Today, (Wednesday, January 14), a public hearing will bring together 22 hand-picked experts for a debate on the future country’s near-billion-euro medical cannabis industry.
Expert witnesses from across the political, policy and social spectrum will have the opportunity to make their case to the German Health Committee, seeing controversial proposed amendments to the Medical Cannabis Act come under the spotlight.
Following a fractious first reading on December 18 that exposed deep coalition divisions, the bill now faces technical examination of provisions experts warn are both legally indefensible and practically unenforceable.
At the heart of the controversy is a regulatory asymmetry created by the government itself: while German doctors would face mandatory in-person consultation requirements, EU-based telemedicine platforms would remain unrestricted, a double standard legal experts say violates EU law and renders enforcement impossible.
The SPD, which holds veto power over the legislation, has signalled it will not support the bill in its current form. Matthias Mieves, the party’s deputy health spokesperson, told the Bundestag in December that ‘the current draft would seriously harm ill people who depend on medical cannabis,’ adding that ‘the SPD will not abandon people who depend on a secure supply.’
Health Minister Nina Warken has defended the proposals by citing a 400% surge in medical cannabis imports, from 19 to 80 tons in the first half of 2025, arguing it demonstrates widespread abuse. But critics point to the EKOCAN evaluation, which found the legal cannabis market working as intended: black markets shrinking, crime declining, youth consumption stable.
Ahead of the 90-minute debate, which will be publicly streamed at 4 pm German time today, we examine the positions of all 22 expert witnesses, the majority of whom have already made their position papers public, to determine any potential underlying bias or contentious faultlines.
Patient Advocacy Organisations
ACM (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Cannabis als Medizin)
- Argues medical underservice persists: estimates 1-2% of the population (1.26M people) need therapy vs ~63,000 currently treated
- Warns telemedicine ban recreates pre-2024 barriers; few doctors prescribe due to ignorance or fear of recourse
- Will likely counter ‘abuse’ claims with the argument that the government scapegoats telemedicine for failure to implement Pillar 2.
BDCan (Bund Deutscher Cannabis-Patienten)
- Supports abuse prevention but argues blanket mail-order ban ‘goes too far’, essential for rural/mobility-impaired patients
- Unique demand: extend in-person requirements to ALL formulations (not just flowers) to prevent diversion to extracts
- Wants criminal penalties for advertising violations, not just platform bans
DHV (Deutscher Hanfverband)
- Acknowledges recreational diversion but frames as a symptom, stating the problem isn’t platform ‘abuse’ but the absence of speciality stores.
- Warns restrictions will push 100+ tons (potentially 200 tons in 2026) back to the black market
- Existing patient access crisis, noting ‘desperate patients called doctor practices and got rejections everywhere’.
Industry/Medical Societies
DMCG (Deutsche Medizinal-Cannabis Gesellschaft) – Physician society
- Co-authored July 2025 alternative legislative proposal with BDCan and VCA
- Supports mandatory doctor contact for all formulations; opposes blanket mail-order ban
- Advocates advertising law reforms with criminal penalties plus profit confiscation
BPC (Bundesverband pharmazeutischer Cannabinoidunternehmen) – Pharma companies
- Warns mail-order ban threatens hundreds of small/medium pharmacies that invested in compliance infrastructure
- Calls restrictions ‘factually unjustified unequal treatment vs. other medicines with comparable risk’
- Argues that the draft fails to distinguish responsible platforms from bad actors
BvCW (Branchenverband Cannabiswirtschaft) – Cannabis industry association
- Represents all business segments, including medical cannabis suppliers
- Expected to argue that restrictions harm legitimate businesses while failing to address problematic actors
Addiction Research Establishment
Prof. Dr Eva Hoch (Individual expert, CDU/CSU nominee)
- Director, IFT Institute for Therapy Research; developed CANDIS cannabis dependency treatment program
- Receives BMG funding (potential conflict: testifying for ministry’s own proposal)
- Will likely use ‘400% surge = abuse crisis’ narrative with addiction treatment data, psychosis research, youth protection concerns
DHS (Deutsche Hauptstelle für Suchtfragen) – Addiction issues center
- Submitted July 2025 statement citing 170% H1→H2 2024 import increase
- Expected to frame telemedicine as an enabler of inappropriate prescribing, lacking traditional safeguards
DG-Sucht / DGS (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Suchtforschung und Suchttherapie / Suchtmedizin)
- Academic research society and clinical addiction medicine society
- Expected to present prescription volumes as inconsistent with legitimate medical need
- Expected to frame in-person requirements as a medical ethics issue, not an access barrier
DGKJ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin) – Pediatrics
- Youth protection focus: brain development impacts in the under-25 population
- May cite increases in adolescent cannabis-related health presentations
Pharmacy Sector: Three-Way Split
ABDA (Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Apothekerverbände) – Brick-and-mortar pharmacy association
- Supports restrictions: President Armin Hoffmann says, ‘medicines are not consumer goods and don’t belong on commercially oriented platforms’
- Backs mail-order ban, advocates standardised pricing (AMPreisV) – would eliminate online competition
- Promotes local pharmacy courier service as an alternative
VCA (Verband der Cannabis versorgenden Apotheken) – Specialised cannabis pharmacies
- Opposes mail-order ban as discriminatory and economically destructive to responsible operators
- Commissioned July 2025 legal opinion concluding questionnaire-only prescriptions expose pharmacists to criminal liability
- Strategy: Support doctor contact requirements, but preserve mail-order for legitimate businesses
PHAGRO (Bundesverband des pharmazeutischen Großhandels) – Wholesalers
- Expected neutral on policy, concerned about supply chain disruption from abrupt regulatory changes
Medical Establishment
BÄK (Bundesärztekammer) – Federal Medical Chamber
- Supports in-person requirements as a professional standard, argues that questionnaire-based prescribing violates the physician code
KBV (Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung) – Statutory insurance physicians
- Supports restrictions; views private prescription surge as circumventing insurance gatekeeping
- Vulnerable to counter-argument: surge proves insurance barriers too onerous, forcing patients to pay out-of-pocket
Payers and Consumers
GKV-Spitzenverband – Statutory health insurance umbrella
- Cost-concerned but legally mandated to cover ‘seriously ill’ patients
- Faces paradox: wants restrictions, but ACM argues insurers’ 30-40% rejection rate is why private prescriptions surged
vzbv (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband) – Consumer protection
- Expected to oppose blanket bans from consumer rights perspective
- Likely to advocate quality standards and regulation rather than prohibition
Law Enforcement
GdP (Gewerkschaft der Polizei) – Police union
- Unusual invitee for medical legislation; suggests government framing as an enforcement issue
- May testify about prescription fraud, diversion, or impaired driving
Prof. Dr. Kirsten Müller-Vahl (CDU/CSU + GREENS nominee – bipartisan)
- Professor of Psychiatry, MHH; Chair of IACM (International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines)
- Bipartisan nomination is the hearing’s most significant detail – even CDU/CSU acknowledges her expertise must be heard
- Expected to directly counter Hoch’s harm narrative with clinical evidence of therapeutic benefits (Tourette’s, MS spasticity, chronic pain)
- Will likely argue 400% surge represents ‘market correction’ for massive undertreatment, not abuse crisis
Dr Ferdinand Weis (Attorney, SPD nominee)
- SPD’s choice of lawyer signals focus on legal/constitutional vulnerabilities rather than medical debate
- Expected to expose enforcement impossibility: pharmacies cannot verify prescription compliance without accessing confidential records
- Will highlight the EU law conflict: German doctors face in-person requirements, while EU doctors can continue telemedizin prescriptions unrestricted, creating an unenforceable two-tier system
- Constitutional proportionality argument: blanket bans fail the test when less restrictive alternatives exist
