Skip to main content

Author: Johnny Green

Canada Cannabis Flag

Prevalence Of Cannabis Use Among Canadian Youth “Unchanged” Per New Data

Written by Johnny Green on . Posted in Policy.

Canada is home to the largest cannabis public policy and regulation experiment in history. Canada became the first G-7 nation to pass a national adult-use cannabis legalization measure in late 2018 and still remains the only G-7 nation to do so.

Joining Canada on the list of legalized nations are Uruguay, Malta, and Luxembourg. However, Canada is the only country on the list that permits sales to anyone of legal age regardless of residency status.

Consumers in Canada are afforded the most robust options for obtaining cannabis by legal means, including dispensaries, delivery services, mail delivery, cannabis clubs, etc. Leading up to the implementation of legalization cannabis opponents issued numerous warnings specific to youth consumption. By all measurements, doomsday predictions have not materialized.

One talking point that cannabis opponents touted leading up to legalization in Canada was that ‘legalization would increase youth consumption rates.’ It’s a popular talking point for cannabis opponents everywhere that cannabis reform is being considered, including medical cannabis reform.

But what does the math say? Health Canada conducts a survey every year to gauge, among other things, how many people report having consumed cannabis.

According to the 2019 survey, the results of which were released in 2020 (bold font added for emphasis), “In 2019, 40% (12.0 million) of Canadians aged 15 years and older reported ever smoking cannabis. The prevalence of ever smoking cannabis was 25% (699,000) among youth aged 15 to 19, 55% (990,000) among young adults aged 20 to 24, and 39% (10.3 million) among adults aged 25 years and over.”

The results of the 2022 Health Canada survey were recently released. According to the survey’s authors (bold font added for emphasis), “In 2022, 39.5% [95% CI: 38.3, 40.7] (12.7 million) of Canadians aged 15 years and older reported ever smoking cannabis, unchanged from 2021…The prevalence of ever smoking cannabis was unchanged among youth aged 15-19 years at 20.1% [95% CI: 18.4, 21.8] (424,000), and adults aged 25 years and older at 40.2% [95% CI: 38.8, 41.6] (11.1 million).

For contextual purposes, the reference to “unchanged” in the 2022 survey results is in regard to the previous year’s (2021) survey results. According to the Canadian government’s own data, between 2019 and 2022 reported lifetime cannabis use declined by nearly 20% since legalization.

That statistic is significant given the fact that cannabis policy modernization efforts are gaining steam across the world right now, and a big hesitation expressed by many voters and lawmakers relates to concerns regarding youth consumption rates.

Canada provides the best cannabis public policy data to analyze given the robust consumer options in Canada, and as you can see from the survey results, regulation appears to be better at curbing youth consumption rates than prohibition.

Hemp Leaf Hemp Plant Cannabis Sativa

Compassion Should Be The Goal Of Medical Cannabis Reform

Written by Johnny Green on . Posted in Policy.

The goal of medical cannabis policy modernization efforts should be obvious – to help suffering patients. If a suffering patient benefits from one or more medical cannabis therapeutics, and the medical professionals treating the patient deem the consumption of such therapeutics to be safe, then the patient should be able to pursue legal options.

Unfortunately, many medical cannabis programs around the world fail to truly put compassion at the heart of their efforts. Instead, lawmakers and/or governments in some countries have implemented medical programs that only help a tiny percentage of suffering patients.

The limited usefulness of the programs is due to various factors that will be discussed below. It is worth noting that some legal access to medical cannabis is technically better than outright prohibition for all. However, for suffering patients who are not able to legally access medical cannabis due to a program’s limitations, outright prohibition may as well be the law of the land.

As countries around the globe continue to work to modernize their cannabis policies, it’s important for advocates to push for key provisions within their borders. Suffering patients deserve meaningful safe access, not performative ‘reform.’

Keep in mind that cannabis prohibitionists in many countries have read the writing on the wall and abandoned hope of keeping prohibition in place. Instead, they are now pivoting to doing everything they can to set up medical cannabis programs for failure, which is obviously not good for patients or governments.

Qualifying Conditions

A nation’s medical cannabis program is only as good as the number of health conditions that a suffering patient can qualify under to legally enter the program. Humans suffer from a wide variety of conditions, and a growing body of peer-reviewed research demonstrates that cannabis therapeutics can help treat a significant number of them.

It should not be up to a politician and/or government bureaucrat to decide which suffering patients get safe access to their medicine and which ones do not. The sensible, compassionate, and humane way to determine if a patient would benefit from cannabis therapeutics is to let the medical professionals who are treating them decide.

Authorized Approvers

Another key component that largely contributes to a medical cannabis program’s success or failure involves the list of people/entities that can approve a patient for a nation’s medical cannabis program. Some countries only permit certain medical doctors to do it, or require medical professionals to obtain a special license. That approach is typically counterproductive.

A country could have every favorable medical cannabis policy provision in place, and yet if everything has to funnel through a select group of professionals that may or may not let their personal biases get in the way, there’s always the chance that problems can arise. Some doctors will refuse to even consider medical cannabis due to stigma.

For many suffering patients, a primary physician is not even who they see for a vast majority of their appointments, particularly in rural areas. Allowing true medical professionals beyond just medical doctors to approve patients ensures that all suffering patients have more options when seeking approval.

Variety of Medications

A big mistake that some countries make when passing medical cannabis reform measures is only permitting patients to use one or a handful of cannabis therapeutics, typically synthetic pharmaceutical cannabis medications. Such medications are expensive, and only help a limited number of patients.

Additionally, countries will sometimes only permit one or two cultivators, which is always a recipe for supply hiccups. If only one cultivator gets a license, and it turns out that they are not as qualified to cultivate cannabis as they claimed and/or issues arise at their facilities, it obviously affects a whole nation’s program. It typically also limits the types of cannabis that are available for research purposes.

Patients are going to seek out the types of cannabis medications that provide them relief, whether that comes from a regulated or unregulated source. For safety and effectiveness purposes, it’s obviously better for patients to obtain medications from regulated sources, however, that’s only possible if a variety of medications are legally available. The supply of legal medical cannabis products must match what patients are actually needing.

Reasonable Regulations

Every reasonable cannabis advocate recognizes the need for certain medical cannabis regulations such as licensing, inspections, and product testing. Such regulations ensure that patients are being provided safe and effective medicine.

Due to stigma, a lack of understanding, and/or outright sabotage, some countries that have passed well-meaning medical cannabis reform measures have witnessed their programs fail by every measure due to their medical cannabis programs getting crushed by regulations.

Nations need to ask themselves ‘what problem are we trying to fix’ when pushing for individual medical cannabis regulations, coupled with ‘does this regulation balance addressing a potential problem with the needs of suffering patients?’ Far too often it seems like no one is truly thinking when passing some medical cannabis regulations that are now found around the world.

Home Cultivation

Allowing suffering patients and/or their caregivers to cultivate medical cannabis gives some policymakers and regulators heartburn, yet, it is a vital component of a successful medical cannabis program. Nations that do not permit home medical cannabis cultivation will always experience gaps in patients receiving their medicine.

Home cultivation alone is not enough to ensure consistent safe access to medical cannabis, just as only allowing medical cannabis to be sold through pharmacies is not enough. Permitting home cultivation of a handful of plants is part of a comprehensive approach to safe access. It allows patients to completely control what goes into their medicine and provides an equitable way for all suffering patients to obtain some level of cannabis therapeutics.

Granada Spain

Power Outages In Spain Supports Cannabis Regulation, Not Prohibition

Written by Johnny Green on . Posted in Policy.

Earlier this month power outages were reported in parts of Spain, including in the Spanish city of Granada. While the outages are not necessarily a new thing in Spain, they are reportedly increasing in frequency and severity in multiple parts of the European nation.

Endesa, which is Spain’s largest electric company, attributes the reported increase in outages to unregulated cannabis cultivation operations, and that one-third of the electricity consumed in Granada’s northern district last year was reportedly connected to such operations.

The true cause of the power outages is open for debate. Many authorities are echoing what Endesa is claiming, and yet many residents are pointing to what they claim is a failing electrical grid. Unregulated cannabis operations may be contributing to the problem, however, they may also only play a small role in what seems to be an increasing issue for Spain.

Regardless, a point that seems to be lost in the larger discussion is that Spain’s approach to cannabis is completely outdated and in desperate need of sensible modernization. Cannabis is largely tolerated in Spain, however, legalization is not the law of the land.

Cannabis clubs are very common in parts of Spain, particularly in Barcelona, and all of the cannabis that supplies those clubs comes from unregulated sources. It’s a complete free-for-all, and as such, no one truly knows how much cannabis is being cultivated and sold in Spain every year.

What we do know is that the current approach to cannabis policy in Spain is insufficient, to put it lightly. Licensing and regulating cannabis cultivation would not guarantee that Spain’s power outages would be resolved, however, it would give lawmakers, regulators, and electricity providers something to work with.

The only way to properly address Spain’s unregulated cannabis cultivation energy consumption concerns is to transition the unregulated market to a regulated one in which cannabis is cultivated in more sustainable ways, and in a manner that balances the cannabis industry’s energy needs with the rest of society’s.

In regulated jurisdictions, many cannabis cultivators now rely entirely on the sun to grow their crops, or they only use artificial lighting to supplement sunlight. The cannabis is cultivated in state-of-the-art greenhouses that easily regulate temperature and airflow. As such, they consume very little energy.

Compare that to illegal cultivation operations that are almost always reliant solely on artificial lighting and use a significant amount of energy because they are located out of sight in an enclosed facility to avoid detection. ‘The win’ would be if consumers in Spain made their purchases from the former, not the latter.

That only happens if/when lawmakers in Spain reform the nation’s laws to permit legal cannabis cultivation for adult-use purposes and permit those cultivators’ crops to be sold at regulated outlets. Regulations have to be sensible to ensure that prices for legal products are competitive with unregulated products, otherwise, the unregulated market will continue to thrive in Spain.

NBA Basketball Net

Why Does Mexico’s President Disparage The NBA’s New Cannabis Policy?

Written by Johnny Green on . Posted in Policy.

Outgoing Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is not a fan of cannabis consumption, nor is he a fan of current cannabis policies in the United States. He will soon be replaced by a new incumbent after the dust settles on the 2024 election, as both major political parties in Mexico have nominated other people for the upcoming election.

It appears that the outgoing politician is getting crankier by the day, particularly towards cannabis policy north of his nation’s border, and for reasons that do not quite make sense to me, he extends that resentment to the National Basketball Association (NBA).

During one of his recent daily press conferences, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador aired grievances against the United States in regard to the nation’s overall approach to drug policy. He described it as “very misguided” and asked why the NBA permits cannabis use by its players.

Mexico’s president was referring to changes made to the NBA’s cannabis policy earlier this year via the signing of a new collective bargaining agreement that removed random cannabis testing for NBA players. Previously, NBA players were randomly tested four times a year and held to the lowest THC threshold out of all of the professional sports leagues (ten times less than the Olympics’ threshold).

It’s worth noting that the NBA does not technically allow its NBA players to consume cannabis. The new collective bargaining agreement still has provisions and processes for teams to mandate that a player enter the league’s substance abuse program if they deem the player’s cannabis use to be problematic.

Regardless, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s fixation on the NBA’s cannabis policy change is puzzling given the fact that it has nothing to do with U.S. politics. The NBA, just like every other sports league and basically every employer, gets to set its own cannabis testing policy.

This is not the first time that Mexico’s current president has disparaged the NBA’s current cannabis policy. Back in April, he tweeted various nonsense about the War on Drugs, with a heavy emphasis on fentanyl, then tried to pivot those grievances towards the NBA, seemingly indicating that because the NBA doesn’t randomly test for cannabis now, somehow that contributes to the fentanyl epidemic.

Cannabis prohibition does not work, and that is true in professional sports just as much as it is in society. It does not lower cannabis usage rates. All it does is provide authorities the ability to selectively enforce prohibition policies on individuals that they do not like, and that is unacceptable by every measure. Hopefully Mexico’s next president will be on the right side of history.

Flag Belgium

Belgium’s Cannabis Legalization Effort Receives A Big Endorsement

Written by Johnny Green on . Posted in Policy.

Belgium Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Economy and Employment Pierre-Yves Dermagne recently endorsed modernizing his nation’s cannabis policies to permit adult-use cannabis, stating that his country “must end the hypocrisy.”

“There is no point in using state resources to combat cannabis,” the deputy prime minister stated according to domestic reporting, adding that “there are types of crimes that are far more serious and have a far greater impact on societal life.”

Minister Pierre-Yves Dermagne also added that he supports regulating cannabis production and sales and that such activity should be taxed. He did not provide granular details regarding what an industry model should look like, what the tax rate should be, or what regulations would be involved.

The minister’s expressed support for adult-use legalization comes amidst a concerted push for cannabis policy modernization in Europe. Belgium’s neighbor, Luxembourg, recently passed a limited adult-use legalization measure. Luxembourg’s measure permits the legal cultivation, possession, and consumption of cannabis by adults of legal age.

Belgium’s neighbor to the East, Germany, is in the process of passing a national adult-use legalization measure, with the nation’s federal cabinet having already approved a measure championed by German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach. The measure is expected to evolve as it is considered by domestic lawmakers.

The measure that was approved by Germany’s cabinet would permit adult consumers to cultivate, possess, and consume cannabis, as well as permit noncommercial cannabis clubs that would have to adhere to a multitude of proposed regulations. Malta was the first European country to pass a national legalization measure and noncommercial cannabis clubs are expected to launch soon.

Unlike the previously mentioned nations, Belgium’s legalization effort is still largely taking shape, and the support expressed by Minister Pierre-Yves Dermagne will bolster domestic reform efforts.

Lawmakers will have to consider a number of provisions, including but not limited to possession limits, cultivation limits, whether to permit noncommercial clubs, and/or whether to launch regional adult-use commerce pilot programs.

According to German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach, the European Union will not permit national sales, such as what is already implemented in Canada. It’s one more layer to the legalization process that lawmakers in Belgium will have to consider and navigate.

cannabis flower buds

Recent Study Highlights The Public Health Need To Regulate Cannabis

Written by Johnny Green on . Posted in Policy, Science.

A team of researchers in Canada recently analyzed testing results for unregulated and regulated cannabis samples, and they described the difference in contamination rates between the two as having a “striking contrast.”

“In this study, we describe an expanded 327 multi-residue pesticide analysis in cannabis inflorescence to confirm if the implementation of the Cannabis Act is providing safer licensed products to Canadians in comparison to those of the illicit market.” the researchers stated about their study.

Canada implemented the Cannabis Act in late 2018, making it the first G-7 nation to pass a national adult-use cannabis legalization measure. One of the top goals of Canada’s cannabis policy modernization effort was to enact regulations to reduce contamination rates in the products that people were consuming.

“An extensive multi-residue method was developed using a modified quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) sample preparation method using a combination of gas chromatography—triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS) and liquid chromatography—triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) for the simultaneous quantification of 327 pesticide active ingredients in cannabis inflorescence.” researchers stated about the testing method used on the samples involved in the study, which was first reported by Marijuana Moment.

“Application of this method to Canadian licensed inflorescence samples revealed a 6% sample positivity rate with only two pesticide residues detected, myclobutanil, and dichlobenil, at the method’s lowest calibrated level (LCL) of 0.01 μg/g.” researchers stated about the regulated samples.

“Canadian illicit cannabis inflorescence samples analysed showed a striking contrast with a 92% sample positivity rate covering 23 unique pesticide active ingredients with 3.7 different pesticides identified on average per sample. Chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, and myclobutanil were measured in illicit samples at concentrations up to three orders of magnitude above the method LCL of 0.01 μg/g.” researchers stated about the unregulated samples.

The difference in contamination rates largely speaks for itself regarding the effectiveness of regulating cannabis products. In an unregulated market, the number one incentive is to make as much money as possible, and that all but guarantees that humans will cut corners at the expense of consumers. That principle is reflected in the results of this recent study.

Compare that to a regulated industry where products must be tested before being sold to ensure that the inputs that went into creating them are not harmful to humans. Sensible regulations boost the safety of all consumables available to purchasers, and cannabis is no exception.

Reducing the rate of contaminated cannabis use is at the heart of current cannabis policy modernization efforts in Europe, largely led by Germany. Whereas various continental agreements apparently prohibit nationwide legalized commerce in Europe (at least according to the EU), reforming cannabis policies to boost public health outcomes is perfectly legal.

The nuanced difference in policy reform approach is why nations like Switzerland are allowed to create regional adult-use cannabis commerce pilots, and why Malta is allowed to permit noncommercial cannabis clubs. Both policy modernization components are geared toward boosting the availability of regulated cannabis to reduce the consumption of unregulated cannabis.

When consumers are afforded the option to purchase regulated cannabis versus unregulated cannabis in Canada, they choose regulated cannabis more often than not according to the results of a study that was published earlier this year. If Canada’s regulations were more sensible, and prices were lower as a result, even more consumers would choose to make their purchases from regulated sources.

Adults are going to consume cannabis whether it is legal to do so or not. Enough time has passed to prove that cannabis prohibition does not lower usage rates. All prohibition does is push consumers to unregulated sources, which as demonstrated in the study at the heart of this article, those unregulated sources are often selling tainted cannabis.

Elected officials and bureaucrats need to recognize reality and choose to prioritize the public health outcomes of nations around the world. Effective cannabis policies involve licensing regulated outlets, as well as educating the public on the benefits of making purchases from regulated outlets, not the least of which is that the cannabis is proven to be safe to consume.

japan flag

Putting Japan’s Cannabis Arrest Data Into Proper Context

Written by Johnny Green on . Posted in Policy.

Earlier this month Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare released data pertaining to cannabis-related detainments from 2022. The good news is that the total number of individuals detained by the police, the ministry’s Drug Enforcement Agency, or the Coast Guard in Japan was a mere 5,546, a 4.1% year-on-year decrease.

That number should obviously be zero, and anything more than zero is unacceptable. However, Japan’s arrest statistic is a far cry compared to some other countries around the globe.

To put the 5,546 figure into perspective, consider that 317,793 people were arrested for cannabis by some level of law enforcement in the United States in 2020. To be fair, the United States has roughly 2.65 times as many people compared to Japan, however, it doesn’t take a mathematician to spot the enormous difference in each nation’s arrest rates.

That, in turn, helps put into proper context another statistic from the arrest data, specifically pertaining to arrests of individuals under 30. Of the total arrests, 69.2% of them were of individuals under the age of 30, which is “the highest percentage to date,” according to domestic reporting. If history is any guide, the latest data will be used to push prohibition policies.

As ‘justification’ for a looming crackdown on cannabis use, Japan’s government previously offered up the talking point that ‘cannabis use by young people was increasing at an alarming rate.’ While the rate did technically increase in recent years, it’s important to remember that Japan has one of the lowest consumption rates out of any country on earth.

In the most recent year for which data is available (2019), Japan experienced a 21.5% increase in measured cannabis consumption compared to the previous year. While that may sound alarming to some lawmakers inside and outside of Japan, consider the fact that less than 2% of people in Japan report having consumed cannabis during their entire life.

By comparison, 41.5% in Canada report having consumed cannabis during their lifetime, and 44.2% in the United States. The double-digit increase in consumption rates in Japan is more indicative of how low the overall baseline consumption rate was than it is indicative of a cannabis use epidemic.

Japan does not have a ‘youth consumption epidemic.’ Rather, it has a cannabis prohibition problem that is presumably largely focused on catching younger people with cannabis. People over the age of 18 (and in the United States 21) can now legally consume cannabis in some countries. There is no doomsday scenario playing out in those nations, and the same would be true in Japan if it was on the right side of history.

It is always vital to fact-check cannabis prohibitionists’ claims involving data, particularly if they pivot quickly and start acting like the sky is falling. Compare data from one country to that of another in order to get a better idea of how the data fits into the larger scheme of things. Comparing Japan’s data to other countries highlights how small of a ‘cannabis problem’ Japan has.

Cannabis prohibition does not work. It is one of the most harmful public policies in human history, and that is true in Japan just as it is anywhere else. Japan recently updated its cannabis laws to permit limited medical use, and that is a great thing, however, it also simultaneously increased penalties for personal use. That is unacceptable.

No one should ever have their life needlessly ruined by cannabis prohibition. Rather, governments like Japan need to accept the reality that cannabis will be consumed, and craft public policies to mitigate any potential issues, including instituting safety regulations to ensure that the cannabis that people are consuming is free from contaminants. Regulation will always be better than prohibition, and it’s beyond time that lawmakers in Japan realize that fact.

track and field sports athlete exercise track and field sports athlete exercise

The World Anti-Doping Agency Is Wrong About Cannabis

Written by Johnny Green on . Posted in Policy.

Earlier this month members of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) Prohibited List Expert Advisory Group published an editorial article in the journal Addiction, as first reported by Marijuana Moment. In the editorial, members of WADA tried to ‘justify’ their position that “cannabis should remain a banned substance in sport.”

“For any substance or method to be considered for inclusion in the Prohibited Substances List as per the World Anti-Doping Code, two of the following three equally-important criteria must be met: (1) it enhances or has the potential to enhance sport performance, (2) it represents an actual or potential risk to the health of the athlete and (3) it violates the spirit of the sport as defined in the Code.” the editorial stated.

In regards to the first criterion, the WADA members stated, “while there may be benefits perceived by some athletes, there were no scientific data to support performance enhancement.”

“There was far more agreement on the second criterion—actual or potential risk to the health of the athlete.” the editorial also stated. “There is a comprehensive historical literature as well as a rapidly growing body of contemporary literature supporting the assertion that cannabis use can negatively impact the health, safety or wellbeing of the athlete.”

I will not subject you in this article to the reefer madness talking points offered up as examples of ‘harm’ to athletes in the editorial article, but trust me, it’s basically every run-of-the-mill cannabis prohibitionist talking point. To be fair, there were citations offered up, but also to be fair, the editorial’s talking points are easily refuted by real living examples in the form of a laundry list of elite athletes who have responsibly consumed cannabis during their successful careers. As I have long stated, cannabis doesn’t ruin an athlete’s career; cannabis prohibition does.

Arguably the most ridiculous part of the WADA editorial article involved their discussion of the third criterion – violating the ‘spirit of sport.’ The WADA editorial listed four sub-criteria and their ‘justification’ for how cannabis use violated each one:

  • Excellence in performance: this could be undermined by consumption of cannabis during the in-competition period.
  • Character and education: the role model aspect is not compatible with use of a substance that is still illegal in most parts of the world.
  • Respect for rules and laws: its use violates the law in most countries in the world, in addition to Anti-Doping Organization rules in some instances.
  • Respect for self and other participants: the welfare and safety of other participants may be compromised by impaired judgment associated with the presence of cannabis in an athlete in-competition.

WADA goes on to describe how it has raised its THC threshold, and that its goal is to only prohibit “in-competition” use. However, as long as there is an arbitrary THC threshold, there’s always the possibility, if not likelihood, that there will be people with high tolerances who are in no way impaired, yet have too much metabolized THC in their system to pass a test.

If WADA’s true goal is to only prohibit in-competition use, then field sobriety-equivalent tests are a much more effective and accurate way to go about it, particularly when considering that these are elite athletes who are surrounded by other elite athletes. Impairment of any kind would stand out like a sore thumb.

Despite what WADA seems to be implying, no one is advocating for athletes to show up stoned out of their minds to what amounts to the biggest moment in the athletes’ entire lives when they need to be as razor-sharp as possible.

Elite athletes can have large amounts of metabolized THC in their system and still excel “in performance.” NBA players are set to do exactly that this upcoming season, with Kevin Durant presumably having more metabolized THC in his system than ever before from previous use, and yet dominating as hard as ever the day of the game.

Claiming that someone who consumes cannabis cannot be a role model is peak modern-day reefer madness stigma, and WADA should be ashamed of that statement, if for any reason because it does not calculate for compassionate medical cannabis use whatsoever and is blatantly ableist against potential athletes that suffer from conditions that they treat with cannabis instead of more harmful substances like many pharmaceutical drugs.

“Respect for rules and laws” goes both ways, in that there are now many countries in the world where cannabis use is permitted in some manner, or in the case of the United States, local laws that permit cannabis use. Cannabis policies around the globe are being modernized, and WADA knows that (or at least has no excuse for not knowing that). To say that this WADA talking point is disingenuous is an understatement.

The fourth talking point, “respect for self and other participants,” makes it sound like if an athlete were to have too much metabolized THC in their system they would automatically start harming other competitors. That insinuation is blatant nonsense.

Athletes want to be able to make the safer choice when relaxing and/or treating their ailments/conditions ‘off the clock.’ They are not going to risk everything that they have worked so hard for by taking gravity bong hits an hour before a major competition, and even if they did, it’s not as if they would then go stumbling around the competition punching their competitors.

The topic of cannabis policy and professional sports is worthy of a serious discussion, and unfortunately, WADA did the entire discussion a huge disservice by publishing what amounts to an anti-cannabis propaganda hit job. Hopefully they do better in the future.

bundestag berlin germany bundestag berlin germany

Will Germany’s Current Legalization Measure Evolve?

Written by Johnny Green on . Posted in Policy.

Earlier this month Germany’s federal cabinet approved a long-awaited cannabis legalization measure that was largely led by Health Minister Karl Lauterbach. The measure in its current form would, among other things, legalize the personal cultivation, possession, and consumption of cannabis for adult-use purposes.

The announcement of the measure’s updated provisions, which occurred several months ago, was received with mixed reactions from Germany’s cannabis community, as well as by cannabis community members abroad. Everyone seems to agree that the measure is better than outright prohibition, however, some of the provisions are better than others, as captured in a recent press release from the German Hemp Association:

The German Hemp Association welcomes the cabinet draft as a milestone on the way to reforming cannabis policy in Germany. With the debate now starting in the Bundestag, the passage of the law is within reach. Hundreds of thousands of consumers have been the subject of criminal proceedings for consumption-related offenses in recent decades. This senseless repression could come to an end at the turn of the year.

The DHV hopes that the participation of the MPs will bring a breath of fresh air to the discussion about the details. Because since the draft bill, no major improvements are discernible. All of the main criticisms of the DHV are still relevant:

  • The ban on consumption in cannabis cultivation clubs is unrealistic.
  • The distance regulation will make it unreasonably difficult for clubs to find suitable locations.
  • The distance regulations for consumption cannot be observed. They violate the principle of certainty of the Basic Law. Neither consumers nor the police can know exactly where consumption is permitted and where it is not.
  • The threat of penalties and fines for small violations of the already arbitrary limits is completely exaggerated. Possession of 25 grams is perfectly legal, possession of 26 grams carries a prison sentence of up to three years. A fine of up to 100,000 euros can be imposed for consumption within a distance of 199 meters from a school.
  • A total of three plants for home cultivation is not enough. An upper limit of 25 grams is unrealistic for the storage of home-grown cannabis in your own home.

The DHV is confident that these and many other problems will now be addressed in detail in the parliamentary process. However, the current plans cannot remain the same. A large-scale suppression of the black market is only possible with the nationwide introduction of cannabis specialty shops for adults.

“Today is a good day, above all, because Parliament now has sovereignty over further decisions and no longer Karl Lauterbach,” said DHV spokesman Georg Wurth.

It does appear that changes to the measure will at least be attempted by domestic lawmakers in Germany now that the process has transitioned over to the Bundestag, as reflected in a recent social media post by Bundestag member Kristine Lütke (FDP):

It’s a safe bet that changes are on the way. It’s not a question of ‘if,’ but rather ‘what?’ Will the changes amount to minor tweaks, or will they be a fairly substantial overhaul of major components of the measure, such as those listed in the DHV’s recent press release? Will attempts to change the measure derail the process? Only time will tell.

The domestic political process is not occurring in a vacuum. All the while the European Union and various treaties loom over the process, and needless to say, it will be interesting to see what the EU’s reaction is to any changes made during the domestic political process.

It’s also worth noting that the current measure being considered does not encapsulate everything involved with Germany’s cannabis policy modernization effort. It’s merely the first of what will ultimately prove to be three phases of the effort.

This first one involves components related to personal freedoms and noncommercial cannabis clubs, which is what is being considered now. Phase two will involve the launch of regional commerce pilot programs, and that will require a separate measure. Lastly, and this third phase is currently out of the scope of Minister Lauterbach’s plan, is the launch of nationwide sales.

Given how long the first phase is taking, cannabis observers inside and outside of Germany should be ready for a lengthy process. ‘Rome wasn’t built in a day’ as the saying goes, and the same is true for modernizing the cannabis policies of Europe’s largest economy.