The German federal government recently discussed and clarified the draft bill to amend the Act on the Supply of Cannabis for Medical and Medical-Scientific Purposes (MedCanG). The aim of the planned changes is to remedy alleged undesirable developments in connection with the prescription and dispensing of cannabis flowers for medical purposes and to increase patient safety.
As already suspected in the newsflash on the draft bill, the federal government is pursuing a significantly stricter course in cannabis policy. While the government presents the reforms as a contribution to strengthening patient safety and curbing undesirable developments in the prescription and dispensing of cannabis flowers, the draft gives rise to substantial concerns from the perspective of telemedicine providers and importers.
Exclusion of remote prescribing
The proposed requirement for personal doctor-patient contact when prescribing cannabis flowers would effectively spell the end of telemedicine-only services in this field. This approach stands in stark contrast to current developments in healthcare, where digital care and remote treatment are recognized as essential components of modern patient care. A blanket rejection of remote prescribing overlooks the potential ofinnovative care concepts and could significantly impede medical care, especially in rural underserved areas.
Ban on mail order
The sale of cannabis flowers to end consumers by mail order will be prohibited in the future. Instead, sales will be permitted exclusively through brick-and-mortar pharmacies and only upon presentation of a doctor's prescription. Controlled mail orderdistribution – similar to other medicines – are expressly excluded. This restriction jeopardizes the security of supply, particularly in regions with a low density of pharmacies, narrows market access and puts innovative providers at a competitive disadvantage. In addition, the planned ban on mail order sales raises significant constitutional questions. However, courier and delivery services operated by pharmacies should be available for delivery.
Exclusion of specific professional groups
The exclusion of dentists and veterinarians in particular raises the question of whether this measure genuinely enhances patient safety or whether it is primarily a symbolic provision.
Scientific purposes and clinical trials
Exclusively restricting the dispensing of cannabis for scientific purposes to clinical trials conducted by doctors will unnecessarily limit research activities and could substantially limit access to innovative therapeutic approaches . Above all, patients with chronic or rare diseases, who are often considered to have exhausted all other treatment options, could be denied crucial access to potential treatments and symptom relief.
Expanded criminal law provisions
Although the expansion and clarification of criminal provisions create more clarity, they also increase the risk for providers of being sanctioned even for minor violations. This could undermine the willingness to innovate in the market and may lead to more cautions, less dynamic market environment.
Conclusion and outlook
The cabinet draft of the Medical Cannabis Act brings more clarity for traditional care in doctors' offices and pharmacies, but these advances come at a notable cost to digital, remote and innovative care models. There has been little evidence of a balanced weighing of interests between the protection of patients, the concerns of pharmacists, the requirements of telemedicine platforms, and the interests of importers.
It remains to be seen whether the regulations will be critically reviewed and amended in the parliamentary process and to what extent they can be aligned with the objective of modern, accessible and patient-centered care.
Update: Summary of the Debate in the First Reading on 18 December 2025
The responsible politicians from the parliamentary groups agreed that the MedCanG must be realigned with its original purpose: supporting patients with serious illnesses. The liberalization of the previous legislative period was seen as having created misaligned incentives and opportunities for misuse, which the reform seeks to curb.
Speakers stressed that medical cannabis should be prescribed only when it demonstrably alleviates symptoms. The sharp rise in cannabis imports was cited as evidence that the system is being used well beyond legitimate medical need; it was considered implausible that the number of pain patients had increased by 400%, suggesting that liberalization has partly enabled private, non medical consumption.
Criticism centred on models that grant access to cannabis based solely on online questionnaires and without any physician involvement, as well as on aggressive, Black Friday style marketing practices. As a result, the majority argued that prescriptions should be issued only following an in person doctor–patient consultation and that dispensing should require in person counselling in a pharmacy. At the same time, it was emphasized that the law must guarantee genuine medical oversight yet still allow telemedical solutions, provided that the potential for misuse can be effectively contained.
Outlook:
The debate showed broad cross party consensus, except for Die Linke, whose limited parliamentary weight reduces its influence. It therefore appears likely that the core elements of the draft will be adopted as proposed. The integration of telemedical prescribing remains the most contested point and may be revisited in committee discussions. In addition, the planned ban on mail order dispensing is widely regarded as a disproportionate restriction that undermines supply security and disregards established, safe pharmaceutical distribution channels.
The final direction of possible amendments cannot yet be predicted; however, the legislature’s overriding goal is to eliminate misuse, particularly the private purchase of cannabis via self paid prescriptions. Telemedical models will only be permitted within this strict framework.
To the Insight: Planned Amendments to the Medical Cannabis Act
