The clinical case for liquid inhalation
Beyond regulatory compliance, Martinez argues that liquid inhalation addresses genuine clinical needs that flower struggles to meet consistently.
“Liquid inhalation allows for consistent and controlled dosing,” he explained. “For patients, it means a fast onset of action with repeatable effects and doses. They can expect a similar experience each time they medicate, which is important when you’re managing symptoms and need reliable relief.”
For prescribers operating within conservative hospital-led frameworks, this consistency is paramount.
“It’s a lot easier to say ‘use X milligrams via this inhaler, up to Y times a day’ and know what that means, versus trying to estimate doses from inhaling flower, where technique and individual variation can lead to different results.
“Certain patient groups, for example, those with severe asthma or chronic lung conditions, might benefit from a vaporised liquid formulation because it can be gentler on the lungs than smoking raw flower. Additionally, some conditions require very fine titration of dosage – neuropathic pain, severe spasticity – and a device can help dial that in more systematically.”
However, Martinez was careful not to position liquid inhalation as universally superior. “This isn’t about declaring liquid formats ‘better’ across the board or trying to replace flower entirely. Cannabis flower remains clinically valuable for many patients,” he said.
“A lot of people get needed results from vaporizing or even smoking flower, and they appreciate the broader spectrum of cannabinoids and terpenes in the natural form. We believe that the future of medical cannabis is not about one format winning out over another but rather it’s about offering multiple, clinically appropriate options within a regulated framework.”
Cost barriers
Higher regulatory standards inevitably raise questions about affordability and the risk of creating a two-tier system where only well-resourced patients can access pharmaceutical-grade devices.
While Martinez cited cost as a ‘legitimate concern’, as the market matures he believes ‘competition and scale’ will bring costs down.
Martinez acknowledged the concern directly. “Cost is a legitimate concern. Higher regulatory and manufacturing standards can initially increase prices, especially before reimbursement pathways exist.”
While the details of reimbursement in the French market are still being decided by the HAS, it’s likely a considerable portion of the costs of both the devices and the metered doses will be covered for patients.
With France offering both a middle-ground on the question of health care, and likely cost relief for its patient population, Jeanroy states that he is confident ‘France is going to be the model, not Germany, in the development of the medical cannabis framework in Europe at the national and the supranational level.’
As such, he believes a general shift away from flower will ‘definitely be a trend in Europe’ in the coming months.
Martinez offered a similar prediction, noting that he expects ‘diversification rather than convergence’, with already established markets continuing to support flower, ‘while newer frameworks will lean into standardised preparations and device-based delivery.’
He concluded: “The demand will always be there; the question is how much of it we can fulfil through regulated, safe channels. I think by this time next year, we’ll see a noticeable shift with more demand being met inside the legal system than outside of it.”