2024-06-13
Important amendments to the Cannabis Act (CanG) were passed in an intensive parliamentary debate and subsequent resolution. Despite efforts, the planned tightening of restrictions on the activities of cultivation organizations could only be partially mitigated. The decisive implementation now depends heavily on the federal states
NOTE: Now the Not for Profit 'Cannabis Clubs & Driving under the Influence Limits, 3.5ng/ml" have been resolved, Pillar 2, Recreational Cannabis in Trial Cities with recreational sales will certainly follow, soon. Even though Pillar 2 was not part of these hearings, Pillar 2 was repeatedly being brought up.
Excerpts from Bundestag & Health Committee hearing:
"Kristine Ltke (FDP): emphasized the flexibilization of control by the federal states and the need for a swift law on the second pillar with model projects for commercial supply chains in order to permanently curb the black market: [...] As Free Democrats, we continue to advocate the legalization of cannabis, as we agreed in the coalition agreement. That is why the law on the second pillar with the pilot projects with commercial supply chains must be introduced as quickly as possible*. Only then will we be able to permanently curb the black market.* At the same time, EU law also needs to be reformed to enable member states to liberalize cannabis in a controlled manner and also to have an independent drug policy, because freedom must apply throughout Europe*."*
"There was already a hearing in the Health Committee on Monday, at which representatives such as Jrgen Neumeyer and Dr Peter Reinhardt from the BCAv were heavily involved and answered a total of six questions. Despite clear criticism from all the experts regarding the possibilities of the growers' associations, the changes remained minimal. During the hearing, Jrgen Neumeyer made it clear that, from the BvCW's perspective, the BMEL's planned Consumer Cannabis Science Competence Ordinance (KCanWV) would be sufficient for the launch of cannabis model projects (‘Pillar 2’). A new law would therefore not be required for this. "
$$$