Medicinal Cannabis is no longer on the fringe. Chronic pain, anxiety, insomnia, epilepsy, and palliative care support are amongst a growing list of evidence-based recommendations for this natural therapeutic modality. Over the past decade, it has transformed from a controversial therapy into a science backed treatment option. Regulators are responding to the demand from patients and the weight of the evidence, albeit to slowly for some people. Yet despite its legal status and rising public acceptance, access remains a challenging in the Australian context.

Clinical Education, or more importantly the lack of it, is a key barrier to access.

Medicinal cannabis is unlike most pharmaceutical products. It contains over 200 active constituents, and the effects they produce in concert is referred to as the entourage effect. The entourage effect refers to the synergistic interaction between the many active compounds in cannabis—primarily cannabinoids (like THC and CBD), terpenes, and flavonoids—which together may enhance the therapeutic effects of the plant beyond what isolated compounds can achieve.

So instead of just focusing on a single molecule (e.g. pure CBD or THC), the entourage effect suggests that whole-plant or broad-spectrum extracts may provide broader or more effective outcomes due to this natural synergy.

This biochemical complexity demands that prescribers understand not just clinical indications, but also product selection, dosing, titration, formulation differences, and patient safety considerations.

Add to this a complicated and ‘paperwork intensive’ regulatory framework, and it becomes clear why many healthcare professionals remain hesitant to prescribe.

Since the legalisation of MC in Australia in 2016 following a parliamentary inquiry, prescribing has increased significantly. However, the pathways to access remain bureaucratically burdensome. Currently, prescribers must either apply through the Special Access Scheme (SAS-B) or become Authorised Prescribers (AP) via the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

• SAS-B applications must be submitted on a per-patient, per-product basis—making it time-consuming and inefficient for busy general practitioners.
• The AP scheme, while more streamlined, is geared toward high-frequency prescribers and carries administrative requirements that can be off-putting for clinicians treating only a handful of patients with cannabis.

As a result, many GPs—despite patient demand and clinical appropriateness—do not engage with prescribing MC at all. And patients are left navigating a fragmented system that often requires travel, long wait times, and out-of-pocket costs.

This is where education becomes essential.

Targeted, CPD-accredited training that draws on both local regulatory knowledge and international best practice can empower clinicians to navigate the system confidently. Educational providers that offer structured certification pathways—including regulatory guidance, case-based learning, and clinical decision-making tools—can bridge the gap between biomedical science and real-world implementation.

With better education, prescribers gain not only the tools to prescribe responsibly but also the confidence to advocate for appropriate patient access—helping to normalise medicinal cannabis as a legitimate, evidence-based component of modern care.

To truly improve access, Australia needs more than just legislative support—we need a cultural and clinical shift, underpinned by education. The future of medicinal cannabis in Australia will not be driven by hype or politics, but by informed, certified and capable healthcare professionals. 

Martin, S., Jansen, S., Toole, A., & Ward, A. (2025). Exploring access to medicinal cannabis through general practitioners in Australia. Australian Journal of General Practice, 54(3). https://doi.org/10.31128/AJGP-02-24-7155

https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2025/march/exploring-access-to-medicinal-cannabis-through-gen