What Patients Should Know About Homemade Cannabis Suppositories in Massachusetts (2026 Doctor’s Guide)
Cannabis suppositories—rectal or vaginal—bypass first-pass hepatic metabolism, potentially delivering cannabinoids more efficiently to pelvic, gastrointestinal, and systemic targets than oral routes. However, homemade preparations carry real risks: inconsistent dosing, contamination, and no regulatory quality control. Under Massachusetts 2026 rules, medical patients may lawfully possess and prepare cannabis at home within their 10-ounce rolling supply limit, but clinical supervision is strongly advised.
| Audience | Massachusetts Medical Cannabis Patients, Caregivers, Pelvic Health Patients & Clinicians |
| Primary Topic | Homemade Cannabis Suppositories: Safety, Dosing, Legality, and Clinical Guidance in Massachusetts |
| Legal Authority | Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission Regulations (935 CMR 501) |
What Patients Should Know About Homemade Cannabis Suppositories in Massachusetts (2026 Doctor's Guide)
Patients dealing with pelvic pain, colorectal conditions, severe nausea, or treatment-resistant symptoms are increasingly turning to homemade cannabis suppositories—a route of administration that most dispensaries and physicians rarely discuss openly. The science is genuinely promising, the legal framework in Massachusetts is permissive for registered patients, and the practical risks are real and manageable with the right guidance.
- Why suppositories bypass first-pass liver metabolism and what that means for onset, duration, and dosing compared to oral edibles
- How Massachusetts 935 CMR 501 permits registered medical patients to prepare homemade cannabis products within their lawful 10-ounce rolling supply limit
- Which cannabinoid ratios and base materials (cocoa butter, coconut oil, suppository molds) produce the most consistent and safest homemade preparations
- The sterility, contamination, and dosing accuracy risks that make physician oversight and batch-testing essential before attempting home preparation
- When suppositories are clinically appropriate—pelvic floor dysfunction, endometriosis, colorectal cancer, severe nausea—and when they are not the right tool
- Cannabis suppositories can deliver cannabinoids efficiently to pelvic and GI tissues, bypassing liver metabolism for faster, more localized relief
- Massachusetts medical patients may lawfully prepare homemade cannabis products at home under 935 CMR 501 within their 60-day 10-ounce supply limit
- Homemade preparations carry real risks—inconsistent dosing, contamination, and unknown potency—that require careful technique and ideally physician guidance
- Medical card holders save 17–20% on cannabis purchases tax-free and can access higher-potency formulations unavailable in the adult-use market
| Target Question | What Patients Should Know About Homemade Cannabis Suppositories (2026 Doctor's Guide) |
| Massachusetts Legal Basis | M.G.L. c. 94I & 935 CMR 501.000 — home preparation permitted within registered patient supply limits |
| Qualifying Standard | Statutory 'Debilitating Medical Condition' determined by certifying physician; pelvic pain, GI conditions, cancer, and nausea commonly qualify |
| Clinical Pharmacology | Rectal/vaginal mucosal absorption bypasses hepatic first-pass metabolism; CB1/CB2 receptor activation in enteric nervous system and pelvic tissues |
| Tax Exemption Benefit | 100% exempt from Massachusetts state and local cannabis excise taxes (17–20% savings on all dispensary purchases) |
| Possession Limit | 60-day rolling supply of up to 10 ounces of cannabis flower or equivalent concentrate for registered medical patients |
| Certification Method | Physician clinical evaluation followed by immediate online MassCIP portal access and same-day temporary digital certificate |
For patients managing conditions like endometriosis, pelvic floor dysfunction, colorectal cancer, Crohn’s disease, or intractable nausea, conventional oral and inhaled cannabis routes are often inadequate or inaccessible. Suppositories offer a genuinely distinct pharmacokinetic profile—localized mucosal absorption, reduced psychoactivity in some formulations, and faster onset than traditional edibles—making them a clinically meaningful option that deserves serious, evidence-grounded discussion rather than dismissal. Yet the internet is flooded with unvetted DIY recipes, wildly inconsistent cannabinoid concentrations, and no guidance on sterility or base material selection. Massachusetts patients deserve accurate, physician-authored information so they can make safe, informed decisions within the legal framework that already protects them as registered medical cannabis patients in 2026.
Homemade cannabis suppositories occupy a legitimate, underexplored niche in clinical cannabis medicine—particularly for patients whose conditions involve the pelvis, lower GI tract, or who cannot tolerate inhalation or oral dosing. The pharmacokinetics are genuinely different from other routes, and for the right patient with the right condition, this preparation method can meaningfully improve quality of life in ways that standard dispensary products simply cannot replicate. That said, ‘homemade’ does not mean ‘unguided.’ The difference between a therapeutic suppository and a contaminated, wildly overdosed one comes down to technique, base material selection, cannabinoid sourcing, and clinical context. Every Massachusetts patient considering this route should do so under physician supervision, within their lawful supply limits, and with a clear understanding of what the evidence does and does not yet support.
Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94I and the Cannabis Control Commission’s regulations at 935 CMR 501.000, registered medical cannabis patients are permitted to possess up to a 60-day supply of cannabis—defined as 10 ounces of flower or its concentrate equivalent. Critically, the statute does not restrict the form in which a patient may use or prepare their lawfully obtained cannabis at home. A registered patient who purchases cannabis oil or flower from a licensed Massachusetts dispensary may legally infuse that material into a suppository base at home for personal therapeutic use.
This matters enormously in practice. Many patients assume that anything not sold pre-packaged by a dispensary exists in a legal gray zone. It does not—at least not for registered medical patients. The CCC’s 2026 regulatory framework distinguishes clearly between licensed commercial manufacturing (which requires a Marijuana Product Manufacturer license) and personal patient preparation, which falls within the scope of lawful home use. Caregivers registered under 935 CMR 501.010 may also prepare suppositories on behalf of their registered patients, provided all cannabis originates from a licensed dispensary and quantities remain within the patient’s supply limit.
One practical compliance note: patients should retain dispensary receipts documenting the source of all cannabis used in home preparations. If ever questioned, demonstrating that your cannabis was purchased from a licensed Massachusetts Registered Marijuana Dispensary (RMD) or Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (MMTC) is the clearest evidence of lawful possession. Keeping a simple log of purchase dates, quantities, and preparation batches is a habit that takes minutes and provides meaningful legal protection.
When cannabis is consumed orally, THC undergoes extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism, converting to 11-hydroxy-THC—a potent psychoactive metabolite responsible for the intense, prolonged ‘edible high’ that catches many patients off guard. Rectal and vaginal suppositories largely bypass this hepatic first-pass effect through direct absorption into the hemorrhoidal venous plexus (rectal) or vaginal mucosal vasculature, delivering cannabinoids more directly into systemic circulation with a different metabolic profile. Early pharmacokinetic studies and clinical observations suggest lower peak psychoactivity with rectal administration compared to equivalent oral doses—a meaningful advantage for patients who need symptom relief without cognitive impairment during the day.
CB1 receptors are expressed throughout the enteric nervous system, the smooth muscle of the lower GI tract, and pelvic floor tissues. CB2 receptors, which mediate anti-inflammatory signaling without psychoactivity, are densely expressed in immune cells throughout the colorectal mucosa. A well-formulated suppository can engage both receptor populations locally, making this route particularly rational for conditions like Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, colorectal cancer-related pain, endometriosis, interstitial cystitis, and pelvic floor hypertonicity. The localized anti-inflammatory and antispasmodic effects at CB1 and CB2 receptors in these tissues represent a mechanistically coherent therapeutic target that oral or inhaled routes simply cannot match with the same precision.
The base material is not a trivial choice. Cocoa butter is the most widely used suppository base because it melts reliably at body temperature (34–36°C), is non-irritating to mucosal tissue, and blends well with cannabis oil. Refined coconut oil is a common alternative, though its slightly higher melting point can cause inconsistent dissolution in some patients. Avoid petroleum-based products, synthetic waxes, or any base containing preservatives or fragrances—rectal and vaginal mucosa are highly absorptive and sensitive tissues that do not tolerate irritants well.
Cannabinoid sourcing is where most homemade preparations go wrong. Using raw flower directly in a suppository base produces wildly inconsistent dosing because cannabinoids are not uniformly distributed through plant material and require decarboxylation to convert THCA to active THC. The most reliable approach is to use a dispensary-purchased, lab-tested cannabis oil or RSO (Rick Simpson Oil) with a known cannabinoid concentration printed on the Certificate of Analysis. This allows you to calculate the milligrams of THC and CBD per suppository with reasonable accuracy using basic arithmetic: (total mg cannabinoid in oil × volume used) ÷ number of suppositories poured.
Standard suppository molds produce units of approximately 2 mL volume. For most therapeutic applications—particularly for patients new to this route—starting with 5–10 mg THC per suppository is appropriate, with CBD content at a 1:1 or higher ratio to buffer psychoactivity. Molds should be food-grade silicone or pharmaceutical-grade plastic, cleaned with isopropyl alcohol before each use. Finished suppositories must be refrigerated and used within two weeks, or frozen for up to three months. Label each batch with the date, cannabinoid content, and base material used.
The patient populations with the strongest clinical rationale for suppository use include those with colorectal cancer or treatment-related proctitis, endometriosis with deep infiltrating lesions, pelvic floor hypertonicity or vaginismus, interstitial cystitis, inflammatory bowel disease (particularly left-sided colitis or proctitis), and patients who cannot swallow or tolerate oral medications due to severe nausea, dysphagia, or gastroparesis. For these patients, the combination of localized tissue targeting and altered systemic pharmacokinetics makes suppositories a genuinely superior route compared to alternatives.
Patients who should proceed with particular caution or avoid this route include those with active rectal bleeding, anal fissures, hemorrhoids in an acute flare, recent colorectal surgery, or known sensitivity to any component of the suppository base. Immunocompromised patients—including those on chemotherapy—face elevated infection risk from any rectal preparation and should consult their oncologist before proceeding. Vaginal suppositories are contraindicated during pregnancy without explicit obstetric guidance, and their use during active vaginal infection requires medical clearance.
The most common clinical problem with homemade suppositories is dosing error—specifically, inadvertent overdose. Because the psychoactive profile differs from oral edibles, patients sometimes assume they can use the same milligram dose they take orally and be fine. This is not always true. While rectal bioavailability data is limited and variable, some patients experience more pronounced systemic effects than expected, particularly with high-THC formulations. Starting low—5 mg THC or less for the first dose—and waiting a full 90 minutes before assessing effect is non-negotiable.
Contamination is the second major risk. Homemade preparations lack the sterility testing, heavy metal screening, and microbial testing required of licensed dispensary products. Using unclean equipment, non-food-grade molds, or cannabis oil that has been improperly stored can introduce pathogens directly to mucosal tissue. This is not a theoretical concern—it is a real clinical risk, particularly for immunocompromised patients. Rigorous hygiene, clean equipment, and sourcing cannabis exclusively from licensed, tested Massachusetts dispensaries are the minimum standards for safe home preparation.
For patients managing complex diagnoses, severe chronic pain, psychiatric medication tapers, or high-stakes executive privacy, Dr. Caplan provides high-touch private physician advisory and medical quarterbacking beyond standard certification.
The evidence base for cannabis suppositories is genuinely nascent but mechanistically coherent. Rectal pharmacokinetic studies—including a frequently cited 1985 study by Mattes et al. and more recent work on THC-hemisuccinate formulations—demonstrate measurable systemic absorption via the rectal route, though bioavailability estimates vary widely (from 13% to over 50% depending on formulation and individual anatomy). Preclinical data on CB1 and CB2 receptor expression in colorectal and pelvic tissues is robust and provides a strong mechanistic rationale for localized therapeutic effects. Clinical case series and patient-reported outcomes for endometriosis, pelvic pain, and IBD are accumulating in the literature, though large randomized controlled trials remain absent as of 2026—a gap attributable largely to federal Schedule I restrictions that have historically blocked rigorous cannabis research in the United States. The ongoing federal rescheduling process, if completed, is expected to meaningfully accelerate this research pipeline.
Legitimate skepticism is warranted on several fronts. First, the claim that rectal cannabis suppositories produce ‘no high’ while delivering full therapeutic benefit is frequently repeated in patient communities and on wellness websites but is not consistently supported by pharmacokinetic data—some patients report significant psychoactivity, particularly with high-THC formulations. Second, the wellness industry has enthusiastically marketed vaginal cannabis suppositories for menstrual pain and sexual dysfunction with marketing claims that far outpace the available evidence. Third, homemade preparations introduce a layer of variability—in potency, sterility, and base material behavior—that makes it genuinely difficult to draw conclusions about efficacy or safety from individual patient experiences. Patients should be skeptical of any source claiming precise therapeutic equivalence between homemade and pharmaceutical-grade preparations, and should approach vendor-sold ‘suppository kits’ with the same critical eye they would apply to any unregulated wellness product.
Obtaining a medical cannabis certification and preparing cannabis suppositories at home does not constitute a substitute for evidence-based medical treatment of the underlying condition. A cannabis suppository does not treat endometriosis—it may reduce pain and inflammation, but the disease process continues and requires ongoing gynecological management. It does not replace chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or surgical intervention for colorectal cancer. It does not substitute for gastroenterology follow-up in IBD. Medical cannabis is a therapeutic adjunct—sometimes a powerful one—but it functions best as part of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary care plan. Patients experiencing acute rectal bleeding, new pelvic masses, severe abdominal pain, or any symptom that has not been evaluated by a physician should seek conventional medical evaluation before initiating any cannabis preparation.
Cannabis suppositories sit at the intersection of integrative medicine, patient autonomy, and a genuine gap in conventional pharmaceutical options. For conditions like endometriosis and pelvic floor dysfunction, conventional medicine has historically underserved patients—offering limited pharmacological options, long diagnostic delays, and insufficient attention to quality of life. It is not surprising that patients in these communities have pioneered alternative delivery methods, often sharing knowledge through online forums and patient advocacy networks long before physicians were willing to engage with the topic seriously.
The tension between patient-driven innovation and physician-guided safety is real and worth naming honestly. Patients who prepare homemade suppositories are, in many cases, doing so because they have exhausted conventional options or cannot access affordable pharmaceutical alternatives. This is not recklessness—it is resourcefulness born of necessity. The appropriate clinical response is not dismissal but engagement: meeting patients where they are, providing accurate pharmacological guidance, and helping them optimize safety within the practices they are already pursuing.
Integrating suppository use into a broader therapeutic framework means addressing sleep, stress physiology, pelvic floor physical therapy, dietary anti-inflammatory strategies, and psychological support alongside cannabinoid therapy. Cannabis suppositories that reduce pelvic pain enough to allow a patient to engage in physical therapy, resume sexual activity, or sleep through the night are creating therapeutic leverage that extends well beyond the direct pharmacological effect. This systems-level thinking—cannabis as an enabler of broader healing rather than a standalone cure—is the clinical frame that produces the best long-term patient outcomes.
I have had hundreds of conversations with patients about suppositories over the years, and the pattern is remarkably consistent: patients arrive having already tried this route, often having learned about it from an online community or a friend, and they are looking for a physician who will engage with them honestly rather than dismiss the question. That willingness to engage is, I think, one of the most important things a cannabis clinician can offer. The pharmacology is real. The therapeutic rationale is sound for specific conditions. And the risks are manageable with the right guidance.
What I emphasize most in these conversations is the dosing discipline. The rectal route is not the same as eating an edible, and patients who assume they can simply use their usual oral dose in suppository form sometimes get a very unpleasant surprise. I always recommend starting at 5 mg THC or less for the first suppository, regardless of what a patient’s oral tolerance looks like, and waiting a full 90 minutes before making any assessment. The other non-negotiable is sourcing: use lab-tested oil from a licensed Massachusetts dispensary, not homemade infusions from flower, not products ordered online from unregulated vendors.
There is something genuinely moving about watching a patient with endometriosis or treatment-related proctitis find meaningful relief through a preparation method that mainstream medicine has largely ignored. These are patients who have often spent years being undertreated and underheard. When cannabis suppositories work for them—reducing pain enough to sleep, to work, to be present in their lives—it is a reminder of why individualized, patient-centered medicine matters. My role is to make that process as safe, informed, and effective as possible.
If you are considering homemade cannabis suppositories, you are not alone and you are not doing something reckless—but you deserve accurate, physician-grounded information rather than wellness-industry marketing. Start with a clinical consultation to confirm your condition is appropriate for this route, source your cannabis exclusively from a licensed Massachusetts dispensary, use a food-grade base material, start at the lowest reasonable dose, and keep detailed records of what you prepare and how you respond. Massachusetts law protects you as a registered medical patient. Use that protection wisely, and use it with a physician in your corner.
Homemade Cannabis Suppositories Through Eight Critical Lenses
Patients, clinicians, regulators, skeptics, and caregivers each approach this topic from a different vantage point. These eight perspectives examine the evidence, the risks, the law, and the lived reality without flinching.
Patient Takeaway
As a registered Massachusetts medical cannabis patient in 2026, you have the legal right to purchase cannabis from a licensed dispensary and prepare it at home in whatever form serves your therapeutic needs—including suppositories. You save 17–20% on every dispensary purchase through your tax exemption, and you can access higher-potency formulations unavailable to adult-use customers. The practical keys are sourcing from licensed dispensaries, starting with a low dose (5 mg THC or less), using a clean food-grade base, and keeping your physician informed about what you are preparing and how you are responding.
Clinician's Perspective
From a clinical standpoint, the suppository route deserves serious consideration for a defined subset of patients—those with lower GI inflammation, pelvic floor pathology, or conditions that make oral or inhaled administration impractical. The mechanistic rationale is sound: CB1 and CB2 receptor density in colorectal and pelvic tissues, combined with partial bypass of hepatic first-pass metabolism, creates a pharmacokinetic profile that is genuinely distinct from other routes and potentially advantageous for localized therapeutic targeting.
The clinical challenge is the near-total absence of standardized pharmaceutical-grade suppository products in the Massachusetts dispensary market as of 2026. This means patients are effectively compounding their own medications without the quality controls that licensed compounding pharmacies provide. The clinician’s role is therefore not to discourage this practice but to provide the pharmacological literacy, dosing framework, and safety parameters that make it as safe as possible—and to monitor for adverse effects, drug interactions (particularly with anticoagulants and CNS depressants), and signs of mucosal irritation.
Collaboration with the patient’s primary care physician, gynecologist, or gastroenterologist is essential. Cannabis suppositories do not exist in isolation from the patient’s broader medical management, and the certifying cannabis physician has a responsibility to communicate clearly with the rest of the care team.
A Skeptical Read
The pharmacokinetic evidence for rectal cannabis absorption is real but limited and highly variable. Bioavailability estimates in the published literature range from under 15% to over 50% depending on formulation, individual anatomy, and rectal content at the time of administration. Extrapolating from these studies to homemade cocoa butter suppositories made with dispensary RSO is a significant inferential leap that patients and advocates frequently understate.
The wellness industry’s enthusiasm for vaginal cannabis suppositories—marketed aggressively for menstrual pain, sexual dysfunction, and ‘pelvic wellness’—has substantially outpaced the evidence. Many products make implicit therapeutic claims that would require FDA approval to substantiate. Patients deserve to know that the anecdotal and community-reported evidence, while meaningful, is not equivalent to clinical trial data, and that the placebo effect in pain management is robust and should not be dismissed as a confounding factor.
Regulatory & Legal Analysis
Massachusetts 935 CMR 501 is notably permissive regarding patient home preparation compared to many other state regulatory frameworks. The statute’s silence on specific preparation methods—combined with its explicit authorization of home possession within supply limits—creates a de facto legal space for patient-prepared suppositories that is more protective than patients typically realize. This is a feature of Massachusetts law worth understanding and preserving.
However, the regulatory gap between licensed pharmaceutical compounding and patient home preparation is a genuine public health concern that the CCC has not yet addressed directly. Licensed compounding pharmacies are subject to USP <795> and <797> standards for non-sterile and sterile preparations respectively. Homemade suppositories are subject to no such standards. A regulatory framework that created a pathway for licensed cannabis compounding pharmacies in Massachusetts—similar to models being explored in other states—would meaningfully improve patient safety without restricting access.
The distinction between medical and adult-use market oversight also matters here. Medical patients in Massachusetts have access to higher-potency products and physician guidance that adult-use customers do not. But the CCC’s enforcement resources are concentrated on commercial licensee compliance, not patient home preparation. This is appropriate given the statutory framework, but it does mean that patient safety in home preparation depends almost entirely on physician education and patient literacy rather than regulatory oversight.
Comparative State & Historical Context
Cannabis suppositories have a longer history than most patients realize. Rectal cannabis preparations appear in 19th-century pharmacopoeias, and anecdotal reports of their use for pain and GI conditions predate modern prohibition. The contemporary patient-driven revival of this route—particularly in endometriosis and pelvic pain communities—represents a form of collective medical knowledge that emerged largely outside formal clinical channels, driven by patients who were not getting adequate relief from conventional options.
Massachusetts has been among the more progressive states in allowing patient home preparation since the original 2012 ballot initiative. States like Idaho and Nebraska, which still prohibit all cannabis, offer patients no legal pathway whatsoever. Even among legal states, some impose restrictions on home preparation that Massachusetts does not. This relative permissiveness is a meaningful patient protection that reflects the original intent of Question 3—to prioritize patient access and therapeutic flexibility over regulatory restriction.
Dispensary Realities & Practical Preparation
The most important practical step is sourcing the right cannabis oil from a licensed Massachusetts dispensary. RSO (Rick Simpson Oil) and full-spectrum cannabis oils with printed Certificates of Analysis are the most reliable starting materials because they provide known cannabinoid concentrations. Medical patients pay no state or local excise tax—saving 17–20% on every purchase—which meaningfully reduces the cost of sourcing quality oil for home preparation. Ask your dispensary’s patient consultant specifically for high-CBD or balanced-ratio oils if you are prioritizing anti-inflammatory effects with minimal psychoactivity.
Suppository molds are inexpensive and widely available from pharmacy supply vendors and online retailers. Food-grade silicone molds in 2 mL capacity are the standard. Cocoa butter is available at most grocery stores and natural food retailers. The entire preparation process—melting the base, blending the oil, pouring into molds, and refrigerating—takes under 30 minutes once you have your materials assembled. The investment in getting the technique right the first time, ideally with written guidance from your physician, pays dividends in consistency and safety for every subsequent batch.
Federal Rescheduling & Research Horizon
The ongoing federal cannabis rescheduling process—moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act—carries significant implications for suppository research specifically. Schedule III status would remove the primary regulatory barrier to NIH-funded clinical trials on non-inhaled cannabis delivery systems, including rectal and vaginal formulations. Several academic medical centers have already expressed interest in pelvic pain and IBD suppository trials pending rescheduling. Additionally, the minor cannabinoid research pipeline—particularly CBG’s demonstrated anti-inflammatory effects at CB2 receptors in colorectal tissue and CBN’s emerging role in pain modulation—suggests that future suppository formulations may move well beyond simple THC/CBD combinations toward targeted minor cannabinoid blends optimized for specific tissue pathologies. Massachusetts patients who establish clinical relationships with cannabis physicians now will be best positioned to access these emerging evidence-based protocols as the research landscape matures through 2026 and beyond.
Common Myths & Misconceptions
The most pervasive myth is that cannabis suppositories produce no psychoactive effect whatsoever—a claim repeated so frequently in online communities that many patients are genuinely surprised when they experience systemic effects. While rectal administration does alter the psychoactive profile compared to oral edibles (lower peak psychoactivity in many patients, different onset curve), it does not eliminate THC’s systemic effects. Patients who use high-THC formulations rectally can and do experience intoxication, particularly at higher doses. This myth has led to dangerous dosing errors that a simple conversation with a physician could prevent.
A second common misconception is that homemade suppositories made with raw decarboxylated flower are equivalent to those made with lab-tested oil. They are not. Cannabinoid distribution in plant material is inherently uneven, and even thorough decarboxylation and infusion into a fat base does not produce the dosing consistency of a measured oil with a known Certificate of Analysis. Patients who have experienced unpredictable effects from homemade suppositories often trace the problem back to this sourcing decision.
💬 Join the Conversation
Have questions about qualifying for a medical marijuana card in Massachusetts? Ask Dr. Caplan →
Want to connect with other patients and discuss local dispensary options? Join the CED Clinic patient community forum →
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal for Massachusetts medical cannabis patients to make suppositories at home in 2026?
Yes. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94I and 935 CMR 501.000, registered medical cannabis patients may possess up to a 60-day rolling supply of 10 ounces of cannabis or its equivalent and may prepare it at home in any form for personal therapeutic use. Home preparation of suppositories using cannabis purchased from a
Get the next evidence review in your inbox
Plain-language summaries of the newest cannabis research, written by a physician. Free to read, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Join the growing cannabis community. Free. One-click subscribe. Delivered by Substack.
