this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blaubarschmann@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Title is misleading. Officially it's not possible to "buy" weed, you only get it from your social club "for free" with a monthly membership fee. Clever way to get around the "buying" aspect

[–] WallEx@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

as a german i feel divided, on one hand its a step in the right direction, on the other hand it doesn't go remotely far enough in my opinion.

[–] notapantsday@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think this is perfect. Make it legal but non-commercial. It should not be allowed to make a profit off of other people's addiction and there shouldn't be financial incentives to get people addicted as quickly as possible.

I wish they would do the same for alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc.

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

There are definitely financial incentives, they are just underground now. Which is worse in every way.

Ah yeah because dealers didnt exist before? Also it will be allowed to run non profit clubs to grow weed as a community. And you can grow it at home so no incentive for underground markets at all. Dealers are gonna slowly disappear if anything.

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I think this is fine because while people should be allowed to do light drugs I don't mind making them jump through some hoops so that it's not that convenient. Alcohol and nicotine are definitely way too accessible and it affects perception of this law.

I use cannabis in Poland where we accidentally legalized it by allowing doctors to prescribe it online which combined with corruption means anyone who wants it can get it but it's not so obvious unless you're interested. It's a surprisingly OK compromise.

[–] WallEx@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think if you're not harming anyone else you should be allowed to do whatever you want. I don't see, why drugs are prohibited in the first place.

[–] fr0g@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Well, who's gonna pay for your medical care when you inevitably develop drug problems/health issues. So in a socialized healthcare system, you are harming others with it.

(And not offering treatment or making the patient pay for it which they often won't be able to, would be very inhumane imo)

[–] shani66@ani.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Still don't get the irrational obsession with weed, if you fuckers allow beer and coffee then weed is barely a difference

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

At least it is a step forward from the current state: "Cannabis is not broccoli and it is not allowed because it is forbidden".

[–] sic_1@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

BTW for the uninitiated: That's the actual quote from the former federal drug officer. No joke - we wished it was.

[–] manucode@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago

To be precise, that's two quotes by two different, consecutive federal drug officers. Mortler justified a cannabis ban with its status as an illegal drug, her successor Ludwig pointed out that cannabis isn't broccoli.

[–] Haven5341@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I had a very quick look at the law. It's a first step. Better than nothing and long overdue. I'm thankful but the law itself seems to be in part contradictory.

I.e.: I'm allowed to grow three cannabis plants. Sounds good? I'm additionally not allowed to own more than 50 grams of cannabis plant material (buds, leafs and stem). How should i even grow a single cannabis plant without making myself culpable?

I guess we'll have to wait and see how these contradictions are handled by the courts.

[–] vapeloki@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

50g ate the dry weight. You are allowed to posses 3 plants + 50g consume ready product. So, this should work out just nice with smaller plants

[–] Haven5341@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You are allowed to posses 3 plants + 50g consume ready product.

Sure. As long as the 3 plants are alive:

§ 3, Abs 2 CanG reads:

Personen, die das 18. Lebensjahr vollendet haben, ist abweichend von Absatz 1 im Geltungsbereich dieses Gesetzes an ihrem Wohnsitz oder an ihrem gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt der Besitz von Cannabis wie folgt erlaubt:

(1) von bis zu 50 Gramm Cannabis, bei Blüten, blütennahen Blättern oder sonstigem Pflanzenmaterial der Cannabispflanze bezogen auf das Gewicht nach dem Trocknen, und

(2) von bis zu drei lebenden Cannabispflanzen

https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/104/2010426.pdf

Translated by Google:

By way of derogation from paragraph 1, persons who have reached the age of 18 shall be permitted to possess cannabis at their domicile or habitual residence within the scope of this Act as follows:

(1) up to 50 grams of cannabis, in the case of flowers, near-flower leaves or other plant material of the cannabis plant in relation to the weight after drying, and

(2) of up to three live cannabis plants

That is 3 plants that are alive(!). If I'm harvesting or the plant dies of other causes, the plant is no longer alive and I'm suddenly in the possession of much more than the 50 grams allowed by law (and the whole plant counts, not just the buds).

[–] vapeloki@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That is a non issue in my opinion. As long as it is not dryied yet you can process it. Just cook it out for example. Or use it as fertilizer.

[–] Haven5341@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

As long as it is not dryied yet

The law doesn't make a distinction between dried or not dried. This is only used for measurement. It only distinguishes between alive and dead.

Just cook it out for example.

It's still a dead cannabis plant.

This law makes no sense in this regard. Allowing three plants just so you have to destroy two an a half of them.

And at one point in time you will be in possession of an illegal amount of cannabis. Even if it is for a short period of time. Sure, you probably won't be caught but it still seems to be illegal according to CanG

[–] fr0g@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago

The law does make sense, if you put it into practice. In practice the dry weight amounts will probably just be checked on the street. Checking your home will require a warrant which isn't easy to come by, so they're not gonna bother about cases where it might be three or four plants or this or that many grams.

[–] vapeloki@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Seriously: a plant takes around 8 weeks to bloom, and can stay in that state for another 8 weeks. That is plentiful time to harvest and not all at once. Also, while the first one is blooming you can grow number two.

As someone who growed stuff at home in the past, it makes perfect sense to me.

With 3 plants you have always one blooming and two following. Time it correctly and you have a constant flow of supply without ever having more then 50g of dryied products.

After you are done harvesting, dispose the rest of the plant and be fine. As the stem of cannabis is mostly water, it will not weight anything near 25 g if dryied. If it does, your plants are larger, and I think this may be intentional to limit the amount of products that can be harvested. Over all, while not perfect, the law is much better then many seem to want give credit for.

I was co author of the largest pro canabis petition ever in Germany, and the author of the anti-alcohol petition (reusing the arguments of the lawmakers why canabis can not be legalized, and just replaced alcohol with canabis). I am fighting for this since 20 years. And this is a huge step forward. Yes, it is limited. But the limit is imposed by the EU and not the German government.