The Ethics of Cannabis Campaigning: When Advocacy Turns into Exploitation


The use of cannabis for medicinal purposes has gained significant traction over recent years. Advocates argue its potential benefits for various conditions, particularly for children suffering from severe epilepsy. However, when a cannabis campaigner becomes proficient at creating the illusion of campaigning for patients, in particular sick children but charges exorbitant prices for cannabis medicine, ethical questions arise. Is it ethical to sell cannabis medicine to patients at up two thousand pounds per month? This blog explores this critical issue.

The Rise of Cannabis as Medicine

Cannabis has been hailed as a breakthrough treatment for several debilitating conditions, including epilepsy, chronic pain, and certain forms of cancer. For many patients, cannabis-based treatments have provided relief where traditional medicines have failed. The growing acceptance of cannabis in the medical community has led to increased advocacy for its use, highlighting its potential to improve quality of life.

The Role of Campaigners

Cannabis campaigners play a crucial role in raising awareness about the medicinal benefits of cannabis. They often act as intermediaries between patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. Their work can help reduce stigma, advocate for legal changes, and ensure that patients have access to necessary treatments. However, the influence of these campaigners also brings significant responsibility.

The Illusion of Advocacy

When a campaigner presents themselves as fighting for the welfare of patients but simultaneously profits substantially from selling cannabis medicine, it creates a conflict of interest. The illusion of pure advocacy can be misleading, especially if the primary motive is financial gain. This dual role raises concerns about the authenticity of their campaign and the ethics of their actions.

The High Cost of Treatment

Charging two thousand pounds per month for cannabis medicine places a heavy financial burden on families already struggling with the costs associated with chronic illnesses. This price point raises questions about accessibility and fairness. Are these families being exploited for profit? Is the campaigner taking advantage of vulnerable individuals who are desperate for relief?

Ethical Considerations

Several ethical principles come into play when evaluating this scenario:

Beneficence: The campaigner’s actions should aim to benefit the patients. If the high cost of medicine outweighs the potential benefits, this principle is compromised.

Non-maleficence: The campaigner should avoid causing harm. Financial exploitation of families dealing with severe illnesses can be considered a form of harm.

Justice: Access to medical treatments should be fair and equitable. Pricing that restricts access to only those who can afford it violates this principle.

– Transparency: Honest and transparent communication about motives and costs is crucial. Misleading patients about the nature of the campaign and the true costs involved is unethical.

The Case for Regulation

To address these ethical concerns, stricter regulations and oversight are necessary. Transparency in pricing, clear separation between advocacy and sales, and ensuring affordability are steps that can help prevent exploitation. Government and medical bodies should collaborate to set fair pricing standards and provide subsidies or financial aid for those in need.


While the medicinal benefits of cannabis are undeniable, the ethics surrounding its sale, particularly to vulnerable populations like sick children, must be scrutinized. A campaigner who becomes artful at creating the illusion of advocacy but charges exorbitant prices for medicine can undermine the trust and integrity of the movement. Ensuring ethical practices, transparent motives, and fair pricing is essential to protect the interests of patients and maintain the credibility of cannabis advocacy.

More Posts