MEDCAN's response to the consultation on the Cannabis Products Act (CanPG)
We submitted our response before the December 1st deadline and outlined the most important concerns from the patient's perspective. Our focus is on a clear separation between therapy and Recreational Consumption , as well as protecting the security of supply.
Legalization of cannabis for non-medical purposes
Patient's perspective
As patients who use cannabis for medical reasons, we would like to state that we are generally satisfied with the medical regulations and the amendments to the Narcotics Act that have been in effect since August 1, 2022. The medical system is functioning, more and more people are receiving a prescription, and the number of supporting medical professionals is steadily increasing.
The biggest remaining obstacle is the lack of reimbursement by health insurance companies. Many people still have to pay entirely out of pocket. This forces those affected to resort to home cultivation or non-medical products for financial reasons.
Against this background, we understand our response to the consultation not as a collection of demands, but as a constructive comment from the patient's point of view , the aim of which is to protect and ensure medical care in the long term, also in the context of the regulation of Recreational Consumption .
We would like to emphasize that we support the existing medical approach and intend to continue to adhere to it in the future.
1. MEDCAN's basic principles
MEDCAN, as a patient organization, explicitly advocates for the interests of people who use cannabis for medical reasons. We welcome the regulation of cannabis for non-medical purposes in the interest of harm reduction and a realistic, evidence-based approach to the social reality of cannabis use.
A regulated market strengthens youth and consumer protection, supports prevention and contributes to the sustainable reduction of the black market.
From a patient's perspective, a clear separation between medical use and Recreational Consumption is essential. Mixing the two jeopardizes security of supply, increases the stigmatization of patients, and undermines the social acceptance of medical cannabis therapies.
Comment from a patient's perspective
: It is important to note that medical use and Recreational Consumption are considered as two separate systems.
2. Medical applications must remain clearly separate.
The medical use of cannabis is a medically supervised therapy and clearly distinct from Recreational Consumption . Patients receive precisely dosed and tested cannabis medications tailored to their specific condition and individual needs. The therapy involves fixed dosages, appropriate products, and medical supervision.
Leisure products are not suitable for this purpose. Medical treatments require specific combinations of active ingredients, precise instructions, and close collaboration between doctors and pharmacies. Leisure products cannot meet these requirements.
For patients, cannabis is not a recreational drug, but an important medicine that supports sleep, pain relief, appetite and participation in life.
Comment from a patient's perspective:
Medical access must be protected from the effects of leisure regulation .
- No tightening of requirements for medical prescriptions
- No administrative hurdles arising indirectly from leisure rules
- The medical field is a form of therapy – not a consumer product .
3. THC limits must not strengthen the black market.
MEDCAN considers rigid THC limits in the future recreational market to be problematic. If products with higher THC content are excluded from the legal market, there is a risk that some of the demand will remain on the black market. This undermines the preventive objectives of the law. The proposed regulation of THC content via a sensible regulatory tax is fundamentally sound, but it must be designed realistically.
Comment from a patient's perspective:
A realistic product range in the legal leisure market is necessary to effectively displace the black market.
4. Home cultivation as a protective mechanism for patients
For many patients, growing their own food represents one of the most important pillars of affordable and self-determined medical care. MEDCAN considers the proposed limit of three plants insufficient.
MEDCAN maintains that patients should not, in principle, be forced to grow their own medications. However, as long as a universally affordable and reliable supply is not guaranteed, home cultivation remains a medical and practical necessity for many.
Especially for people in rural areas, growing their own food is often the most pragmatic and accessible form of self-sufficiency. This applies to individuals who grow a few things on a small scale.
Cultivating plants in one's own garden to make tea or other simple preparations, for example, should no longer be criminalized. Regulations must lead to the clear decriminalization of this patient group.
To ensure security of supply and social justice, MEDCAN considers an increase in the permitted number of plants to be objectively justified. An adjustment to at least five, ideally up to ten plants per person, appears necessary and proportionate from the patient's perspective.
Comment from a patient's perspective:
Increase the permitted number of plants to at least five, ideally ten.
5. Regulate road safety in a scientifically sound manner.
MEDCAN supports all measures that prevent people unfit to drive from operating a vehicle. As a patient organization, MEDCAN also calls for clear, legally sound, and proportionate regulations for patients using cannabis as part of medically supervised therapy.
With the regulation of cannabis, it is to be expected that the number of roadside checks will increase. This makes it all the more important that patients fit to drive are not categorically criminalized, but rather have clear legal frameworks that provide them with security in everyday life. Anyone undergoing stable therapy and fit to drive must be able to participate in road traffic without fear of arbitrary sanctions.
A blanket zero-tolerance limit does not reflect reality from a medical perspective. The assessment of fitness to drive must – as with other medications – be based on actual unfitness to drive and the individual's condition, not solely on the detection of an active ingredient.
Unclear or overly restrictive regulations lead to uncertainty, fear of checks, and unnecessary restrictions on patients' mobility. This impairs their quality of life, independence, and access to medical care. Therefore, a differentiated, scientifically sound regulation is needed that ensures traffic safety while adequately considering the realities of medical therapies.
Comment from a patient's perspective
- No zero tolerance
- Assessment of fitness to drive based on actual impairment
- Clear, legally sound guidelines for patients undergoing stable therapy
- Medical patients must not be subjected to blanket suspicion or criminalized.
6. Concluding remarks
Regulating cannabis for non-medical purposes is an important regulatory step. However, it can only be sustainable and effective if it does not weaken the medical care of patients who rely on cannabis as a therapeutic agent.
The new regulations must not jeopardize existing medical access, either directly or indirectly. For many patients, cannabis is a central component of their therapy and is essential for a stable lifestyle, social participation, and coping with everyday life.
Comment from a patient's perspective:
Legislators should acknowledge that cannabis use is part of social reality and align their regulations accordingly with health and prevention goals. The aim of the law is to create a transparent, controlled, and responsible market that enables access to safe, quality-tested products and thus promotes effective harm reduction.
Instead of relying on repressive measures to suppress problems, the focus should be on education, consumer protection, and effective harm reduction measures. Modern regulation will create an environment that reduces problematic consumption patterns, minimizes health risks, and makes the unregulated market structurally unattractive.
Best regards
Franziska Quadri,
President;
Simón Winistörfer,
Vice President
