Swiss Cannabis Regulation: IG Hanf Demands Action Over Delays

Question 1, Improvements

The Federal Council sees the referral as a mandate to revise the CanPG, not a restart. What specific improvements does IG Hanf expect now?

Renato: We agree with the Federal Council’s assessment that the referral is a mandate for revision—not a fresh start. The legislative draft provides a solid foundation but must become more practical and business-friendly on key points. Specifically, we expect non-medical cannabis use to be fully regulated in the CanPG and not remain in the Narcotics Act. Only this creates real clarity and legal certainty for consumers, authorities, and businesses. Second, we need geographically broad access through clearly regulated specialty retailers—including online distribution with reliable age verification, as Canada has successfully implemented. Third, the advertising and sponsorship rules must be proportionate. A complete ban, as currently envisioned, would hinder both education and market transparency while unnecessarily burdening small and medium enterprises. Finally, we need balanced tax policy that reduces the black market rather than supporting it through excessive levies.

Question 2, Timeline

Realistically speaking: when do you expect a revised draft and when do you anticipate it coming into force?

Renato: We expect a revised proposal at the earliest by the end of 2026. Following that, both chambers must deliberate, resolve differences, and—very likely—a referendum vote will occur. With an optimal timeline, regulation will hardly come into force before 2029. We advocate for swift but careful processing.

Question 3, Follow-up solution

The pilot projects expire in 2027/2028. If regulation only takes effect in 2030+, a regulatory gap threatens. What does IG Hanf propose for this transition period?

Renato: A follow-up solution is absolutely necessary once the first pilot projects end. We see two possible paths: an extension of the experimentation clause (Narcotics Act Article 8a) or creation of a time-limited transitional regime that eases the transition to full regulation. The studies are clear: pilot projects are not an end state but a bridge model. Anyone who lets them expire without a successor drives consumers back to the black market—and destroys valuable know-how. Our proposal is to develop a coherent transitional model together with the federal government, cantons, research, and industry, building on findings from the pilot projects.

Question 4, Economic dimension

Political debate focuses mainly on youth protection and prevention. What about the economic dimension? What potential does IG Hanf see?

Renato: The economic significance is vastly underestimated. The entire cannabis system in Switzerland today has an estimated market volume of one billion francs annually. That money currently flows almost entirely to the black market and into the hands of criminal networks. In a regulated market, up to 450 million francs annually in tax and social revenues are conceivable. Add to that several thousand new jobs in cultivation, processing, logistics, retail, enforcement, research, and tourism. Simultaneously, we significantly relieve pressure on police, justice, and healthcare. Switzerland also has the opportunity to build an export-strong, high-quality location, analogous to the pharmaceutical industry. Smart regulation creates value, innovation, and security. It doesn’t prevent—it enables.

Question 5, Black market

The black market is booming; recent raids in Bern, Solothurn, and Spreitenbach show industrial dimensions. How do you argue against politicians still betting on the Narcotics Act?

Renato: The black market is the direct consequence of failed prohibition policy. The raids in Bern (over a ton of cannabis), Solothurn (19 indoor facilities), and Spreitenbach (a ton of cannabis and weapons) show that criminal structures have long dominated the market. The latest Sucht Schweiz study from Vaud (see also the summary) proves: the illegal market supplies highly potent, often adulterated cannabis—without any quality control, without youth protection, without tax revenue. And Geneva now has Europe’s highest cannabis consumption. The Narcotics Act has failed in 50 years to reduce consumption or limit availability—quite the opposite. Today, over 220,000 people in Switzerland use cannabis regularly. Whoever defends the status quo is effectively defending the black market. Every month Parliament hesitates is a month this market is served by criminal structures instead of regulated specialty retailers. We urge the SGK-N (Social and Health Commission of the National Council) to take seriously the findings from pilot projects, international research, and economic analysis—and finally take responsibility.

Question 6, International examples

Which international examples do you consider particularly relevant for Switzerland, and which serve as negative examples?

Renato: We clearly see Canada as a positive model. There, quality control, youth protection, tax logic, and market opening work in balance. In Swiss debate, Quebec’s Canadian model is often cited as a reference, with a state monopoly on sales through the Société québécoise du cannabis. However, IG Hanf clearly positions itself for a more market-liberal model that nonetheless places health protection consistently at the center. State sales monopolies tie up enormous administrative resources, limit product diversity and innovation, and in practice have proven less effective at pushing back the black market than a licensed specialty retail model. For Switzerland, the more relevant reference points are Canadian provinces with private distribution under license, where a dense specialty retail network has established itself under strict oversight. German cannabis social clubs also provide useful building blocks, particularly for non-commercial home cultivation. Uruguay, conversely, demonstrates what happens when state distribution through pharmacies rolls out too narrowly and slowly: the black market remains dominant.

Question 7, Cantons

What role should cantons play in future regulation, particularly regarding implementation, youth protection, and tax distribution?

Renato: Cantons will become central implementation actors. They are responsible for enforcement, licensing, oversight, and prevention. For federalism to work, however, they need clear federal guidelines—for instance, on licensing criteria, advertising rules, and quality standards. Tax distribution must be fair and earmarked: part of revenues should go directly to cantons and municipalities that handle implementation and prevention work. Youth protection also comes to life locally—through schools, addiction services, police, and cantonal health authorities. We therefore see cantons as equal partners in political design. Only when the federal government and cantons work hand in hand does regulation emerge that truly functions.