Sian Phillips – Executive Director @ Executive Director at the UK Cannabis Trades Association Pens Open Letter To Editors Subs & Journalists, “What exactly are you trying to sell when you publish sensational pieces about pensioners, disabled people and mental health patients accessing medical cannabis?”

Sian writes the following open letter addressed to the mainstream media in the UK

I presume the Daily Mail (amongst others) is in her mind.

There are, always two sides of the coin and not mentioned in the open letter are those who write or provide information for the UK medical cannabis industry and patient base under the guise of journalism. We all need to be aware of both.

 

OPEN LETTER TO EDITORS, SUBS AND JOURNALISTS

A small question for newsrooms and freelancers alike: what exactly are you trying to sell when you publish sensational pieces about pensioners, disabled people and mental health patients accessing medical cannabis?

Because it certainly is not accuracy, nuance or public health literacy.

The product looks suspiciously like stigma. Moral disapproval disguised as reporting. A convenient narrative in which illness must be respectable, poverty must apologise for itself and healthcare should never be affordable for those without private insurance or a robust pension.

The strangest part is that there is a perfectly serious, interesting and economically relevant story to tell about medical cannabis. There are angles involving regulation, pricing, NHS barriers, evidence standards, taxation, private versus public healthcare, patient outcomes and research investment. Instead, we get melodramas about benefit claimants receiving a small discount on their prescriptions, as if this represents national collapse.

What these articles really do is punch down on the already unwell. They treat mental health as a questionable lifestyle choice, disability as a loophole, and old age as a plot twist. They also undermine legitimate, regulated industries that employ clinicians, pay taxes, invest in research and reduce the illicit market. That is not investigative journalism. It is self-sabotage posing as toughness.

There is a reputational consequence. Younger readers expect evidence. Professionals expect competence. Patients expect dignity. Investors expect modernity. When a publication presents itself as hostile to all four groups, it damages its own long-term viability far more than it harms the patients or industries it aims to shame.

If the objective is simply outrage for clicks, then congratulations, mission accomplished. But outrage is not a growth model. It is a liquidation strategy. It sells off credibility for temporary metrics while competitors build new audiences who prefer clarity over caricature.

Journalists are cultural signalers whether they intend to be or not. When you frame access to healthcare as a moral failing, you signal that illness is suspicious, poverty is criminal and innovation is undesirable. It makes your publication look less authoritative and more out of touch.

You are not only publishing stories. You are selling the integrity of your craft. Readers notice when a publication starts punching down instead of reporting up.

Please choose carefully

 

 

Here’s Sian’s Linked In profile bio