Education vs. Sensationalism: Cutting Through the Cannabis Hype

Cannabis legalization, through mainstream adoption across the globe, is still considered a rather new occurrence. It seems, however, that since the beginning of the cannabis decriminalization and legalization discourse, discussions about cannabis have often been driven more by hype than by the need to inform. It’s not difficult to find exaggerated claims about cannabis as a miracle cure, nor is finding persistent fear-mongering discussions that portray it as a societal threat. I can’t help but notice that much of the conversation echoes the patterns seen in fringe movements like flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and other offline and online echo chambers.

The question we must ask ourselves is: Are we truly trying to educate the public, or are we simply looking for attention?

The difference between information and sensationalism is profound. Quality information, that is, true education, is built on verified facts, scientific research, and balanced perspectives. It is what helps us acknowledge complexity, nuance, and limitations while providing well-rounded, evidence-based information. Sensationalism, we have seen, thrives on emotional reactions, cherry-picked data, buzzwords, and oversimplified conclusions designed to provoke rather than inform. While education equips individuals to think critically and make informed decisions, sensationalism exploits biases, fears, and desires to push a particular agenda, whether ideological or commercial.

Cannabis discourse has been and still is filled with both extremes. On one side, there are those who claim cannabis can cure virtually every disease, from cancer to Alzheimer’s, without acknowledging the need for further clinical research. On the other, there are single-minded individuals, we call them prohibitionists, who still cling to outdated narratives that frame cannabis as a dangerous substance with no medical value, ignoring decades of scientific progress. Both approaches mislead the public, contribute to policy stagnation, and make it harder for legitimate research and industry growth to progress.

We, at ICAN, have seen this firsthand. As a company committed to the responsible and legal use of medical cannabis, we frequently encounter misinformation, even from so-called professionals. Some of these individuals, often with little to no background in cannabis science or regulation, react to our work by claiming we are selling “snake oil” or stating outright falsehoods, such as cannabis being completely illegal. This is simply untrue. Medical cannabis is legal in several countries, including Mexico, under specific regulations, and our work is, and should, strictly adhere to the law. Others attempt to paint cannabis as inherently dangerous, often without any supporting evidence or by linking to studies that discuss potential risks but fail to present a balanced view. Yes, cannabis, like any other substance we consume, has associated risks, but that does not mean it lacks medical value. This kind of selective argumentation only fuels misinformation, making it harder for patients to access safe, legal treatment options.

We must also acknowledge that even well-intentioned advocates sometimes push overly simplistic messages in an effort to combat stigma, but in doing so, they might fall into the same trap of misinformation as those who oppose legalization. At the same time, bad actors have capitalized on this trend, using unverified claims to market low-quality or even illegal products to unsuspecting consumers.

This is not unlike the rise of conspiracy theories or other viral misinformation we have seen online. These movements often present themselves as “truth-seekers” challenging the mainstream, but their arguments rely on manipulated data, selective evidence, and emotionally charged rhetoric rather than scientific integrity. The same can be seen in parts of the cannabis industry, where overselling benefits or downplaying risks creates a distorted public perception. When advocates claim cannabis is completely harmless and free of any potential drawbacks, they ignore important discussions about dosage, interactions with other medications, or the risks for individuals with certain conditions. Similarly, when detractors exaggerate the dangers, they contribute to fear-based policies that restrict patient access and hinder medical advancements.

The consequences are alarming. For one, hype-driven claims undermine the credibility of legitimate cannabis research. Scientists and healthcare professionals who are trying to explore cannabis as a viable medical treatment typically find themselves battling unrealistic public expectations, skepticism from regulatory agencies, and confusion among policymakers. Patients, too, suffer when they are misled into believing cannabis will deliver guaranteed results, only to be disappointed when it does not work as expected.

What’s worse, the spread of exaggerated narratives makes it easier for policymakers to dismiss cannabis reform altogether. We have seen this firsthand as well. When unchecked “information” floods the public discourse, it becomes difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, leading to “regulatory paralysis” or overly cautious approaches that fail to reflect the real science behind cannabis. This, in turn, slows down the development of a structured, transparent, and science-backed cannabis industry.

So what is the best way to approach this worrisome trend? We must understand that risk reduction and risk management should be at the front and center of the cannabis discussion. Like any pharmacological agent, cannabis contains active compounds that can interact with other medications, affect individuals differently, and require responsible use. Even though cannabis is not physiologically addictive in the way that opioids or nicotine are, some individuals can develop psychological dependence, particularly if they use it as an escape rather than as a structured treatment. A responsible industry acknowledges these realities instead of dismissing them, providing consumers with accurate information on safe use, potential side effects, and appropriate dosing.

For consumers, the key is critical thinking. Just as we have learned to question the credibility of flat-earth claims or other forms of viral misinformation, we must approach cannabis information with a healthy level of skepticism. Checking sources, looking for peer-reviewed studies, and consulting knowledgeable professionals are all necessary steps in separating fact from fiction.

Note: Speaking of misinformation, just a few weeks ago, Mexico’s regulatory agency, COFEPRIS, issued a “Risk Warning” regarding cannabis and CBD-based products being marketed as supplements, finally addressing the long-standing myth that these products are legal. This serves as an important reminder: In Mexico, the only legal and regulated category is Medical Cannabis. I previously wrote an article on this topic for Mexico Business News, where I break down the legal distinction between supplements and medications. Feel free to check it out: Supplements vs. Medications: Where Does Cannabis Stand?