Cannabis Law 2026: Olivia Ewenike on CSC Barriers and Telemedicine

Question 7: The Sentence That Has Proven Itself a Thousand Times

If you give clients one sentence that has proven itself a thousand times in your advisory practice, what is it?

Olivia: Cannabis law is a highly political area of law. Whoever wants to establish a foothold in this market, assert themselves there, or effectively enforce their rights must necessarily incorporate this political dimension into the strategy of their own case.

Question 5: Knowledge Gaps Among Young Cannabis Attorneys

You previously led a Cannabis Law Academy. Where do young attorneys entering cannabis law today have the biggest knowledge gaps?

Olivia: The biggest knowledge gaps young attorneys have in cannabis law is less a question of dogmatic foundational knowledge than a question of missing practical integration. Few enter the field with an exclusive focus on cannabis law. And as with many other areas of law, foundational knowledge can be studied, but in the cannabis industry this purely theoretical knowledge has particularly narrow limits.

Cannabis law is in many respects still young and heavily shaped by administrative and judicial practice. Many decisive questions remain unresolved and are still in proceedings or are only being defined through concrete administrative enforcement. Accordingly, there is currently only a relatively limited body of established literature and reliable case law from which truly viable specialized knowledge could be derived purely academically.

This is precisely where cannabis law differs from classical fields of law refined over decades. In criminal law, for example, one can specialize into individual sub-areas due to the enormous dogmatic depth and developed lines of precedent. In cannabis law, however, the decisive knowledge often does not arise primarily at the desk but within the proceedings themselves—in contact with authorities, in licensing processes, in appeals and legal proceedings, and in contract drafting.

Question 6: One Regulatory Lever

Which regulatory change would you prioritize in 2026 if you could decide one thing?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis market, I would not prioritize further legislative adjustments but rather a systematic change in administrative practice. At the state level, above all, there is a need for more legally qualified personnel in licensing authorities. I am convinced that a considerable portion of current procedural delays and many of the requirements raised on the administrative side would be eliminated if applications were frequently handled by lawyers.

The issue is not enforcement of a legal field differentiated over decades, but application and interpretation of a new law. This requires legal methodological competence. After several years, once established administrative practice has formed, it may be possible to increasingly rely on personnel without an original legal background. At the current time, however, I consider this misguided. That the interpretation of new regulation is sometimes conducted according to the legal understanding of non-lawyers is, from a rule-of-law perspective, alarming.

In the medical sector, by contrast, I would welcome mandatory video consultation. A mandatory in-person physician consultation, as provided for in the draft of a First Act to Amend the Medicinal Cannabis Act (BT-Drs. 21/3061), I consider a symbolically motivated pretext that does not actually serve patient health protection in substance. The prescription of medical cannabis typically requires no physical examination. And even if it should be medically indicated in an individual case, that is a decision for the treating physician. I therefore do not understand why mandatory video consultation should not suffice to meet patient interests.

Question 7: The Sentence That Has Proven Itself a Thousand Times

If you give clients one sentence that has proven itself a thousand times in your advisory practice, what is it?

Olivia: Cannabis law is a highly political area of law. Whoever wants to establish a foothold in this market, assert themselves there, or effectively enforce their rights must necessarily incorporate this political dimension into the strategy of their own case.

Question 4: Advertising Law and Medicinal Products Act Corridor

Cannabis advertising law in Germany is restrictive. How do companies navigate between education and medicinal products act prohibition? Which violations do you see most frequently?

Olivia: In the medical sector, most market participants do indeed attempt to comply with the Medicinal Products Advertising Act requirements. However, it is evident that jurisprudence in this field is becoming increasingly restrictive.

In the case of telemedicine companies, there is an impression that courts want to effectively ban cannabis telemedicine platform models through the back door of advertising law. This is not a particularly accurate legal instrument. Many violations of the Medicinal Products Advertising Act are merely administrative offenses in the first instance. Moreover, in practice often a relatively minor linguistic or design adjustment in external presentation suffices to lead to years of legal disputes over admissibility before a reliable judgment is reached.

The situation is considerably sharper in the recreational cannabis sector. Cultivation associations face potential withdrawal of licensing, sometimes for minor infractions. Authorities interpret the advertising prohibition restrictively. In practice, I repeatedly encounter cases where cultivation associations are not even permitted a social media presence. In my view, this handling misses the actual regulatory goal. If the legislator takes prevention-based cannabis policy seriously, it cannot be about complete communicative taboo of cannabis. Rather, what would be decisive is normalizing responsible use. Suppressing all substantive visibility does not advance prevention but rather complicates access to legal channels.

Question 5: Knowledge Gaps Among Young Cannabis Attorneys

You previously led a Cannabis Law Academy. Where do young attorneys entering cannabis law today have the biggest knowledge gaps?

Olivia: The biggest knowledge gaps young attorneys have in cannabis law is less a question of dogmatic foundational knowledge than a question of missing practical integration. Few enter the field with an exclusive focus on cannabis law. And as with many other areas of law, foundational knowledge can be studied, but in the cannabis industry this purely theoretical knowledge has particularly narrow limits.

Cannabis law is in many respects still young and heavily shaped by administrative and judicial practice. Many decisive questions remain unresolved and are still in proceedings or are only being defined through concrete administrative enforcement. Accordingly, there is currently only a relatively limited body of established literature and reliable case law from which truly viable specialized knowledge could be derived purely academically.

This is precisely where cannabis law differs from classical fields of law refined over decades. In criminal law, for example, one can specialize into individual sub-areas due to the enormous dogmatic depth and developed lines of precedent. In cannabis law, however, the decisive knowledge often does not arise primarily at the desk but within the proceedings themselves—in contact with authorities, in licensing processes, in appeals and legal proceedings, and in contract drafting.

Question 6: One Regulatory Lever

Which regulatory change would you prioritize in 2026 if you could decide one thing?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis market, I would not prioritize further legislative adjustments but rather a systematic change in administrative practice. At the state level, above all, there is a need for more legally qualified personnel in licensing authorities. I am convinced that a considerable portion of current procedural delays and many of the requirements raised on the administrative side would be eliminated if applications were frequently handled by lawyers.

The issue is not enforcement of a legal field differentiated over decades, but application and interpretation of a new law. This requires legal methodological competence. After several years, once established administrative practice has formed, it may be possible to increasingly rely on personnel without an original legal background. At the current time, however, I consider this misguided. That the interpretation of new regulation is sometimes conducted according to the legal understanding of non-lawyers is, from a rule-of-law perspective, alarming.

In the medical sector, by contrast, I would welcome mandatory video consultation. A mandatory in-person physician consultation, as provided for in the draft of a First Act to Amend the Medicinal Cannabis Act (BT-Drs. 21/3061), I consider a symbolically motivated pretext that does not actually serve patient health protection in substance. The prescription of medical cannabis typically requires no physical examination. And even if it should be medically indicated in an individual case, that is a decision for the treating physician. I therefore do not understand why mandatory video consultation should not suffice to meet patient interests.

Question 7: The Sentence That Has Proven Itself a Thousand Times

If you give clients one sentence that has proven itself a thousand times in your advisory practice, what is it?

Olivia: Cannabis law is a highly political area of law. Whoever wants to establish a foothold in this market, assert themselves there, or effectively enforce their rights must necessarily incorporate this political dimension into the strategy of their own case.

Question 3: Pharmacy vs. CSC vs. Home Growing

Pharmacy model, CSC model, home cultivation. Which path is legally the cleanest in 2026 for which use case?

Olivia: From a legal standpoint, the pharmacy model is the appropriate access pathway for patients. This model enables therapeutic support and health-responsible use. Particularly with decreasing stigmatization and growing societal openness toward cannabis as a medicine, it is to be expected that the number of people who use cannabis not merely out of consumption interest but as actual patients will increase.

By contrast, the CSC model is the legally provided route for consumers in the recreational sector. Cannabis Social Clubs were created precisely to enable legal, controlled, and prevention-focused access outside the black market. They are subject to binding and strictly controlled requirements, particularly in youth protection and prevention. If the legislator wants to remove recreational consumption from the illegal market, functioning Cannabis Social Clubs are necessary. Without them, legal access for consumers remains structurally incomplete. Furthermore, youth protection and prevention measures that clubs must implement only become effective when consumers are also integrated into the recreational cannabis market.

Home cultivation remains legally permissible in 2026 as well, but in my assessment will continue to represent only a comparatively smaller share. It is primarily a model for home-grow enthusiasts. As a widespread or mass-market access pathway, home cultivation is only limitedly suitable. It requires time, knowledge, spatial possibilities, and a certain practical affinity. For the broad consumer base, it will therefore not be an equivalent alternative to structured legal access channels.

Question 4: Advertising Law and Medicinal Products Act Corridor

Cannabis advertising law in Germany is restrictive. How do companies navigate between education and medicinal products act prohibition? Which violations do you see most frequently?

Olivia: In the medical sector, most market participants do indeed attempt to comply with the Medicinal Products Advertising Act requirements. However, it is evident that jurisprudence in this field is becoming increasingly restrictive.

In the case of telemedicine companies, there is an impression that courts want to effectively ban cannabis telemedicine platform models through the back door of advertising law. This is not a particularly accurate legal instrument. Many violations of the Medicinal Products Advertising Act are merely administrative offenses in the first instance. Moreover, in practice often a relatively minor linguistic or design adjustment in external presentation suffices to lead to years of legal disputes over admissibility before a reliable judgment is reached.

The situation is considerably sharper in the recreational cannabis sector. Cultivation associations face potential withdrawal of licensing, sometimes for minor infractions. Authorities interpret the advertising prohibition restrictively. In practice, I repeatedly encounter cases where cultivation associations are not even permitted a social media presence. In my view, this handling misses the actual regulatory goal. If the legislator takes prevention-based cannabis policy seriously, it cannot be about complete communicative taboo of cannabis. Rather, what would be decisive is normalizing responsible use. Suppressing all substantive visibility does not advance prevention but rather complicates access to legal channels.

Question 5: Knowledge Gaps Among Young Cannabis Attorneys

You previously led a Cannabis Law Academy. Where do young attorneys entering cannabis law today have the biggest knowledge gaps?

Olivia: The biggest knowledge gaps young attorneys have in cannabis law is less a question of dogmatic foundational knowledge than a question of missing practical integration. Few enter the field with an exclusive focus on cannabis law. And as with many other areas of law, foundational knowledge can be studied, but in the cannabis industry this purely theoretical knowledge has particularly narrow limits.

Cannabis law is in many respects still young and heavily shaped by administrative and judicial practice. Many decisive questions remain unresolved and are still in proceedings or are only being defined through concrete administrative enforcement. Accordingly, there is currently only a relatively limited body of established literature and reliable case law from which truly viable specialized knowledge could be derived purely academically.

This is precisely where cannabis law differs from classical fields of law refined over decades. In criminal law, for example, one can specialize into individual sub-areas due to the enormous dogmatic depth and developed lines of precedent. In cannabis law, however, the decisive knowledge often does not arise primarily at the desk but within the proceedings themselves—in contact with authorities, in licensing processes, in appeals and legal proceedings, and in contract drafting.

Question 6: One Regulatory Lever

Which regulatory change would you prioritize in 2026 if you could decide one thing?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis market, I would not prioritize further legislative adjustments but rather a systematic change in administrative practice. At the state level, above all, there is a need for more legally qualified personnel in licensing authorities. I am convinced that a considerable portion of current procedural delays and many of the requirements raised on the administrative side would be eliminated if applications were frequently handled by lawyers.

The issue is not enforcement of a legal field differentiated over decades, but application and interpretation of a new law. This requires legal methodological competence. After several years, once established administrative practice has formed, it may be possible to increasingly rely on personnel without an original legal background. At the current time, however, I consider this misguided. That the interpretation of new regulation is sometimes conducted according to the legal understanding of non-lawyers is, from a rule-of-law perspective, alarming.

In the medical sector, by contrast, I would welcome mandatory video consultation. A mandatory in-person physician consultation, as provided for in the draft of a First Act to Amend the Medicinal Cannabis Act (BT-Drs. 21/3061), I consider a symbolically motivated pretext that does not actually serve patient health protection in substance. The prescription of medical cannabis typically requires no physical examination. And even if it should be medically indicated in an individual case, that is a decision for the treating physician. I therefore do not understand why mandatory video consultation should not suffice to meet patient interests.

Question 7: The Sentence That Has Proven Itself a Thousand Times

If you give clients one sentence that has proven itself a thousand times in your advisory practice, what is it?

Olivia: Cannabis law is a highly political area of law. Whoever wants to establish a foothold in this market, assert themselves there, or effectively enforce their rights must necessarily incorporate this political dimension into the strategy of their own case.

Question 2: Gray Areas and Court Decisions

KCanG is designed as a transitional regulation. Which legal gray areas will become court questions in the coming 12 months? Which judgments do you expect to be trend-setting?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis sector, courts will primarily have to clarify questions arising from the tension between legislative liberalization intent and demonstrably restrictive administrative practice. These include in particular the permissibility of appropriate board compensation, the limits of administrative demands regarding membership data of cultivation associations, and the scope of administrative intervention in contractual arrangements in licensing procedures.

In the medical sector, court disputes could increasingly shift toward healthcare professionals cooperating with telemedicine platforms—that is, physicians and pharmacists. An early indication of this is the judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court from 23.04.2026 (Az.: 37 O 55/25). The court decided that pharmacies may not supply questionnaire-based prescriptions from telemedicine platforms.

Additionally, the plaintiff pharmacy chamber has already announced that it will consider regulatory measures in the future. This would be only logical. Because the most effective lever does not necessarily lie with the platforms themselves, which are often willing to accept the risk of an injunction, but with physicians and pharmacists without whom these models cannot function in practice. One would expect responsible design of the user experience of such platforms if healthcare professionals had to reckon with regulatory consequences up to and including endangering their own professional practice. Proceedings against healthcare professionals would likely be considerably more effective than mere injunctions against platform operators.

Question 3: Pharmacy vs. CSC vs. Home Growing

Pharmacy model, CSC model, home cultivation. Which path is legally the cleanest in 2026 for which use case?

Olivia: From a legal standpoint, the pharmacy model is the appropriate access pathway for patients. This model enables therapeutic support and health-responsible use. Particularly with decreasing stigmatization and growing societal openness toward cannabis as a medicine, it is to be expected that the number of people who use cannabis not merely out of consumption interest but as actual patients will increase.

By contrast, the CSC model is the legally provided route for consumers in the recreational sector. Cannabis Social Clubs were created precisely to enable legal, controlled, and prevention-focused access outside the black market. They are subject to binding and strictly controlled requirements, particularly in youth protection and prevention. If the legislator wants to remove recreational consumption from the illegal market, functioning Cannabis Social Clubs are necessary. Without them, legal access for consumers remains structurally incomplete. Furthermore, youth protection and prevention measures that clubs must implement only become effective when consumers are also integrated into the recreational cannabis market.

Home cultivation remains legally permissible in 2026 as well, but in my assessment will continue to represent only a comparatively smaller share. It is primarily a model for home-grow enthusiasts. As a widespread or mass-market access pathway, home cultivation is only limitedly suitable. It requires time, knowledge, spatial possibilities, and a certain practical affinity. For the broad consumer base, it will therefore not be an equivalent alternative to structured legal access channels.

Question 4: Advertising Law and Medicinal Products Act Corridor

Cannabis advertising law in Germany is restrictive. How do companies navigate between education and medicinal products act prohibition? Which violations do you see most frequently?

Olivia: In the medical sector, most market participants do indeed attempt to comply with the Medicinal Products Advertising Act requirements. However, it is evident that jurisprudence in this field is becoming increasingly restrictive.

In the case of telemedicine companies, there is an impression that courts want to effectively ban cannabis telemedicine platform models through the back door of advertising law. This is not a particularly accurate legal instrument. Many violations of the Medicinal Products Advertising Act are merely administrative offenses in the first instance. Moreover, in practice often a relatively minor linguistic or design adjustment in external presentation suffices to lead to years of legal disputes over admissibility before a reliable judgment is reached.

The situation is considerably sharper in the recreational cannabis sector. Cultivation associations face potential withdrawal of licensing, sometimes for minor infractions. Authorities interpret the advertising prohibition restrictively. In practice, I repeatedly encounter cases where cultivation associations are not even permitted a social media presence. In my view, this handling misses the actual regulatory goal. If the legislator takes prevention-based cannabis policy seriously, it cannot be about complete communicative taboo of cannabis. Rather, what would be decisive is normalizing responsible use. Suppressing all substantive visibility does not advance prevention but rather complicates access to legal channels.

Question 5: Knowledge Gaps Among Young Cannabis Attorneys

You previously led a Cannabis Law Academy. Where do young attorneys entering cannabis law today have the biggest knowledge gaps?

Olivia: The biggest knowledge gaps young attorneys have in cannabis law is less a question of dogmatic foundational knowledge than a question of missing practical integration. Few enter the field with an exclusive focus on cannabis law. And as with many other areas of law, foundational knowledge can be studied, but in the cannabis industry this purely theoretical knowledge has particularly narrow limits.

Cannabis law is in many respects still young and heavily shaped by administrative and judicial practice. Many decisive questions remain unresolved and are still in proceedings or are only being defined through concrete administrative enforcement. Accordingly, there is currently only a relatively limited body of established literature and reliable case law from which truly viable specialized knowledge could be derived purely academically.

This is precisely where cannabis law differs from classical fields of law refined over decades. In criminal law, for example, one can specialize into individual sub-areas due to the enormous dogmatic depth and developed lines of precedent. In cannabis law, however, the decisive knowledge often does not arise primarily at the desk but within the proceedings themselves—in contact with authorities, in licensing processes, in appeals and legal proceedings, and in contract drafting.

Question 6: One Regulatory Lever

Which regulatory change would you prioritize in 2026 if you could decide one thing?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis market, I would not prioritize further legislative adjustments but rather a systematic change in administrative practice. At the state level, above all, there is a need for more legally qualified personnel in licensing authorities. I am convinced that a considerable portion of current procedural delays and many of the requirements raised on the administrative side would be eliminated if applications were frequently handled by lawyers.

The issue is not enforcement of a legal field differentiated over decades, but application and interpretation of a new law. This requires legal methodological competence. After several years, once established administrative practice has formed, it may be possible to increasingly rely on personnel without an original legal background. At the current time, however, I consider this misguided. That the interpretation of new regulation is sometimes conducted according to the legal understanding of non-lawyers is, from a rule-of-law perspective, alarming.

In the medical sector, by contrast, I would welcome mandatory video consultation. A mandatory in-person physician consultation, as provided for in the draft of a First Act to Amend the Medicinal Cannabis Act (BT-Drs. 21/3061), I consider a symbolically motivated pretext that does not actually serve patient health protection in substance. The prescription of medical cannabis typically requires no physical examination. And even if it should be medically indicated in an individual case, that is a decision for the treating physician. I therefore do not understand why mandatory video consultation should not suffice to meet patient interests.

Question 7: The Sentence That Has Proven Itself a Thousand Times

If you give clients one sentence that has proven itself a thousand times in your advisory practice, what is it?

Olivia: Cannabis law is a highly political area of law. Whoever wants to establish a foothold in this market, assert themselves there, or effectively enforce their rights must necessarily incorporate this political dimension into the strategy of their own case.

Question 1: CSC Founding Practice 2026

You have accompanied over 100 CSCs through registration and licensing applications. Where does it get stuck most frequently in practice 2026? Building authority, federal institute, association law?

Olivia: The most significant hurdles in practice remain in the licensing procedure. While zoning law conflicts do arise repeatedly, particularly when the required use permit for club premises is lacking, which can significantly slow individual projects. However, the real critical point is typically not the building authority and not primarily association law, but the responsible licensing authority.

In practice, there is a pattern of continuously formulating new requirements or additional documentation requirements that significantly complicate access to cultivation licenses. Authorities like to present this as a consequence of allegedly necessary administrative review rigor, but these requirements often do not actually follow from the law, and in fact regularly lead to noticeable extension and complication of procedures.

Many clubs initially attempt to navigate these procedures without legal assistance. This is understandable, but in practice it often proves to be a costly mistake. When applications are initially rejected due to formal or substantive deficiencies, must be resubmitted, or authorities drag out procedures over months, it typically creates significant financial burdens for the founders. While the procedure stalls, costs continue to accrue—for example, rent on club premises—without the club being able to operate.

Unfortunately, in practice many CSCs fail precisely due to excessively long procedure times and sometimes excessive requirements. A circumstance that is, in my assessment, deliberately factored in by some authorities.

Question 2: Gray Areas and Court Decisions

KCanG is designed as a transitional regulation. Which legal gray areas will become court questions in the coming 12 months? Which judgments do you expect to be trend-setting?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis sector, courts will primarily have to clarify questions arising from the tension between legislative liberalization intent and demonstrably restrictive administrative practice. These include in particular the permissibility of appropriate board compensation, the limits of administrative demands regarding membership data of cultivation associations, and the scope of administrative intervention in contractual arrangements in licensing procedures.

In the medical sector, court disputes could increasingly shift toward healthcare professionals cooperating with telemedicine platforms—that is, physicians and pharmacists. An early indication of this is the judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court from 23.04.2026 (Az.: 37 O 55/25). The court decided that pharmacies may not supply questionnaire-based prescriptions from telemedicine platforms.

Additionally, the plaintiff pharmacy chamber has already announced that it will consider regulatory measures in the future. This would be only logical. Because the most effective lever does not necessarily lie with the platforms themselves, which are often willing to accept the risk of an injunction, but with physicians and pharmacists without whom these models cannot function in practice. One would expect responsible design of the user experience of such platforms if healthcare professionals had to reckon with regulatory consequences up to and including endangering their own professional practice. Proceedings against healthcare professionals would likely be considerably more effective than mere injunctions against platform operators.

Question 3: Pharmacy vs. CSC vs. Home Growing

Pharmacy model, CSC model, home cultivation. Which path is legally the cleanest in 2026 for which use case?

Olivia: From a legal standpoint, the pharmacy model is the appropriate access pathway for patients. This model enables therapeutic support and health-responsible use. Particularly with decreasing stigmatization and growing societal openness toward cannabis as a medicine, it is to be expected that the number of people who use cannabis not merely out of consumption interest but as actual patients will increase.

By contrast, the CSC model is the legally provided route for consumers in the recreational sector. Cannabis Social Clubs were created precisely to enable legal, controlled, and prevention-focused access outside the black market. They are subject to binding and strictly controlled requirements, particularly in youth protection and prevention. If the legislator wants to remove recreational consumption from the illegal market, functioning Cannabis Social Clubs are necessary. Without them, legal access for consumers remains structurally incomplete. Furthermore, youth protection and prevention measures that clubs must implement only become effective when consumers are also integrated into the recreational cannabis market.

Home cultivation remains legally permissible in 2026 as well, but in my assessment will continue to represent only a comparatively smaller share. It is primarily a model for home-grow enthusiasts. As a widespread or mass-market access pathway, home cultivation is only limitedly suitable. It requires time, knowledge, spatial possibilities, and a certain practical affinity. For the broad consumer base, it will therefore not be an equivalent alternative to structured legal access channels.

Question 4: Advertising Law and Medicinal Products Act Corridor

Cannabis advertising law in Germany is restrictive. How do companies navigate between education and medicinal products act prohibition? Which violations do you see most frequently?

Olivia: In the medical sector, most market participants do indeed attempt to comply with the Medicinal Products Advertising Act requirements. However, it is evident that jurisprudence in this field is becoming increasingly restrictive.

In the case of telemedicine companies, there is an impression that courts want to effectively ban cannabis telemedicine platform models through the back door of advertising law. This is not a particularly accurate legal instrument. Many violations of the Medicinal Products Advertising Act are merely administrative offenses in the first instance. Moreover, in practice often a relatively minor linguistic or design adjustment in external presentation suffices to lead to years of legal disputes over admissibility before a reliable judgment is reached.

The situation is considerably sharper in the recreational cannabis sector. Cultivation associations face potential withdrawal of licensing, sometimes for minor infractions. Authorities interpret the advertising prohibition restrictively. In practice, I repeatedly encounter cases where cultivation associations are not even permitted a social media presence. In my view, this handling misses the actual regulatory goal. If the legislator takes prevention-based cannabis policy seriously, it cannot be about complete communicative taboo of cannabis. Rather, what would be decisive is normalizing responsible use. Suppressing all substantive visibility does not advance prevention but rather complicates access to legal channels.

Question 5: Knowledge Gaps Among Young Cannabis Attorneys

You previously led a Cannabis Law Academy. Where do young attorneys entering cannabis law today have the biggest knowledge gaps?

Olivia: The biggest knowledge gaps young attorneys have in cannabis law is less a question of dogmatic foundational knowledge than a question of missing practical integration. Few enter the field with an exclusive focus on cannabis law. And as with many other areas of law, foundational knowledge can be studied, but in the cannabis industry this purely theoretical knowledge has particularly narrow limits.

Cannabis law is in many respects still young and heavily shaped by administrative and judicial practice. Many decisive questions remain unresolved and are still in proceedings or are only being defined through concrete administrative enforcement. Accordingly, there is currently only a relatively limited body of established literature and reliable case law from which truly viable specialized knowledge could be derived purely academically.

This is precisely where cannabis law differs from classical fields of law refined over decades. In criminal law, for example, one can specialize into individual sub-areas due to the enormous dogmatic depth and developed lines of precedent. In cannabis law, however, the decisive knowledge often does not arise primarily at the desk but within the proceedings themselves—in contact with authorities, in licensing processes, in appeals and legal proceedings, and in contract drafting.

Question 6: One Regulatory Lever

Which regulatory change would you prioritize in 2026 if you could decide one thing?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis market, I would not prioritize further legislative adjustments but rather a systematic change in administrative practice. At the state level, above all, there is a need for more legally qualified personnel in licensing authorities. I am convinced that a considerable portion of current procedural delays and many of the requirements raised on the administrative side would be eliminated if applications were frequently handled by lawyers.

The issue is not enforcement of a legal field differentiated over decades, but application and interpretation of a new law. This requires legal methodological competence. After several years, once established administrative practice has formed, it may be possible to increasingly rely on personnel without an original legal background. At the current time, however, I consider this misguided. That the interpretation of new regulation is sometimes conducted according to the legal understanding of non-lawyers is, from a rule-of-law perspective, alarming.

In the medical sector, by contrast, I would welcome mandatory video consultation. A mandatory in-person physician consultation, as provided for in the draft of a First Act to Amend the Medicinal Cannabis Act (BT-Drs. 21/3061), I consider a symbolically motivated pretext that does not actually serve patient health protection in substance. The prescription of medical cannabis typically requires no physical examination. And even if it should be medically indicated in an individual case, that is a decision for the treating physician. I therefore do not understand why mandatory video consultation should not suffice to meet patient interests.

Question 7: The Sentence That Has Proven Itself a Thousand Times

If you give clients one sentence that has proven itself a thousand times in your advisory practice, what is it?

Olivia: Cannabis law is a highly political area of law. Whoever wants to establish a foothold in this market, assert themselves there, or effectively enforce their rights must necessarily incorporate this political dimension into the strategy of their own case.

Question 1: CSC Founding Practice 2026

You have accompanied over 100 CSCs through registration and licensing applications. Where does it get stuck most frequently in practice 2026? Building authority, federal institute, association law?

Olivia: The most significant hurdles in practice remain in the licensing procedure. While zoning law conflicts do arise repeatedly, particularly when the required use permit for club premises is lacking, which can significantly slow individual projects. However, the real critical point is typically not the building authority and not primarily association law, but the responsible licensing authority.

In practice, there is a pattern of continuously formulating new requirements or additional documentation requirements that significantly complicate access to cultivation licenses. Authorities like to present this as a consequence of allegedly necessary administrative review rigor, but these requirements often do not actually follow from the law, and in fact regularly lead to noticeable extension and complication of procedures.

Many clubs initially attempt to navigate these procedures without legal assistance. This is understandable, but in practice it often proves to be a costly mistake. When applications are initially rejected due to formal or substantive deficiencies, must be resubmitted, or authorities drag out procedures over months, it typically creates significant financial burdens for the founders. While the procedure stalls, costs continue to accrue—for example, rent on club premises—without the club being able to operate.

Unfortunately, in practice many CSCs fail precisely due to excessively long procedure times and sometimes excessive requirements. A circumstance that is, in my assessment, deliberately factored in by some authorities.

Question 2: Gray Areas and Court Decisions

KCanG is designed as a transitional regulation. Which legal gray areas will become court questions in the coming 12 months? Which judgments do you expect to be trend-setting?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis sector, courts will primarily have to clarify questions arising from the tension between legislative liberalization intent and demonstrably restrictive administrative practice. These include in particular the permissibility of appropriate board compensation, the limits of administrative demands regarding membership data of cultivation associations, and the scope of administrative intervention in contractual arrangements in licensing procedures.

In the medical sector, court disputes could increasingly shift toward healthcare professionals cooperating with telemedicine platforms—that is, physicians and pharmacists. An early indication of this is the judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court from 23.04.2026 (Az.: 37 O 55/25). The court decided that pharmacies may not supply questionnaire-based prescriptions from telemedicine platforms.

Additionally, the plaintiff pharmacy chamber has already announced that it will consider regulatory measures in the future. This would be only logical. Because the most effective lever does not necessarily lie with the platforms themselves, which are often willing to accept the risk of an injunction, but with physicians and pharmacists without whom these models cannot function in practice. One would expect responsible design of the user experience of such platforms if healthcare professionals had to reckon with regulatory consequences up to and including endangering their own professional practice. Proceedings against healthcare professionals would likely be considerably more effective than mere injunctions against platform operators.

Question 3: Pharmacy vs. CSC vs. Home Growing

Pharmacy model, CSC model, home cultivation. Which path is legally the cleanest in 2026 for which use case?

Olivia: From a legal standpoint, the pharmacy model is the appropriate access pathway for patients. This model enables therapeutic support and health-responsible use. Particularly with decreasing stigmatization and growing societal openness toward cannabis as a medicine, it is to be expected that the number of people who use cannabis not merely out of consumption interest but as actual patients will increase.

By contrast, the CSC model is the legally provided route for consumers in the recreational sector. Cannabis Social Clubs were created precisely to enable legal, controlled, and prevention-focused access outside the black market. They are subject to binding and strictly controlled requirements, particularly in youth protection and prevention. If the legislator wants to remove recreational consumption from the illegal market, functioning Cannabis Social Clubs are necessary. Without them, legal access for consumers remains structurally incomplete. Furthermore, youth protection and prevention measures that clubs must implement only become effective when consumers are also integrated into the recreational cannabis market.

Home cultivation remains legally permissible in 2026 as well, but in my assessment will continue to represent only a comparatively smaller share. It is primarily a model for home-grow enthusiasts. As a widespread or mass-market access pathway, home cultivation is only limitedly suitable. It requires time, knowledge, spatial possibilities, and a certain practical affinity. For the broad consumer base, it will therefore not be an equivalent alternative to structured legal access channels.

Question 4: Advertising Law and Medicinal Products Act Corridor

Cannabis advertising law in Germany is restrictive. How do companies navigate between education and medicinal products act prohibition? Which violations do you see most frequently?

Olivia: In the medical sector, most market participants do indeed attempt to comply with the Medicinal Products Advertising Act requirements. However, it is evident that jurisprudence in this field is becoming increasingly restrictive.

In the case of telemedicine companies, there is an impression that courts want to effectively ban cannabis telemedicine platform models through the back door of advertising law. This is not a particularly accurate legal instrument. Many violations of the Medicinal Products Advertising Act are merely administrative offenses in the first instance. Moreover, in practice often a relatively minor linguistic or design adjustment in external presentation suffices to lead to years of legal disputes over admissibility before a reliable judgment is reached.

The situation is considerably sharper in the recreational cannabis sector. Cultivation associations face potential withdrawal of licensing, sometimes for minor infractions. Authorities interpret the advertising prohibition restrictively. In practice, I repeatedly encounter cases where cultivation associations are not even permitted a social media presence. In my view, this handling misses the actual regulatory goal. If the legislator takes prevention-based cannabis policy seriously, it cannot be about complete communicative taboo of cannabis. Rather, what would be decisive is normalizing responsible use. Suppressing all substantive visibility does not advance prevention but rather complicates access to legal channels.

Question 5: Knowledge Gaps Among Young Cannabis Attorneys

You previously led a Cannabis Law Academy. Where do young attorneys entering cannabis law today have the biggest knowledge gaps?

Olivia: The biggest knowledge gaps young attorneys have in cannabis law is less a question of dogmatic foundational knowledge than a question of missing practical integration. Few enter the field with an exclusive focus on cannabis law. And as with many other areas of law, foundational knowledge can be studied, but in the cannabis industry this purely theoretical knowledge has particularly narrow limits.

Cannabis law is in many respects still young and heavily shaped by administrative and judicial practice. Many decisive questions remain unresolved and are still in proceedings or are only being defined through concrete administrative enforcement. Accordingly, there is currently only a relatively limited body of established literature and reliable case law from which truly viable specialized knowledge could be derived purely academically.

This is precisely where cannabis law differs from classical fields of law refined over decades. In criminal law, for example, one can specialize into individual sub-areas due to the enormous dogmatic depth and developed lines of precedent. In cannabis law, however, the decisive knowledge often does not arise primarily at the desk but within the proceedings themselves—in contact with authorities, in licensing processes, in appeals and legal proceedings, and in contract drafting.

Question 6: One Regulatory Lever

Which regulatory change would you prioritize in 2026 if you could decide one thing?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis market, I would not prioritize further legislative adjustments but rather a systematic change in administrative practice. At the state level, above all, there is a need for more legally qualified personnel in licensing authorities. I am convinced that a considerable portion of current procedural delays and many of the requirements raised on the administrative side would be eliminated if applications were frequently handled by lawyers.

The issue is not enforcement of a legal field differentiated over decades, but application and interpretation of a new law. This requires legal methodological competence. After several years, once established administrative practice has formed, it may be possible to increasingly rely on personnel without an original legal background. At the current time, however, I consider this misguided. That the interpretation of new regulation is sometimes conducted according to the legal understanding of non-lawyers is, from a rule-of-law perspective, alarming.

In the medical sector, by contrast, I would welcome mandatory video consultation. A mandatory in-person physician consultation, as provided for in the draft of a First Act to Amend the Medicinal Cannabis Act (BT-Drs. 21/3061), I consider a symbolically motivated pretext that does not actually serve patient health protection in substance. The prescription of medical cannabis typically requires no physical examination. And even if it should be medically indicated in an individual case, that is a decision for the treating physician. I therefore do not understand why mandatory video consultation should not suffice to meet patient interests.

Question 7: The Sentence That Has Proven Itself a Thousand Times

If you give clients one sentence that has proven itself a thousand times in your advisory practice, what is it?

Olivia: Cannabis law is a highly political area of law. Whoever wants to establish a foothold in this market, assert themselves there, or effectively enforce their rights must necessarily incorporate this political dimension into the strategy of their own case.

Question 1: CSC Founding Practice 2026

You have accompanied over 100 CSCs through registration and licensing applications. Where does it get stuck most frequently in practice 2026? Building authority, federal institute, association law?

Olivia: The most significant hurdles in practice remain in the licensing procedure. While zoning law conflicts do arise repeatedly, particularly when the required use permit for club premises is lacking, which can significantly slow individual projects. However, the real critical point is typically not the building authority and not primarily association law, but the responsible licensing authority.

In practice, there is a pattern of continuously formulating new requirements or additional documentation requirements that significantly complicate access to cultivation licenses. Authorities like to present this as a consequence of allegedly necessary administrative review rigor, but these requirements often do not actually follow from the law, and in fact regularly lead to noticeable extension and complication of procedures.

Many clubs initially attempt to navigate these procedures without legal assistance. This is understandable, but in practice it often proves to be a costly mistake. When applications are initially rejected due to formal or substantive deficiencies, must be resubmitted, or authorities drag out procedures over months, it typically creates significant financial burdens for the founders. While the procedure stalls, costs continue to accrue—for example, rent on club premises—without the club being able to operate.

Unfortunately, in practice many CSCs fail precisely due to excessively long procedure times and sometimes excessive requirements. A circumstance that is, in my assessment, deliberately factored in by some authorities.

Question 2: Gray Areas and Court Decisions

KCanG is designed as a transitional regulation. Which legal gray areas will become court questions in the coming 12 months? Which judgments do you expect to be trend-setting?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis sector, courts will primarily have to clarify questions arising from the tension between legislative liberalization intent and demonstrably restrictive administrative practice. These include in particular the permissibility of appropriate board compensation, the limits of administrative demands regarding membership data of cultivation associations, and the scope of administrative intervention in contractual arrangements in licensing procedures.

In the medical sector, court disputes could increasingly shift toward healthcare professionals cooperating with telemedicine platforms—that is, physicians and pharmacists. An early indication of this is the judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court from 23.04.2026 (Az.: 37 O 55/25). The court decided that pharmacies may not supply questionnaire-based prescriptions from telemedicine platforms.

Additionally, the plaintiff pharmacy chamber has already announced that it will consider regulatory measures in the future. This would be only logical. Because the most effective lever does not necessarily lie with the platforms themselves, which are often willing to accept the risk of an injunction, but with physicians and pharmacists without whom these models cannot function in practice. One would expect responsible design of the user experience of such platforms if healthcare professionals had to reckon with regulatory consequences up to and including endangering their own professional practice. Proceedings against healthcare professionals would likely be considerably more effective than mere injunctions against platform operators.

Question 3: Pharmacy vs. CSC vs. Home Growing

Pharmacy model, CSC model, home cultivation. Which path is legally the cleanest in 2026 for which use case?

Olivia: From a legal standpoint, the pharmacy model is the appropriate access pathway for patients. This model enables therapeutic support and health-responsible use. Particularly with decreasing stigmatization and growing societal openness toward cannabis as a medicine, it is to be expected that the number of people who use cannabis not merely out of consumption interest but as actual patients will increase.

By contrast, the CSC model is the legally provided route for consumers in the recreational sector. Cannabis Social Clubs were created precisely to enable legal, controlled, and prevention-focused access outside the black market. They are subject to binding and strictly controlled requirements, particularly in youth protection and prevention. If the legislator wants to remove recreational consumption from the illegal market, functioning Cannabis Social Clubs are necessary. Without them, legal access for consumers remains structurally incomplete. Furthermore, youth protection and prevention measures that clubs must implement only become effective when consumers are also integrated into the recreational cannabis market.

Home cultivation remains legally permissible in 2026 as well, but in my assessment will continue to represent only a comparatively smaller share. It is primarily a model for home-grow enthusiasts. As a widespread or mass-market access pathway, home cultivation is only limitedly suitable. It requires time, knowledge, spatial possibilities, and a certain practical affinity. For the broad consumer base, it will therefore not be an equivalent alternative to structured legal access channels.

Question 4: Advertising Law and Medicinal Products Act Corridor

Cannabis advertising law in Germany is restrictive. How do companies navigate between education and medicinal products act prohibition? Which violations do you see most frequently?

Olivia: In the medical sector, most market participants do indeed attempt to comply with the Medicinal Products Advertising Act requirements. However, it is evident that jurisprudence in this field is becoming increasingly restrictive.

In the case of telemedicine companies, there is an impression that courts want to effectively ban cannabis telemedicine platform models through the back door of advertising law. This is not a particularly accurate legal instrument. Many violations of the Medicinal Products Advertising Act are merely administrative offenses in the first instance. Moreover, in practice often a relatively minor linguistic or design adjustment in external presentation suffices to lead to years of legal disputes over admissibility before a reliable judgment is reached.

The situation is considerably sharper in the recreational cannabis sector. Cultivation associations face potential withdrawal of licensing, sometimes for minor infractions. Authorities interpret the advertising prohibition restrictively. In practice, I repeatedly encounter cases where cultivation associations are not even permitted a social media presence. In my view, this handling misses the actual regulatory goal. If the legislator takes prevention-based cannabis policy seriously, it cannot be about complete communicative taboo of cannabis. Rather, what would be decisive is normalizing responsible use. Suppressing all substantive visibility does not advance prevention but rather complicates access to legal channels.

Question 5: Knowledge Gaps Among Young Cannabis Attorneys

You previously led a Cannabis Law Academy. Where do young attorneys entering cannabis law today have the biggest knowledge gaps?

Olivia: The biggest knowledge gaps young attorneys have in cannabis law is less a question of dogmatic foundational knowledge than a question of missing practical integration. Few enter the field with an exclusive focus on cannabis law. And as with many other areas of law, foundational knowledge can be studied, but in the cannabis industry this purely theoretical knowledge has particularly narrow limits.

Cannabis law is in many respects still young and heavily shaped by administrative and judicial practice. Many decisive questions remain unresolved and are still in proceedings or are only being defined through concrete administrative enforcement. Accordingly, there is currently only a relatively limited body of established literature and reliable case law from which truly viable specialized knowledge could be derived purely academically.

This is precisely where cannabis law differs from classical fields of law refined over decades. In criminal law, for example, one can specialize into individual sub-areas due to the enormous dogmatic depth and developed lines of precedent. In cannabis law, however, the decisive knowledge often does not arise primarily at the desk but within the proceedings themselves—in contact with authorities, in licensing processes, in appeals and legal proceedings, and in contract drafting.

Question 6: One Regulatory Lever

Which regulatory change would you prioritize in 2026 if you could decide one thing?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis market, I would not prioritize further legislative adjustments but rather a systematic change in administrative practice. At the state level, above all, there is a need for more legally qualified personnel in licensing authorities. I am convinced that a considerable portion of current procedural delays and many of the requirements raised on the administrative side would be eliminated if applications were frequently handled by lawyers.

The issue is not enforcement of a legal field differentiated over decades, but application and interpretation of a new law. This requires legal methodological competence. After several years, once established administrative practice has formed, it may be possible to increasingly rely on personnel without an original legal background. At the current time, however, I consider this misguided. That the interpretation of new regulation is sometimes conducted according to the legal understanding of non-lawyers is, from a rule-of-law perspective, alarming.

In the medical sector, by contrast, I would welcome mandatory video consultation. A mandatory in-person physician consultation, as provided for in the draft of a First Act to Amend the Medicinal Cannabis Act (BT-Drs. 21/3061), I consider a symbolically motivated pretext that does not actually serve patient health protection in substance. The prescription of medical cannabis typically requires no physical examination. And even if it should be medically indicated in an individual case, that is a decision for the treating physician. I therefore do not understand why mandatory video consultation should not suffice to meet patient interests.

Question 7: The Sentence That Has Proven Itself a Thousand Times

If you give clients one sentence that has proven itself a thousand times in your advisory practice, what is it?

Olivia: Cannabis law is a highly political area of law. Whoever wants to establish a foothold in this market, assert themselves there, or effectively enforce their rights must necessarily incorporate this political dimension into the strategy of their own case.

Question 1: CSC Founding Practice 2026

You have accompanied over 100 CSCs through registration and licensing applications. Where does it get stuck most frequently in practice 2026? Building authority, federal institute, association law?

Olivia: The most significant hurdles in practice remain in the licensing procedure. While zoning law conflicts do arise repeatedly, particularly when the required use permit for club premises is lacking, which can significantly slow individual projects. However, the real critical point is typically not the building authority and not primarily association law, but the responsible licensing authority.

In practice, there is a pattern of continuously formulating new requirements or additional documentation requirements that significantly complicate access to cultivation licenses. Authorities like to present this as a consequence of allegedly necessary administrative review rigor, but these requirements often do not actually follow from the law, and in fact regularly lead to noticeable extension and complication of procedures.

Many clubs initially attempt to navigate these procedures without legal assistance. This is understandable, but in practice it often proves to be a costly mistake. When applications are initially rejected due to formal or substantive deficiencies, must be resubmitted, or authorities drag out procedures over months, it typically creates significant financial burdens for the founders. While the procedure stalls, costs continue to accrue—for example, rent on club premises—without the club being able to operate.

Unfortunately, in practice many CSCs fail precisely due to excessively long procedure times and sometimes excessive requirements. A circumstance that is, in my assessment, deliberately factored in by some authorities.

Question 2: Gray Areas and Court Decisions

KCanG is designed as a transitional regulation. Which legal gray areas will become court questions in the coming 12 months? Which judgments do you expect to be trend-setting?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis sector, courts will primarily have to clarify questions arising from the tension between legislative liberalization intent and demonstrably restrictive administrative practice. These include in particular the permissibility of appropriate board compensation, the limits of administrative demands regarding membership data of cultivation associations, and the scope of administrative intervention in contractual arrangements in licensing procedures.

In the medical sector, court disputes could increasingly shift toward healthcare professionals cooperating with telemedicine platforms—that is, physicians and pharmacists. An early indication of this is the judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court from 23.04.2026 (Az.: 37 O 55/25). The court decided that pharmacies may not supply questionnaire-based prescriptions from telemedicine platforms.

Additionally, the plaintiff pharmacy chamber has already announced that it will consider regulatory measures in the future. This would be only logical. Because the most effective lever does not necessarily lie with the platforms themselves, which are often willing to accept the risk of an injunction, but with physicians and pharmacists without whom these models cannot function in practice. One would expect responsible design of the user experience of such platforms if healthcare professionals had to reckon with regulatory consequences up to and including endangering their own professional practice. Proceedings against healthcare professionals would likely be considerably more effective than mere injunctions against platform operators.

Question 3: Pharmacy vs. CSC vs. Home Growing

Pharmacy model, CSC model, home cultivation. Which path is legally the cleanest in 2026 for which use case?

Olivia: From a legal standpoint, the pharmacy model is the appropriate access pathway for patients. This model enables therapeutic support and health-responsible use. Particularly with decreasing stigmatization and growing societal openness toward cannabis as a medicine, it is to be expected that the number of people who use cannabis not merely out of consumption interest but as actual patients will increase.

By contrast, the CSC model is the legally provided route for consumers in the recreational sector. Cannabis Social Clubs were created precisely to enable legal, controlled, and prevention-focused access outside the black market. They are subject to binding and strictly controlled requirements, particularly in youth protection and prevention. If the legislator wants to remove recreational consumption from the illegal market, functioning Cannabis Social Clubs are necessary. Without them, legal access for consumers remains structurally incomplete. Furthermore, youth protection and prevention measures that clubs must implement only become effective when consumers are also integrated into the recreational cannabis market.

Home cultivation remains legally permissible in 2026 as well, but in my assessment will continue to represent only a comparatively smaller share. It is primarily a model for home-grow enthusiasts. As a widespread or mass-market access pathway, home cultivation is only limitedly suitable. It requires time, knowledge, spatial possibilities, and a certain practical affinity. For the broad consumer base, it will therefore not be an equivalent alternative to structured legal access channels.

Question 4: Advertising Law and Medicinal Products Act Corridor

Cannabis advertising law in Germany is restrictive. How do companies navigate between education and medicinal products act prohibition? Which violations do you see most frequently?

Olivia: In the medical sector, most market participants do indeed attempt to comply with the Medicinal Products Advertising Act requirements. However, it is evident that jurisprudence in this field is becoming increasingly restrictive.

In the case of telemedicine companies, there is an impression that courts want to effectively ban cannabis telemedicine platform models through the back door of advertising law. This is not a particularly accurate legal instrument. Many violations of the Medicinal Products Advertising Act are merely administrative offenses in the first instance. Moreover, in practice often a relatively minor linguistic or design adjustment in external presentation suffices to lead to years of legal disputes over admissibility before a reliable judgment is reached.

The situation is considerably sharper in the recreational cannabis sector. Cultivation associations face potential withdrawal of licensing, sometimes for minor infractions. Authorities interpret the advertising prohibition restrictively. In practice, I repeatedly encounter cases where cultivation associations are not even permitted a social media presence. In my view, this handling misses the actual regulatory goal. If the legislator takes prevention-based cannabis policy seriously, it cannot be about complete communicative taboo of cannabis. Rather, what would be decisive is normalizing responsible use. Suppressing all substantive visibility does not advance prevention but rather complicates access to legal channels.

Question 5: Knowledge Gaps Among Young Cannabis Attorneys

You previously led a Cannabis Law Academy. Where do young attorneys entering cannabis law today have the biggest knowledge gaps?

Olivia: The biggest knowledge gaps young attorneys have in cannabis law is less a question of dogmatic foundational knowledge than a question of missing practical integration. Few enter the field with an exclusive focus on cannabis law. And as with many other areas of law, foundational knowledge can be studied, but in the cannabis industry this purely theoretical knowledge has particularly narrow limits.

Cannabis law is in many respects still young and heavily shaped by administrative and judicial practice. Many decisive questions remain unresolved and are still in proceedings or are only being defined through concrete administrative enforcement. Accordingly, there is currently only a relatively limited body of established literature and reliable case law from which truly viable specialized knowledge could be derived purely academically.

This is precisely where cannabis law differs from classical fields of law refined over decades. In criminal law, for example, one can specialize into individual sub-areas due to the enormous dogmatic depth and developed lines of precedent. In cannabis law, however, the decisive knowledge often does not arise primarily at the desk but within the proceedings themselves—in contact with authorities, in licensing processes, in appeals and legal proceedings, and in contract drafting.

Question 6: One Regulatory Lever

Which regulatory change would you prioritize in 2026 if you could decide one thing?

Olivia: In the recreational cannabis market, I would not prioritize further legislative adjustments but rather a systematic change in administrative practice. At the state level, above all, there is a need for more legally qualified personnel in licensing authorities. I am convinced that a considerable portion of current procedural delays and many of the requirements raised on the administrative side would be eliminated if applications were frequently handled by lawyers.

The issue is not enforcement of a legal field differentiated over decades, but application and interpretation of a new law. This requires legal methodological competence. After several years, once established administrative practice has formed, it may be possible to increasingly rely on personnel without an original legal background. At the current time, however, I consider this misguided. That the interpretation of new regulation is sometimes conducted according to the legal understanding of non-lawyers is, from a rule-of-law perspective, alarming.

In the medical sector, by contrast, I would welcome mandatory video consultation. A mandatory in-person physician consultation, as provided for in the draft of a First Act to Amend the Medicinal Cannabis Act (BT-Drs. 21/3061), I consider a symbolically motivated pretext that does not actually serve patient health protection in substance. The prescription of medical cannabis typically requires no physical examination. And even if it should be medically indicated in an individual case, that is a decision for the treating physician. I therefore do not understand why mandatory video consultation should not suffice to meet patient interests.

Question 7: The Sentence That Has Proven Itself a Thousand Times

If you give clients one sentence that has proven itself a thousand times in your advisory practice, what is it?

Olivia: Cannabis law is a highly political area of law. Whoever wants to establish a foothold in this market, assert themselves there, or effectively enforce their rights must necessarily incorporate this political dimension into the strategy of their own case.