# Self-reported reasons for medical and nonmedical cannabis use in Australia: A cross-sectional analysis of the International Cannabis Policy Study 2023.

> **Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD (ABFM Board Certified, MA Lic. #240562, NPI: 1962722637)
> **Publisher:** CED Clinic (https://cedclinic.com)
> **Canonical URL:** https://cedclinic.com/australian-medical-cannabis-use-patterns-survey-dual-motives/
> **Published:** 2026-04-28T23:01:34-04:00 | **Last Modified / Clinically Audited:** 2026-09-28T10:09:17-04:00
> **Clinical Summary:** New survey data reveals most Australian cannabis users report dual medical-recreational motives, challenging traditional use categories in clinical practice.

---

CED Clinical Relevance  #56Monitored Relevance
Evidence Brief | CED ClinicAustralian cross-sectional survey reveals dual-use cannabis patterns, with medical-only users comprising just 1.9% of population while 5.0% report concurrent medical and recreational use.
[Medical Cannabis](https://cedclinic.com/therapeutic-benefits-of-thc/)Dual-UsePopulation SurveyAustraliaCannabis Policy

Australian cross-sectional survey reveals dual-use cannabis patterns, with medical-only users comprising just 1.9% of population while 5.0% report concurrent medical and recreational use.

What This Study Teaches Us

This population-level survey demonstrates that pure medical [cannabis use](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-cardiovascular-health-insights-2024/) represents a small fraction of overall cannabis consumption in Australia, while dual-use patterns are more than twice as common. The data provides baseline prevalence estimates for different use patterns following Australia’s medical [cannabis legalization](https://cedclinic.com/the-forgotten-history-of-hemp-in-america/) framework.

Why This Matters
These findings challenge assumptions about medical cannabis program utilization and highlight the complexity of patient motivations. Clinicians need to understand that patients may have mixed motivations for [cannabis use](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-cardiovascular-health-insights-2024/), which could influence treatment planning and regulatory compliance discussions.

Study Snapshot

Study Type
Cross-sectional Survey

Population
Australian adults, n=3042, from 2023 [International Cannabis Policy](https://cedclinic.com/brazil-cannabis-regulatory-framework-new-medical-rules/) Study

Intervention
Self-reported cannabis use patterns and medical indications

Comparator
Medical-only vs recreational-only vs dual-use vs no use

Primary Outcome
Proportions of different cannabis use motives and medical conditions treated

Key Finding
86.3% no use, 1.9% medical-only, 6.7% recreational-only, 5.0% dual-use

Journal
Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Year
2023

Clinical Bottom Line
Medical-only cannabis use remains uncommon in the general Australian population, while dual-use patterns are prevalent among medical cannabis users. This suggests patient counseling should address the intersection of medical treatment goals and recreational use preferences.

What This Paper Does Not Show
The study cannot establish causation, validate self-reported medical indications against clinical diagnoses, or determine treatment efficacy. Cross-sectional design prevents understanding of how use patterns change over time or whether medical use leads to recreational use or vice versa.

Where This Paper Deserves Skepticism
Self-reported data may suffer from social desirability bias and recall errors. The survey methodology cannot verify actual medical cannabis prescriptions or distinguish between legal medical access and self-medication. Response bias may affect representativeness of cannabis users.

Dr. Caplan's Take
This data confirms what I observe clinically – patients often have complex motivations for cannabis use that don’t fit neat regulatory categories. The low rate of medical-only use suggests either access barriers to legal programs or that patients find value in products outside medical frameworks. I counsel patients to be honest about all use patterns to optimize therapeutic outcomes.

What a Careful Reader Should Take Away

Cannabis use patterns are more nuanced than regulatory frameworks suggest, with dual-use being common among medical users. Population-level surveys provide valuable context for clinical practice but cannot substitute for individual patient assessment and clinical validation of medical indications.

Join the Conversation

Have a question about how this applies to your situation? [Ask Dr. Caplan →](https://benjamincaplan.com/ask-dr-caplan)

Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? [Join the forum discussion →](https://cedclinic.com/interact/discussion-forums/forum/cannabis-industry/)

Have thoughts on this? Share it:

[X Share on X](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Just%20read%20this%20on%20CEDclinic.com%3A%20Self-reported%20reasons%20for%20medical%20and%20nonmedical%20cannabis%20use%20in%20Australia%3A%20A%20cross-sectional%20analys...%20%40drcaplan&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Faustralian-medical-cannabis-use-patterns-survey-dual-motives%2F)[in Share on LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Faustralian-medical-cannabis-use-patterns-survey-dual-motives%2F)[🦅 Share on BlueSky](https://bsky.app/intent/compose?text=Just%20read%20this%3A%20Self-reported%20reasons%20for%20medical%20and%20nonmedical%20cannabis%20use%20in%20Australia%3A%20A%20cross-sectional%20analys...%20via%20%40drcaplan.bsky.social%20https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Faustralian-medical-cannabis-use-patterns-survey-dual-motives%2F)[📷 Follow on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/drbenjamincaplan)[📝 Read more on Substack](https://doctorapprovedcannabis.substack.com/)[🔔 Subscribe via RSS](https://cedclinic.com/feed/)

Table of Contents

- [FAQ](#FAQ)[What proportion of Australian adults use cannabis for medical purposes only?](#What_proportion_of_Australian_adults_use_cannabis_for_medical_purposes_only)
- [How common is dual-use of cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes?](#How_common_is_dual-use_of_cannabis_for_both_medical_and_recreational_purposes)
- [Should clinicians be concerned about patients using cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes?](#Should_clinicians_be_concerned_about_patients_using_cannabis_for_both_medical_and_recreational_purposes)
- [What does this study tell us about the current state of Australia’s medicinal cannabis framework?](#What_does_this_study_tell_us_about_the_current_state_of_Australia8217s_medicinal_cannabis_framework)
- [How should healthcare providers approach cannabis use discussions with patients?](#How_should_healthcare_providers_approach_cannabis_use_discussions_with_patients)
- [Related](#Related)

## FAQ

#### What proportion of Australian adults use cannabis for medical purposes only?

According to this 2023 study, only 1.9% of Australian adults reported using cannabis for medical purposes exclusively. This represents a relatively small portion of the population, with the majority (86.3%) reporting no cannabis use at all.

#### How common is dual-use of cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes?

The study found that 5.0% of Australian adults engage in dual-use, meaning they use cannabis for both medical and recreational reasons concurrently. This dual-use pattern is actually more prevalent than medical-only use (1.9%), suggesting overlapping motivations for cannabis consumption.

#### Should clinicians be concerned about patients using cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes?

Yes, dual-use patterns warrant clinical attention as they may complicate treatment monitoring, dosing protocols, and assessment of therapeutic outcomes. Clinicians should inquire about all cannabis use patterns to ensure appropriate medical oversight and optimize therapeutic benefits while minimizing potential risks.

#### What does this study tell us about the current state of Australia’s medicinal cannabis framework?

The study reveals that despite increasing commercialization of Australia’s medicinal cannabis framework, pure medical use remains limited at just 1.9% of the population. The higher prevalence of dual-use (5.0%) compared to medical-only use suggests patients may be supplementing or combining formal medical cannabis with recreational sources.

#### How should healthcare providers approach cannabis use discussions with patients?

Healthcare providers should routinely ask patients about all forms of cannabis use, not just medical use, given that dual-use is more common than medical-only use. Open, non-judgmental discussions about cannabis use patterns can help optimize therapeutic outcomes and ensure appropriate clinical monitoring of patients using cannabis for health conditions.

 [https://cedclinic.com/contact/](https://cedclinic.com/contact/)
 

Physician-Led, Whole-Person Care
A doctor who takes the time to truly understand you.
Personal care that starts with listening and is guided by experience and ingenuity.

Health, Longevity, Wellness
One-on-One Cannabis Guidance
Metabolic Balance

 [Leave a Message](https://cedclinic.com/contact/)
 [Metabolic Care](https://cedclinic.com/metabolic/metabolic-how-it-works/)
 [Medical Consulting](https://cedclinic.com/book/)
 [Cannabis Care](https://cedclinic.com/book/)
 

 [https://cedclinic.com/contact/](https://cedclinic.com/contact/)
 

 

### Related

---

### Verification & Medical Governance

- **Lead Clinical Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD
- **Credentials:** Board Certified in Family Medicine (ABFM), Founder & CMO CED Clinic & CED Foundation, Author of *The Doctor-Approved Cannabis Handbook* (Penguin Random House).
- **Clinical Scale:** 350,000+ lifetime evaluations overseen; 81,008-patient Real-World Evidence Registry (`~/.ced_rwe_vault.db`); 125,000+ peer-reviewed study literature observatory (`http://localhost:8768/api/explorer/terminal`).
- **License Verification:** Commonwealth of Massachusetts License #240562 (https://checkahealthlicense.mass.gov/).
- **NPI Registry:** 1962722637 (https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/provider-view/1962722637).
- **Ethics & Data Privacy:** Clinical registry observations adhere strictly to HIPAA Safe Harbor de-identification (45 CFR § 164.514(b)) and criteria for secondary research exemption under 45 CFR § 46.104(d)(4).