Cannabis has been partially legalized in Germany since April 2024. Since then, there has been much discussion about the market, the black market, youth protection, the police, medicinal cannabis, and political consequences. At the same time, another perspective often remains underexposed: How do adult consumers actually experience the new situation in everyday life?
This is precisely where our Cannabis Study Germany 2026 comes in. The current interim report is based on approx. 300 responses from a voluntary, open online survey within a cannabis-affiliated community. The results are not representative of the general population. Nor are they intended to replace an official overall assessment. Their value lies elsewhere: They show how partial legalization is experienced from the perspective of those directly affected – i.e., where legal texts meet reality.
This is important because official evaluations and community surveys answer different questions. The legally mandated EKOCAN evaluation of the Cannabis Consumption Act combines ongoing population surveys, routine data, administrative data, and its own surveys, including surveys of consumers, non-consumers, cultivation associations, and public bodies. It primarily examines the effects on child and youth protection, general health protection, and cannabis-related crime.
Our study works differently. It is based on voluntary, open responses from the community. It does not aim to model the overall market but to answer the question: How does partial legalization feel in the lives of people directly involved with the issue?
And that's where it gets interesting.
A brief preliminary classification
Important classification of the interim status
Our analysis shows the current status of approx. 300 voluntary participations in an open online survey from the cannabis community. This data is not a representative picture of Germany, but a real snapshot from practice.
This is precisely where its strength lies: while large evaluations look at market and system effects, this study shows how the reform is perceived by people who actually consume cannabis and live with the new rules.
The results of this interim report are a snapshot from an active cannabis community. They are not suitable for the statement "This is what all of Germany thinks." However, they are particularly valuable in another respect: they reveal the tensions, concerns, behaviors, and contradictions that arise in practice.
Our data suggests five main trends:
Firstly: Partial legalization has not automatically significantly increased consumption in this sample.
Secondly: For many, procurement has become more legal or at least partially legal.
Thirdly: While the black market has lost some appeal, in the view of many, it has not yet been truly overcome.
Fourthly: Despite legalization, legal and practical uncertainty remains high.
Fifthly: For many, quality, driving licenses, employment, education, and political reliability are now more important than abstract fundamental debates.
Our study and the official evaluation: not a contradiction, but two perspectives
Our study vs. official evaluation: What's the difference?
The legally mandated EKOCAN evaluation examines the Cannabis Consumption Act with a broad scientific approach. For this purpose, population surveys, administrative data, routine data, and own surveys with different groups are combined. The focus is primarily on child and youth protection, health protection, and cannabis-related crime.
Our Cannabis Study Germany 2026 pursues a different approach:
It is based on voluntary responses from a cannabis-affiliated community and asks how partial legalization is actually experienced in everyday life.In short:
The official evaluation measures system effects. Our study shows everyday experience.
Both perspectives are not contradictory — they complement each other.
On April 1, 2026, the second EKOCAN interim report was published. Its central statement is remarkably nuanced: A reform-related increase in consumption is currently not discernible, while a moderately growing proportion of consumed cannabis comes from fundamentally legal sources. At the same time, the researchers describe only a partial displacement of the black market, increasing home cultivation, the growing importance of pharmacy procurement, and continuing problems in areas such as law enforcement and prevention.
For us, this is not a problem, but an opportunity.
Because the official evaluation looks at the macro level: market, crime, administration, procurement channels, prevention. Our study looks at the micro level: uncertainty, everyday life, consumption experience, social perception, trust, and specific concerns. Both together provide a more complete picture.
Therefore, our approach is not: "Our data refutes the official study."
Rather: "Our data shows how the reform feels for the community in everyday life."
This very complement is relevant. Because even if legal sources gain importance, the reform can still be experienced as complicated, uncertain, or incomplete in everyday life. And that is precisely what we see very clearly in our interim report.
Has partial legalization increased consumption?
One of the most common political reflexes surrounding cannabis is: if it is legalized, consumption will inevitably increase. Our interim report paints a different picture.
In our sample, 74.0% say their cannabis consumption has remained the same since partial legalization. Another 12.0% even report a decrease. Only a smaller portion reports an increase. Within this community sample, this contradicts the simplified narrative that legal opening automatically leads to more consumption.
A comparison with the official evaluation is interesting here. EKOCAN also currently emphasizes that no reform-related increase in consumption is discernible. At the same time, while a longer-term upward trend in adult consumption is discussed in population data, researchers currently do not clearly attribute this to the reform.
For us, this results in a clear interpretation:
The reform primarily changes framework conditions, procurement channels, and everyday experience — not automatically the quantity consumed.
Procurement becomes more legal, but not automatically easier
A very strong signal in our data concerns the procurement issue. 58.7% say their source of supply has become significantly more legal since legalization, and another 20.7% see at least a partial shift in this direction. This is one of the clearest findings of the entire survey.
It aligns remarkably well with the official results. EKOCAN also describes that legal procurement channels have gained importance in the two years since the reform, particularly through home cultivation and procurement from pharmacies. At the same time, cultivation associations have so far fallen short of their potential.
Crucially, however: More legal procurement channels do not automatically mean a feeling of clarity. Many participants experience a shift away from pure illegality, but not automatically towards a simple, reliable, and everyday usable system.
This is a central point for the overall classification of partial legalization. Because legal change and felt relief are not the same thing.
The black market is weaker — but not resolved
We also see a nuanced picture regarding the black market. In our study, 71.6% say the black market is less attractive to them today. This is a strong finding. It shows that perception has changed and legal or at least more legal avenues are gaining new relevance.
At the same time, only 20.2% believe that the current law effectively curbs the black market. 41.3% say "partially," 38.5% clearly say "no."
This very ambivalence is important. It also aligns with the official assessment: EKOCAN describes a partial and rather slow displacement of the black market, but at the same time emphasizes that cultivation associations have so far played only a minor role and the impact on organized crime cannot yet be conclusively assessed.
The honest interim balance is therefore:
The black market has lost its appeal — but for many, the current regulation does not yet convincingly replace it.
Legalization on paper, uncertainty in practice
This is probably the strongest finding of our entire survey.
Despite partial legalization, 38.5% say they still fear legal consequences; another 34.6% say "partially." At the same time, 38.0% describe the law as "complicated" and 25.5% as "out of touch with reality." Only 6.2% call it "very understandable." Regarding their feelings about the law, only 49.5% say they feel relieved; 26.9% still feel criminalized.
This is not a minor issue. It is the core tension of the reform:
The legal situation has changed, but many people's sense of security has not changed to the same extent.
It is precisely at this point that the difference between the official evaluation and the community study becomes particularly clear. A government-commissioned accompanying evaluation can show how procurement channels, procedures, market shares, or prevention structures change. Our data shows that many adult consumers, despite the reform, still do not feel that they are operating within a truly clear and reliable framework.
This perspective is highly relevant for the political debate. Because a law can be formally progressive and at the same time practically generate uncertainty.
Driving license, work and everyday life: this is where the credibility of the reform is decided
Those who only speak abstractly about legalization miss the actual points of friction. Our survey clearly shows that many conflicts today no longer revolve around the fundamental question "legal or illegal?", but around everyday usability.
39.4% are afraid of losing their driving license due to the current THC limits in road traffic. Another 15.9% answer "partially." At the same time, 79.8% advocate for clear, nationwide uniform rules on "cannabis and work."
These figures say a lot. People are not just asking: Can I consume?
They are asking: What does this mean for jobs, control, mobility, and legal certainty?
This will ultimately determine whether the reform is perceived as realistic or not.
Education instead of sham debate
Another finding stands out particularly positively. The community is not just calling for deregulation or more freedom, but also more education and prevention.
60.1% consider current government education on cannabis insufficient. 79.8% want more investment in prevention and information.
This is a strong point because it grounds the debate. The responses show: a cannabis-affiliated community demands not only access, but also guidance, quality, protection, and reasonable communication. This is precisely what makes the results relevant beyond the scene.
Quality and Contaminants: Trust is a Huge Issue
Cannabis is often discussed as if it were only about availability. Our data shows something different: Trust in quality is a massive factor.
43.3% are very concerned about contamination or adulterated cannabis, another 21.6% at least somewhat. At the same time, 63.9% say they would pay more for demonstrably clean quality.
This is more than a side issue. It is an indication that many people also understand regulation as a consumer protection issue. If you want to make cannabis safer, you have to talk about transparency, quality, and reliable origin — not just about criminal law.
Cannabis culture in Germany: Tobacco remains very present
A particularly noteworthy finding of our survey concerns the form of consumption. 49.0% consume cannabis primarily as a joint with tobacco. When smoking, 56.2% say they mostly consume with tobacco.
This is interesting because the public cannabis debate is often conducted as if the consumption culture had already largely shifted to vaporizers, pure consumption, or modern products. Our data rather shows: The connection between cannabis and tobacco remains deeply rooted in Germany.
This is not only culturally insightful but also relevant to health policy — especially when discussing education and risk communication.
What the community would change first about the law
The open responses in our survey are particularly valuable because they provide not only numbers but also priorities. Five topics are mentioned repeatedly:
first: clearer, simpler, and more practical rules
second: better solutions for legal procurement channels
third: fair and comprehensible rules for driving licenses
fourth: less bureaucracy
fifth: more political reliability
The last point in particular is remarkable. Many free text responses are not just about consumption, but about the fear that steps already taken could be reversed. This concern about political regression often arises and shows that the discussion in the community is no longer just legal, but also emotional.
What this interim status really shows
Our Cannabis Study Germany 2026 is not a representative population survey. It does not aim to be one. Its value lies in looking where official overall assessments naturally go less deep: at everyday experience, uncertainty, consumption culture, perceived fairness, and concrete practical problems.
The previous analysis shows:
Partial legalization has not automatically significantly increased consumption in this sample.
It has made procurement more legal for many.
It has weakened the black market, but not eliminated it.
It has brought relief, but not a widespread feeling of security.
And it has opened a new phase of debate: away from the pure question of permission, towards quality, clarity, fairness, and everyday usability.
Methodology
What this data is not intended to achieve
This analysis is not a representative study of Germany and does not claim to reflect the general population. Statements such as "This is what all of Germany thinks" or "The study proves" would not be methodologically sound.
Instead, the interim status shows which topics, tensions, and experiences are currently particularly relevant within an active cannabis community.
The interim status presented here is based on an open, voluntary online survey with approx. 300 responses. Participation was self-determined and without claim to representativeness. The sample is cannabis-affiliated and thus deliberately closer to the community than to the general population.
The results are therefore suitable for visualizing trends, concerns, assessments, and everyday experiences within this target group. They do not replace an official evaluation or a population-representative survey. At the same time, they provide precisely the perspective that is often only partially visible in aggregated market, administrative, or crime data.
The legally mandated EKOCAN evaluation pursues a different approach: it bundles various data sources, including population surveys, routine data, administrative data, and its own surveys with different groups, and runs until April 2028. Both perspectives complement each other – one systemic, the other close to life.
Your voice counts!
Our Cannabis Study Germany 2026 is not yet complete. We will continue to collect responses until autumn to refine the results and make even more community perspectives visible. Do you want to help? Then take part in the survey now and become part of the next analysis: Participate here
Conclusion
To truly understand partial legalization, you need more than just one perspective. The official evaluation shows what is changing at the system and market level. Our community study shows how this change is actually perceived by adult consumers.
And that is precisely its relevance.
Because if legal procurement channels grow, but the black market is only partially displaced, if consumption does not automatically explode, but uncertainty remains high, then the actual question is no longer whether the reform has begun — but whether it is already working in everyday life.
