As Trump’s rescheduling executive order dominated the cannabis industry’s attention over the holiday period, Germany’s controversial medical cannabis bill quietly entered its most critical phase.
On December 18, the same day the US President issued his surprise executive order, Germany’s Bundestag held the first reading of a critical amendment which will determine the future of its near-billion-euro medical cannabis industry.
Following the brief but fractious 20-minute debate, the medical cannabis amendment now heads to a critical Health Committee hearing on January 14, where 22 expert witnesses will make their case to the Bundestag.
While the second and third readings of the bill are not expected until Spring 2026, potentially terminal cracks are already appearing in between the ruling coalition parties, and the ‘asymmetry’ of the bill’s contents.
These cracks may yet prove decisive. Carmen Wegge, the SPD’s spokesperson for legal affairs and cannabis policy, pointed to a fundamental reality of German parliamentary process when she invoked ‘Struck’s Law’, the principle coined by former SPD leader Peter Struck, which states that ‘no law leaves the Bundestag the way it came in.’
As it stands, it appears inevitable that changes to the bill are incoming, not least because of structural issues with the bill in its present form.
Currently, the bill would impose mandatory in-person consultations for patients seeing German doctors, while telemedicine platforms that employ prescribing doctors from outside Germany remain unaffected, a regulatory contradiction experts say is both legally indefensible under EU law and practically impossible to enforce.”
“This regulatory asymmetry, which requires in-person consultations for German doctors while allowing EU telemedicine prescriptions, raises serious questions under EU law, particularly concerning the free movement of services,” Dr. Sebastián Marincolo, Director of Strategic Content & Editorial at weed.de, told Business of Cannabis.
“This imbalance could place domestic providers at a distinct disadvantage – a situation that would be difficult to justify under the EU’s proportionality tests.”
These structural tensions already demonstrate ‘Struck’s Law’ taking effect. Following Cabinet approval in October 2025, the Bundesrat recommended banning EU prescriptions on November 21 to prevent enforcement gaps.
Then on December 3, the Federal Government rejected this proposal, citing EU law obligations a decision that created the regulatory ‘asymmetry’ now threatening the bill’s viability.
Alongside these structural conflicts, the December 18 first reading exposed deep fractures within the governing coalition. Health Minister Nina Warken defended the draft by pointing to a 400% surge in medical cannabis imports, spiking from 19 tons to 80 tons in the first half of 2025, arguing it demonstrated widespread abuse rather than legitimate medical need.
But the SPD, the original architects of the CanG act in the previous administration, made their opposition to these changes abundantly clear.
Matthias Mieves, speaking for the SPD parliamentary group, told the Bundestag: “The current draft would also seriously harm ill people who depend on medical cannabis… The SPD will not abandon people who depend on a secure supply.”
Should an agreement be reached in the spring, legal experts have raised fundamental questions about whether the bill can be enforced even if passed.
Kai-Friedrich Niermann, a regulatory expert and lawyer, warned in late November that the legislation risks becoming a ‘paper tiger, creating bureaucratic hurdles that are difficult to control in reality.’
The problem centres on pharmacies, which remain ‘key players within the entire distribution chain’ but lack the means to verify compliance.
“How is a pharmacy supposed to determine whether it is an initial prescription issued locally or the annual prescription required locally? Whether it is a repeat prescription issued online by the same doctor’s office? Whether a prescription from another EU country complies with the newly introduced provisions?” Niermann asked.
The Bundesrat attempted to solve this by recommending a complete ban on EU prescriptions, a move the Federal Government rejected as incompatible with EU law. The alternative, Niermann noted, would require enabling pharmacies to examine confidential patient records ‘in order to determine whether the regulations on on-site and follow-up prescriptions have been complied with’.
“This is, of course, difficult to reconcile with data protection and the right to informal self-determination, and raises constitutional concerns,” he continued.
“The crucial question is therefore how far the pharmacist’s obligation to check the prescription goes and whether this results in a risk of criminal liability,” Niermann said. He concluded that pharmacies would only be obliged to refuse prescriptions in cases of “justified suspicion of abuse in individual cases.
“It is therefore entirely possible that the law and its amendments will have no effect at all, especially if telemedicine platforms from abroad continue to operate as before,” he warned.
October 31, 2025 No Comments
October 29, 2025 No Comments
October 14, 2025 No Comments
Dr Marincolo believes that the bill’s focus on telemedicine restrictions misses the fundamental problem: the government’s failure to implement Pillar 2 of the cannabis law, which was meant to create regulated adult-use retail.
“Telemedicine platforms are being made a scapegoat to deflect from the real, self-created problem: the failure to implement Pillar 2 and create a functioning, regulated market for adult use,” he explained.
“The government is caught in a dilemma: on one hand, it wishes to project an image of toughness against perceived ‘abuse’ to appease conservative voters; on the other, it cannot ignore the reality of patient demand.”
He points to the EKOCAN evaluation, published in September 2025, which found the legal market is working as intended: the black market is shrinking, crime is declining, and youth consumption is remaining stable.
“Yet, once again, the government appears poised to ignore scientific evidence, framing growth in the medical sector as ‘abuse’ in what seems to be a deliberate misinterpretation designed to secure political capital.”
The consequences for patients could be severe. Marincolo’s research shows that 47% of medical cannabis patients report experiencing stigmatisation, compared to lower rates among recreational users.
“Telemedicine has created a sanctuary for many patients – a space free from prejudice where they can be treated by knowledgeable physicians,” he said.
“Forcing them back into a system where many doctors still reject cannabis, are poorly informed, or shy away from the bureaucratic burdens, means re-exposing them to the very judgment and dismissal they sought to escape.”
The bill also proposes reapplying Germany’s standardised medicines pricing regulation (AMPreisV) to medical cannabis. While the exact price level remains unclear, Marincolo warns the timing is problematic.
According to Dr Marincolo, market competition has driven prices down by nearly 12% over the past year, from €9.98 to €8.77 per gram.
“Standardised pricing would halt this beneficial movement, preventing patients from reaping the full benefits of a maturing, competitive market,” he said.
“If the fixed price is set above current competitive levels, it would indeed price out lower-income patients and make the black market more attractive by comparison.”
The January 14 hearing represents a crucial opportunity for technical scrutiny of the bill’s provisions.
The committee phase is where the SPD’s opposition could have a real impact. Since the CDU/CSU needs SPD support to pass the bill, and support from the AfD is considered politically unrealistic, the committee must produce a compromise that satisfies both coalition partners.
‘Many negotiation steps’ remain ahead, with second and third readings in the Bundestag not expected until February or March. After passage in the Bundestag, the bill must return to the Bundesrat for final approval.
Dr Marincolo predicts the bill will be significantly revised.
“My prediction is a ‘face-saving compromise’: the restrictions will be softened, perhaps through mandatory initial consultations but with relaxed follow-up requirements.”
However, he remains cautions that any compromise that fails to address the root cause, the absence of Pillar 2, will only treat symptoms.
“As long as Pillar 2 is not implemented, any such measure is merely treating symptoms, not solving the root cause,” he said. “This bill will certainly not pass in its current form, but it remains to be seen which of its sharp edges will remain – edges that could deeply harm many people.”
The post Germany’s Medical Cannabis Bill Faces Critical Test as Experts Warn of ‘Unenforceable’ Framework appeared first on Business of Cannabis.
Continue reading...
On December 18, the same day the US President issued his surprise executive order, Germany’s Bundestag held the first reading of a critical amendment which will determine the future of its near-billion-euro medical cannabis industry.
Following the brief but fractious 20-minute debate, the medical cannabis amendment now heads to a critical Health Committee hearing on January 14, where 22 expert witnesses will make their case to the Bundestag.
While the second and third readings of the bill are not expected until Spring 2026, potentially terminal cracks are already appearing in between the ruling coalition parties, and the ‘asymmetry’ of the bill’s contents.
‘Struck’s Law Applies’
These cracks may yet prove decisive. Carmen Wegge, the SPD’s spokesperson for legal affairs and cannabis policy, pointed to a fundamental reality of German parliamentary process when she invoked ‘Struck’s Law’, the principle coined by former SPD leader Peter Struck, which states that ‘no law leaves the Bundestag the way it came in.’
As it stands, it appears inevitable that changes to the bill are incoming, not least because of structural issues with the bill in its present form.
Currently, the bill would impose mandatory in-person consultations for patients seeing German doctors, while telemedicine platforms that employ prescribing doctors from outside Germany remain unaffected, a regulatory contradiction experts say is both legally indefensible under EU law and practically impossible to enforce.”
“This regulatory asymmetry, which requires in-person consultations for German doctors while allowing EU telemedicine prescriptions, raises serious questions under EU law, particularly concerning the free movement of services,” Dr. Sebastián Marincolo, Director of Strategic Content & Editorial at weed.de, told Business of Cannabis.
“This imbalance could place domestic providers at a distinct disadvantage – a situation that would be difficult to justify under the EU’s proportionality tests.”
These structural tensions already demonstrate ‘Struck’s Law’ taking effect. Following Cabinet approval in October 2025, the Bundesrat recommended banning EU prescriptions on November 21 to prevent enforcement gaps.
Then on December 3, the Federal Government rejected this proposal, citing EU law obligations a decision that created the regulatory ‘asymmetry’ now threatening the bill’s viability.
Coalition revolt emerges
Alongside these structural conflicts, the December 18 first reading exposed deep fractures within the governing coalition. Health Minister Nina Warken defended the draft by pointing to a 400% surge in medical cannabis imports, spiking from 19 tons to 80 tons in the first half of 2025, arguing it demonstrated widespread abuse rather than legitimate medical need.
But the SPD, the original architects of the CanG act in the previous administration, made their opposition to these changes abundantly clear.
Matthias Mieves, speaking for the SPD parliamentary group, told the Bundestag: “The current draft would also seriously harm ill people who depend on medical cannabis… The SPD will not abandon people who depend on a secure supply.”
The enforcement problem
Should an agreement be reached in the spring, legal experts have raised fundamental questions about whether the bill can be enforced even if passed.
Kai-Friedrich Niermann, a regulatory expert and lawyer, warned in late November that the legislation risks becoming a ‘paper tiger, creating bureaucratic hurdles that are difficult to control in reality.’
The problem centres on pharmacies, which remain ‘key players within the entire distribution chain’ but lack the means to verify compliance.
“How is a pharmacy supposed to determine whether it is an initial prescription issued locally or the annual prescription required locally? Whether it is a repeat prescription issued online by the same doctor’s office? Whether a prescription from another EU country complies with the newly introduced provisions?” Niermann asked.
The Bundesrat attempted to solve this by recommending a complete ban on EU prescriptions, a move the Federal Government rejected as incompatible with EU law. The alternative, Niermann noted, would require enabling pharmacies to examine confidential patient records ‘in order to determine whether the regulations on on-site and follow-up prescriptions have been complied with’.
“This is, of course, difficult to reconcile with data protection and the right to informal self-determination, and raises constitutional concerns,” he continued.
“The crucial question is therefore how far the pharmacist’s obligation to check the prescription goes and whether this results in a risk of criminal liability,” Niermann said. He concluded that pharmacies would only be obliged to refuse prescriptions in cases of “justified suspicion of abuse in individual cases.
“It is therefore entirely possible that the law and its amendments will have no effect at all, especially if telemedicine platforms from abroad continue to operate as before,” he warned.
How Cannabis Interacts with Pain, Sleep & Anxiety
Read More »October 31, 2025 No Comments
Drug War 2.0 Puts International Cannabis Reform at Risk
Read More »October 29, 2025 No Comments
Cannabis Researchers Call for Implementation of Second Pillar of the KCanG
Read More »October 14, 2025 No Comments
Scapegoating telemedicine
Dr Marincolo believes that the bill’s focus on telemedicine restrictions misses the fundamental problem: the government’s failure to implement Pillar 2 of the cannabis law, which was meant to create regulated adult-use retail.
“Telemedicine platforms are being made a scapegoat to deflect from the real, self-created problem: the failure to implement Pillar 2 and create a functioning, regulated market for adult use,” he explained.
“The government is caught in a dilemma: on one hand, it wishes to project an image of toughness against perceived ‘abuse’ to appease conservative voters; on the other, it cannot ignore the reality of patient demand.”
He points to the EKOCAN evaluation, published in September 2025, which found the legal market is working as intended: the black market is shrinking, crime is declining, and youth consumption is remaining stable.
“Yet, once again, the government appears poised to ignore scientific evidence, framing growth in the medical sector as ‘abuse’ in what seems to be a deliberate misinterpretation designed to secure political capital.”
The consequences for patients could be severe. Marincolo’s research shows that 47% of medical cannabis patients report experiencing stigmatisation, compared to lower rates among recreational users.
“Telemedicine has created a sanctuary for many patients – a space free from prejudice where they can be treated by knowledgeable physicians,” he said.
“Forcing them back into a system where many doctors still reject cannabis, are poorly informed, or shy away from the bureaucratic burdens, means re-exposing them to the very judgment and dismissal they sought to escape.”
The bill also proposes reapplying Germany’s standardised medicines pricing regulation (AMPreisV) to medical cannabis. While the exact price level remains unclear, Marincolo warns the timing is problematic.
According to Dr Marincolo, market competition has driven prices down by nearly 12% over the past year, from €9.98 to €8.77 per gram.
“Standardised pricing would halt this beneficial movement, preventing patients from reaping the full benefits of a maturing, competitive market,” he said.
“If the fixed price is set above current competitive levels, it would indeed price out lower-income patients and make the black market more attractive by comparison.”
Critical juncture ahead
The January 14 hearing represents a crucial opportunity for technical scrutiny of the bill’s provisions.
The committee phase is where the SPD’s opposition could have a real impact. Since the CDU/CSU needs SPD support to pass the bill, and support from the AfD is considered politically unrealistic, the committee must produce a compromise that satisfies both coalition partners.
‘Many negotiation steps’ remain ahead, with second and third readings in the Bundestag not expected until February or March. After passage in the Bundestag, the bill must return to the Bundesrat for final approval.
Dr Marincolo predicts the bill will be significantly revised.
“My prediction is a ‘face-saving compromise’: the restrictions will be softened, perhaps through mandatory initial consultations but with relaxed follow-up requirements.”
However, he remains cautions that any compromise that fails to address the root cause, the absence of Pillar 2, will only treat symptoms.
“As long as Pillar 2 is not implemented, any such measure is merely treating symptoms, not solving the root cause,” he said. “This bill will certainly not pass in its current form, but it remains to be seen which of its sharp edges will remain – edges that could deeply harm many people.”
The post Germany’s Medical Cannabis Bill Faces Critical Test as Experts Warn of ‘Unenforceable’ Framework appeared first on Business of Cannabis.
Continue reading...
