A draft ordinance from Germany’s Federal Ministry of Agriculture would completely prohibit cannabidiol in e-cigarettes and refill containers. On October 27, the industry association Cannabiswirtschaft submitted its position statement and made a remarkable offer to the ministry: stricter advertising regulations in exchange for abandoning the substance ban.
📑 Inhaltsverzeichnis
- What the Draft Proposes
- The Justification Targets Advertising, Not Toxicology
- The Association Proposes a Trade-Off
- Three of Four Laws Don’t Even Define the Term
- 26 Milligrams Menthol, Not One Milligram of CBD
- Existing Law Already Applies
- What This Means for CBD Liquids on the Market Now
- 💬 Fragen? Frag den Hanf-Buddy!
What the Draft Proposes
At issue is the „Fifth Ordinance Amending the Tobacco Products Ordinance“ dated October 5, 2026. It introduces a new definition of „cannabinoids“ in § 27a Number 1 of the Tobacco Products Ordinance, covering substances that can bind to receptors of the endocannabinoid system. Exemptions would apply to cannabinoids under the Cannabis Consumption Act, the Medicinal Cannabis Act, the Narcotics Act, and the New Psychoactive Substances Act.
Concurrently, Appendix 2 Number 1 Letter e of the ordinance would be expanded to include „cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD, CAS No. 13956-29-1), and preparations of the aforementioned substances“ as prohibited ingredients. Combined with § 28 Paragraph 1, this creates a complete ban on placing such e-cigarettes and refill containers on the market. This would affect not only CBD but also other non-intoxicating natural cannabinoids.
Important context: a draft ordinance is not yet law. It represents a ministry’s working position, to which industry associations can submit comments. The deadline for responses was October 27.
The Justification Targets Advertising, Not Toxicology
What’s striking is the ministry’s rationale. According to the association’s statement, the draft rests primarily on growing product development confusion, purchase incentives, health-related communication patterns, and the so-called halo effect. Examples include marketing claims such as „physically relaxing,“ „stress-relieving,“ and „calming,“ as well as statements that CBD is used for pain relief and as a sleep aid.
What’s conspicuously absent from the justification is evidence of concrete inhalation toxicological risk from CBD. The draft primarily addresses how these products are marketed and draws a substance ban from that alone. The industry association zeros in on precisely this gap.
The Association Proposes a Trade-Off
The BvCW, representing more than 90 companies according to its own count, rejects the total ban but explicitly supports the underlying goal. Its regulatory proposal comprises six points, the fifth being the most unusual: the association suggests extending the advertising ban from § 21 Paragraph 1 Number 1 of the Tobacco Products Act to e-cigarettes and refill containers. This would nationwide cover claims creating the impression of beneficial effects on body functions, performance capacity, or well-being—explicitly naming „relaxing,“ „stress-relieving,“ and „BOOSTER.“
An industry association voluntarily requesting stricter advertising rules for its own members is rare. The logic is clear: if the problem is advertising, then advertising should be regulated, not the substance eliminated. Point 4 states this directly—health claims, disease claims, and intoxication marketing should be explicitly prohibited, but a distinction must be drawn between substance-based risk assessment and regulation of commercial communication.
The remaining demands: abandon undifferentiated total bans (1), impose targeted prohibitions only for specific synthetic cannabimimetics and intoxicating or high-potency semi-synthetic cannabinoids (2), if assessment proves negative, establish a CBD maximum quantity at the EU level instead of a ban (3), and clarify that medicinal cannabis and pharmaceuticals remain outside the scope of the Tobacco Products Ordinance (6).
Three of Four Laws Don’t Even Define the Term
The association’s technical objection carries weight because it’s verifiable. The proposed definition exempts cannabinoids „within the meaning“ of four laws. But only one of these four—the Cannabis Consumption Act—actually defines „cannabinoids“ at all, doing so in § 1 Number 1. The Medicinal Cannabis Act only defines „cannabis for medical purposes“ in § 2. The Narcotics Act doesn’t use the term as its own definition. The New Psychoactive Substances Act only lists cannabimimetics as a structurally defined group in its appendix.
This referential approach fails in three of four cases. There’s also an internal contradiction in the draft itself: on its face, naturally derived CBD could appear as a cannabinoid covered and thus exempted by the Cannabis Consumption Act, while CBD is simultaneously listed as a prohibited substance in Appendix 2. According to the association’s reading, the draft doesn’t answer whether CBD legally obtained from industrial hemp is actually prohibited.
26 Milligrams Menthol, Not One Milligram of CBD
The EU law portion of the statement rests on the Kanavape judgment of the European Court of Justice from November 19, 2020 (C-663/18). It holds that a member state must demonstrate an actual danger to public health based on the latest scientific findings to justify a marketing ban. The precautionary principle supports measures amid scientific uncertainty, but not on purely hypothetical grounds.
The sharpest point comes from the coherence principle in the same judgment. The association notes that the same draft allows menthol a maximum of 26 milligrams per milliliter despite its strong wellness image, while CBD is completely banned. Moreover: the maximum quantity model the draft applies to eleven other substances in Appendix 2a was apparently never even examined for cannabinoids. Under „Alternatives,“ the draft explicitly states „None,“ no sunset clause or evaluation is planned, and the compliance burden for industry appears as a blank placeholder in the document.
Another argument concerns legal basis. Nicotine-free e-cigarettes don’t fall under Article 20 of the EU Tobacco Products Directive, which covers only nicotine-containing liquids by its wording. They’re subject to tobacco law solely through national extension in § 1 of the Tobacco Products Act. A national substance ban on nicotine-free CBD liquids therefore must comply directly with the free movement of goods under Articles 34 and 36 TFEU.
Existing Law Already Applies
Perhaps the most effective argument is a precedent. § 13 Paragraph 1 Number 3 of the Tobacco Products Act already requires that liquids contain only ingredients—besides nicotine—that pose no risk to human health in both heated and non-heated form. The Administrative Court of Düsseldorf upheld the seizure of hexahydrocannabinol liquids on this basis on February 21, 2024 (26 K 1345/23), even before HHC fell under the New Psychoactive Substances Act.
Add to this a time buffer few notice: manufacturers and importers must register e-cigarettes and refill containers with the EU-CEG portal at least six months before planned market placement, including ingredient, quantity, and toxicological data. Authorities thus have a legally defined review period before any product even reaches stores.
What This Means for CBD Liquids on the Market Now
Nothing, for now. The draft isn’t law, and what the final version will look like is open. Anyone selling or buying CBD liquids should monitor developments, as in its current form the product wouldn’t be restricted—it would be removed entirely. According to the association, the draft contains no transition period for cannabinoids, while other substances receive transition arrangements.
Our assessment: The statement is unusually strong because it doesn’t just say no. It identifies four regulatory toolkits—pharmaceutical law, unfair competition law, product safety regulations, and enforcement powers under the Tobacco Products Act—that already address misleading health claims, and additionally offers stricter advertising rules. If the ministry maintains its draft, it will need to explain why a substance whose risk it doesn’t quantify should disappear while another with a similar image gets a maximum limit. The statement is signed by President Dirk Heitepriem, Vice President Lisa Haag, and Board Member Dr. Ferdinand Weis.
Sollte CBD in E-Liquids erlaubt bleiben oder verboten werden?
Branchen-Update
News, Analysen und Reportagen — mehrmals im Monat direkt in dein Postfach.
Folge uns
