Connect with us


Cannabis pilot project for Berlin rejected by BfArM

The cannabis pilot project for Berlin was rejected by BfArM. The Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices sees no options to grant a permit for a pilot experiment for cannabis use. The aim of the senate – to persuade a limited number of cannabis consumers participating in the study to use cannabis at lower risk – is, therefore, obviously not in the interest of the BfArM.



This picture show a building on Germany.

In the middle of last year, the red-red-green government of Berlin angered the opposition by deciding to submit an application for a cannabis pilot project to the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, which would have allowed adult citizens to legally access cannabis.

The BfArM rejected the application, which did not come as a surprise, as people in Germany are already used to rejections by the authority in regard to cannabis legalization. In the view of the Federal Institute, the controlled distribution of cannabis as a stimulant would violate the narcotics law and would also be neither medically nor ethically justifiable.

Read more about the cannabis policy in Germany and the latest cannabis news with the mobile app, available for free in PlayStore.

BfArM says the cannabis pilot project for Berlin is in contradiction with the narcotics law

Berlin’s renewed attempt to bring about a change in German cannabis policy seems to have failed. While it was recognized in the capital that at least once an attempt should be made to find out what change would take place when adults no longer had to buy cannabis on the black market, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices sees no options to grant a permit for such a pilot experiment.

The media quoted the statement from the reply letter to the Berlin health administration that such an experiment would be neither medically nor ethically justifiable, whereas it would already violate the narcotics law in principle. The health administration of the capital did not yet comment on this refusal, but pointed out that the decision mentioned in the reply was not yet final and there would be time to appeal against the refusal.

The aim of the senate – to persuade a limited number of cannabis consumers participating in the study to use cannabis at lower risk and possibly also to reduce its use – is, therefore, obviously not in the interest of the BfArM, which sees its hands tied by the narcotics law.

Ethical and medical reasons are among the concerns of BfArM

On the other hand, seems like granting an exemption – which could override the law – would not be possible for ethical and medical reasons. It remains questionable, therefore, with regard to the foreseeable development, why the prosecution measures and the black market for cannabis, which is partly mixed with harmful substances, should be healthier alternatives according to ethical and medical observation methods.

Furthermore, another question would be why, after years of increasing acceptance (as well as increasing numbers of consumers in all social classes), it is still intended to stick to the daily failing methods of containment attempts. Therefore, the resistance to learning on the part of the BfArM only leads to the assumption that neither ethical nor medical aspects are truly valid, but that only the premises of the misguided prohibition policy are in the first place. The findings that could be gained by means of a controlled and scientifically accompanied pilot project are thus obviously completely counterproductive to this deadlocked view.

On the part of potential participants of full age, a state supply of pure cannabis for testing purposes would finally be not only justifiable from an ethical and medical point of view, but more than desirable. Thus also the contradiction of the Berlin health administration, which would entail a continuation of the reason-based efforts.


(Featured image by Peggy_Marco via Pixabay)

DISCLAIMER: This article was written by a third party contributor and does not reflect the opinion of Born2Invest, its management, staff or its associates. Please review our disclaimer for more information.

This article may include forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements generally are identified by the words “believe,” “project,” “estimate,” “become,” “plan,” “will,” and similar expressions. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks as well as uncertainties, including those discussed in the following cautionary statements and elsewhere in this article and on this site. Although the Company may believe that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, the actual results that the Company may achieve may differ materially from any forward-looking statements, which reflect the opinions of the management of the Company only as of the date hereof. Additionally, please make sure to read these important disclosures.

First published in HanfJournal, a third-party contributor translated and adapted the article from the original. In case of discrepancy, the original will prevail.

Although we made reasonable efforts to provide accurate translations, some parts may be incorrect. Born2Invest assumes no responsibility for errors, omissions or ambiguities in the translations provided on this website. Any person or entity relying on translated content does so at their own risk. Born2Invest is not responsible for losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy or reliability of translated information. If you wish to report an error or inaccuracy in the translation, we encourage you to contact us.

Jeremy Whannell loves writing about the great outdoors, business ventures and tech giants, cryptocurrencies, marijuana stocks, and other investment topics. His proficiency in internet culture rivals his obsession with artificial intelligence and gaming developments. A biker and nature enthusiast, he prefers working and writing out in the wild over an afternoon in a coffee shop.