85% of U.S. Healthcare Professionals Back Medical Cannabis, Survey Finds

Survey Demographics and Provider Exposure

The 879-respondent cohort represents a cross-section of U.S. clinical practice: physicians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and physician assistants, the majority of whom report direct patient encounters with cannabis use. Eighty-nine percent of respondents said they'd treated at least one patient who disclosed current or past cannabis consumption, a figure that aligns with prevalence estimates from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health showing 18 percent of U.S. adults used cannabis in the past year.

Responses weren't stratified by specialty. Prior research indicates oncologists, pain specialists, and palliative-care physicians encounter cannabis questions most frequently. What distinguishes this dataset is its breadth: respondents came from across the regulatory spectrum, practicing in states with comprehensive medical programs, limited-access CBD-only statutes, and no legal framework at all.

Geographic variance matters here. A clinician in California operates under a mature regulatory regime with 280 licensed cultivators and standardized labeling requirements enforced by the Department of Cannabis Control. A colleague in Georgia faces a narrower legal window—low-THC oil only, no in-state cultivation, and no dispensary infrastructure. The survey captured both realities. Yet the 85 percent support figure held across state lines.

The Training Deficit and Its Clinical Consequences

Despite near-universal patient exposure, fewer than one in five respondents reported receiving formal cannabis education during medical or nursing school, residency, or continuing professional development. That training gap creates a paradox. Providers who support cannabis access in principle often lack the pharmacological literacy to dose it, identify drug interactions, or counsel patients on delivery-method risks.

This deficit isn't unique to the United States. In Germany, where medical cannabis has been reimbursable under statutory health insurance since 2017, surveys of general practitioners show similar knowledge voids. BfArM, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, has issued clinical guidelines, but uptake remains uneven. Health Canada's 2019 provider survey found that 71 percent of Canadian physicians felt unprepared to authorize cannabis, even in a federally legal market with mandatory product testing and standardized THC-CBD labeling.

What the Journal of Cannabis Research data makes explicit is that U.S. medical schools haven't closed the gap. The American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges have called for expanded cannabinoid education since 2019, but curricular integration lags. Patients seek guidance from budtenders, online forums, and anecdotal networks—a de facto system that shifts clinical risk outside the formal healthcare apparatus.

International Comparisons and the Regulatory Variable

The 85 percent acceptance rate among U.S. providers sits well above the global median, reflecting both state-level normalization and the absence of federal Schedule I enforcement against patients. Compare that figure to Australia, where the Therapeutic Goods Administration has approved more than 200 cannabis products under the Special Access Scheme but physician authorization remains concentrated among a small cohort of pain and palliative specialists. A 2024 survey of Australian GPs found 62 percent supported medical access in principle, but only 22 percent had prescribed it, citing regulatory complexity and medicolegal uncertainty.

Israel offers a contrasting model. The Ministry of Health's medical cannabis unit has licensed roughly 100,000 patients, and provider training is embedded in residency programs for oncology, neurology, and pain management. Israeli physicians report higher comfort levels with cannabinoid therapeutics, a function of two decades of institutional research and a centralized approval pathway that reduces prescriber liability.

America occupies a middle ground. State programs have normalized access, but federal prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act means no FDA-approved dosing guidelines exist for whole-plant cannabis. No DEA-sanctioned prescribing authority. No CMS reimbursement codes. Providers operate in a legal gray zone, recommending but not prescribing, advising but not supervising. The survey's 85 percent acceptance figure reflects that pragmatic accommodation—clinicians acknowledge the evidence base while navigating a fragmented regulatory landscape.

The next signal to watch: whether U.S. medical boards and specialty societies translate this attitudinal shift into formal competency standards. The American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians have both endorsed rescheduling cannabis to facilitate research, but neither has mandated cannabis pharmacology in board certification exams. Until that changes, the training deficit will persist, and the 85 percent who believe in medical utility will continue practicing without the institutional scaffolding to support it. For more on how healthcare systems are adapting to this knowledge gap, see the CannIntel topic hub on Healthcare Professionals and Cannabis Training.