Global cannabis regulations: Current scenario and the way ahead.

Singh A.; Shukla V.; Sharma N. · Journal of opioid management · 2026

**Background & Methods** This is a narrative review article examining global cannabis regulatory frameworks across three major jurisdictions: the United States, India, and Australia. The authors employed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to systematically analyze cannabis legislation, regulatory structures, and policy drivers. **Key Findings** • **United States**: Cannabis remains federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, but a patchwork of state-level laws permits both medical and recreational use, creating significant regulatory inconsistencies across jurisdictions. • **India**: Cannabis is predominantly prohibited under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985), with limited exceptions for traditional preparations (bhang); however, emerging initiatives are exploring medicinal cannabis potential. • **Australia**: Federal legalization of medical cannabis has been implemented, while recreational use remains illegal except in the Australian Capital Territory where it is decriminalized. International constraints, particularly the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), create regulatory conflicts by requiring member states to prohibit cannabis production and distribution, thereby hindering international cooperation, research collaboration, and trade development. **Dosage & Administration** Not reported. **Safety & Adverse Effects** Not reported. **Evidence Quality** This review is limited by its narrative rather than systematic design, despite referencing PRISMA methodology. The abstract does not specify the quantity or types of sources reviewed, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or quality assessment procedures typically required in systematic reviews. As a regulatory comparison article, the study lacks clinical trial data, pharmacological studies, or adverse event documentation. The analysis focuses on legal and policy frameworks rather than medical evidence synthesis. Key limitations include potential publication bias, limited scope to three countries, and the rapidly evolving nature of cannabis legislation that may render findings time-sensitive. While valuable for understanding comparative regulatory landscapes and policy considerations (public opinion, economic factors, medical research), this work represents moderate-quality evidence for informing policy discussions rather than high-level clinical evidence. The evidence is best suited for healthcare administrators and policymakers rather than direct clinical guidance.

More recent cannabis research