Following the implementation of Germany’s cannabis reform framework, including the CanG, and in light of the recent cannabis-related developments and debates, which aspects do you believe have worked best so far, where is urgent regulatory review needed, and how should patient access to cannabis via telemedicine be balanced against safeguards to prevent abuse of the existing system?
Germany has clearly earned a leading role in the European cannabis debate. Hardly any other market is being watched as closely at the moment. In 2025, around 200 tonnes of medical cannabis were imported into Germany. At the same time, the adult-use market is also developing, albeit slowly. Nationwide, up to 430 cultivation associations are now said to be licensed.
That said, legalization has also exposed a number of regulatory weaknesses. The original legislative vision was a two-pillar model, separating medical cannabis under the Medical Cannabis Act (Medizinal-Cannabisgesetz, short MedCanG) from adult-use cannabis under the Consumption Cannabis Act (Konsumcannabisgesetz, short KCanG). In principle, that distinction is sensible. In practice, however, both frameworks have shown significant shortcomings.Dicho esto, la legalización también ha puesto de manifiesto una serie de debilidades regulatorias. La visión legislativa original consistía en un modelo de dos pilares, separando el cannabis medicinal, regulado por la Ley de Cannabis Medicinal —Medizinal-Cannabisgesetz, abreviada MedCanG—, del cannabis para consumo adulto, regulado por la Ley de Cannabis de Consumo —Konsumcannabisgesetz, abreviada KCanG—. En principio, esta distinción es razonable. En la práctica, sin embargo, ambos marcos han mostrado deficiencias importantes.
Under the KCanG, the non-medical market is based on a club model. Cannabis must be cultivated by non-commercial associations and distributed to members without a profit margin. While the KCanG is federal law, the actual licensing process is handled by the authorities of each individual federal state. Depending on the political orientation of a state, that process has been made either workable or unnecessarily burdensome. Some states have effectively ensured that few or no cannabis clubs can become operational at all.Respecto a la KCanG, el mercado no medicinal se basa en un modelo de clubes. El cannabis debe ser cultivado por asociaciones sin ánimo de lucro y distribuido a sus miembros sin margen de beneficio. Si bien la KCanG es una ley federal, el proceso efectivo de concesión de licencias corresponde a las autoridades de cada Estado federado. Dependiendo de la orientación política de cada Estado, ese proceso se ha configurado de manera viable o, por el contrario, innecesariamente gravosa. Algunos Estados han conseguido, en la práctica, que pocos clubes de cannabis, o ninguno, puedan llegar a operar.
This is a serious problem. Lawmakers had expected roughly 3,000 cultivation associations across Germany, yet the real numbers remain far below that target. There is no question of a comprehensive nationwide supply for consumers. As a result, many people continue to rely on the illicit market or on telemedicine structures instead. Across the country, the methods used by state authorities to hinder cultivation associations are strikingly similar. Zoning and construction law is one example of several recurring issues that are often interpreted in an unduly restrictive manner.
Many clubs do receive cultivation permits, but then fail to obtain the necessary approvals to use the premises for that purpose because of what I consider to be deliberately restrictive and legally flawed interpretations of the respective state construction laws. Because these obstruction mechanisms are so similar nationwide, federal intervention should be both possible and effective, especially by clarifying the disputed legal points that currently allow states to block or delay cultivation associations. So far, the federal legislator has largely stood by while some states undermine the very purpose of federal law. At the same time court proceedings remain limited because many clubs simply lack the financial resources to litigate, but the few rulings that do exist suggest that the criticism of the current administrative practice is well founded. In a number of cases, clubs have ultimately succeeded in asserting their rights.
In the medical market, a large number of telemedicine companies have emerged. In some cases, obtaining a prescription has become almost as easy as ordering shoes online, much to the frustration of policymakers. This is why an amendment to the MedCanG has been considered that would allow online prescribing only after an in-person doctor’s visit and would also prohibit postal delivery. In my view, that would be the wrong response. Restricting access to medical cannabis across the board would represent a step backwards for any prevention-based cannabis policy.
Nevertheless, there is a clear need for reform. With some exceptions, many of these platforms and their affiliated doctors and pharmacies do not meaningfully fulfill a genuine medical mandate. Clearer rules are needed, potentially even a criminal offence prohibiting prescriptions issued solely on the basis of an online questionnaire. By contrast, a video consultation should, in 2026, absolutely remain available as a legitimate treatment option, depending on the physician’s professional judgment.
Further reforms are also necessary. Medical cannabis should not be priced in the wholesale market according to THC content; THC levels should not be the determining factor in medical pricing at all. That approach could also encourage a broader and more balanced product range. Likewise, strain names borrowed from the recreational market have no place in a medical setting. GMP washing must be prevented in order to stabilize product quality. More public funding should go into clinical studies and proper nationwide patient data collection, so that demand can be assessed and care improved over time.
Cannabis is a medicine whose therapeutic potential has still not been fully evaluated or utilized. Yet the current gold-rush atmosphere in parts of the industry increasingly obscures that fact, both within the sector and for the wider public. This damages the reputation of the entire industry, but above all it contributes to the stigmatization of patients and to the dismissal of cannabis’s genuine medical potential. Some market distortions, such as the downward spiral in pricing, may eventually stabilize on their own. The reputational damage, however, is ongoing and regaining lost credibility should now be a central priority.
