Acute pain isn't discussed in detail in this paper, but here's a paper they cited:

> Conclusions: There is low-quality evidence indicating that cannabinoids may be a safe alternative for a small but significant reduction in subjective pain score when treating acute pain, with intramuscular administration resulting in a greater reduction relative to oral.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/can.2019.0079

For insomnia, this paper itself says:

> meta-analysis of 39 RCTs, 38 of which evaluated oral cannabinoids and 1 administered inhaled cannabis, that included 5100 adult participants with chronic pain reported that cannabis and cannabinoid use, compared with placebo, resulted in a small improvement in sleep quality [...]

It goes on to criticize those studies, but we again see low-quality evidence in favor.

In the context of evidence-based medicine, "does not support" can mean the RCTs establish with reasonable confidence that the treatment doesn't work. It can also mean the RCTs show an effect in the good direction but with insufficient statistical power, so that an identical study with more participants would probably--but not certainly--reach our significance threshold. The failure to distinguish between those two quite different situations seems willful and unfortunate here.

The full text of the acute pain paper is available via EuropePMC https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33381643

It has an interesting conclusion that says more research in to CBD rather than THC is needed and cites some papers looking in to that.