Germany’s long-awaited bill for the “first pillar” of its cannabis legalization plans has been widely criticized by industry insiders and would-be Cannabis Clubs.
The new proposals, first officially published last week, have been accused of significant “over-regulation”, which would make it virtually impossible for cannabis associations to operate.
An informal Cannabis Club told Business of Cannabis that his plans had been frozen following the bill’s release, calling the stipulations “crazy.”
Kai-Friedrich Niermann, a cannabis lawyer and industry expert, said of the bill: “The basic idea of the so-called first pillar is based exclusively on health aspects, namely the protection of children and young people. This aspect is placed above everything else and leads to outright alarmism in health policy. »
“All the provisions of the draft are unenforceable, contradictory and significantly over-regulate the consumption and cultivation of cannabis in grow associations. »
Location, location, location
Adrian Schöpf is the co-founder and managing director of The Joint Venturea cannabis association to be established in Bremerhaven.
The Joint Venture was almost ready to launch, with Mr. Schöpf and his three co-founders planning to send in their application this week, after finding sponsors and recruiting a growing number of members.
However, following the publication of the bill last week, the association’s launch plans were put on hold because “none of these regulations make sense”, either from a commercial or operational point of view. .
The first of his many criticisms of the proposed regulations concerns the location of these cultivation sites.
According to the bill: “The property (i.e. land, area, greenhouse, building) of a consortium may not be located, even partially, inside a dwelling or another residential building or property”.
According to Schöpf, it is therefore very difficult to operate in easily accessible cities where the majority of buildings are used for residential purposes.
Subsequently, this means that cannabis associations, due to regulations requiring all of their operations to be located in one place, will need relatively large space and will be relegated to “industrial zones”, which are “super expensive to rent”.
“These areas are not located in the heart of cities, but on the outskirts, so even for people who go there, it is a real headache. Now, if you think about it, that’s just unmanageable for a nonprofit.”
Another key issue, which has been repeatedly raised even before the official publication of the bill, is the need for cultural associations to be at least “200 meters from the entrance to schools, facilities for children and young people and playgrounds for children”.
This exclusion zone also applies to consumption, which means that no cannabis can be consumed within 200 meters of schools, playgrounds, sports facilities or the entrance of grow associations.
As Mr. Niermann points out, “in Berlin, this would easily amount to a total ban”.
Moreover, with the total ban on advertising, it would be virtually impossible to mark areas where consumption is allowed, which would expose many people to criminal penalties.
The costs
Besides the obvious difficulties of location, the costs associated with setting up and running a cannabis association mean that membership dues are likely to be so high that few will be tempted to stray from the illicit market.
Members of Cannabis Clubs can each receive a maximum of 50 grams of cannabis per month for their own consumption if they are over 21 years old, and a maximum of 30 grams if they are between 18 and 21 years old.
For associations with the maximum number of members, 500, this means that they could cultivate up to 300 kg of cannabis per year.
According to Schöpf, based on elementary calculations, the costs of setting up and building a plot capable of handling this amount of production would amount to around 15,000 euros, and the monthly operational costs, excluding staff, to around 4000 euros.
The new draft stipulates that associations cannot charge per gram and that they must cover all their costs through membership dues, which they can determine according to their costs.
“No additional fee may be required when cannabis is delivered. Cultivation associations must cover their own costs and can only claim statutory dues and, in the case of transfer of cannabis seeds to non-members and other cultivation associations, reimbursement of production costs”.
Members are required to pay two months’ membership fees in advance, in order to prevent them from moving regularly from one association to another, and “must participate actively in the culture”.
It’s unclear exactly how and to what extent the 500 members are expected to participate in the grow operation, but Schöpf says he believes the members “don’t want to be part of a garden club”.
In addition to initial installation costs and energy and irrigation bills, other financial and time commitments are required.
Mr. Niermann explains: “Cultural associations have many documentation and reporting obligations, and must appoint a youth protection officer. The members are divided into two groups, the 18-21 year olds and the older ones. The 18-21 year old group is only allowed to receive THC flowers up to a maximum of 10%. »
“With 7 members, for example, all the obligations are rather daunting; with the maximum number of 500 members, it will take at least two full-time employees in addition to the cultivation staff to meet all the obligations. »
“In addition to the investment for culture, which is not allowed to make a profit, there are then considerable operating costs for the clubs. »
“It’s not a good policy”
According to the German government, this law is introduced to “contribute to better health protection, strengthen cannabis education and prevention, curb organized drug-related crime and strengthen the protection of children and the youth “.
In its current form, Mr. Niermann and Mr. Schöpf say the bill will not achieve these goals.
Schöpf expects members to regularly travel to the outskirts of a city, or out of town, actively participate in culture, and pay a membership fee that could exceed the cost of their average daily consumption.
Mr Niermann echoed this view, concluding: “So it remains to be seen how many clubs will choose this option. »
“Together with various associations, we are currently working to significantly simplify the project and the regulations it contains. This alarmism in terms of health policy and this bureaucratic one-upmanship could well prevent the objectives pursued by the law from materializing. This is not a good policy! »
