By Zoe Reece
Over the last decade, cannabis has moved from gold‑rush hype to evidence‑driven industry. Markets still follow a similar arc—but the speed and quality of that journey varies widely. The early days in places like Colorado, California, and Canada proved that enthusiasm alone can’t substitute for fit‑for‑purpose regulations, disciplined scaling, and patient access that actually works.
Today, we’re seeing a healthier pattern: countries start more conservatively, learn from those who went first, then open incrementally where the data supports it. That’s not only more sustainable—it’s better for patients, clinicians, regulators, and serious operators who are in this for the long game.
From hype to discipline
As Sabrina (Fluence) noted, the global market has matured. Big promises have given way to right‑sized projects that respect GACP/GMP realities, traceability, and auditability. In Europe especially, the mindset is “nice and steady”—start smaller, prove compliance, scale what works.
That discipline matters. Every time a project is conceived with standards first, another policymaker, pharmacist, or physician gains trust that cannabis can meet the same bar they expect of other regulated products.
Same arc, different speeds
Across markets, I’ve seen the same pattern repeat—only the tempo changes. When the US was early, stigma took longer to shift and the high potency mindset overshadowed the nuance of other active compounds found in the plant and terpenes. Now, with states and countries to look to, markets move faster and smarter. Regulators can peek over the shoulder, borrow what works, and avoid known pitfalls.
That’s especially true when regulators start tight and agree to iterative improvement. In New Zealand, our medical regulations began conservative—and regulators actively listened. Where export rules or cultivation inputs needed tuning, they updated the framework without compromising safety, quality, or intent. It’s a powerful model: evidence-led adjustments, not blanket looseness.
Conservative governments aren’t a dead end—they’re a design constraint
Frederike made a crucial point: conservative administrations are often predictable, even if they’re cautious. That predictability is useful—if we align with their priorities:
- Cut public spending (reduce externalities from risky consumer goods)
- Fight crime (shrink the illicit market)
- Protect youth (evidence-based access and education)
This is where the industry’s job is translation. We don’t need to convince every government to love cannabis—we need to show how well‑regulated medical and adult-use systems serve their own policy goals, more effectively than prohibition.
Stigma, trust, and the doctor’s desk
Stigma thrives where trust is low and fear is high. The antidote is data—clinical trials, robust observational evidence, and medical education that meets clinicians where they are.
Too often, doctors are overworked and under‑resourced on cannabinoid medicine. They aren’t taught it in medical school, and they don’t have spare hours to piece together scattered studies. That’s on us: we need credible, concise clinical digests that link indications, dosage forms, and risk profiles to the best available evidence—no evangelism, just clarity.
Regulators and politicians also respond to transparency. Facility tours, open data rooms, and cross‑company collaboration (a Dutch horticulture strength) help normalize the industry’s professionalism. As Sabrina highlighted, when institutions monitor, companies comply, and results improve, stigma recedes.
Know your audience(s) in government
One practical lesson from New Zealand: you aren’t speaking to “the government.” You’re engaging with three distinct groups:
- Politicians (narrative, constituents, timing)
- Regulators (safety, quality, enforceability)
- Policy makers (design, evidence, unintended consequences)
They have different incentives and time horizons—but they talk to each other, and information travels across borders. High‑quality, reproducible content you place in one room will often walk into others. That’s why format matters: white papers, impact briefs, pilot evaluations, and crime‑reduction outcomes need to be packaged in ways that can withstand legislative scrutiny.
Medical vs adult use: distinct lanes, shared biology
We’re still paying for blurred lines between medical and adult-use. The product overlap—especially flower—makes bright lines difficult. But clear lanes are essential:
- Medical: physician‑guided, pharmacy‑dispensed, standardized formats, stability and dosing precision
- Adult use: consumer safety, age controls, taxation, product category rules
- Adjacent lanes: nutraceutical, veterinary, industrial hemp—each needs fit‑for‑purpose frameworks
Countries like Portugal show how a pharmacy‑first medical channel can be unambiguous (even if access still needs work). Elsewhere, medical patients are forced into recreational channels because clinical pathways aren’t usable. That’s not fair to patients—and it’s not how mature health systems operate.
The case for international standards (and why Manuka honey is a warning)
Fragmentation erodes trust. In New Zealand, Manuka honey ended up with two competing standards—a consumer nightmare. Let’s not repeat that. As an industry, we need to coalesce around global baselines:
- Analytical standards: active pharmacutical ingredients / compunds, terpenes, contaminants, residuals
- Stability & storage: validated shelf life by form factor
- Labeling & claims: clear, harmonized rules across categories
- Clinical evidence summaries: doctor‑first materials by indication and dosage form
- Traceability & audits: pragmatic, enforceable, digitally accessible
Think of it as a World Cannabis Standards Alliance—industry, academia, patient groups, and regulators at one table. Start with achievable baselines and avoid dueling standards that confuse clinicians and consumers alike.
Looking outward: UN constraints and the art of coalition
International law still constrains what many countries can do. But meaningful change doesn’t require everyone to move at once. It requires a credible coalition—a handful of ethical, well‑funded actors—to draft realistic, evidence‑based proposals that align with public health and crime‑reduction priorities. Borrow talent from industries that have navigated this before (alcohol harm reduction, tobacco control frameworks, pharma standards). Don’t reinvent the wheel—repurpose it.
Why this matters now
Six years ago, mainstream companies were still afraid to be seen near cannabis. Today, legacy horticulture brands are releasing cannabis‑specific products without blinking. Patient stories are changing political minds, and the professionalization of production is winning skeptics. We’ve done the blood, sweat, and tears phase. Now it’s time for clarity, standards, and coalitions—the things that turn progress into policy and access that lasts.
Key takeaways
- The era of hype is over; evidence and compliance are the new moat.
- Conservative governments aren’t blockers if you align with their goals.
- Medical vs adult-use needs clean lanes; patients shouldn’t be pushed into recreational channels.
- We need one set of global baselines, not dueling standards.
- A coalition of credible actors can move international conversations from theory to workable change.
Global Developments for the Future – BvCW Expert panel
Berlin June 2025
Host: Dirk Heitepriem (BvCW-Präsident, Aurora Cannabis Inc.)
Panellists: Sabrina Carvalho (Fluence), Frederike S. Fäscher (New Zealand Trade and Enterprise) and Zoe Reece (Ora Pharm)
