Mila Grün 2K

15 days ago

Endlich! Die Rauschklausel soll aus dem CanG. gestrichen werden

The Cannabis Industry Association (BvCW) had invited participants to a meeting at the House of Agriculture and Food. Federal Minister of Food and Agriculture, Cem Özdemir, was also present and addressed a few interesting words to the listeners. Unfortunately, as some had hoped, not about the further course of action regarding pillar 2 of the CanG, but there will be a significant change in the law in the future.

The intoxication clause will be removed

What is the intoxication clause?

The intoxication clause states that cultivation with industrial hemp with a THC content of a maximum of 0.3 percent is only legal if misuse for intoxication purposes is excluded and if further conditions are met. The entire handling of industrial hemp is very strictly regulated in Germany. From the choice of variety, the cultivation and the possibility of growing hemp at all. Currently, only farmers are allowed to cultivate industrial hemp. And that, although hemp is a beautiful and useful plant that does not offer any potential for misuse for intoxication purposes. With the legalization of private cultivation of three THC-containing cannabis plants and the future possibility to purchase intoxicating cannabis in cannabis clubs, the absurd idea that someone tries to get high with hemp, which has less than 0.3 % THC, has anyway normalized.

More opportunities for the German market

The intoxication clause has led to many lawsuits, although industrial hemp flowers cannot practically be used for intoxication. This regulation is unique in Germany and internationally regarded as backward. It poses an unnecessary hurdle and affects the competitiveness of the German industrial hemp economy. Cem Özdemir also sees this. He talked about the intention to remove the intoxication clause and to raise the THC limit for the cultivation of industrial hemp. Özdemir also praised hemp and emphasized its varied uses for more sustainability. The decision not to remove the misuse clause from the CanG from the start was possibly made to avoid resistance from the states or concerns from the EU. This gradual adjustment of the CanG is also reflected in pillar two, where there are still some question marks at the moment.

This intoxication clause has led to the Green Pioneers, who had great and good plans and implemented them, having to give up their business and declare bankruptcy.

Automatically translated by GTP-4 (See original)

Sign in to see more posts.

Sign upSign in