Under Germany’s 2024 Cannabis Act, a person can possess up to 25 grams of dried cannabis for personal consumption in public, and store up to 50 grams at home. This puts into perspective the case at hand, in which a young person is sentenced for supplying 2.8 grams of cannabis – about 1/9th the amount anyone in Germany is allowed to have in their possession in public.

In this case, the person is being sentenced for supply of cannabis, which remains illegal under the new regulation. However, under the new cannabis law, penalties for the illegal supply of cannabis were partly reduced, reflecting the general idea that the law change marks a shift in societal attitudes away from prohibition – with even legal supply via cannabis associations a possibility. Yet here, we have the judge mention the new regulation, attempt to explain it and fumble, and then inform the prosecution that they can simply request the same sentence they would have under the old law. The explicitness in this case that changes of law do not always or at least not immediately result in changes in practice were striking, and perhaps even grounds for an appeal.

The more fundamental injustice is that cannabis supply remains criminalized harshly after the passage of the new law. While the law was under consideration, Justice Collective led a coalition to challenge such foreseeable consequences, arguing that the law would entrench – and perhaps even exacerbate – racial and other disparities in the criminal legal system. In December 2023, we wrote:

“Based on the experience of other countries, experts expect CanG to shift a significant part of the cannabis trade to the legal market. Nevertheless, a large illegal market will continue to exist. Today, this illegal market consists of two segments. Contrary to popular belief, around 90% of cannabis trade today takes place in private spaces, behind closed doors. This part of the market, which is predominantly served by white Germans, is largely invisible to the police and is rarely prosecuted. On the other hand, racialized and migrant dealers do not have access to this privileged market and trade mostly in public spaces. This group includes people without work permits (who are unable to earn a legal income because they are excluded from the official labor market) or people who are otherwise structurally discriminated against.

Discrimination could even increase as a result of CanG: While today’s ‘invisible’ market will largely switch to cannabis clubs and thus to legality, illegality and criminalization will fall almost entirely on racialized and migrant groups.”

This case proves our point: While privileged Germans can now legally cultivate, obtain, and use cannabis, marginalized people will continue to be policed and prosecuted for cannabis-related offenses. As we argued then, and as this case demonstrates, this reality demands more robust efforts to reduce or eliminate penalties for supply and reparations to communities policed and criminalized for cannabis in the past.

The court starts by asking for some basic information about the defendant. He is a young paramedic who recently stopped working with his prior employer. That employer has yet to pay him for his last two months of work; once that dispute is settled, he will be able to apply for and receive unemployment benefits.

Next we learn the allegations of the case. The person is accused of supplying a small quantity of cannabis. The police also found some money on him at the time of arrest. As the case starts, the judge notes the replacement of the old law with the new cannabis regulations, which are now applicable to this case.

The defense attorney reads a statement on behalf of his client, explaining that his client is nervous because it is his first time in court. According to the lawyer, his client was involved in drug supply on the day in question because he covered a shift for a friend at the friend’s request and for a small amount of money. The defendant explains that he would be okay with the court forfeiting his cellphone and the money they found on him.

The judge proceeds to try and explain the implications of the law change related to cannabis, but fumbles, ending, “It does not really make a difference here, it is just paperwork.” The prosecutor in the case looks unsure of the implications of what the judge has conveyed and whether the information would influence the sentence they request. Sensing this uncertainty, the judge adds that the prosecutor can proceed with a sentence offer as they would have made prior to the passing of the law change.

Eventually, the prosecutor suggests a sentence of €1,200 and confiscation of the defendant’s cellphone. The defense attorney does not offer much of a counter argument, asking only for a slightly lower fine amount. Apologizing, the defendant says that he asks to receive a sentence that would not bar him from his profession.

The judge sentences the person to the amount requested by the prosecution, suggesting this is a light sentence that will not harm the person’s employment prospects. He believes that the person only engaged in such behavior once and the quantity was low. Yet, the new cannabis regulations did not protect the man from being criminalized for selling a small amount of cannabis.