THE EXPERT POLITICIANS

At the International Cannabis Business Conference on August 26, 2021, in Berlin, a panel discussion with expert politicians on cannabis reform fields (medicine, industrial hemp/food, CBD & recreational use) was organized by the BvCW (German Cannabis Business Association). Here are some key statements:

You can see the complete discussion here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XAd9Za_ebo

Our discussion participants were:
Burkhard Blienert, former MdB (SPD) – former drug policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group
Werner Graf (The Greens) – state chairman of The Greens in Berlin
Niema Movassat, MdB (The Left) – Drug policy spokesman for The Left parliamentary group in the Bundestag
Erwin Rüddel, MdB (CDU) – Chairman of the Health Committee of the Bundestag
Dr. Wieland Schinnenburg, MdB (FDP) – Drug policy spokesman for the FDP parliamentary group in the Bundestag

The discussion was moderated by Jürgen Neumeyer, managing director of BvCW.

 

MEDICAL CANNABIS

Niema Movassat, MdB (The Left)
at 9:51: “As The Left party, we have submitted a motion to the Bundestag to eliminate the authorization requirement. […] We also urgently need further education, more incentives for doctors to deal with this [medical cannabis], and that includes, of course, the exclusion of recourse claims. […] We need to amend the law […] so that health insurance companies no longer reject applications. We also need to consider how we can lower prices in pharmacies. […] To meet Germany’s demand [for medical cannabis, Editor’s note], more than ten times the current amount would have to be grown, and that needs to be tackled. […] I agree that the bureaucratic hurdles are too high.” 

Erwin Rüddel, MdB (CDU)
at 11:38: “I also see the need for action, […] we need an overall educational strategy. This education must reach the doctor, but also the patient. […] I could imagine that if we intensify research in this area, we will find other areas where cannabis therapies are useful for the patient. Therefore, in my opinion, we need to invest more in research, we need to educate in all directions: patient, doctor, and insurers. And I am also of the opinion that we need to intensify cultivation.” 

Burkhard Blienert, former MdB (SPD)
at 16:30: “We know the bottlenecks: the doctor, the price in the pharmacy, and what was said about cultivation here in Germany, how over-bureaucratized it is. I believe we can really break down some barriers. I see unity among all of you. Afterwards, in 2022, we will all have to take an oath. This needs to happen quickly from my perspective; we must not wait any longer. […] The doctor’s therapeutic freedom is established. We can strengthen it further by incorporating requirements for further education and training. We should also open up the entire spectrum of applications. There are certain cases where cannabis is not prescribed due to a lack of evidence, but I believe we can be more liberal when we engage in research.”

Werner Graf (The Greens)
at 14:49: “The quantities of medical cannabis are far too low, and the barriers are much too high. We must also be able to offer outdoor cultivation more easily. It cannot be that if someone wants to apply for it, they must have already done it before, especially when we are introducing it as something new. It is crucial that the product coming out is appropriate, especially in medicine, and that the barriers are not set too high beforehand. […] We also need to address the research, which is currently lacking. The policy is responsible for further research to determine the positive and healing aspects of cannabis, so we can make progress. I believe more funds need to be made available for this research so that we can improve the quality of the medication.”

Dr. Wieland Schinnenburg, MdB (FDP)
at 08:25: “If the application for cost reimbursement for medical cannabis is approved, regress must be excluded! […] The quantity of domestically produced medical cannabis is far too low. We, as the FDP, want to increase it to 100 tons, yes, you heard that right, 100 tons, going beyond the German market. We want to make Germany a cannabis exporting country. This also requires streamlining bureaucracy. […] It is not necessary to produce it in a concrete bunker. The state does not necessarily have to be the producer, and that needs to be urgently liberalized! […] Canada and Israel, watch out, because if the FDP comes into government, there will be competition from Germany.”

 

Industrial HEMP

Dr. Wieland Schinnenburg, MdB (FDP)
at 22:29: “The situation with hempis completely untenable. The most important point is the legal uncertainty. The only thing that matters is whether dangerous narcotics are produced through this cultivation, which I must exclude; everything else is nonsense. The 0.2% THC limit is completely unsuitable barrier in my opinion; it could be much higher. […] We need to organize it so that it is sufficient to present a reliable test, regardless of what I have in my shelf later. So, we need legal certainty; something needs to be done urgently. […] I believe that we also need to provide more specific requirements for the executive in the law. It cannot be that some – not all – administrationsgo crazy.”

Werner Graf (The Greens)
at 22:46: “Regarding legal certainty, it’s simple: remove industrial hemp from the Narcotic Drugs Act. That would solve everything; it’s perfect for cutting bureaucracy. […] Then we wouldn’t have all these problems anymore. Let’s specify the seeds and plants that fall under this category, and then we can easily grow them. […] We need industrial hemp for the ecological transformation. […] We need good insulation material, and hemp is suitable for that. We need to move away from cotton, and hemp is also suitable there. […] We need to pursue a completely different policy. We need to significantly increase the THC limit. […] I also support 1% THC, as is the case in Switzerland, and then all the bureaucracy can be eliminated without further registrations.“

Niema Movassat, MdB (The Lefts)
at 25:09: “The Greens and The Left party jointly submitted a proposal to the Bundestag, which was rejected, to set the THC limit to 0.6%, which is the same as in Italy, an EU country, and that is a reference point. I can also live with 1% THC. Whether it’s 0.6% or 1%, in both cases, the chance of getting high is excluded. That is the crucial point. Therefore, it should not be included in the Narcotic Drugs Act. […] The application process for hemp cultivation on fields is also difficult due to bureaucratic barriers, submitting the application to the Federal Office for Agriculture and Nutrition in triplicate with numerous attachments, having to register each harvest, and potentially having to destroy the entire harvest if the THC limit is exceeded; This bureaucratic madness must go, because in fact industrial hemp is also useful in many respects. […] Industrial hemp is also good in the area of ecological change. We even have in our election program, which I think is a very nice idea, that where the lignite areas are now being closed, that we grow industrial hemp there so that we can, so to speak, advance the ecological turnaround and create jobs. We definitely need to get on it, it’s a big issue!”

Burkhard Blienert, former MdB (SPD)
at 27:58: “Point 1: […] I think it is absolutely necessary and right to get out of the narcotics law. Point 2: […] We need two agreements now for the coming legislative period. It must be a subject in the coalition negotiations: Promotion of industrial hemp in Germany, which also means corresponding expansion of promotion, that we have already had more often in the past, that must become stronger. The second point that must be agreed upon in the coalition negotiations is an initiative at the European level, so that regulatory limits at the European level, which are still having an effect here today, can be dismantled, and we can move forward uniformly in Europe and promote the whole thing.”

Erwin Rüddel, MdB (CDU)
at 29:06: “When I observe how this market has also changed in recent years, and we, as I also said at the beginning, and we want to strengthen it, also in Germany, we will have to come to changes. Politics is always a dynamic process. And we now have four years since the introduction of medical cannabis. And I think, as Mr. Blienert says, 22 will be a year in which we will have to draw conclusions and make decisions. But I also see a need for change overall. Although it is not yet the subject of discussion in my party that we are talking about quantities and content here, but you can see it in the repositioning overall, in terms of legal quantities, in private consumption, with the Drug Commissioner, so I see a process of change here. How far this will go will have to be sounded out in 22 or in the coalition negotiations […].”

 

CBD

Niema Movassat, MdB (The Lefts)
at 37:10: “First of all, we have fortunately been able to prevent the EU Commission from seriously going ahead and classifying CBD as a narcotic; that was planned, and fortunately it has been averted, because that would have been completely scientifically insane. This also shows how problematic the debates are at the EU level. The fact that CBD is in the catalog of the Novel Food Regulation, as a novel food, I mean – CBD has been around longer than the EU – much longer, so in this respect it is a bit absurd. Certainly, with synthetically produced CBD I would also say that is Novel Food, that is something new, the so to speak naturally produced CBD is not CBD and belongs out of it and would also be a clear improvement for many traders. […] Germany also has a certain margin of discretion and Germany would have to use this to create a regulation, so to speak, that allows CBD producers to bring CBD foods onto the market outside of the Novel Food Regulation, so that the public prosecutor is not standing in front of the door at the end.”

Dr. Wieland Schinnenburg, MdB (FDP)
at 39:20: “Whereas I would not be so strict with the second stage [this refers to the question of classifying CBD-enriched extracts as “novel food”, editor’s note]. I would not be so strict, […] I would be almost more generous than they are. One must not automatically, to unpack the thick club. My standard: As long as a CBD product has no danger of being used as a narcotic in any way, I’m in favor of extreme liberalization.” 

Werner Graf (The Greens)
at 39:40: “You have to imagine this egg dance with caramalt or products like that, it’s simply an obstruction of the economy and of products & of innovation. It simply can’t be like that, and therefore: As long as we don’t get legalization – then we would have a completely different situation and starting point – you simply have to simplify it.”

Erwin Rüddel, MdB (CDU)
at 40:09: “I also see the possibility here that at least in the first two cases you mentioned [this refers to the question on an unregulated area for naturally occurring CBD and on an area as a “novel food” with CBD-enriched extracts, editor’s note]) one comes to more flexibility. I see this in a similar way as Dr. Schinnenburg.”

Burkhard Blienert, former MdB (SPD)
After the other participants in the discussion have spoken out in favor of relaxation (at 40:48): ”So we can really conclude this third point now. […] With CBD, you as an industry association can really step on the gas now and we can really achieve something in the coming legislative period.”

 

REGULATION OF CANNABIS AS A STIMULANT

Erwin Rüddel, MdB (CDU)
at 35:05 “I already took a position three years ago that we should launch a model project. So there are different positions here, which should simply be examined objectively and neutrally. That one then draws conclusions from it. At the moment, I have the feeling that the arguments are colliding without any movement on the issue. That’s why I think it should be possible to hand out cannabis in a model region, which should be well considered, with fixed quantities and fixed persons. That this is then scientifically evaluated, that this is then taken as a basis […]”

as well as at 1:01:02: “The legal acquisition and consumption of cannabis is certainly an issue where persuasion [in the CDU, editor’s note] is still needed. I’m not saying we’ll do it, but we should launch a model project in order to have arguments for or against it, and I think the circle will be larger who want to go down this path toward model projects than was the case 1-2 years ago.”

Burkhard Blienert, former MdB (SPD)
at 43:42: “A very clear mandate: 2022. We have a good basis with the Green Cannabis Control Act. To also take this as a blueprint with a group of experts to illuminate the regulatory measures so that we can present a bill in 2023 in the cabinet, in parliament, and in 2024 conclude the entire parliamentary procedure for a regulated cannabis market in Germany. […] I would like to see a regulated cannabis market with regulated products, via specialist stores, via controlled specialist personnel, which – in my opinion – is a viable path where we can reconnect with many other countries that have already gone down this path. We can draw from their experience. […]”

Niema Movassat, MdB (The Lefts)
at 48:35: “[…] That’s why we finally need a regulated cannabis market. We envision this primarily through cannabis specialty stores and cannabis social clubs. We advocate, so to speak, for home cultivation with the latter as well. We don’t want the dispensaries in there. It’s not like I buy my beer in the dispensaries. That’s not where you go for recreational and pleasure purposes, but if you have certain medical indicators, and so for me that belongs in specialized stores and cannabis social clubs.”

Werner Graf (The Greens)
at 54:06: “I also like to discuss whether pharmacies or specialized stores [should dispense cannabis, editor’s note], it’s all a gourmet discussion for me, because I’m very much in favor of specialized stores. Dispensaries are for medications, edibles are something else. In principle, I would also make a distinction between the two, but I also use pharmacies. I don’t care at the moment, the main thing is that we take steps forward, because it can’t be that we’ve been discussing the system for decades. In climate policy, we say “Listen to the Science!“, I’d like to see the same damn thing in drug policy.”