If the traffic light coalition has its way, a socio-political grievance that has allegedly been going on for decades will disappear in smoke, not in thin air.

What in 1994 as the “right to intoxication” did not find favor with the Federal Constitutional Court is now to be implemented through an amendment to the Narcotics Act: Instead of “criminalizing” cannabis users and exposing them to the risks of the black market, the SPD, FDP and Greens want legal acquisition of the drug in the way.

After the Bundestag elections, the negotiators of the three parties did not bother with the question of the nature of the law thus implemented and whether coke makers and pill throwers could also use the same arguments to hold the state responsible.

It was enough that the later coalition partners had promised in the election campaign to change the strings in cannabis policy.

The SPD was the most reserved.

She first wanted to test the regulated supply of cannabis to adults in model projects and make the possession of small quantities exempt from punishment.

That was not enough.

The Greens thought that in order to cut the ground from under the black market, a regulated market for hashish and marijuana would have to be created while taking youth and consumer protection into account.

The FDP is for a new tax

With this belief in the market, the Free Democrats could not be left behind.

Instead of taking a stand for freedom and allowing citizens to grow cannabis for their own use, as is planned in Malta and Luxembourg, the FDP is also relying on state-licensed trade in quality-controlled drugs.

Not only the friends of sweetish smoke should benefit from this, but also the tax authorities.

If hashish and marijuana were taxed like tobacco, the state would probably take in a billion euros every year.

This demand is not without a certain comedy, since the FDP of all people wants to use it to introduce a new tax.

Even more incongruous, however, is the full-bodied promise of a high return on crime and health policy.

After all, how do the parties know that their plans didn't create more new problems than they solved old ones?

An illegal drug market is not ideal.

But it would be an illusion that this would decrease as adult stoners met their needs at the pharmacy around the corner instead of at their trusted dealer.

He would be a loser.

if he doesn't do everything to undercut the shop prices on the black market, be it with better, more effective material, be it with more quantities for the same price.

There are also synthetic cannabinoids that give the state weed the real kick.

In short, the trend towards eating even more unhealthy stuff would become even stronger.

In addition, minors have no place in the brave new cannabis world of traffic lights - which is legally unavoidable, but unrealistic given the average age of entry of 16.

The promise of decriminalization therefore only applies to some users.

At the same time, the market for minors is becoming all the more interesting for organized crime, of all things, which the state wants to weaken by means of a legal market.

From the point of view of youth protection, law enforcement resources must be diverted rather than released.

Lauterbach should know better

The effects of the so-called liberalization on the healthcare system are likely to be fatal, even if Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) recently claimed that “safe consumption” is justifiable for adults.

The man should know better.

If there is one fact of consensus in addiction research, it is that a small but significant percentage of cannabis users develop health disorders, including dependence and irreversible mental disorders.

However, because legalization will increase the number of users, the revenues of the Treasury will mean higher spending in the health sector - at the expense of the general public.

Impact assessments like this are no argument for leaving things the same in the field of drug policy.

But they illustrate that the effects of the announced policy change are likely to be very different than promised.

Nowhere in the world can good drug policy do more than prevent damage from occurring in the first place and minimize health risks.

That also means not expanding the offer from the state.