This article was published on Newsweed.fr on April 16.
In a press release published on 9 April, the Académie de Médecine (French Academy of Medicine) reiterated its prohibitionist stance on cannabis, citing a select range of public health concerns and international studies to support its position while consciously omitting the harm caused by prohibition.
The Académie has also taken a stance against experimentation with therapeutic cannabis. One of its members recently called for ‘sterilising drug addicts’, and the Académie issued a quick statement to distance itself from these remarks in the face of the outcry from healthcare professionals.
An explicit warning against legalisation
“Legalising the recreational use of cannabis would cause serious problems in terms of public health”, warned the Académie in a press release that sounds more like a political recommendation than a real warning.
This is not the first time the Académie has taken a position on the issue. Earlier statements in 2021 and 2023 laid the foundations for its opposition, but recent data, according to the Académie, have only ‘confirmed the problems that have arisen in countries that have legalised cannabis’.
The document, described as ‘particularly incisive’ by Quentin Haroche in his article for Le Quotidien du Médecin, lists a series of worrying results observed in North and South American countries that have opted to legalise recreational cannabis, including Canada, Uruguay and various American states.
According to the Académie, the impact of legalisation on public health has been anything but neutral. Citing Canadian data, it points to a 12-22% increase in cannabis-related hospital admissions among adults in Ontario, and a threefold increase in hospital admissions among children aged 0-9 due to the unintentional ingestion of cannabis products.
In terms of road safety, the Académie reports a doubling in the number of drivers testing positive for THC after being hospitalised following accidents in Canada after legalisation.
The consequences for mental health are even more alarming: “The proportion of new cases of schizophrenia associated with cannabis use rose from 3.7% before legalisation to 10.3% after legalisation”, with young men aged between 19 and 24 identified as the most vulnerable group. Among adolescents aged 12 to 19, the risk of developing psychotic disorders increased elevenfold.
Pro-regulation rhetoric called into question
The Académie also takes direct aim at Parliamentary Report No. 974, tabled on 17 February 2025, which advocates legalisation and suggests that it could provide access to substitution treatment for at-risk users. The Académie categorically disputes this assertion: “Such treatment does not yet exist, either for cannabis or cocaine”.
It also disputes the idea that legalisation would help to dismantle the illegal cannabis market or reduce overall consumption. On the contrary, the Académie claims that legal cannabis has failed to displace illicit sales, which remain more competitive in terms of price due to the absence of taxation, preferring not to cite Canadian results where between 75 and 95% of cannabis purchases are now made on the legal market.
“In the United States, where we already have a fairly long track record, the number of consumers has increased twenty-fold, from 0.9m in 1992, before legalisation, to 17.7m after legalisation in many states”, notes the press release.
The idea that regulation would allow better control of THC concentrations is also attacked. In Uruguay, for example, the THC content of state-authorised cannabis is said to have risen from 2% at the time of legalisation to 15% today.
“How do you get people used to 15 or 20% THC levels to consume low-dose cannabis?”, they ask.
A political ‘paradox’ and a call for prevention
One of the most virulent criticisms from an ideological point of view concerns the idea that legalisation could serve prevention efforts, particularly among young people.
The Académie sees this as a dangerous contradiction: “It is paradoxical to propose legalisation for prevention and even to fund it”, arguing that legal access for adults would inevitably normalise consumption among adolescents, which is not happening in countries, states or provinces where cannabis has been legalised.
The Commission therefore recommends maintaining the ban on cannabis in France, and urges the authorities to step up prevention and awareness campaigns, particularly among young people. France already has the highest rate of cannabis use in Europe, and the Académie believes that any relaxation of the law would only exacerbate this trend.
The example of countries that have legalised the law tends to go in the opposite direction, where consumption by young people has never been so low, as in British Columbia.
A divided medical community
While the Académie has positioned itself as the guardian of public health orthodoxy, not all members of the medical community agree with its position. The Collectif pour une nouvelle politique des drogues (CNPD), which brings together organisations such as Médecins du Monde, Fédération Addiction and SOS Addictions, issued a press release the same week challenging what it called ‘France’s exclusively repressive approach to the drugs issue’.
Calling for a shift towards a health-centred social model, the CNPD denounced the stigmatisation of drug users and called for ‘the immediate exploration of alternative models of drug regulation, which have already been tested in several countries’. This call represents a broader trend within certain sectors of the medical and social services, which note that prohibition has failed to protect public health and has instead contributed to social exclusion and criminalisation.
Between scientific omerta and ideological rigidity?
Contacted by us (Newsweed.fr), we put the following questions to the Academy:
- The press release assumes that supporters of legalising cannabis believe that it does not pose a public health problem. Can you tell me what this presumption is based on?
- Does the Academy believe that banning cannabis protects young people and adult consumers?
- Does the Académie think that banning cannabis will curb its use?
- Does the Académie think that banning cannabis will prevent trafficking and its repercussions on public health (vitiated, uncontrolled products, synthetic cannabinoids, etc.)?
- When the Académie says that ‘the black market has not disappeared’ after the various legalisations around the world, does it prefer 100% black market as in France or 25% as in Canada?
Despite a brief text message exchange with its communications manager, we did not get an answer. Our publication is, of course, open to shed any necessary light on its press release: does the Académie finally believe that French cannabis prohibition is effective in protecting public health and young French people, Europe’s biggest cannabis consumers?
