A Pragmatic Approach to Legal Cannabis and Youth in Germany: Prevalence,Risk,and Harm Prevention

Abstract

In April 2024, Germany legalized cannabis for recreational use. Due to the country's obligation to comply with international treaties, the German government agreed on limited noncommercial cultivation and approved scientific pilot trials for commercial distribution. In addition to curbing the illegal cannabis market, German politicians cite the protection of youth from contaminated, highly potent, or synthetic products as the main argument for partial legalization. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, who make up a significant proportion of people using cannabis in Germany, are excluded from legal access. Many who nevertheless choose to consume cannabis will continue to turn to the illegal market. This essay addresses the gap in current youth-focused cannabis prevention that arises from the general exclusion of minors from regulated access to cannabis and the simultaneous lack of prevention models tailored to the new political landscape and the realities of young people. It examines international research results on the neuropsychological risks of cannabis use and the effectiveness of drug prevention for adolescents and discusses the principles of risk-competent substance use. On this basis, a pragmatic approach to harm prevention is proposed that is oriented toward German youth alcohol policy: Under strictly regulated dispensing conditions, 16- and 17-year-olds can obtain limited quantities of quality-tested, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-reduced cannabis products. Before acquisition, a qualified person who is trusted by young people conducts an open, unbiased dialogue with the youth about individual consumption risks, encourages nonconsumption, and informs about the principles of risk-competent substance use. In this way, prevention can specifically target cannabis-using adolescents who are generally difficult to reach. As part of a global paradigm shift in cannabis policy, this harm prevention approach could be considered for international implementation as well as in relation to juvenile alcohol use.

Keywords

cannabis legalization Germany adolescents neuropsychological risks risk competence harm prevention

Introduction

In April 2023, Germany, where medical cannabis has been legally available since 2017, reached an agreement with the EU commission to partially legalize cannabis for recreational consumption by adults (Federal Ministry of Health, 2023). Originally, the federal government intended to pass the cannabis legalization law in two steps by implementing a two-pillar model: (a) noncommercial cannabis cultivation in the form of home cultivation and cannabis clubs, and (b) commercial cannabis distribution through special dispensaries.

However, the legalization process has been complicated by Germany's obligation to comply with various international and European treaties. These include the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) that prohibits the cultivation and trafficking of cannabis for nonmedical or scientific purposes, the Schengen Convention (CISA/1985), and the EU Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA (2004) (Lips et al., 2023). When assessing and evaluating the legal situation of cannabis legalization against an international and European background in August 2023, the Federal Government decided to refrain from implementing commercial distribution due to its incompatibility with the above-mentioned treaties. Restricted noncommercial cultivation, however, they appraised as legally unproblematic. Hence, they decided to permit home cultivation and cannabis clubs from the beginning of 2024 and to pilot commercial supply as a scientific trial in selected model regions later in the year (German Federal Parliament, 2023a). The law on legalizing home growing and cannabis cultivation clubs came into force as the Federal Cannabis Law (CanG) on April 1, 2024 and clubs were allowed to open from July 1, 2024 (Federal Ministry of Health, 2024). Following a change in government, the implementation of the second pillar has become unlikely. Furthermore, it has now been announced that pilot projects cannot be approved unless an additional law is passed allowing the commercial supply of cannabis (Federal Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition, 2025).

In addition to the intention to dry up or at least significantly curb the illegal cannabis market, German politicians cited the protection of young people from highly potent, contaminated, and synthetic products as the main argument for the national legalization of cannabis (Federal Government, 2024). At the same time, the CanG excludes adolescents, as under-18s are denied access to legal, quality-tested cannabis. Eighteen- to twenty-year-olds are allowed access to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-reduced cannabis, and 21-year-olds to all legalized cannabis products (Federal Ministry of Health, 2024). Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds account for a significant proportion of the cannabis-using population in Germany (Orth & Nitzsche, 2025; see also Martens et al., 2024). Therefore, the new legislation presents an ambivalence: on the one hand, it legalizes and decriminalizes cannabis for adults, while on the other hand, it maintains or tightens restrictive regulations for adolescents and public spaces (Federal Ministry of Health, 2024).

Youth cannabis use is often embedded in social contexts, peer relations, and recreational cultures and is driven by meaningful motives. These include enjoyment, fun, social bonding, and experimentation, as well as compensatory and coping strategies such as stress relief (Stallwitz et al., 2024; Humphreys & Atkinson, 2025). Regardless of the legal status of the drug, these aspects, which are closely linked to the lifeworlds of young people (Thiersch, et al. 2002), will lead to many of those who choose to consume cannabis continuing to resort to the illegal market, with all the potential risks associated with the illicit purchase of the drug (Steimle et al., in press). Drug-related risks include, for example, unregulated, highly potent, contaminated, or synthetic cannabinoid-containing illegal products. Social risks include contact with criminal milieus and the criminalization and stigmatization of youth. Prohibition alone is obviously not sufficiently effective in preventing cannabis use and associated harm among young people, especially when use is already established (e.g., Fischer et al. 2020). Against the background of international research findings on the risks of cannabis use for the mental health of young people and the effectiveness of drug/cannabis prevention measures, a pragmatic approach to preventing the harm associated with adolescent cannabis use is proposed, which is oriented toward German alcohol policy. This paper considers the feasibility, practicality, and potential benefits of a strictly regulated cannabis supply system that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to legally acquire quality-tested THC-reduced cannabis products. The purchase would be combined with a brief education and counseling session with a qualified, “youth-credible” person who would engage the youth in an open and honest dialogue about both the pleasurable and desirable as well as the adverse effects of cannabis use on young persons. They would discuss the adolescent's personal using motives and psychological predispositions and would provide information about the possible risks of adolescent cannabis use as well as about the principles of risk competence in handling substances. This approach to youth drug prevention is based on the conceptualization of adolescent drug use as a risk behavior associated with developmental tasks that most people outgrow in adulthood (Silbereisen & Weichold, 2007). It could contribute to resolving or reducing the ambivalence inherent to the CanG in dealing with young people. As part of a global paradigm shift in substance policy, this concept of youth-focused cannabis policy could be considered by other countries. At the national level, the educative part of it could be integrated into German alcohol policy.

In the following, the terms legalization and regulation are defined, a brief look is taken at drug policy liberalization trends in Europe, and the prevalence rates of cannabis use among young people in Germany are briefly outlined. Subsequently, the state of international research on the effects of cannabis and cannabis legalization on young people and on youth drug prevention is examined and appraised. On this basis, the promotion of risk competence in combination with the suggested approach for youth-focused cannabis policy is presented. The paper concludes with a few final thoughts on pragmatic, evidence-informed drug prevention for young people.

“Legalization” and “Regulation” of Cannabis Use and Trade

Concerning drugs, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA; now European Union Drugs Agency [EUDA]) defines legalization as the removal of criminal sanctions for a previously prohibited act, while regulation refers to the rules governing production, distribution, and consumption (EMCDDA, 2018). In practice, legalization and regulation operate together: legalization determines that an act is no longer criminalized, and regulation specifies the conditions under which it becomes legally permissible. The term legalization can evoke a sense of far-reaching liberalization, even when the actual policy introduces tightly controlled access. The German cannabis policy reform corresponds to a restrictive regulatory model. Drug policy language shapes how risks, responsibilities, and moral boundaries are constructed and perceived in public debate (Lancaster, 2016; Seddon, 2019). Focusing on the societal impact of a regulation, rather than on the question of whether legalization itself is morally right or wrong, would help to shift the public debate from emotionally laden to public health-guided perspectives. This would allow the discourse on cannabis policy to become less ideologically polarized and instead more pragmatism- and outcome-oriented.

Liberalization Trends in European Cannabis Policy

Across Europe, several countries are currently experimenting with or implementing forms of cannabis legalization. Malta (since 2021) and Luxembourg (since 2023) have introduced noncommercial legalization models allowing home cultivation and cannabis social clubs (EMCDDA/EUDA, 2025). Home cultivation is also permitted in the Czech Republic since January 2026 (JD Supra, 2026). Switzerland has launched multiple federally approved pilot projects with regulated commercial sales in major cities, while the Netherlands is conducting a state-supervised experiment with legally produced cannabis in selected municipalities (EMCDDA/EUDA, 2025). Spain has decriminalized cultivation and possession in private places and tolerates social clubs in some places (EMCDDA, 2023). The new developments are likely inspired by the models of Uruguay, about half of the US states, and Canada, who legalized cannabis despite their participation in the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. These developments suggest the beginning of a postprohibitionist turn in Europe, albeit with considerable differences in scope, regulatory design, and political feasibility. As a politically influential European country, Germany's measures in relation to cannabis are relevant for European drug policy (Manthey et al., 2024). To date, no country has considered access to cannabis for under-18s, making the approach suggested in this paper innovative and unique.

Cannabis Prevalence Among Young Persons in Germany

The Federal Agency for Health Education (BZgA), since February 2025 “Federal Institute of Public Health” (BIÖG), conducts representative surveys on the prevalence of legal and illegal substance use in the German population every few years, most recently in 2024 (Orth & Nitzsche, 2025). Accordingly, cannabis use rates among 16- and 17-year-olds amounted to 18% for lifetime use, 14.5% for 12 months use, 6.3% for 30 days use. Due to the specific data collection method via mobile and landline telephone, an underestimation of prevalence rates can be assumed. The nationwide survey (Orth & Nitzsche, 2025) and the three regular city-wide surveys in Germany (Baumgärtner et al., 2025; Martens et al., 2024) reflect a recent decline in cannabis use among adolescents. However, use among young adults (18–25 years) has increased over the last decade (Orth & Nitzsche, 2025).

Table 1 shows a wave-like development in lifetime, 12 months, and 30-day use among 15- to 18-year-olds in Frankfurt between 2002 and 2024, with relative increases in all three prevalences in 2002, 2015, and 2018 and a current drop. Similar patterns are shown by the other surveys conducted with adolescents in two big cities and a small city in Northern Germany (Baumgärtner et al., 2025).

Table 1.

Lifetime, 12 months and 30 days prevalence of cannabis use among 15- to 18-year-olds in Frankfurt by year.

(Lebenszeit: life time; 12 Monate: 12 months; 30 Tage: 30 days).

Contrary to expectations, the generally easier availability of cannabis since its partial legalization has not led to an increase in consumption among adolescents. Using behavior of older teenagers, that is, 16- and 17-year-olds, does not appear to depend on the legal status of the drug. Consumption patterns seem to be influenced less by current cannabis policy than by other factors, presumably related to contemporary aspects of youth-typical lifeworlds. The consumption of cannabis among youth is a reality that society should address in a pragmatic, scientifically informed, and public health-oriented manner to prevent potential cannabis-related harm to young persons, such as that associated with high potency, contaminated cannabis, or synthetic cannabinoids.

Possible Effects of Cannabis Use on Mental Health and Cognitive Functioning of Young People

The initiation of both alcohol and cannabis use often takes place during adolescence (Lees et al., 2021), which is supported (for cannabis) by the prevalence figures presented above. During this neurodevelopmentally sensitive stage, the brain tends to be more susceptible to cognitively disruptive influences through, e.g., from substance use, than during adulthood (Lees et al., 2021). Therefore, with legally available cannabis and presumed easier access to this drug, concerns are raised in Germany, especially by experts from the field of youth psychology and psychiatry, about the potentially harmful effects of cannabis on the adolescent brain (Klein & Schmid, 2022; Müller, 2022). These include impaired cognitive function and ability (Meier et al., 2015) and academic performance, as well as an increase in mental health issues such as sleep problems (Fischer et al., 2020), depression, anxiety, psychosis (Levine et al., 2017), and suicidality (Hall et al., 2020).

When looking at the international findings on the effects of cannabis on the adolescent brain, the research results and their interpretations differ considerably, as will be shown below using a selection of influential investigations. Based on a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence on the impact of cannabis use on the cognitive development of adolescents and young adults, Hall et al. (2020) suggest an increased risk of psychiatric symptoms, particularly with daily use of high-potency products. Evidence in this context has been linked especially to an early onset of use (Levine et al., 2017) and adolescents under the age of 15 (Fontes et al., 2011; Martínez et al., 2025) or 16 (Fischer, 2023; Gruber et al., 2012; Rahat et al., 2024). The likelihood of psychiatric symptoms and neurodevelopmental disorders seems to be specifically high with synthetic cannabinoids due to their high potency and toxicological properties (Roque-Bravo et al., 2023). In a review of 43 longitudinal studies, Lees et al. (2021) assume an association between heavy alcohol and/or cannabis use and mild to moderate disturbances in brain structure and function and neurocognitive impairment, with the effects of heavy alcohol use generally being more pronounced than those of heavy cannabis use. However, in their study of occasional, frequent, and no cannabis use in adolescents and young adults, Scott et al. (2019) found no significant differences in structural brain metrics between users and nonusers and between age groups. In an earlier study (Meier et al., 2018), the authors also concluded that short-term cannabis use in adolescence does not appear to lead to a decrease in IQ or impairment of executive functions, even when the intensity of use reaches the level of dependence. A meta-analysis of 69 cross-sectional investigations on the relationship between heavy cannabis use and cognitive dysfunction in adolescents and young adults indicates a slight impairment of cognitive performance, which, however, was significantly reduced after approximately a week of abstinence (Scott et al., 2018).

The inconsistency among investigations on the effects of cannabis consumption and cognitive and mental correlates in adolescents has been related to small samples of mainly frequent users (Scott et al., 2019), heterogeneous methodologies (Lees et al., 2021), the difficulty in singling out and differentiate the effects of alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco use (Meier et al., 2015), and the risk of bias in many studies (e.g., O’Grady et al., 2022; Hall et al., 2020). The limitations of our knowledge in this area and the need for methodologically sound future research in order to achieve solid, meaningful, and reliable results become clear. Although some studies (e.g., Scott et al., 2018) found no age effect, an early age of onset likely increases vulnerability to the potentially adverse effects of cannabis use, including dependence, and needs to be scientifically investigated in detail, controlling for confounding variables. In addition, the chicken-and-egg dilemma of causality needs to be further analyzed: It has been noted how difficult it is to determine when mental health problems are caused by cannabis use and when adolescents use cannabis to self-medicate for mental health problems (Stewart et al., 2020); furthermore, the question has been raised as to whether differences in brain structure precede cannabis use or are instead caused by it (Meier et al., 2018). Besides age of initiation, particularities of brain structures, frequency, and recency of use (Jacobus et al., 2019), dosage, THC content (Hammond et al., 2020), and THC/CBD ratio (Solowij et al., 2019) seem to be relevant in whether adverse effects occur and how severe and persistent they might be. The psychoactive potency due to high THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) content can be significant in this respect, especially with a simultaneously relatively low CBD (cannabidiol) content, as CBD counteracts the psychologically destabilizing effects of THC.

Overall, the available evidence suggests that susceptibility to changes in brain structure, impaired cognitive function, and psychiatric symptoms is more likely to affect young persons during earlier adolescence, that is, under the age of 15 or 16, is associated with very frequent use, and may be transient and reversible to an as yet unconfirmed extent (Schuster et al., 2018; Scott et al., 2018; Jacobus et al., 2019). Cannabis with limited THC and sufficient CBD content may be comparatively low-risk for older adolescents (i.e., ≥16 years) when used in a moderate, harm-minimized manner. This cautious conclusion offers a broader range of preventative measures than the goal of abstinence would allow, given that a significant proportion of 16- and 17-year-olds use cannabis despite prohibition. A preventive approach that accepts cannabis use from the age of 16 could facilitate access to older cannabis-using teenagers, a group that is generally difficult to reach. The risks appear to be lower from the age of 15/16, but they still exist. Therefore, nonuse should remain the primary goal even for older adolescents aged 16 and over. Such an approach could be tested in a pilot project, with careful assessment of the associated risks. At the same time, further research is needed on the influence of age on the potential harms of cannabis use. In connection with the legalization of cannabis in Germany, concern is also raised that legalization could convey an image of cannabis as harmless, which in turn could encourage adolescents to use it. The following section, therefore, looks at the impact of legalization on young people in North America.

Impact of cannabis Legalization in Canada and the USA on Prevalence Rates among Adolescents

In Canada, cannabis was legalized for recreational use in 2018 and, after Colorado and Washington took the first step in 2012, successively in half of the US states. The impact of cannabis legalization on use rates in youth and young adults has been the focus of numerous recent studies and reviews. Most publications indicate that rates of youth cannabis consumption have not changed significantly after legalization. Among young adults, most Canadian and several US investigations show an increase.

Bailey et al. (2023), who examined the results of three longitudinal studies in two US states with and one without legalization, report no significant association between legalization and changes in the likelihood or frequency of past-year cannabis use among adolescents aged 13‒18 years (see also Hinckley et al., 2022). Comparing underage cannabis use trends in Washington to trends in US states without legalization, Midgette and Reuter (2020) found consistent patterns indicating no association between legalization and prevalence rates among adolescents. According to Hinckley et al. (2022), trends in past-year and past-month use among minors (i.e., <18-year-olds) in Colorado were also relatively stable after legalization in 2012. A systematic review of 22 prevalence studies related to legalization found no change in cannabis use among adolescents (10- to 19-year-olds) in ten studies, a decrease in six studies, and an increase in seven studies (O’Grady et al., 2022). Among young adults (18- to 26-year-olds), most studies showed an increase, some no change, and one a decrease (see also Hinckley et al., 2022). Studies investigating the effects of legalization on consumption rates among young people in Canada have come to similar conclusions as in the USA. While expressing concern about the persistently high rates of cannabis use among Canadian adolescents, Zuckerman et al. (2021) identified no significant changes as a result of legalization among high school students in four provinces using a large repeat cross-sectional sample and four-year longitudinal study design. When comparing the data before and after legalization in a review of five national surveys, Rubin-Kahana et al. (2022) detected no increase in cannabis use among adolescents in most studies, a slight increase in a few, and a decrease in the most recent one. For young adults, again, most of the studies reviewed show an increase.

It has been emphasized that cannabis use among adolescents in the United States and Canada was already significantly higher before legalization than in many European countries (e.g., Hammond et al., 2021). In Canada, 12-month consumption among 15- to 18-year-olds amounted to 29.1% in 2021/2022 (Health Canada, 2024). However, the prevalence among 15- to 18-year-olds in Frankfurt was similarly high at 28% in 2021 and even higher at 35% and 34% in 2002 and 2012, respectively (Martens et al., 2024). When appraising postlegalization effects, Statistics Canada (2023) highlights that cannabis consumption among young people has risen steadily in the 30 years prelegalization. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the increase in use among young adults found in some US studies and most Canadian studies is due to legalization or to the general trend of increasing cannabis use and cannabis use acceptability. Summarizing study results, Statistics Canada (2023) concludes that “use among 15- to 17-year-olds has not increased since legalization.” Furthermore, they assume that “cannabis use is most widespread among 18- to 24-year-olds,” which has also been shown to apply to Germany. The authors of an interrupted time series analysis examining the impact of changes in cannabis policy on use rates among adolescents and young adults in Europe identified no significant correlation (Gabri et al., 2022). These study outcomes and those sketched above, largely support previous findings suggesting no or a very weak association between drug policy and prevalence rates (see, e.g., Stallwitz, 2012).

What Type of Drug Prevention Works for Adolescents?

In both Europe and North America, there is a wide array of drug prevention programs for young people, often implemented in schools. The objectives range from preventing, reducing, or delaying substance use to preventing the associated harm. With respect to juvenile cannabis consumption, the numerous existing meta- and evaluation studies provide varying results, which typically show little (Lize et al., 2017) to no behavioral effect (Champion et al., 2016; Zuckermann et al., 2021). Several authors emphasize the increased effectiveness of multi-pronged prevention approaches to delay or reduce substance use in youth by combining different intervention settings such as schools and families (e.g., Newton et al., 2017), and communities (Tremblay et al., 2020). A focus group study with female adolescents, which shows the need for a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods to evaluate and improve drug prevention effectiveness, also emphasizes the crucial importance of the social environment, parent-child communication, and parental role models (Opara et al., 2019). In relation to the school environment, effectiveness has been shown to be increased by interactivity that actively engages young people, works with peer mentors (Kröninger-Jungaberle et al., 2015), and is related to the person delivering the intervention, with teachers being the most successful (Lize et al., 2017), possibly due to their personal relationship with the young people. The limited validity of generalizing program effects found in previous cohorts to today's youth has been highlighted and the continued implementation of programs without convincing evidence of effectiveness has been questioned (Tremblay et al., 2020). In light of the changing zeitgeist, prevention concepts need to be adapted to the contemporary requirements of, among others, our digital age. In this context, computer- and mobile phone-based measures are on the rise (Marsch & Borodovsky, 2016; Boumparis et al., 2019; Birrell et al., 2021; Fuentes et al., 2023). For example, an Australian cross-validation study of six schools that received an internet-based prevention program on alcohol and cannabis use and a control group of seven schools that received general health education showed a significant increase in knowledge about alcohol and cannabis and a decrease in the consumption of alcohol but not of cannabis (Champion et al., 2016). However, a Dutch evaluation of digital prevention measures showed small, significant reduction effects on cannabis use in diverse target populations at posttreatment and follow-up 12 months later (Boumparis et al., 2019). While digital interventions expand access to youth, for instance, in the form of digital street work (Dinar & Heyken, 2017) and through building and leveraging trust in online communities (Bilgrei, 2018), their effectiveness appears to be similarly varied and limited compared to conventional approaches. The differences found in various studies in the behavioral effects of alcohol and cannabis prevention programs may be explained by the peer group's norms and values regarding the two substances, with cannabis-related attitudes perhaps tending to be more positive, thus increasing the likelihood of use behavior (e.g., Korn et al., 2021) and a possible immunity to prevention.

Summarizing the crucial elements associated with effective adolescent drug prevention programs, where “effectiveness” refers to preventing, reducing, or delaying substance use, providing substance knowledge and risk information appears to be necessary but insufficient (Medina-Mora, 2005; Champion et al., 2016; Stockings et al., 2016). Additionally, it is essential to promote the resilience and protection skills of children and young people to enable them to navigate life situations involving peer pressure or influence with relative autonomy. This approach is supported by a meta-analysis of 32 studies on substance use prevention programs (Kempf et al., 2017; see also Kröninger-Jungaberle et al., 2015). Small preventive effects have also been identified as a result of school programs combining social competence and social influence approaches (Faggiano et al., 2014). Additionally, involving the young people's social environments such as parents, teachers, social workers, other significant adults (Vermeulen-Smit et al., 2014), and the community (Tremblay et al., 2020) has been found to increase effectiveness. To build experience and abilities that grow over time and with age (O’Neill et al., 2011), a certain intensity of intervention over a longer period is beneficial, for example, a scheme of at least 10 sessions over several years (Valdivieso López et al., 2015). The active involvement and participation of youth in the implementation of a prevention measure as opposed to mere passive education also seem to be crucial for behavioral change (Kröninger-Jungaberle et al., 2015; Lize et al., 2017). Generally, adolescents negotiate meanings of cannabis within their everyday lives, peer groups, and identity work and interpret prevention messages through the lens of their own experiences, peer norms, and perceived benefits of cannabis use (Tucker et al., 2014). Prevention approaches should therefore be tailored to youth-typical lifeworlds (Thiersch et al., 2002), nowadays including digital access channels such as social media, and resonate with their lived realities (Tucker et al., 2014). These conditions call for a dialogical form of prevention, ideally developed and implemented in a participatory manner with adolescents.

Promoting Risk Competence in the Context of Juvenile Substance Use

The elements summarized above that increase the effectiveness of drug prevention in youth are largely consistent with the risk competence approach to drug prevention and education, originally developed by Franzkowiak and Schlömer (2003) (see also Weibel et al., 2007). Nagy et al. (2017) further elaborated and operationalized the concept of risk competence and applied its promotion in the school-based life skills and risk-education program REBOUND (Kröninger-Jungaberle et al., 2015). By acquiring consumption-related risk skills and resilience, young people learn to deal with psychoactive substances in a reflective, informed, controlled, oriented, and responsible manner.

The approach focuses on promoting risk competence in conjunction with drug education sensitive to the lifeworlds, lifestyles, and attitudes of adolescents (Franzkowiak & Schlömer, 2003). In addition, basic life coping skills are strengthened, experience-oriented alternatives to substance use are enabled, and the need for early detection of drug problems and targeted help is emphasized. The prevention of substance use represents the primary goal. If consumption cannot be avoided, the aim is to prevent harm such as risky using patterns, long-term use, and dependence. The underlying philosophy is guided by the conceptualization of juvenile drug use as a risk behavior that is embedded in adolescence and associated with developmental tasks that most people outgrow with adulthood (see also Silbereisen & Weichold, 2007). Understanding adolescents’ motives for use is essential for promoting their risk competence effectively. Certain motives, such as coping strategies or compensation mechanisms, are associated with more frequent consumption and a higher potential for dependence and other harm (Humphreys & Atkinson, 2025). Engaging with youth in an open and honest dialogue about their motives for use makes it possible to tailor drug prevention and education measures to the specific functions that cannabis fulfills in their lives. In this context, an unbiased focus on both the pleasurable and the potentially adverse effects of substance use is crucial for communicating with adolescents in a trustworthy and convincing manner (Arnull & Ryder, 2019), and for bridging the “credibility gap” (Measham, 2006) associated with substance use education centered on deterrence.

According to Franzkowiak and Schlömer (2003), such an open, unbiased, nonjudgmental, and convincing dialogue with young people should aim for the following:

raising informed awareness of the effects and risks of different drugs;

the development of consumption norms and rituals to keep risks for adolescents, the social environment, and society at a minimum;

fostering the competence to decide on one's own substance use autonomously and independently of peer influences and situational factors on the continuum of abstinence and controlled consumption with a clear preference of abstinence;

fostering the ability to maintain “point sobriety” whenever necessary.

A pilot evaluation of REBOUND shows an increase in substance use knowledge, a small decrease in the 30-day prevalence of alcohol and cannabis use, and, as an unintended result, a reduction in risk perception of tobacco and cannabis in the intervention compared to the control group (Kröninger-Jungaberle et al., 2015). According to the authors, the effectiveness of REBOUND is enhanced by the involvement of peers in the development of the program and by the interactive nature of its implementation. These aspects might be causally associated with the small reduction effect in cannabis use in comparison to no reduction in cannabis use despite an increase in knowledge of the drug found in the large cross-validation study by Champion et al. (2016) cited above. Peer elements in preventative measures can potentially increase effectiveness if the peer possesses “status” characteristics and can act as a role model and identification figure for the youth. The credibility and thus the effectiveness of interventions can be particularly strengthened if, in addition to peer-oriented content and mentoring (see e.g., REBOUND), the measure is implemented directly by peers (Franzkowiak & Schlömer, 2003; Shrand et al., 2021) or young adults of a similar age.

In Germany, the promotion of risk competence has become an integral part of many prevention programs in the area of youth and substance use, which have been developed and implemented by the state and other institutions, including the interactive website drugcom.de, which is operated by the BIÖG (Tensil et al., 2023). However, REBOUND is the prevention program that applies the concept of risk competence in the most clearly defined manner. The risflecting^® program, originally designed by Gerald Koller (2012), also conceptualizes intoxication as a meaningful and developmentally relevant experience rather than a pathological deviation and emphasizes promoting substance use-related risk competence, albeit with a slightly different focus. Moreover, it encourages young people to reflect on both the pleasures, social functions, and identity-related meanings, as well as the potential harms of substance use. Moreover, risflecting^® promotes experiential learning and the development of competencies that enable adolescents to navigate risky situations responsibly. While Franzkowiak and Schlömer (2003) and Nagy et al. (2017) understand their approaches as prevention, the risflecting^® program combines prevention and harm reduction principles and describes itself as intoxication and risk education (Koller, 2012).

Emerging international literature also highlights the need for youth-centered, dialogical, and context-sensitive prevention strategies, offering valuable insights for designing a risk competence approach aligned with the German partial legalization model. Educational approaches developed by Bear et al. (2025) in the context of Canadian cannabis legalization combine mindful benefit maximization with an acknowledgment of young people's motives for use and the promotion of reflective, action-oriented decision-making. Furthermore, it has been recommended to consider consumption-related social norms and to address the relational and peer-influenced dynamics of youth drug use, rather than relying solely on individualized risk messages (Farrugia, 2023). Like the authors of REBOUND, Hadad et al. (2025) emphasize that involving peers in drug education and prevention helps to build trust, credibility, and engagement among young people who would otherwise be difficult to reach (Hadad et al., 2025). Overall, the new cannabis legislation in Germany, accompanied by a societal destigmatization of cannabis and a change in risk perception (Ruhrmann & Guenther, 2025), creates a new prevention landscape that calls for innovative, tailored approaches for youth. Preventive measures are needed that focus on realistic risk communication rather than deterrence and promote risk competence including risk-reducing behavior and consumption habits. Before presenting a pragmatic approach to harm prevention that includes promoting the risk competence of young people in connection with the German cannabis legalization, the government's concept of partial legalization will be briefly explained.

The Partial Legalization of Recreational Cannabis Use in Germany

On 1 April 2024, the federal government partially legalized the recreational use of cannabis in Germany. Since then, cannabis is no longer criminalized by the Federal Narcotics Act but controlled by the Federal Cannabis Law (CanG) and home cultivation of up to three flowering female plants has been permitted. The goal as formulated by the government entails the reduction of the illegal market and the improvement of youth protection (Eckhardt et al., 2025). From July 1, 2024, noncommercial cannabis clubs with up to 500 members, a cannabis offer of up to 25 g per person per day and up to 50 g per person per month, and a ban on on-site consumption were allowed to open. (However, the highly bureaucratic processes involved in granting licenses are delaying the openings, so that currently less than half of the clubs applied for are in operation.) As has been outlined in the introduction, the implementation of pillar 2 in terms of state-run commercial cannabis supply has meanwhile become unlikely and the prospects for commercial supply are currently very limited, as is the possibility of conducting pilot trials (Federal Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition, 2025).

Access to legal cannabis is only permitted for persons aged 18 and over. Young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 may obtain a maximum of 30 g per month with a THC content of up to 10%. Persons under the age of 18 are prohibited from entering clubs or consuming home-grown cannabis. Youth protection and prevention in the context of the CanG are to be achieved through an educational campaign, an interactive educational website, and prevention officers in cannabis clubs. So far, however, the prevention concepts and strategies remain general and relatively vague.

A Pragmatic Approach to Preventing Harm Associated with Adolescent Cannabis Use Within the Framework of the German Cannabis Legalization

As outlined above, the understanding of what “prevention” means and should aim for in the context of substance use and youth varies internationally and partly from institution to institution. The BIÖG (2025) uses the term “addiction prevention” rather than “drug prevention” and defines the objectives in relation to young people as follows:

Preventing and/or delaying initiation of legal and illegal drug use;

Early detection and early intervention in cases of risky consumption behavior;

Reduction of abuse and dependence.

Although the BIÖG includes both legal and illegal substances in its prevention concept, the implementation of effective drug education in the context of young people and cannabis is hampered by ideological divisions between a prohibitionist perspective on the one hand and liberal approaches that enable young people to make independent and informed decisions on the other (Manthey et al., 2018). In the public and professional discourse, calls for abstinence among youth are far more common in relation to cannabis than in relation to alcohol (Klein & Schmid, 2022; Müller, 2022; see also Kalke et al., 2025), even though scientific findings suggest that alcohol overall has a more harmful potential for adolescent brain development than cannabis (Lees et al., 2021). This demonstrates the relative arbitrariness of German youth drug policy, which permits alcohol but prohibits cannabis for 16- and 17-year-olds.

At the same time, the global paradigm shift in the way cannabis is perceived, as reflected in the widespread use of cannabis among adolescents and young adults and in the global trend toward legalization, indicates a process of destigmatization and normalization of the drug, which is increasingly losing its connection to deviant subcultures and becoming mainstream (Duff et al., 2011; Dahl et al., 2025). Instead of following an outdated abstinence ideology, drug prevention for young people should be conceptually and practically in line with the zeitgeist of the times and informed by contemporary scientific findings (Eckhardt et al., 2025). As part of the cannabis legalization in Germany, a prevention approach for youth based on German alcohol legislation could be considered, which is geared toward young people's lifeworlds and aims to prevent harm associated with cannabis for adolescents to the greatest possible extent. It has been shown above that young people aged 16 and 17 make up a considerable part of the cannabis-using population, despite prohibition. To be effective, a cannabis prevention approach for youth must take this situation into account. From the age of 16, adolescents in Germany are allowed to buy and consume beverages with a limited alcohol content such as beer, wine, and sparkling wine (Federal Ministry of Justice, 2024). Likewise, 16- and 17-year-olds could be permitted access to limited amounts of lower-potency cannabis, for example, 3 g/day and 15 g/month, with a THC content of ≤10% and a CBD content of ≥10%. The above-presented findings on the impact of legalization in North America on cannabis use among minors suggest that legal access to cannabis would not automatically lead to an increase in use among this group if it was carefully planned and accompanied by appropriate and tailored prevention. Removing the legal ban for older youth would offer the opportunity to target prevention measures directly at those who want to and will consume, who would otherwise buy on the illegal market, which is associated with the risks described above, and who often cannot be reached. The CanG requires the establishment of a prevention officer at every place where cannabis can be legally purchased. This role could be fulfilled by a qualified, “youth-credible” person, for instance a young adult of an age not too far from adolescence and, due to their personality and professional qualities, a potential role model and identification figure for adolescents—so to speak, a slightly older, professional peer. Before acquisition, a mandatory, brief educational and counseling conversation could take place with the prevention officer in the form of a nonjudgmental, open, and trusting dialogue that actively engages the adolescent. This respectful and appreciative dialogue at eye level with young people should be repeated regularly depending on the frequency of use, for example once a month to once a week and can be used both within the frame of partial and commercial legalization. When focusing on harm prevention in drug education with young people, attention must be paid to the communication style to avoid trivialization, which could potentially encourage cannabis use. Appropriate language, choosing the right (media) channels, and tailoring the content to the characteristics of the target group are crucial (Manthey et al., 2018). Lowering the age limit from 18 to 16 should not give the impression that cannabis use is harmless for young people of this age. Rather, in conjunction with the proposed approach, it could serve to access the hard-to-reach group of cannabis using youth and effectively prevent or reduce potential harm where other prevention methods reach their limits. Nonuse of cannabis should therefore be conveyed as the desirable normal state and preventing or reducing use represent overriding goals. For this reason, I refer to the proposed approach as harm prevention rather than harm reduction, as the latter does not typically prioritize abstinence and tends to address people who already have experiences of experimental or established use (Richert et al., 2023). If use cannot be prevented and the adolescent decides to consume cannabis, the possible risks of juvenile cannabis use should be addressed and discussed in relation to the person's individual psychosocial particularities (Franzkowiak & Schlömer, 2003). In addition, risk-competent handling of the drug and its use should be imparted, with a focus on informed, autonomous (especially in relation to peers) decision-making and the self-critical evaluation of pro-use decisions in retrospect; such approaches have been promoted increasingly by the BZgA (now BIÖG) over the past two decades in the context of young people and alcohol consumption (BZgA, 2007). In this way, adolescents can acquire substance use-related resilience and risk competence skills and learn to handle cannabis in a self-reflective, informed, controlled, and responsible manner.

The approach suggested here involves making a substance accessible to adolescents that can pose risks specifically for young people. The aim should be to prevent and reduce the potential risks and harm where other prevention approaches are insufficient and thereby improve the current situation. Implementation should therefore initially take the form of pilot projects that are carefully evaluated by a team of interdisciplinary experts and adapted as needed.

Such an interactive, educational dialogue to promote risk competence among young people, in accordance with the principles just outlined, could be integrated into national alcohol policy and extended to the youth drug policy in other countries.

Concluding Thoughts on Pragmatic, Credible Drug Prevention for Young People

In the context of the Swiss cannabis legalization trial, Zullino and Cattacin (2021) point out that beliefs around youth protection from certain health, moral, and other dangers, vary greatly. According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child by the United Nations Children's Fund (United Nations, 1989), governments are responsible to protect children from taking harmful drugs. At the same time, ideas about which drugs young people must be protected from and up to what age this protection must be guaranteed by the state tend to be based on prevailing patterns of thought and behavior in the respective society rather than scientific evidence (Zullino & Cattacin, 2021). The reasons why young people aged 16 and over are allowed to drink alcohol, but the use of cannabis is prohibited, have evolved culturally. From a scientific perspective, the effects of alcohol on the brain development of young people cannot be considered less harmful than those of cannabis; the opposite might be the case (e.g., Infante et al., 2018; Lees et al., 2021). In view of the global paradigm shift in dealing with cannabis and cannabis consumption, societies, including in Germany, should rethink their youth protection concepts and be guided by the existing scientific evidence, which needs to be further expanded. According to our current knowledge, youth protection strategies are most effective when they are not only based on repressive measures but also promote young people's ability to deal with specific risks. Relying solely on a legal ban to protect minors does not take sufficient account of the fact that young people are active subjects who can and do make decisions that conflict with applicable law (Zullino & Cattacin, 2021) as demonstrated by the rates of cannabis use among German youth presented above. Combining access to legal, quality-tested cannabis with the promotion of risk competence in the form of an open and trusting dialogue between youth-credible professionals and adolescents promotes the young persons’ capability to weigh up risks and arrive at informed and cautious decisions in relation to cannabis and cannabis consumption. Furthermore, an open societal discourse on cannabis in general and on cannabis and on young people would contribute to the further destigmatization of cannabis (see also Keane, 2003). This in turn would lower the inhibition threshold for juvenile and older users to seek help if they experience problems with their personal cannabis use.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Anke Stallwitz

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Anke Stallwitz is a professor of social psychology in the Department of Social Work at the Protestant University of Applied Sciences Freiburg. She has conducted numerous studies on drug cultures in Germany, Sweden, Canada, and Great Britain, focusing on social structures, mentality, sociopolitical context, violence, and peer interventions. Further areas of focus in her research, teaching, and practice include drug policy, drug trade, migration, participatory approaches in research and policy, and organized drug crime.

References

Arnull

Ryder

(2019). Because it’s fun: English and American girls’ counter-hegemonic stories of alcohol and marijuana use. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(10), 1361–1377. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1579898

Bailey

J. A.

Tiberio

S. S.

Kerr

D. C. R.

Epstein

Henry

K. L.

Capaldi

D. M.

(2023). Effects of Cannabis legalization on adolescent Cannabis use across 3 studies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 64(3), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2022.09.019

Baumgärtner

Hiller

Möller

Osius

(2025). Epidemiologische Entwicklung suchtgefährdenden Verhaltens von 14- bis 17-jährigen Jugendlichen in den Stadtstaaten Hamburg und Bremen. Deskriptiv zusammenfassende Ergebnisse der SCHULBUS-Untersuchung 2024/25. Sucht.Hamburg gGmbH. https://sucht-hamburg.de/images/08_Kategorien/Publikationen/Baumgaertner_et_al_2025_-_SCHULBUS-Gesamtbericht_HH__HB_2024.pdf

Bear

Hosker-Field

Westall

D'Alessio

Cresswell

(2025). Harm reduction isn't enough: Introducing the concept of Mindful Consumption and Benefit Maximization (MCBM). International Journal of Drug Policy, 138, 104514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104514

Bilgrei

O. R.

(2018). Broscience: Creating trust in online drug communities. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2712–2727. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817730331

Birrell

Furneaux-Bate

Chapman

Newton

N. C.

(2021). A mobile peer intervention for preventing mental health and substance use problems in adolescents: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (the mind your mate study). JMIR Research Protocols, 10(7), e26796. https://doi.org/10.2196/26796

Boumparis

Loheide-Niesmann

Blankers

Ebert

D. D.

Korf

Schaub

M. P.

Spijkerman

Tait

R. J.

Riper

(2019). Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 200, 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.03.016

BZgA. (2007). Der Alkoholkonsum Jugendlicher als Herausforderung für die pädagogische Arbeit. https://www.bzga.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/themenschwerpunkte/suchtpraevention/arbeitshilfe_alkohol–97c671d0e68643d127fa29b90fb8d51e.pdf.

Champion

K. E.

Newton

N. C.

Stapinski

Slade

Barrett

E. L.

Teesson

(2016). A cross-validation trial of an internet-based prevention program for alcohol and cannabis: Preliminary results from a cluster randomised controlled trial. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 50(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415577435

10.

Dahl

S. L.

Bretteville-Jensen

A. L.

Burdzovic Andreas

(2025). From subcultural to mainstream? The evolving meaning of cannabis use among youth in a restrictive policy context. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 32(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2023.2299368

11.

Dinar

Heyken

(2017). Digital Streetwork. Interventionen im Web 2.0. Amadeu Antonio Stiftung. https://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/digital_streetwork_web-1.pdf.

12.

Duff

Asbridge

Brochu

Cousineau

M.-M.

Hathaway

A. D.

Marsh

Erickson

P. G.

(2011). A Canadian perspective on cannabis normalization among adults. Addiction Research & Theory, 20(4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2011.618957

13.

Eckhardt

Nitzsche

Orth

(2025). Cannabiskonsum Jugendlicher und junger Erwachsener in Deutschland: Studienergebnisse und Präventionsangebote des Bundesinstituts für Öffentliche Gesundheit. Journal of Health Monitoring, 10(3), https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Gesundheitsmonitoring/Studien/JHM/Focus/2025_03_Cannabiskonsum.pdf .

14.

EMCDDA. (2018). Cannabis legalisation in Europe: An overview. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/11364/20185446_TD0718077ENN_PDF.pdf

15.

EMCDDA. (2023). Cannabis laws in Europe: Questions and answers for policymaking. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/cannabis-laws-europe-questions-and-answers-for-policymaking_en .

16.

EUDA. (2025). Cannabis – The current situation in Europe (European Drug Report 2025). https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/european-drug-report/2025/cannabis_en.

17.

Faggiano

Minozzi

Versino

Buscemi

(2014). Universal school-based prevention for illicit drug use. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews, 12(CD003020). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003020.pub3

18.

Farrugia

(2023). Under pressure: The paradox of autonomy and social norms in drug education. International Journal of Drug Policy, 122, Article 104194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104194

19.

Federal Government [Die Bundesregierung]. (2024). FQA zur Legalisierung von Cannabis. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/cannabis-legalisierung-2213640.

20.

Federal Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition [Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung]. (2025). Unsere Themen. Landwirtschaft. Konsumcannabis. https://www.ble.de/DE/Themen/Landwirtschaft/Konsumcannabis/cannabis_node.html.

21.

Federal Institute of Public Health [Bundesinstitut für Öffentliche Gesundheit (BIÖG)]. (2025). Suchtprävention. https://www.bioeg.de/was-wir-tun/suchtpraevention/.

22.

Federal Ministry of Health [Bundesgesundheitsministerium]. (2024). Cannabisgesetz (CanG). https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/service/gesetze-und-verordnungen/detail/cannabisgesetz.html#:∼:text=Mit%20dem%20Cannabisgesetz%20(kurz%3A%20CanG,von%20Cannabis%20in%20Anbauvereinigungen%20legalisiert.

23.

Federal Ministry of Health [Bundesministerium für Gesundheit]. (2023). Eigenanbau und Modellversuch - Bundesregierung einigt sich auf Eckpunkte zu Cannabis. https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/eckpunkte-cannabis-12-04-23.

24.

Federal Ministry of Justice [Bundesministerium für Justiz]. (2024). Jugendschutzgesetz (JuSchG) § 9 Alkoholische Getränke. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/juschg/__9.html.

25.

Fischer

A. S.

Tapert

S. F.

Louie

D. L.

, et al. (2020). Cannabis and the developing adolescent brain. Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry, 7, 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40501-020-00202-2

26.

Fischer

(2023). Cannabis-Legalisierung in Deutschland. Sucht, 69(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1024/0939-5911/a000804

27.

Fontes

M. A.

Bolla

K. I.

Cunha

P. J.

Almeida

P. P.

Jungerman

Laranjeira

R. R.

Bressan

R. A.

Lacerda

A. L. T.

(2011). Cannabis use before age 15 and subsequent executive functioning. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 198(6), 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077479

28.

Franzkowiak

Schlömer

(2003). Entwicklung der Suchtprävention in Deutschland: Konzepte und praxis. Suchttherapie, 4(4), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-45525

29.

Fuentes

P. M. D. C.

Jiménez Tapia

Ruiz-Cortés

E. M.

Bolaños-Ceballos

Flores Castro

J. C.

Gutiérrez

González-Forteza

(2023). Effectiveness of a mobile app to increase risk perception of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use in Mexican high school students: Quantitative study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(11), Article e37873. https://doi.org/10.2196/37873

30.

Gabri

A. C.

Galanti

M. R.

Orsini

Magnusson

(2022). Changes in cannabis policy and prevalence of recreational cannabis use among adolescents and young adults in Europe: an interrupted time-series analysis. PLoS One, 17(1), Article e0261885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261885

31.

German Federal Parliament [Deutscher Bundestag]. (2023a, Oktober 19). Gesetzentwurf zur Cannabis-Legalisierung debattiert. https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2023/kw42-de-cannabisgesetz-971376.

32.

Gruber

S. A.

Sagar

K. A.

Dahlgren

M. K.

Racine

Lukas

S. E.

(2012). Age of onset of marijuana use and executive function. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26(3), 496–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026269

33.

Hadad

D’Alessio

Ellis-Durity

Trombley

(2025). This is your brain on drug education: Putting young people with lived experience at the center of drug education. International Journal of Drug Policy, 138, Article 104467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104467

34.

Hall

Leung

Lynskey

(2020). The effects of Cannabis use on the development of adolescents and young adults. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 2(1), 461–483. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-040320-084904

35.

Hammond

Chaney

Hendrickson

Sharma

(2020). Cannabis use among U.S. Adolescents in the era of marijuana legalization: A review of changing use patterns, comorbidity, and health correlates. International Review of Psychiatry, 32(3), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2020.1713056

36.

Hammond

Wadsworth

Reid

J. L.

Burkhalter

(2021). Prevalence and modes of cannabis use among youth in Canada, England, and the US, 2017 to 2019. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1(219), Article 108505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108505

37.

Health Canada. (2024). Table 19: Past twelve-month use and mean age at first use of alcohol and cannabis, by grouped grades, Canada, 2021-2022. Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey 2021-2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-student-tobacco-alcohol-drugs-survey/2021-2022-detailed-tables.html#t19.

38.

Hinckley

Bhatia

Ellingson

, et al. (2022). The impact of recreational cannabis legalization on youth: the Colorado experience. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-01981-0

39.

Humphreys

Atkinson

(2025). Adolescent cannabis use – Motives, frequency and consequences: A systematic literature review. Journal of Adolescent Substance Use, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/29973368.2025.2458854

40.

Infante

M. A.

Courtney

K. E.

Castro

Squeglia

L. M.

Jacobus

(2018). Adolescent brain surface area pre- and post-Cannabis and alcohol initiation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 79(6), 835–843. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2018.79.835

41.

Jacobus

Courtney

K. E.

Hodgdon

E. A.

Baca

(2019). Cannabis and the developing brain: What does the evidence say? Birth Defects Research, 111(17), 1302–1307. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1572

42.

JD Supra. (2026, January 6). A progressive path: The evolution of cannabis laws in the Czech Republic. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-progressive-path-the-evolution-of-1234567/.

43.

Kalke

von Meduna

Rühling

Buth

(2025). Wie sollte die verhaltensbezogene Cannabisprävention nach der Teil-Legalisierung gestaltet werden? Ergebnisse einer Expert*innen-Befragung. Suchttherapie, 26(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2562-8154

44.

Keane

(2003). Critiques of harm reduction, morality and the promise of human rights. International Journal of Drug Policy, 14(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-3959(02)00151-2

45.

Kempf

Llorca

P. M.

Pizon

Brousse

Flaudias

(2017). What's new in addiction prevention in young people: A literature review of the last years of research. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(8), 1131. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01131

46.

Klein

Schmid

(2022). Neurologe fordert: Cannabis erst ab 25 Jahren!. Pädiatrie, 34(50). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15014-022-4100-7

47.

Koller

(2012). risflecting® – ein pädagogisches Handlungsmodell zur Entwicklung von Rausch- und Risikobalance. https://risflecting.eu/konzept/.

48.

Korn

Haynie

D. L.

Luk

J. W.

Sita

Simons-Morton

B. G.

(2021). Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control associated with age of first use of cannabis among adolescents. Journal of School Health, 91, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12977

49.

Kröninger-Jungaberle

Nagy

von Heyden

DuBois

Ullrich

Wippermann

Pospiech

Gordon

Haubold

Breitner

Lieneweg

Hochadel

Brommond

(2015). REBOUND: A media-based life skills and risk education programme. Health Education Journal, 74(6), 705–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896914557097

50.

Lancaster

(2016). Performing the evidence-based drug policy paradigm. International Journal of Drug Policy, 32, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.03.014

51.

Lees

Debenham

Squeglia

L. M.

(2021). Alcohol and Cannabis use and the developing brain. Part of the topic series: Alcohol and cannabinoids. Alcohol Research. Current Reviews, 41(1). https://doi.org/10.35946/arcr.v41.1.11

52.

Levine

Clemenza

Rynn

Lieberman

(2017). Evidence for the risks and consequences of adolescent cannabis exposure. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(3), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.12.014

53.

Lips

Witt

Pulst

P.-L.

(2023). Cannabis law and legislation in Germany. CMS – Law. Tax. Future. 23/12/23. https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guide-to-a-legal-roadmap-to-cannabis/germany.

54.

Lize

S. E.

Iachini

A. L.

Tang

Tucker

Seay

K. D.

Clone

DeHart

Browne

(2017). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interactive middle school Cannabis Prevention Programs. Prevention Science, 18(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0723-7

55.

Manthey

Rehm

Verthein

(2024). Germany's cannabis act: A catalyst for European drug policy reform? Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 42, Article 100929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100929

56.

Manthey

Stöver

Meyer-Thompson

H.-G.

(2018). Cannabis und Schadensminderung in deutschland. Suchttherapie, 19(3), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-112067

57.

Marsch

L. A.

Borodovsky

J. T.

(2016). Technology-based interventions for preventing and treating substance use among youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 25(4), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2016.06.005

58.

Martens

Werse

Friedrichs

Caspari

Klaus

(2024). MoSyD Jahresbericht 2024: Drogentrends in Frankfurt am Main. [MoDyD Annual Report 2024: Durg trends in Frankfurt am Main.] Drogenreferat der Stadt Frankfurt am Main. https://frankfurt.de/-/media/frankfurtde/service-und-rathaus/verwaltung/aemter-und-institutionen/drogenreferat/pdf/mosyd-2024-gesamtbericht.pdf?dmc=1.

59.

Martínez

Chadi

Castellanos-Ryan

, et al. (2025). Health service use among young adults with a history of adolescent cannabis use. JAMA Network Open, 8(10), Article e2539977. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.39977

60.

Measham

(2006). The new policy mix: Alcohol, harm minimisation, and determined drunkenness in contemporary society. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.02.013

61.

Medina-Mora

(2005). Prevention of substance abuse: A brief overview. World Psychiatry, 4(1), 25–30.

62.

Meier

M. H.

Caspi

Danese

Fisher

H. L.

Houts

Arseneault

Moffitt

T. E.

(2018). Associations between adolescent cannabis use and neuropsychological decline: A longitudinal co-twin control study. Addiction, 113(2), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13946

63.

Meier

M. H.

Hill

M. L.

Small

P. J.

Luthar

S. S.

(2015). Associations of adolescent cannabis use with academic performance and mental health: A longitudinal study of upper middle-class youth. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 1(156), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.09.010

64.

Midgette

Reuter

(2020). Has cannabis use among youth increased after changes in its legal status? A commentary on use of monitoring the future for analyses of changes in state cannabis laws. Prevention Science, 21(1), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01068-4

65.

Müller

(2022). Cannabisfreigabe: “Hier geht es um tiefgreifende Hirnveränderungen”. InFo Neurologie + Psychiatrie, 24(7-8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15005-022-2448-4

66.

Nagy

Verres

Grevenstein

(2017). Risk competence in dealing with alcohol and other drugs in adolescence. Substance Use & Misuse, 52(14), 1892–1909. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2017.1318149

67.

Newton

N. C.

Champion

K. E.

Slade

Chapman

Stapinski

Koning

Tonks

Teesson

(2017). A systematic review of combined student- and parent-based programs to prevent alcohol and other drug use among adolescents. Drug Alcohol Rev., 36(3), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12497

68.

O'Grady

M. A.

Iverson

M. G.

Suleiman

A. O.

Rhee

T. G.

(2022). Is legalization of recreational cannabis associated with levels of use and cannabis use disorder among youth in the United States? A rapid systematic review. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-01994-9

69.

O’Neill

J. M.

Clark

J. K.

Jones

J. A.

(2011). Promoting mental health and preventing substance abuse and violence in elementary students: A randomized control study of the Michigan Model for Health. Journal of School Health, 81, 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00597.x

70.

Opara

Lardier

D. T.

Reid

R. J.

Garcia-Reid

(2019). It all starts with the parents: A qualitative study on protective factors for drug-use prevention among black and Hispanic girls. Affilia, 34(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109918822543

71.

Orth

Nitzsche

(2025). Die Drogenaffinität Jugendlicher und junger Erwachsener in Deutschland 2025 – Cannabis: Aktuelle Entwicklungen und Trends. BIÖG. https://www.bioeg.de/forschung/studien/abgeschlossene-studien/studien-ab-1997/suchtpraevention/drogenaffinitaetsstudie-2025/.

72.

Rahat

Hopkinson

McQuay

Patterson

Rahat

Van Ameringen

(2024). Adolescent cannabis use: It’s safe right? Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry, 12(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40501-024-00337-6

73.

Richert

Stallwitz

Nordgren

(2023). Harm reduction social work with people who use drugs: A qualitative interview study with social workers in harm reduction services in Sweden. Harm Reduction Journal, 20(1), 146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00884-w

74.

Roque-Bravo

Silva

R. S.

Malheiro

R. F.

Carmo

Carvalho

da Silva

D. D.

Silva

J. P.

(2023). Synthetic cannabinoids: A pharmacological and toxicological overview. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 20(63), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-031122-113758

75.

Rubin-Kahana

D. S.

Crépault

J. F.

Matheson

Le Foll

(2022). The impact of cannabis legalization for recreational purposes on youth: A narrative review of the Canadian experience. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 23(13), Article 984485. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.984485

76.

Ruhrmann

Guenther

(2025). Risikokommunikation. In: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA) (Hrsg.). Leitbegriffe der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention. Glossar zu Konzepten, Strategien und Methoden. https://doi.org/10.17623/BIOEG:Q4-i103-2.0

77.

Schuster

R. M.

Gilman

Schoenfeld

Evenden

Hareli

Ulysse

Nip

Hanly

Zhang

Evins

A. E.

(2018). One month of cannabis abstinence in adolescents and young adults is associated with improved memory. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 79(6), Article 17m11977. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.17m11977

78.

Scott

J. C.

Rosen

A. F. G.

Moore

T. M.

Roalf

D. R.

Satterthwaite

T. D.

Calkins

M. E.

Ruparel

Gur

R. E.

Gur

R. C.

(2019). Cannabis use in youth is associated with limited alterations in brain structure. Neuropsychopharmacology, 44(8), 1362–1369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-019-0347-2

79.

Scott

J. C.

Slomiak

S. T.

Jones

J. D.

Rosen

A. F. G.

Moore

T. M.

Gur

R. C.

(2018). Association of cannabis with cognitive functioning in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 75(6), 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0335

80.

Seddon

(2019). Inventing drugs: A genealogy of a regulatory concept. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2016.00760.x

81.

Shrand

DiGiovanni

Lee

Kishore

Martin

(2021). Drug story theater: A mixed-methods study of a peer-to-peer approach to substance abuse education. Health Behavior and Policy Review, 8(4), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.14485/HBPR.8.4.1

82.

Silbereisen

R. K.

Weichold

(2007). Entwicklungspsychologische Aspekte von Drogenkonsum. In Hasselhorn

Schneider

(Eds.), Handbuch der Psychologie, Band 7: Handbuch der Entwicklungspsychologie (pp.581–590). Hogrefe.

83.

Solowij

Broyd

Greenwood

, et al. (2019). A randomised controlled trial of vaporised Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol alone and in combination in frequent and infrequent cannabis users: acute intoxication effects. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 269(17). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-019-00978-2

84.

Stallwitz

(2012). The role of community-mindedness in the self-regulation of drug cultures: A case study from the Shetland Islands. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4

85.

Stallwitz

Nordgren

Richert

(2024). Not having a real life”: Psychosocial functions of using and selling drugs among young Afghan men who came to Sweden as unaccompanied minors. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 50(14), 3570–3590. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2290984

86.

Statistics Canada. (2023). Five years since legalization, what have we learned about cannabis in Canada? Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231016/dq231016c-eng.htm.

87.

Steimle

Werse

Stallwitz

(in press). Veränderungen von Bezugswegen, Einstellungen und Wahrnehmungen von Cannabiskonsumierenden durch das Cannabisgesetz – eine quantitative Befragung von Konsumierenden. Bundesgesundheitsblatt.

88.

Stewart

Bhatia

Burns

Sakai

Martin

Levinson

Vaughn

James

(2020). Association of marijuana, mental health, and tobacco in Colorado. The Journal of Addiction Medicine, 14(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000533

89.

Stockings

Hall

W. D.

Lynskey

Morley

K. I.

Reavley

Strang

Patton

Degenhardt

(2016). Prevention, early intervention, harm reduction, and treatment of substance use in young people. Lancet Psychiatry, 3(3), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00002-X

90.

Tensil

M.-D.

Aenis

Becker

Leuschner

(2023). Digitale Prävention von Substanzgebrauchsstörungen, problematischer Mediennutzung und problematischem Glücksspiel. Suchttherapie, 24(03), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2110-1807

91.

Thiersch

Grunwald

Köngeter

(2002). Lebensweltorientierte Soziale Arbeit. In Thole

(Ed.), Grundriss Soziale Arbeit (pp. 175–196). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-91357-9_7

92.

Tremblay

Baydala

Khan

Currie

Morley

Burkholder

Davidson

Stillar

(2020). primary substance use prevention programs for children and youth: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 146(3), article e20192747. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2747

93.

Tucker

J. S.

de la Haye

Kennedy

D. P.

Green

H. D.,

Jr. Pollard

M. S.

(2014). Peer influence on marijuana use in different types of friendships. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.025

94.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text.

95.

Valdivieso López

Rey-Reñones

Rodriguez-Blanco

FerreGrau

Arija

Barrera Uriarte

M. L.

, et al. (2015). Efficacy of a smoking prevention programme in Catalan secondary schools: A cluster-randomized controlled trial in Spain: Smoking prevention programme in schools. Addiction, 110(4), 852–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12833

96.

Vermeulen-Smit

Mares

S. H. W.

Verdurmen

J. E. E.

VanderVorst

Schulten

I. G. H.

Engels

R. C. M. E.

, et al. (2014). Mediation and moderation effects of an in-home family intervention: The “in control: No alcohol!” pilot study. Prevention Science, 15, 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-0130424-4

97.

Weibel

Scheuber

Blakeney

Rihs-Middel

(2007). Risikokompetenz und Drogenmündigkeit im Spannungsfeld von Kritik- und Genussfähigkeit: Literaturanalyse und Empfehlungen für die Praxis der Suchtprävention. Suchtpräventionsstelle Zürich.

98.

Zuckermann

A. M. E.

Battista

K. V.

Bélanger

R. E.

Haddad

Butler

Costello

M. J.

Leatherdale

S. T.

(2021). Trends in youth cannabis use across cannabis legalization: Data from the COMPASS prospective cohort study. Preventive Medicine Reports, 22, article 101351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101351

99.

Zullino

Cattacin

(2021). Ist eine Alterslimite als Jugendschutz wirklich sinnvoll? SuchtMagazin, 47(5), 24–27. https://www.suchtmagazin.ch/magazin/jugendliche-2021-05 .