipids, and other secondary metabolites.

Cannabinoid and terpene expression is highly dependent on light spectrum and intensity, temperature, nutrient availability, abiotic and biotic stress, and genetics. Stress triggers increased production of defensive secondary metabolites—many of which have therapeutic activity.

Seaman highlighted:

Flavonoids, she noted, warrant far more attention given their potential therapeutic relevance.

Seaman compared cultivation methods:

She detailed processes including phenohunting, cloning, flowering, trimming, curing, moisture control, extraction, and GMP packaging.

Seaman contrasted full-plant extracts (retaining secondary compounds) with isolates:

Seaman warned clinicians to understand what patients may be used to from the illicit market—”bag appeal,” frostiness, certain aromas—and prepare them for differences in pharmaceutical-grade products.

This forward-looking discussion brought together Dr Richard Hazlett, Berta Kaguako, Matty Rawding (Curaleaf), and Nabila Chaudhri, covering prescriber recruitment, scaling private practice responsibly, and the path to mainstream adoption.

Panelists envisioned:

The panel described a lack of ECS education in medical training, reliance on self-study and industry-led learning, and widespread stigma among clinicians. They urged anchoring education in physiology, ‘teach the ECS first,’ rather than ‘teaching cannabis.’

Because most education currently comes via private clinics, some clinicians outside the sector perceive bias. Panellists suggested impartial bodies like MCCS should lead guideline development, and noted that published dosing frameworks have already begun to improve confidence.

Consensus emerged that regulatory involvement is currently limited due to an under-resourced NHS and regulators, low political priority, and a small relative market size. However, rising patient numbers will eventually force engagement.

RCTs are challenging for flower, but real-world datasets, new digital research platforms, and more standardised non-flower products could bridge the evidence gap.

A striking example was cited: cluster headache treatments costing the NHS £35m/year, whereas CBPMs could dramatically reduce costs if widely prescribed. Cost-savings from reduced polypharmacy and return-to-work outcomes were also highlighted.

Ideas included:

Professor Mike Barnes returned to deliver a detailed review of the evidence supporting cannabis for chronic pain, the most common UK indication, accounting for approximately 55% of prescriptions.

The primary analgesic cannabinoid is THC, but CBN, CBC, CBD, THCV, and various terpenes and flavonoids (e.g., myrcene, pinene, quercetin) also contribute. CBD aids pain indirectly via sleep and anxiety improvements.

Barnes cited consistent findings:

In a study of 3-month prescribing:

Health economic modelling from the University of York indicates:

Barnes concluded plainly: ‘Cannabis for pain works. Cannabis for pain is safe.’

Dr Dani Gordon, an integrated medicine specialist, explored how CBPMs fit into complex female health across the lifespan.

Gordon highlighted benefits seen in menopause (sleep, anxiety, hot flashes), PMDD, endometriosis, chronic pelvic pain, postpartum symptoms, and neurodivergent women with multi-system presentations. Often, women present with interconnected issues: fatigue, immune dysregulation, pain, anxiety, gut dysfunction, and hormonal variability.

Cannabinoids modulate pain pathways, inflammatory pathways, the HPA (stress) axis, sleep-wake regulation, and mast cell activation (emerging research for endometriosis).

This closing panel centred the voices of patients. Liam O’Dowd, Dr Michelle Nyangereka, Heidi Whitman, Louis Petit, and Robyn Noone, all of whom have extensive personal experience using cannabis to manage illness, often long before formal medical access existed.

Patients described using cannabis for epilepsy, fibromyalgia, autoimmune symptoms, perimenopause and menopause, dementia and sundowning, chronic pain and fatigue, and neurodivergence-associated symptoms. For some, it replaced multiple medications; for others, it allowed basic functioning or prevented crisis episodes.

Many panellists had used cannabis for years before medical access existed. Formal prescribing brought safety, consistency, reduced stigma, and transparent information about cultivars, THC/CBD content, and contaminants. However, some found the process too easy or too narrowly focused (e.g., only on chronic pain), missing the full range of their symptoms.

Heidi Whitman described caring for her mother with early Alzheimer’s/vascular dementia. Medical cannabis improved agitation, appetite, sleep, and sundowning. A balanced oil given in food or sublingually stabilises symptoms where other medications failed. She stressed the need for elder-friendly delivery formats and a better understanding of geriatrics.

Patients reported long-term dismissal of symptoms, fear of disclosing cannabis use, GPs questioning the legitimacy, then later validating their illnesses only after sustained medical cannabis use, and social stigma around inhaled flower.

Cost remains the biggest barrier. Many cannot afford long-term prescriptions, some moved between clinics multiple times seeking affordability or more holistic care, and others raised concerns about medical schemes being “too easy to access” for those without genuine clinical need.

Patients asked clinicians to: