February 25, 2026 — 22 articles reviewed. 5 above threshold, featured below.
This cycle’s headlines split sharply between states and nations wrestling with how to build cannabis programs and the scientific community struggling to standardize the products and metrics those programs depend on. From Alabama opening its doors to patients, to driving impairment research exposing gaps in how we measure THC’s real-world effects, the throughline is clear: policy is moving faster than the evidence base supporting it.
🏛️ Access Is Expanding, But Infrastructure Is Everything
Alabama has officially opened patient registration for its medical cannabis program, joining a growing list of states where qualifying patients can now pursue a legal, physician-supervised pathway to treatment. Meanwhile, Nebraska is advancing legislation to protect physicians who recommend medical cannabis, addressing one of the most persistent barriers to program participation: clinician fear of professional or legal consequences. Across the globe, the Philippines is debating legalization with opponents raising concerns about regulatory readiness, diversion, and physician education. These are not abstract policy conversations. They directly determine whether patients with chronic pain, PTSD, epilepsy, and cancer-related symptoms have access to a legitimate therapeutic option or remain stuck in an unregulated gray zone. The takeaway for patients and clinicians alike is that program launch is only the starting line, and the real measure of success is what happens at the dispensary counter and in the exam room.
🚗 Driving, Dosing, and the Impairment Gap
Research out of UNSW examining driving behaviors among medical cannabis patients highlights a problem clinicians have been flagging for years: THC blood levels do not map neatly onto functional impairment. Tolerance, formulation, route of administration, and individual pharmacokinetics all muddy the picture, making per se legal thresholds scientifically unreliable as proxies for actual driving risk. For patients on THC-dominant regimens, the clinical conversation about timing, dose, and route relative to driving is not optional. Until validated impairment testing replaces blunt-instrument THC cutoffs, patients bear the burden of navigating laws that were not designed with chronic therapeutic use in mind.
🔬 Standardization and the Science of What Patients Are Actually Getting
A push to establish global terpene standards for cannabis vaporizers underscores a foundational problem in cannabis medicine: product labels often do not reflect what patients actually consume. Terpenes are volatile, degrade unpredictably during extraction and heating, and vary widely across formulations, making reproducible dosing nearly impossible without validated benchmarks. At the same time, pharmaceutical development targeting the endocannabinoid system is advancing, with pipeline candidates aimed at cancer-related anorexia and chemotherapy-induced neuropathy representing a more precise approach to cannabinoid therapeutics. For patients, this means the gap between what is available today and what the science could deliver tomorrow remains frustratingly wide. Standardized inputs are not a luxury. They are a prerequisite for turning cannabis research into reliable clinical guidance.
💊 Medicare, Seniors, and the Coverage Question
Emerging discussion around Medicare potentially covering certain cannabis medications signals a shift that could reshape access for the patient population most likely to benefit from cannabinoid therapy: older adults managing pain, insomnia, appetite loss, and polypharmacy complications. Federal coverage would represent a dramatic change in the legal and financial landscape for seniors who currently pay entirely out of pocket. The clinical implications are significant, as insurance coverage tends to drive both physician engagement and patient willingness to pursue a given treatment. This story is worth watching closely in the weeks ahead.
Programs are launching, laws are shifting, and patients are lining up, but the science of what we are actually giving them and how we measure its effects is still playing catch-up. That gap between access and evidence is where clinicians need to be paying the closest attention right now.