January 14, 2026Health — Hearing — hib 32/2026
Experts for improvements to the Medical Cannabis Act
Berlin: (hib/PK) Professional associations generally support the amendment to the Medical Cannabis Act (MedCanG) planned by the Federal Government. However, they see the need to amend the new bill (21/3061) to be improved in some places to achieve a more effective control effect. The cannabis industry, on the other hand, warned against disproportionate new regulations. The experts spoke at a hearing of the Health Committee on Wednesday and in written statements.
The German Medical Association (BÄK) supports the intention of the draft law, but pointed out that there is no scientific evidence for the prescription of cannabis flowers for medical purposes. Therefore, the Federal Office for the Protection of Human Rights generally advises against prescribing cannabis flowers. Instead, ready-made or prescription drugs should be used.
The German Office for Addiction Issues (DHS) advocated making personal contact with a doctor mandatory for all medications with the potential for addiction when first prescribing them. This is just as necessary with medical cannabis as with the prescription of sleep and sedatives or painkillers with a potential for addiction.
According to the police union, the federal government is creating important framework conditions with the bill to curb abuse and make crime more difficult. However, the regulations would be subject to tension regarding the legalization of cannabis and could lead to confusion. The tightening of medical access conditions in practice could reduce the motivation to take the formalized route via a doctor’s prescription. Consideration should therefore be given to how to achieve greater coherence between medical regulation and general cannabis legislation.
The Federal Association of German Pharmacists’ Associations (ABDA) warned of possible new loopholes and suggested that the planned regulations should be extended not only to cannabis flowers but also to extracts.
The Cannabis Industry Association (BvCW), which rejects the amendment, argued quite differently. The planned special regulations violated the general principle of equality in the Basic Law, as unequal treatment of medical cannabis compared to other prescription drugs was planned without any factual justification.
The Working Group on Cannabis as Medicine (ACM) also warned against overregulation. It is true that it is generally to be welcomed that the legislature continues to strive for a clear separation between the purchase of cannabis medicines and the acquisition of cannabis for recreational purposes. However, the new regulation could lead to restrictions in care and undue disadvantages for cannabis patients.
At the hearing, several experts made it clear that the sometimes offensive advertising of cannabis on internet platforms is one of the biggest problems currently facing. A spokesperson for the Association of German Cannabis Patients (BDCan) advocated tightening advertising regulations. He emphasized: „Advertising is the main problem.“ At the same time, he warned against amending the law to the detriment of patients.
German Cannabis Biz Assoc write
Experts Call for Revisions to the Medical Cannabis Act – CDU/CSU Signals Demand to “Fine‑Tune”
26-01-14 | According to heute im Bundestag (hib), professional associations called for a differentiated revision of the proposed amendment to the Medical Cannabis Act (MedCanG) during a hearing of the Bundestag Health Committee on 14 January 2026. The session focused on preventing misuse, ensuring supply security, and clarifying the legal framework. The second and third readings of the bill are scheduled for spring, with entry into force expected in the second quarter of 2026, reports the Pharmazeutische Zeitung.
Support for key elements of the draft came from addiction‑policy and law‑enforcement stakeholders. The German Centre for Addiction Issues (DHS) welcomed the proposed requirement for in‑person doctor consultations and called for equal treatment with other addiction‑forming medicines. The police union also viewed the proposed framework for crime prevention positively but warned of potential conflicts with general cannabis legalisation, which could push patients back into illegal channels.
Additional support came from professional bodies. The Federal Chamber of Pharmacists opposed the distribution of medical cannabis via commercially oriented platforms. Its president, Armin Hoffmann, stated: “Medicines are not consumer goods and do not belong on commercially oriented trading platforms.” The German Medical Association advocated reclassifying cannabis as a narcotic.
This position was justified by the medical profession’s fundamental scepticism toward prescribing cannabis flowers. Due to insufficient scientific evidence, a stronger focus on finished or compounded medicinal products was recommended. The National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds (GKV‑Spitzenverband) also welcomed the draft and called for a review of reimbursement obligations for cannabis flowers as well as a targeted research programme, according to the Deutsches Ärzteblatt.
Addiction specialist Dr. Matthias Luderer, who participated as an expert, warned of “recreational use under the guise of medical benefit,” reports Krautinvest.
Christiane Neubaur, managing director of the Association of Cannabis‑Supplying Pharmacies (VCA), highlighted negative consequences for supply security. A blanket ban on mail‑order dispensing would particularly affect severely ill and immobile patients in rural areas. Since many local pharmacies lack the necessary expertise, these patients rely on specialised mail‑order providers.
Criticism also focused on telemedicine. Franjo Grotenhermen (Working Group on Cannabis as Medicine) and Georg Wurth (German Hemp Association) stressed that many patients cannot find a treating physician, making telemedicine essential for ensuring access. Kirsten Müller‑Vahl added that restricting telemedicine would be “the wrong approach if we want to prioritise youth protection,” as an expanding black market undermines such efforts, according to Krautinvest.
Further concerns came from pharmacy and mail‑order associations. The German Association of Mail‑Order Pharmacies warned of supply problems and unequal treatment compared to other prescription medicines. The Cannabis Industry Association (BvCW) strongly opposed the proposed changes, arguing that the special rules violate the constitutional principle of equality by disadvantaging cannabis without objective justification. The German Cannabis Patients’ Association (BDCan) and the Working Group on Cannabis as Medicine (ACM) also warned against overregulation. BDCan argued that the real issue lies in aggressive advertising on online platforms, which should be specifically regulated. The Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists (ABDA) additionally suggested extending the planned restrictions to cannabis extracts to prevent new loopholes.
Within the governing coalition, reservations persist. The SPD parliamentary group reportedly does not intend to support the draft in its current form, according to Der Spiegel. SPD legal affairs spokesperson Carmen Wegge described the proposed mail‑order ban as potentially incompatible with EU law. She stressed that the draft was “not agreed in the coalition contract and not acceptable,” neglecting constitutional and EU‑law requirements, reports LTO. SPD health committee rapporteur Matthias Mieves rejected mandatory in‑person visits, stating that doctor consultations could “also take place digitally” if identity verification and medical standards are ensured. The Federal Ministry of Health did not comment on the hearing.
Within the CDU/CSU, the practicality of several provisions in the draft—led by Nina Warken—is increasingly being questioned. Simone Borchardt, the parliamentary group’s health policy spokesperson, stated that it may be necessary to “clarify and fine‑tune” certain aspects to improve regulatory effectiveness and legal certainty. Medically justified access to cannabis should not be unnecessarily hindered, and potential supply gaps must be avoided. According to the CDU, the hearing primarily aimed to curb misuse of medical cannabis while ensuring legal clarity for doctors and pharmacists. Borchardt reiterated this in a Facebook post.
By contrast, the AfD’s proposal to subject cannabis to the AMNOG (Pharmaceutical Market Reorganisation Act) process was rejected. Both the GKV‑Spitzenverband and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians considered the approach unsuitable, as natural varieties would each require separate procedures and individual cases cannot be regulated uniformly.
Business of Cannabis has published an English summary.
