CanPG Draft: Results of the Public Comment Period

It’s going to be difficult – that much is clear. The comments on the draft Cannabis Products Act are all over the map. While many see a need for changes, some want a more liberal approach, while others want a more restrictive one. And the cantons want more money…

You can find our summary of the Cannabis Products Act (CanPG) in the Legalize it! No. 108, on pages 4 through 11. Here, we summarize the comments submitted during the public consultation. The full document is a PDF with 2,830 A4 pages. We’ve attempted to summarize it here on three A5 pages, which inevitably results in a rather general overview. However, we believe we’ve been able to highlight the main points raised by the key stakeholders.

1. Implementation burden: Many cantons consider the bill to be too complex, bureaucratic, and costly to implement.
2. Funding: Critics point out that the incentive tax goes to the federal government, while the cantons bear the brunt of prevention and control efforts; there are frequent calls for an earmarked excise tax (similar to that on spirits).
3. Scientific basis: Several participants are calling for the results of the ongoing pilot studies to be awaited first.
4. Protection of Minors: There has been criticism regarding gaps in the protection plan for minors. There are also concerns that consumption will become normalized.

The cantons' comments paint a very mixed picture, with many expressing reservations regarding the administrative burden and financing.

The parties are divided along ideological lines, particularly on the issue of market regulation versus prohibition.

Professional organizations in the field of addiction tend to agree, while business associations and accident prevention organizations tend to oppose the measure.

1. The bloc of cantons that are mostly opposed: The implementation is criticized as being too complex, bureaucratic, and underfunded. Although many cantons do not rule out liberalization in principle, they reject the specific proposal due to concerns about the distribution of burdens. Many cantons would change their stance if an earmarked tax (which flows into the state treasury) were introduced instead of the incentive tax (which is redistributed to the population). However, a tax would require a constitutional amendment, which would necessitate a mandatory referendum.
2. The bloc of progressive supporters (left-wing and Green parties, as well as advocacy groups): The bill is hailed as a milestone for public health, the protection of minors, and decriminalization. This bloc strongly supports the non-profit model and the advertising ban, but some members are also calling for solutions regarding minors.
3. The economically liberal skeptics (FDP and the business community): While the FDP generally agrees, it opposes the ban on vertical integration and the prohibition on profits, as these would hinder market efficiency and the elimination of the black market. They call for market-oriented regulation and the involvement of private companies instead of purely government-issued concessions.
4. The strict prohibition bloc (SVP and Blue Cross): Cannabis is viewed as a dangerous gateway drug; legalization would lead to its normalization and place a burden on social welfare systems. They are calling for the bill not to be considered or for it to be significantly tightened (sale restricted to those 25 and older).

In its current form, the draft does not have a viable majority, primarily because the cantons are united in their opposition to the financing model (incentive tax). An agreement seems possible only if the federal government accommodates the cantons by sharing revenue (through a tax) and significantly tightens youth protection measures in the area of online commerce.

Based on the statements made by the political parties, it is possible to “extrapolate” these views to the National Council by applying the positions expressed therein to the distribution of seats among the parliamentary groups (some of which also include smaller parties). The balance of power in the National Council is as follows:

1 The bloc of clear support (75 seats):

This bloc supports the draft in its broad outlines and views it as a necessary paradigm shift in drug policy.

• SP (41 seats): Expressly welcomes the bill as a milestone, but also calls for the legalization of cannabis social clubs.
• The Greens (23 seats): Strongly support the bill and call for organic cultivation and immunity from prosecution for minors.
• GLP (11 seats): They welcome the transition to a regulated market, as the prohibitionist approach has failed.

2 The swing votes: the FDP and the Center Party (58 seats):

The FDP tends to agree, and while the Center Party is opposed, there are likely to be quite a few dissenting voices in both parties.

• FDP (27 seats): Supports the science-based framework but opposes the state sales monopoly, the ban on vertical integration, and the ban on profits. This partially contradicts the draft’s “health protection over profit” model.
• The Center (31 seats): Although the proposal originated with a representative of the Center (former National Council member Heinz Siegenthaler), the party nevertheless opposes the bill, arguing that lifting the ban would send the wrong message to young people and would be irresponsible from a public health perspective.

3 The bloc of fundamental opposition (67 seats):

This bloc wants to maintain prohibition and opposes any more liberal approach to * cannabis.

• SVP (67 seats): Categorically opposes the bill, calling it a “bureaucratic monster,” and fears both rising healthcare costs and a threat to young people.

In the current National Council, a pro-Kern alliance of 75 votes (SP, Greens, GLP) would face fundamental opposition from 67 votes (SVP). The FDP and the Center (58 votes) hold the key to (mis)success.

We assume that the Center Party and the FDP are unlikely to vote as a bloc. If one-third of the Center Party votes in favor and one-third of the FDP votes against it, that would result in 103 yes votes to 97 no votes in the National Council, and 25 to 21 in the Council of States. So in both cases, the bill would be narrowly approved. It’s just, as it always has been, a fifty-fifty situation that can tip toward a clear rejection at the slightest sign of doubt. Especially if the cantons cannot be won over to support the bill or if there is no agreement among its supporters regarding the balance between the market and regulation.

Links to additional information: hanflegal.ch/canpg

The National Council’s Committee on Social Security and Health (SGK-N) met surprisingly quickly, on May 6–8, 2026, to discuss (among other things) the consultation responses to the CanPG. Its press release dated May 8 states: “By a vote of 16 to 8, with 1 abstention, the committee decided to continue its work (…)” Now its subcommittee is to examine the main points of criticism: greater protection for minors, more funding for the cantons, simplifying enforcement, and rethinking online sales. This work is to be completed “in the course of this year.” This delay pushes the CanPG project further into the future.

By then, it will be too late for the participants in the pilot projects: they will have to return to the black market. We are working to develop a temporary solution to prevent that from happening.