In the dispute over inspections at Thuringia’s cultivation associations, it is now a matter of one account against another. The Thuringia State Office for Agriculture and Rural Areas had requested support from the State Criminal Police Office and justified this with an increasingly non-cooperative stance by the associations. The cultivation associations rejected this in an open letter and demanded evidence or a public correction. In response to an inquiry from Hanf Magazin, the authority has now replied: there were indeed instances of refusal. It provides no evidence for this. The associations maintain their account and have submitted their inspection protocols to Hanf Magazin.
📑 Inhaltsverzeichnis
- What the State Office wrote to the Criminal Police
- The Cultivation Associations‘ Contradiction
- The Authority’s Response: There Were Refusals
- The Allegation Stands, But Cannot Be Verified
- Police Accompaniment Is Already Practice
- The Associations Submit Their Protocols
- A Dispute with a History
- Why the Tone Between Authority and Association Matters
- Frequently Asked Questions
- 💬 Fragen? Frag den Hanf-Buddy!
What the State Office wrote to the Criminal Police
The trigger is a letter dated June 17, 2026. In it, the Thuringia State Office for Agriculture and Rural Areas, abbreviated TLLLR, contacts the State Criminal Police Office and requests police accompaniment during on-site inspections. In justification, it states that recent inspections have shown an increasing refusal to submit to inspections and sample collection.
This phrasing carries weight. It paints a picture of an industry evading state supervision, and it is directed at precisely the authority that, if necessary, works with searches and seizures. For associations whose permit under the Cannabis Consumption Act depends on flawless cooperation, this is no small matter.
The Cultivation Associations‘ Contradiction
The association Cannabis Cultivation Associations Thuringia, abbreviated CAT, has contradicted this in an open letter. According to the coalition’s account, there has not been a single case in Thuringia in which an inspection or sample collection was refused. The associations call on the State Office to either name specific incidents with dates and association names or publicly correct the statement to the police president.
The associations‘ second allegation is organizational in nature. The State Office does not participate in existing working groups with police and prosecutors, where such questions could be clarified without detouring through the Criminal Police Office. Instead of making a call or raising the matter in the committee, the authority chose the route through criminal prosecution. The associations see this as damaging the relationship of trust with law enforcement authorities that they have built over two years.
The Authority’s Response: There Were Refusals
Hanf Magazin asked the State Office for a statement on August 5 and inquired which specific incidents the phrasing is based on, how many inspections have taken place since the law came into force, and how the authority assesses the demand for a correction. After an interim response on August 7, the substantive answer has been available since August 13. It comes from press spokesperson Torsten Weidemann and contradicts the associations‘ account on a central point:
„The statement that there has been no case in Thuringia in which this cooperation was refused is not accurate.“
Thuringia State Office for Agriculture and Rural Areas in response to Hanf Magazin
There have been corresponding incidents in the past that went into the assessment of the framework conditions for inspections. Regarding the legal situation, the authority refers to sections 28 and 29 of the Cannabis Consumption Act. According to these, cultivation associations are obligated to cooperate, which includes providing access to the cultivation premises, enabling sample collection, and allowing inspection of documents.
The Allegation Stands, But Cannot Be Verified
The authority does not answer the core question about evidence. It neither names the number of inspections nor the number of refusals, not even anonymized by date and count, as we had offered. In justification, it states that information about individual cases could allow conclusions about participating cultivation associations or specific administrative proceedings and could affect third parties‘ protected interests.
This creates an uncomfortable situation for the associations. The allegation to the Criminal Police Office remains in place, the authority explicitly upholds it, and at the same time, those affected have no basis to verify or refute it. The demanded correction and apology effectively do not materialize. Whether the authority’s restraint is substantively justified or whether information on the mere number could be provided without allowing conclusions about individual associations must remain open. It is the authority’s justification, not our assessment.
Police Accompaniment Is Already Practice
Almost incidentally, the authority answers a question that has remained open until now. The mutual aid request was directed at Thuringia’s police, whereby the State Police Directorate, according to the State Office, was only asked for support if needed. The inspections generally proceeded without accompaniment from local police stations. The decisive addition is:
„In the past, police were also called in during some of the inspections.“
Thuringia State Office for Agriculture and Rural Areas in response to Hanf Magazin
So police accompaniment of inspections in Thuringia is not an announcement for an emergency situation, but has already taken place. How often, in which cases, and with what result, also remains unanswered.
The Associations Submit Their Protocols
We presented the State Office’s response to the cultivation associations. Cannabis Social Club Erfurt, which had also sent the open letter, maintains its account. The participating associations had neither refused a sample collection nor an inspection. According to its information, contact from five of the six cannabis-dispensing associations in Thuringia now runs through a law firm.
As evidence, the association has submitted its complete inspection records to Hanf Magazin. The editorial office therefore has inspection and sample collection protocols from the State Office for six appointments between January 2025 and July 2026, redacted for the names of State Office employees and security-relevant information. The documents were handed over to us confidentially and explicitly only for use in connection with this matter.
The association explicitly rejects one point from the authority’s response. Regarding the role of police, Dennis Gottschalk, treasurer of Cannabis Social Club Erfurt, states:
„The police were always visibly present, but never had to intervene in a case to ensure the office was granted access; we only granted access to the police under protest.“
Dennis Gottschalk, Treasurer of Cannabis Social Club Erfurt e. V.
This stands in contrast to the State Office’s information that inspections generally proceed without police accompaniment. For this association, according to its own account, the opposite was the case. According to the association, a note about the protest can be found in the protocols.
On the question of evidence, the association makes a concrete proposal. The State Office could name the type of incidents, the respective timing, and their number without disclosing association-related or particularly protected data. Once it does so, the association could then specifically present the protocols for the relevant appointments. According to its own information, the association is reviewing legal action against the authority and its leadership. The office has since offered the associations a meeting. On the agenda, from the associations‘ perspective, would also be the three-month inspection frequency, sample quantities, and processing times.
A Dispute with a History
The conflict does not come out of nowhere. In late July, the Gera Administrative Court classified a requirement from the same State Office as manifestly unlawful and restored the suspensive effect. It concerned an amended notice from March 2026 that required each cultivation association to have every batch comprehensively examined in a laboratory at its own expense and subsequently released by a qualified person. We have detailed the specifics of this ruling in our article on the Gera Administrative Court’s preliminary ruling.
Thuringia is thus not an isolated case. Just one day after the Gera decision, the Karlsruhe Administrative Court struck down several requirements against a cultivation association in Baden-Württemberg, including telephone on-call duty and regular financial reports. In both proceedings, the reasoning was similar. The authorities lacked the legal basis in the law for their orders.
Why the Tone Between Authority and Association Matters
The Cannabis Consumption Act has assigned cultivation associations an unusual role. They are associations but carry obligations that otherwise fall to commercial enterprises, and they are under supervision that, depending on the federal state, lies with agricultural, health, or regulatory authorities. Where these authorities impose requirements without clear legal basis, cases end up in court. Where allegations are made that cannot be verified, the voluntary cooperation that the associations have so far shown the regulatory authorities suffers.
This is precisely what the open letter aims at. The associations do not argue against inspections; they argue against a narrative that calls their willingness to cooperate into question. A similar motive underlies the position paper with which over 100 cultivation associations have demanded clear rules. The sector wants predictable requirements rather than changing interpretations. How much need for clarification the first two years have left is also shown by the judiciary’s handling of completely different questions, such as the ruling on driving fitness at high THC levels before the Berlin Administrative Court.
Thus the allegation remains in the room, and both sides maintain their accounts. It could only be resolved if the State Office names the incidents at least by type and number. Until then, a claim stands that was raised to the police and that those affected cannot refute.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who inspects cultivation associations in Thuringia?
The Thuringia State Office for Agriculture and Rural Areas is responsible. It issues permits under the Cannabis Consumption Act and conducts on-site inspections. According to the authority, these generally proceed without police accompaniment, but police were called in during some inspections.
Can cultivation associations refuse an inspection?
No. According to sections 28 and 29 of the Cannabis Consumption Act, they are obligated to cooperate. This includes providing access to cultivation premises, enabling sample collection, and allowing inspection of documents. A refusal could, in extreme cases, lead to revocation of the permit. This is precisely why the State Office’s allegation carries such weight.
Has the State Office provided evidence of the refusals?
No. The authority maintains upon inquiry that there have been refusals, but provides no information about individual cases. It justifies this by stating that conclusions about participating associations or ongoing administrative proceedings would be possible and third parties‘ protected interests could be affected. It also does not name the number of inspections or refusal cases.
What did the Gera Administrative Court decide?
In late July 2026, the court restored the suspensive effect of a cultivation association’s objection in preliminary proceedings. The laboratory examination of every batch at the association’s own expense, as required by the State Office, seemed too vague to the court. The ruling initially affects only the plaintiff association but has broader implications.
Does the dispute affect other federal states?
The practice of imposing requirements varies considerably from state to state. The Karlsruhe Administrative Court also struck down requirements against a cultivation association in late July. Both decisions show that authorities must properly base their orders on the law.
What happens next in Thuringia?
A correction to the police is not to be expected based on the State Office’s response, as the authority maintains its account. The associations also maintain their position and are reviewing legal action according to their own information. In parallel, the main proceedings on the contested requirement are ongoing, and the office has offered a meeting.
Sollten Cannabis-Clubs bei Kontrollen polizeilich begleitet werden?
Sources: Statement by the Thuringia State Office for Agriculture and Rural Areas to Hanf Magazin dated August 13, 2026, statement by Cannabis Social Club Erfurt e. V. to Hanf Magazin dated August 13, 2026 together with inspection and sample collection protocols for six appointments (confidentially held by the editorial office), Hanfjournal, open letter by Cannabis Cultivation Associations Thuringia (CAT), Gera Administrative Court (ruling of July 28, 2026, Az. 3 E 873/26 Ge), Karlsruhe Administrative Court (ruling of July 29, 2026, Az. 9 K 7631/24).
Branchen-Update
News, Analysen und Reportagen — mehrmals im Monat direkt in dein Postfach.
Folge uns
