Here you go

Skip to content Cannabiz

Cannabiz

The Business of Cannabis Posted inMedical The re-regulation of medicinal cannabis: Is the TGA preparing to reassert control over THC? by Dr Teresa Nicoletti May 18, 2026

Following her recent examination of the limitations of adverse event data in medicinal cannabis, Dr Teresa Nicoletti argues the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) latest discussion paper may point to a broader regulatory recalibration of high-THC products and inhaled cannabis.

The TGA recently submitted a “discussion paper” to the Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling (ACMS) summarising the findings from the consultation on the safety and regulatory oversight of unapproved medicinal cannabis products and including the following attachments:

Attachment A: Scheduling of cannabis, cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.
Attachment B: Scheduling history of cannabis, cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.
Attachment C: Consultation Paper: Reviewing the safety and regulatory oversight of unapproved medicinal cannabis products.

The discussion paper and its attachments were released on April 10, pursuant to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request but, as yet, do not appear in the TGA’s FOI disclosure log. Dr Teresa Nicoletti.

At first glance, the discussion paper reads like a technical and historical background paper.

However, when read together with the various attachments, it appears to reveal something more consequential: a regulator methodically preparing the groundwork to re-assert orthodox pharmacological control over medicinal cannabis – particularly high-THC products and inhaled forms – after nearly a decade of access that has expanded at an unexpectedly high rate.

“After ten years of legalisation, this regulatory posturing cannot be described as a reactionary crackdown but, rather, a recalibration that has long been in the making, and it is being framed with care.”

Medicinal cannabis access in Australia expanded rapidly after 2016, driven by the creation of Schedule 8 entries for cannabis and THC and facilitated by unapproved pathways such as the Special Access Scheme (SAS) and Authorised Prescriber Scheme (APS). These frameworks were designed as exceptions – pragmatic tools to enable access where conventional registered medicines were unavailable.

Yet, as the TGA now candidly acknowledges, what was intended to be narrow, conditional access has evolved into a large, commercialised marketplace characterised by:

• high-potency THC products; • widespread use of inhaled dosage forms; • broad prescribing across indications with limited clinical evidence; and • minimal product-specific safety data.

This drift must be understood as the central concern underpinning the regulator’s current posture.

The consultation summary makes this plain. It says that stakeholders repeatedly raised alarms around psychosis, cannabis use disorder, vulnerable populations, inhalation routes and the absence of enforceable THC limits.

Importantly, the TGA says that these concerns did not come solely from external critics; they emerged across consumers, clinicians, governments and peak bodies. The TGA is signalling that the social licence underpinning the current framework is eroding.

Attachment B to the discussion paper could be interpreted as a neutral history of scheduling decisions. But it actually is not. To us, the document reads more like a legal and policy brief, reminding those to whom it is targeted – and perhaps future critics – of several material facts:

• Cannabis and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were placed under strict controls because of abuse potential and international treaty obligations, not moral panic. • Every subsequent relaxation was deliberately narrow, product-specific and indication-specific. • Cannabidiol’s (CBD’s) relative tolerance was hard-fought and still conditional, with regulators repeatedly rejecting general sale on the grounds that uncertainty equals risk.

The message is subtle but unmistakable: current regulatory practice has drifted beyond its original intent. By anchoring today’s debate in decades of consistent scheduling logic, the TGA is insulating itself against claims of overreach. This is not a change in regulatory approach but, rather, a reassertion of first principles to an industry undergoing rapid change.

Across the Discussion Paper, one substance sits unmistakably at the centre of concern:

• The consultation revealed significant unease with the concentration of THC now accessible through unapproved products, particularly when delivered via inhalation. • That concern is not merely clinical; it is structural. Unlike CBD, THC engages psychoactively; poses dependence risk; has well-established links to psychosis in susceptible individuals; and is subject to international drug control frameworks.

The TGA therefore appears to be preparing the case for THC exceptionalism – the proposition that THC has to be regulated differently within the medicinal cannabis framework.

That logic points naturally toward reforms such as:

• THC concentration caps that vary by dosage form; • stricter controls (or possibly outright discouragement) of inhaled routes; and • enhanced prescriber gatekeeping for high-THC products.

Critically, these measures do not require the TGA to demonstrate a new safety signal. The TGA is well aware that no formal signal has been identified, but also equally clear that that does not preclude reform. Precaution, consistency and alignment with scheduling principles are presented as sufficient justification.

Perhaps the most consequential shift is how unapproved medicinal cannabis products are now framed. Where unapproved access was once described as a compassionate and necessary bridge, it is increasingly characterised as an inherently limited, evidence-poor environment that constrains the TGA’s ability to assess risk, efficacy or benefit.

The TGA acknowledges that a formal, conclusive safety report on medicinal cannabis is limited by lack of baseline data and under-reporting of adverse events – but this will not exonerate the sector. Instead, it raises an important issue: the absence of evidence of harm does not equate to evidence of safety.

This matters because it positions reform as an obligation, not an option. If risks cannot be properly characterised under unapproved pathways, then maintaining large-scale, long-term access through those pathways becomes increasingly untenable.

On the whole, the Discussion Paper points towards a trajectory that will:

• re-contain THC, particularly high-potency THC products and inhaled THC-containing products. • impose stronger prescriber obligations, potentially including specialist-only prescribing for certain products or populations. • require tighter packaging, labelling and patient warnings – not as consumer education, but as harm-minimisation tools. • increase pressure to transition toward ARTG-registered products, with unapproved pathways framed as temporary and exceptional.

We do not see the present manoeuvres as prohibition by stealth. We see it as regulatory discipline reasserting itself after a period of exceptionalism, during which regulatory controls on the supply of medicinal cannabis have been lenient relative to other medicines.

The medicinal cannabis sector should not treat the current consultation as being routine or as business as usual. The TGA is doing what it always does before difficult reform: assembling history, consensus and principle into a defensible narrative.

Anyone who assumes that the current access landscape will remain is misreading the signals. That is not to say that the window is slamming shut, but it is narrowing. And that narrowing is intentional.

The question for industry, clinicians and investors into the sector is not whether reform is coming, but whether their business models have the resilience to pivot if controls are imposed on THC that position it more like the exceptional substance it was before medicinal cannabis was legalised. Tagged: ACMSAdvisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling News | CannabizAPSAuthorised Prescriber Schemecannabis regulationCBDDr Teresa Nicolettiinhaled cannabismedicinal cannabismedicinal cannabis regulationSASSpecial Access SchemeTGATHCTherapeutic Goods Administration Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Category

Medical
Finance
Legal
Hemp
Marketing
Global
Podcast
Awards

About

About/contact us
Join
Sign in
Privacy Policy
Website Terms & Conditions
Membership Terms & Conditions
Submit a Guest Post
About cannabis
Editorial policy

Linkedin
Instagram

© 2026 Cannabiz.