The debate surrounding the German cannabis law remains politically charged. While parts of the CDU are calling for the legalization to be withdrawn, a much more nuanced assessment is coming from the ranks of the police. The Police Union (GdP) continues to speak of a „defective copy“, but considers a complete reversal to be the wrong approach. This confirms once again that the reality of cannabis regulation is more complex than some political demands suggest.
Deputy GdP Federal Chairman Alexander Poitz made it clear in a recent statement that the original objectives of the Consumer Cannabis Act (KCanG) were fundamentally understandable. However, the police union criticizes the path to achieving this as partially incomplete and difficult for authorities to implement. Many regulations were not sufficiently thought through for the police and administration.
This criticism is not new. Already during the legislative phase, numerous experts had pointed out that German partial legalization is a political compromise – and not a fully developed regulatory model. Instead of a regulated market with licensed sales outlets, the federal government initially relied on home cultivation and cannabis cultivation associations. This is precisely where the GdP sees a central problem.
In Poitz’s view, consumers’ needs can hardly be met by private plants and clubs. That structural gap continued to favour illicit trafficking. More consumers, larger quantities of possessions and new structures could paradoxically even lead to an indirect strengthening of the black market – at least as long as legal sources of supply are lacking.
But despite this criticism, the police union opposes the demand for a complete reversal of the reform. Such a measure would not only undo the political and administrative effort that has been made so far. Above all, it would make the illegal market the sole player again. From the police’s perspective, this would be a state capitulation to the reality of cannabis use.
This brings into focus a point that many drug policy experts also emphasize: half-legalization does not solve the structural problems. Without controlled outlets, a large part of the market remains illegal. This is precisely why the GdP is surprisingly open to a more regulated solution.
A State-controlled market with certified outlets and regulated import and logistics structures could address several issues simultaneously. In addition to possible tax revenues, such a model would primarily ensure greater transparency and security. Products could be controlled, distribution channels would be traceable, and the police would have to deal less with petty crimes.
At the same time, the police union points out that the current situation also brings with it new tasks. Road traffic controls, preventive work and the enforcement of the sometimes complicated rules of the Cannabis Act continue to create additional burdens for the authorities.
The GdP’s statement shows one thing above all: even critics of the current law now see that a complete return to Prohibition is not a realistic solution. The discussion is thus increasingly shifting away from the fundamental question of legalization – to the question of what a functioning regulatory system might look like.
This probably means a new phase for German cannabis policy. Following the historic legalization in 2024, the practical development of the system is now underway. And the police, of all people, are bringing into play a proposal that many supporters have been calling for for years: a regulated market instead of a semi-legal temporary solution.
