As the UK’s medical cannabis patient population pushes past an estimated 60,000, questions about market maturity, patient access, and regulatory reform are more pressing than ever. We caught up with Jonathan Hodgson, Managing Director UK at Curaleaf International, to explore how one of the industry’s biggest players is adapting to the UK’s evolving landscape—from manufacturing strategies to patient demographics and policy outlooks.
Curaleaf Laboratories is the UK Country Sponsor of The European Cannabis Report: 10th Edition, now available to access for free via Prohibition Partners’ new Insights Hub. For fresh, data-driven insights into the UK and European markets, visit: insightshub.prohibitionpartners.com
“I mean, like you say, we don’t know the exact figure — but I think the ballpark is probably about right. Whether it was 50,000 or 60,000 patients, there’s just not enough precise data. There’s also the possibility of some double-counting in the supply chain at times. But overall, I don’t think it’s far off that number.
Personally, I’d like to see us hit 100,000 patients — that would be a meaningful milestone, and it feels like it’s within reach. I don’t think things are slowing down at all. Sure, percentage growth may taper, but in terms of absolute numbers, new patients are coming in every month and the momentum feels strong. Word of mouth is improving too.
So yes, I think 100,000 is very achievable. At the top end, maybe 120,000 or even 150,000 could be possible. But beyond that, within the current timeframe, we’d probably need to see a significant regulatory shift.
There’s still going to be that gap between us and markets like Germany or Australia — people often compare them, but even though they’re also medical markets, they’re fundamentally quite different in structure and access. Closing that gap will take time.”
“Awareness and understanding are still major barriers to market growth. A big part of that is the mainstream media narrative — it just hasn’t evolved much. So you still have a lot of people who don’t even realise cannabis prescriptions are available.
They’ll see headlines about the low number of NHS prescriptions or hear about the challenges with paediatric epilepsy cases, and that shapes their entire perception. It makes them think access isn’t really an option yet — that it’s not their time. Most of the people who have access now have had to go through the private route.
There’s still a lot of confusion out there, and while social media has helped — especially for those who follow the right accounts — it’s still quite niche. More companies are now active in that space, which helps, but the messaging isn’t always reaching the mainstream. We need to do a better job getting a clear, unified message out to the wider public.”
“I think it’s a helpful piece — if nothing else, it opens up conversations with a credible source. I understand they may not have the direct power to make changes, but just getting a public debate going is valuable in itself.
As markets mature and work through some of their issues, you hope that examples from successful models — like Germany or Australia — will help make those conversations more serious and sustained.
That’s the value of having something credible to refer back to — it gives us a foundation to keep pushing the debate forward. It’s a medium-term battle, and we can’t afford to let it go. Otherwise, the change we’re looking for will end up taking much longer.”
The ACMD review is focused on rescheduling, and from that perspective, I don’t think it can go backwards. Currently it’s a mix of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2. The starting materials are still considered Schedule 1 — a substance of abuse with no medicinal value — which makes no sense when you’re simultaneously bringing it in for use in medicines.
So no, I don’t think there’s a realistic risk of rolling things back, unless the market were to be completely shut down — and I don’t think that’s on the table. The hope from any ACMD review would be some kind of descheduling. I don’t think we’ll see full descheduling anytime soon, but even a move to clarify that it falls entirely under Schedule 2 would be a huge step forward.
That would make research easier, enable more companies to handle starting materials, improve manufacturing options, and lead to better quality products in the marketplace.
Now, whether the review will actually lead to change? I’m not sure. I haven’t seen any clear success criteria laid out at the beginning. And for the families of paediatric patients — who really started this entire model — many of them would say it hasn’t delivered. But that issue is less about scheduling and more about prescriber confidence, especially when it comes to children.
There are still very few clinicians willing to prescribe for paediatric patients. That’s a separate challenge entirely.
For new patients entering the market today, though, it’s a very different picture. They don’t face the same stress of having to import products by alternative means. There are fewer delays, better continuity of supply, more choice, better quality, improved service levels — and in many cases, better affordability too.
So yes, there have been real improvements over time. But the paediatric side — and the concerns raised by some doctors’ associations — probably needs a separate, more targeted review.”
Jonathan Hodgson, Managing Director UK at Curaleaf International
“Our primary business model has always been built around being a specialist manufacturer. We hold a Specials Pharma Manufacturing Licence, which also permits us to import either starting materials or finished products. But in the vast majority of cases, our model has focused on importing starting materials and then carrying out the final processing and manufacturing of the product here in the UK.
With unlicensed products, you don’t have the same level of control or transparency over the original manufacturer’s processes. They can change production parameters without changing the brand name or packaging, and there’s no guarantee of continuity. Plus, when you import a finished product, you’re not opening the material — you’re relying entirely on the certificate of analysis and accompanying paperwork. That means the product goes into the market without anyone in the UK having physically checked that batch.
It’s long been established that importing unlicensed medicines into the country carries a higher risk than manufacturing under a licensed process within the UK. That’s why our approach has always centred around bringing in starting materials and completing the manufacturing domestically.
Now, others are beginning to come around to that model — sometimes simply because importing finished products has become more difficult. There have been bottlenecks at the MHRA, and closer scrutiny around packaging. Authorities want to see UK-compliant packaging on arrival, which means you either need the supplier to meet those requirements, or you need a local partner who understands the regulations and can repackage accordingly.
There are only a handful of companies that can actually operate this way — you need both the technical expertise and a Schedule 1 licence to handle those starting materials. So, compared to the number of wholesalers, there are very few of us doing this. I think we’re all getting busier with requests from third parties wanting to import raw materials and manufacture here in the UK.”
“One major barrier — as we’ve touched on — is undoubtedly awareness and understanding of the process. There’s still a large demographic we simply can’t reach because of the regulations on current channels. Depending on the platform, we see a very different patient mix coming through. Channel’s like TV, which are still very restrained, provides the opportunity to reach a much broader, mainstream audience that probably wouldn’t otherwise engage.
Clarity of messaging and ease of access are absolutely essential — and both are evolving. Within the current regulations, companies have gradually been able to improve service quality and turnaround times. But if you’re not already ‘converted’ — if you’re not actively seeking cannabis treatment — then you’re likely to have mixed feelings. People aren’t sure whether they qualify or what the process involves. And if it takes weeks just to gather patient records or book an appointment, people often lose interest.
So a big priority is improving that front-end experience — making sure that once we reach someone, we can get them in front of a doctor quickly, have a proper conversation, and assess whether it’s appropriate for them. Most people simply don’t know if they’re eligible.
Then there’s the issue of product formats. For someone who’s never used cannabis for their condition, the broad choice of different flower options can be overwhelming. That’s why we’ve seen increasing demand for simpler formats. Over the past year, we’ve had more patients coming to us asking for alternatives — things that are easier to understand and use. Pastilles, for example, have become extremely popular, especially among new patients. They’re simple, convenient, and familiar. Doctors like them too, because they offer a fixed dose and greater control, making them feel more like a conventional medicine.
There’s still a long way to go — both for patients and for healthcare professionals. While cannabis flower can be incredibly effective for some, it’s not suitable for everyone. The faster we can increase awareness, simplify access, and expand the range of formats, the more people we can reach. Prices have also come down significantly, which helps.
But right now, too many companies are focused solely on importing more and more flower. That’s a narrow approach. If we really want to broaden patient access, we need more flexible formats, better services, and a system that meets people where they are.”
“We’re seeing patients much faster than the NHS in most parts of the country — but that’s not always appreciated. Because it’s a private service, people often come in expecting instant gratification, like it’s Amazon or an online marketplace. But due to the strict regulations and the multiple steps we have to follow — from eligibility checks to clinical oversight — it simply can’t work like that.
That said, the more we can make the process feel intuitive and streamlined, the better. Most people have never considered getting a private prescription before. When people think about private healthcare, it’s usually for things like knee surgery or hip replacements — to avoid long NHS waiting lists. Some demographics are more familiar with it, maybe for hormone therapy or dermatology, but even then, it’s quite limited.
When it comes to accessing private medical cannabis, it’s still a very small percentage of people who’ve ever used private healthcare in this way before.”
“I think the patient profile has definitely evolved. If you go back to the early days, chronic pain was by far the most dominant condition being treated. That was the foundation — and for us, it’s still the most common — but we’ve seen a growing number of other conditions, including mental health-related and neurological disorders, coming through.
Early on, much of the growth was driven by younger patients who were already more comfortable with the idea of cannabis. But now we’re seeing a more diverse group — including people who are cannabis-naive. It’s less extreme than it was before. We’re now reaching those middle segments: people who aren’t regular cannabis users but have qualifying conditions and are living busy, active lives.
These patients are often working, commuting, and need flexibility in both the service and the product. They need treatments that fit into their routines — things that are convenient, discreet, and easy to use while on the go.
Some of this shift is also down to timing. A lot of the early growth happened during COVID, when people were at home and it was easier to receive deliveries and titrate doses. Now that people are back in offices, commuting, and more mobile again, the needs are changing. We’re seeing more patients using multiple formats — perhaps three different types of product — to manage their symptoms throughout the day.
It’s about supporting their lifestyle. Whether it’s driving, working, or socialising, they need treatment options that help them stay functional and engaged — not something that sidelines them.”
“I think through Curaleaf Clinic, we’re able to reach a broader range of patients. We’ve now got a diverse and experienced team of doctors who can see patients across a wide spectrum of conditions. And we can offer timely appointments across many of those conditions, which is a big advantage.
We’ve also invested heavily in technology to streamline the patient journey once they’re in the system. That’s allowed us to improve service speed and efficiency. Plus, we’ve been able to advertise through different channels to reach patients who might not have otherwise considered medical cannabis. So, in that sense, I think we’re bringing in a different segment of users — often people accessing this kind of treatment for the first time.
That said, there’s definitely room for all clinics. We also operate as a pharmacy, and we work with everyone — we’re not exclusive. We don’t try to compete in a way that restricts others, because ultimately we want to ensure as many patients as possible have access to treatment.
Every company has a slightly different focus, and that’s a good thing. None of us are big pharmaceutical giants with unlimited budgets who can cover every base. So our approach is to support the ecosystem — to supply our products and collaborate wherever we can. There’s a huge number of patients still to reach, and there’s no single ‘right’ way of doing it.”
“Our roots are as a specialist manufacturer, so we’ve traditionally made highly customised medicines tailored to individual patients. That model comes with higher costs, but it’s also given us deep formulation and production expertise. As a result, we’re comfortable working with very small batches, holding limited stock to keep medicines fresh and manufacturing in a lean, responsive way.
It’s not quite made-to-order anymore, but it’s close — and that allows us to minimise wastage, maintain quality, and stay consistently in stock. We’ve worked with a wide range of third parties, both large and small, and we’re happy to support others — whether that’s importing starting materials or, in some cases, finished products. We have the infrastructure in place, from compliant storage facilities to highly manual and small-batch production capabilities.
At the same time, we’re scaling up. We’re investing in automation where it makes sense, and on the pharmacy side, we’ve added dispensing robots and intelligent warehousing systems to speed up fulfilment and improve efficiency.
When it comes to product formats, we’re flexible. While flower is an important part of the market, we’re also well-positioned to explore new and novel delivery methods. Historically — even before cannabis — we’ve manufactured everything from liquids, capsules, and creams to lollipops, pessaries, and suppositories. That experience means our team is equipped to develop new formats where there’s a clinical need.
Ultimately, we want to help companies — and more importantly, patients — access the right medicine for their condition. And as the market grows and diversifies, we’re ready to support that evolution.”
The post Why Curaleaf International Believes the UK Medical Cannabis Market Is Still Just Getting Started appeared first on Business of Cannabis.
Continue reading...
Curaleaf Laboratories is the UK Country Sponsor of The European Cannabis Report: 10th Edition, now available to access for free via Prohibition Partners’ new Insights Hub. For fresh, data-driven insights into the UK and European markets, visit: insightshub.prohibitionpartners.com
The UK medical cannabis patient population grew to an estimated 60,000 in 2024. How do you see this figure evolving over the next 12–24 months?
“I mean, like you say, we don’t know the exact figure — but I think the ballpark is probably about right. Whether it was 50,000 or 60,000 patients, there’s just not enough precise data. There’s also the possibility of some double-counting in the supply chain at times. But overall, I don’t think it’s far off that number.
Personally, I’d like to see us hit 100,000 patients — that would be a meaningful milestone, and it feels like it’s within reach. I don’t think things are slowing down at all. Sure, percentage growth may taper, but in terms of absolute numbers, new patients are coming in every month and the momentum feels strong. Word of mouth is improving too.
So yes, I think 100,000 is very achievable. At the top end, maybe 120,000 or even 150,000 could be possible. But beyond that, within the current timeframe, we’d probably need to see a significant regulatory shift.
There’s still going to be that gap between us and markets like Germany or Australia — people often compare them, but even though they’re also medical markets, they’re fundamentally quite different in structure and access. Closing that gap will take time.”
What factors do you think will drive this growth?
“Awareness and understanding are still major barriers to market growth. A big part of that is the mainstream media narrative — it just hasn’t evolved much. So you still have a lot of people who don’t even realise cannabis prescriptions are available.
They’ll see headlines about the low number of NHS prescriptions or hear about the challenges with paediatric epilepsy cases, and that shapes their entire perception. It makes them think access isn’t really an option yet — that it’s not their time. Most of the people who have access now have had to go through the private route.
There’s still a lot of confusion out there, and while social media has helped — especially for those who follow the right accounts — it’s still quite niche. More companies are now active in that space, which helps, but the messaging isn’t always reaching the mainstream. We need to do a better job getting a clear, unified message out to the wider public.”
Do you think the London Drugs Commission’s recent report will help change public perception?
“I think it’s a helpful piece — if nothing else, it opens up conversations with a credible source. I understand they may not have the direct power to make changes, but just getting a public debate going is valuable in itself.
As markets mature and work through some of their issues, you hope that examples from successful models — like Germany or Australia — will help make those conversations more serious and sustained.
That’s the value of having something credible to refer back to — it gives us a foundation to keep pushing the debate forward. It’s a medium-term battle, and we can’t afford to let it go. Otherwise, the change we’re looking for will end up taking much longer.”
With the incoming ACMD review into whether the law change has met its goals, do you anticipate changes to the way the market is regulated in coming months?
The ACMD review is focused on rescheduling, and from that perspective, I don’t think it can go backwards. Currently it’s a mix of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2. The starting materials are still considered Schedule 1 — a substance of abuse with no medicinal value — which makes no sense when you’re simultaneously bringing it in for use in medicines.
So no, I don’t think there’s a realistic risk of rolling things back, unless the market were to be completely shut down — and I don’t think that’s on the table. The hope from any ACMD review would be some kind of descheduling. I don’t think we’ll see full descheduling anytime soon, but even a move to clarify that it falls entirely under Schedule 2 would be a huge step forward.
That would make research easier, enable more companies to handle starting materials, improve manufacturing options, and lead to better quality products in the marketplace.
Now, whether the review will actually lead to change? I’m not sure. I haven’t seen any clear success criteria laid out at the beginning. And for the families of paediatric patients — who really started this entire model — many of them would say it hasn’t delivered. But that issue is less about scheduling and more about prescriber confidence, especially when it comes to children.
There are still very few clinicians willing to prescribe for paediatric patients. That’s a separate challenge entirely.
For new patients entering the market today, though, it’s a very different picture. They don’t face the same stress of having to import products by alternative means. There are fewer delays, better continuity of supply, more choice, better quality, improved service levels — and in many cases, better affordability too.
So yes, there have been real improvements over time. But the paediatric side — and the concerns raised by some doctors’ associations — probably needs a separate, more targeted review.”
Jonathan Hodgson, Managing Director UK at Curaleaf International
You’ve noted that many international brands are shifting from wholesale importers to domestic manufacturers, do you see this continuing and how are you accommodating this shift?
“Our primary business model has always been built around being a specialist manufacturer. We hold a Specials Pharma Manufacturing Licence, which also permits us to import either starting materials or finished products. But in the vast majority of cases, our model has focused on importing starting materials and then carrying out the final processing and manufacturing of the product here in the UK.
With unlicensed products, you don’t have the same level of control or transparency over the original manufacturer’s processes. They can change production parameters without changing the brand name or packaging, and there’s no guarantee of continuity. Plus, when you import a finished product, you’re not opening the material — you’re relying entirely on the certificate of analysis and accompanying paperwork. That means the product goes into the market without anyone in the UK having physically checked that batch.
It’s long been established that importing unlicensed medicines into the country carries a higher risk than manufacturing under a licensed process within the UK. That’s why our approach has always centred around bringing in starting materials and completing the manufacturing domestically.
Now, others are beginning to come around to that model — sometimes simply because importing finished products has become more difficult. There have been bottlenecks at the MHRA, and closer scrutiny around packaging. Authorities want to see UK-compliant packaging on arrival, which means you either need the supplier to meet those requirements, or you need a local partner who understands the regulations and can repackage accordingly.
There are only a handful of companies that can actually operate this way — you need both the technical expertise and a Schedule 1 licence to handle those starting materials. So, compared to the number of wholesalers, there are very few of us doing this. I think we’re all getting busier with requests from third parties wanting to import raw materials and manufacture here in the UK.”
In your view, what are the biggest barriers currently limiting wider patient adoption of medical cannabis in the UK?
“One major barrier — as we’ve touched on — is undoubtedly awareness and understanding of the process. There’s still a large demographic we simply can’t reach because of the regulations on current channels. Depending on the platform, we see a very different patient mix coming through. Channel’s like TV, which are still very restrained, provides the opportunity to reach a much broader, mainstream audience that probably wouldn’t otherwise engage.
Clarity of messaging and ease of access are absolutely essential — and both are evolving. Within the current regulations, companies have gradually been able to improve service quality and turnaround times. But if you’re not already ‘converted’ — if you’re not actively seeking cannabis treatment — then you’re likely to have mixed feelings. People aren’t sure whether they qualify or what the process involves. And if it takes weeks just to gather patient records or book an appointment, people often lose interest.
So a big priority is improving that front-end experience — making sure that once we reach someone, we can get them in front of a doctor quickly, have a proper conversation, and assess whether it’s appropriate for them. Most people simply don’t know if they’re eligible.
Then there’s the issue of product formats. For someone who’s never used cannabis for their condition, the broad choice of different flower options can be overwhelming. That’s why we’ve seen increasing demand for simpler formats. Over the past year, we’ve had more patients coming to us asking for alternatives — things that are easier to understand and use. Pastilles, for example, have become extremely popular, especially among new patients. They’re simple, convenient, and familiar. Doctors like them too, because they offer a fixed dose and greater control, making them feel more like a conventional medicine.
There’s still a long way to go — both for patients and for healthcare professionals. While cannabis flower can be incredibly effective for some, it’s not suitable for everyone. The faster we can increase awareness, simplify access, and expand the range of formats, the more people we can reach. Prices have also come down significantly, which helps.
But right now, too many companies are focused solely on importing more and more flower. That’s a narrow approach. If we really want to broaden patient access, we need more flexible formats, better services, and a system that meets people where they are.”
Are some patients still wary of entering the private healthcare market?
“We’re seeing patients much faster than the NHS in most parts of the country — but that’s not always appreciated. Because it’s a private service, people often come in expecting instant gratification, like it’s Amazon or an online marketplace. But due to the strict regulations and the multiple steps we have to follow — from eligibility checks to clinical oversight — it simply can’t work like that.
That said, the more we can make the process feel intuitive and streamlined, the better. Most people have never considered getting a private prescription before. When people think about private healthcare, it’s usually for things like knee surgery or hip replacements — to avoid long NHS waiting lists. Some demographics are more familiar with it, maybe for hormone therapy or dermatology, but even then, it’s quite limited.
When it comes to accessing private medical cannabis, it’s still a very small percentage of people who’ve ever used private healthcare in this way before.”
Are you seeing significant shifts in patient demographics, e.g. new age groups, different conditions, coming into the market in 2025?
“I think the patient profile has definitely evolved. If you go back to the early days, chronic pain was by far the most dominant condition being treated. That was the foundation — and for us, it’s still the most common — but we’ve seen a growing number of other conditions, including mental health-related and neurological disorders, coming through.
Early on, much of the growth was driven by younger patients who were already more comfortable with the idea of cannabis. But now we’re seeing a more diverse group — including people who are cannabis-naive. It’s less extreme than it was before. We’re now reaching those middle segments: people who aren’t regular cannabis users but have qualifying conditions and are living busy, active lives.
These patients are often working, commuting, and need flexibility in both the service and the product. They need treatments that fit into their routines — things that are convenient, discreet, and easy to use while on the go.
Some of this shift is also down to timing. A lot of the early growth happened during COVID, when people were at home and it was easier to receive deliveries and titrate doses. Now that people are back in offices, commuting, and more mobile again, the needs are changing. We’re seeing more patients using multiple formats — perhaps three different types of product — to manage their symptoms throughout the day.
It’s about supporting their lifestyle. Whether it’s driving, working, or socialising, they need treatment options that help them stay functional and engaged — not something that sidelines them.”
What role does your own pharmacy and clinic network play in improving patient access versus the role of third-party clinics and pharmacies?
“I think through Curaleaf Clinic, we’re able to reach a broader range of patients. We’ve now got a diverse and experienced team of doctors who can see patients across a wide spectrum of conditions. And we can offer timely appointments across many of those conditions, which is a big advantage.
We’ve also invested heavily in technology to streamline the patient journey once they’re in the system. That’s allowed us to improve service speed and efficiency. Plus, we’ve been able to advertise through different channels to reach patients who might not have otherwise considered medical cannabis. So, in that sense, I think we’re bringing in a different segment of users — often people accessing this kind of treatment for the first time.
That said, there’s definitely room for all clinics. We also operate as a pharmacy, and we work with everyone — we’re not exclusive. We don’t try to compete in a way that restricts others, because ultimately we want to ensure as many patients as possible have access to treatment.
Every company has a slightly different focus, and that’s a good thing. None of us are big pharmaceutical giants with unlimited budgets who can cover every base. So our approach is to support the ecosystem — to supply our products and collaborate wherever we can. There’s a huge number of patients still to reach, and there’s no single ‘right’ way of doing it.”
How does your flexible manufacturing model help smaller or newer brands improve patient access?
“Our roots are as a specialist manufacturer, so we’ve traditionally made highly customised medicines tailored to individual patients. That model comes with higher costs, but it’s also given us deep formulation and production expertise. As a result, we’re comfortable working with very small batches, holding limited stock to keep medicines fresh and manufacturing in a lean, responsive way.
It’s not quite made-to-order anymore, but it’s close — and that allows us to minimise wastage, maintain quality, and stay consistently in stock. We’ve worked with a wide range of third parties, both large and small, and we’re happy to support others — whether that’s importing starting materials or, in some cases, finished products. We have the infrastructure in place, from compliant storage facilities to highly manual and small-batch production capabilities.
At the same time, we’re scaling up. We’re investing in automation where it makes sense, and on the pharmacy side, we’ve added dispensing robots and intelligent warehousing systems to speed up fulfilment and improve efficiency.
When it comes to product formats, we’re flexible. While flower is an important part of the market, we’re also well-positioned to explore new and novel delivery methods. Historically — even before cannabis — we’ve manufactured everything from liquids, capsules, and creams to lollipops, pessaries, and suppositories. That experience means our team is equipped to develop new formats where there’s a clinical need.
Ultimately, we want to help companies — and more importantly, patients — access the right medicine for their condition. And as the market grows and diversifies, we’re ready to support that evolution.”
The post Why Curaleaf International Believes the UK Medical Cannabis Market Is Still Just Getting Started appeared first on Business of Cannabis.
Continue reading...
