On 21 February 2026, the CDU party conference in Stuttgart adopted a motion by the Frauen Union calling on the CDU/CSU–SPD federal government to repeal the Consumer Cannabis Act (KCanG). Under the motion, possession, cultivation and distribution of cannabis would once again become criminal offences. It sounds dramatic – but how realistic is it really?
What exactly was decided?
A clear majority of the conference backed the demand to completely reverse the partial legalisation of cannabis from April 2024. The motion was led by Frauen Union chair Nina Warken, with support from Bavaria's health minister Judith Gerlach (CSU). Their argument: legalisation puts the protection of young people and public health at risk.
But a party conference resolution is not a law. And there is a considerable gap between what the CDU demands internally and what is politically achievable.
Why a repeal will be extremely difficult
1. The coalition agreement puts on the brakes
The coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and the SPD does not provide for abolishing the KCanG – instead, it calls for an "open-ended evaluation". This evaluation is already under way. Only once its results are available are changes to be decided. The SPD, which played a key role in pushing the law through under health minister Karl Lauterbach, is unlikely to allow its own reform project to be scrapped without a solid basis in data.
2. The evaluation tells a different story
The EKOCAN interim report from October 2025 shows that there has been no sudden rise in cannabis use since legalisation. According to the data, overall consumption has actually been declining since 2019. That considerably weakens the opponents' main argument. The next major evaluation, on organised crime, is due in April 2026 – and here too, experts do not expect any dramatic findings.
3. Legal hurdles
A complete reversal of legalisation would be legally highly complex. Cannabis Social Clubs that were founded and licensed legally could claim compensation in the event of a ban – a kind of expropriation problem. That makes a 180-degree U-turn extremely unattractive for lawmakers.



