The Hessian state government has developed a 7-point plan to combat drug use in Frankfurt’s Bahnhofsviertel. The Volt parliamentary group in the Römer and the Volt Frankfurt party have expressed strong criticism.
With a focus on repressive measures, the Minister-President believes he can solve the problems in Frankfurt’s Bahnhofsviertel. Some proposals go far beyond reasonable measures and raise legal concerns. According to the state government’s 7-point plan, AI-assisted video surveillance and the forced institutionalization of addicts in psychiatric clinics are deemed necessary to close the Bahnhofsviertel to addicts.
Public video surveillance always constitutes a sensitive infringement on personal rights. Wherever it is deployed, strong justification is required. Since 2024, the city of Frankfurt has already been implementing surveillance at multiple locations in the Bahnhofsviertel.
AI-supported video surveillance takes this a step further. According to a 2023 Bitkom study, 75% of Germans oppose biometric video surveillance. AI-assisted video surveillance is not without risks: The widespread invasion of privacy through surveillance must not lead to a situation where people fear appearing in public. There is a risk of misuse of the system. The Hessian state police have already fallen victim to unauthorized access to police information systems, as seen in the NSU 2.0 case.
The proposed forced commitment of addicts contradicts all fundamental civil rights and dehumanizes people in need. Moreover, a willingness to undergo therapy is a key factor for treatment success. “In reality, the state government is advocating for social problems to be made invisible by simply locking up sick people. This is a clear case of political abuse of psychiatry and should set off alarm bells everywhere,” says Johannes Hauenschild, security policy spokesperson for Volt’s parliamentary group.
“The state government’s 7-point plan is characterized by paternalistic measures and an intention to govern Frankfurt from above. What is missing is the necessary respect for local organizations that work on prevention and therapy in the Bahnhofsviertel,” says Christian Tobias Pfaff, Local Lead of Volt Frankfurt.
He further states: “The state government’s approach resembles Trump-like rhetoric, wanting to impose ‘law and order’ on democratically governed cities – if necessary, with force. Behind this is the misconception that they know better than the local experts.”
Britta Wollkopf, social policy spokesperson for the Volt parliamentary group, criticizes the measures: “Repression has always been part of Frankfurt’s approach. Nevertheless, fundamental rights must be upheld, and repressive measures must not target the most vulnerable in the Bahnhofsviertel, the addicts. The idea that their displacement solves any problems, rather than simply moving them elsewhere, is not just simple logic – it should be obvious to everyone involved by now. This is not drug policy; this is naive wishful thinking.”
Rhein also aims to encourage displacement by stating that “counseling, care, and treatment should no longer take place where procurement and drug use are also possible” (FAZ, 09.03.25). In doing so, he forgets that counseling services are only accepted when they are accessible to those in need. Furthermore, drug dealers and addicts will always gather in the same places due to their mutual dependence. Instead of pushing people out of the Bahnhofsviertel, it would be more effective if other municipalities received state support to establish their own assistance programs.
The state government also focuses too much on issuing exclusion orders to street dealers rather than tackling the actual root cause – the drug cartels operating in the background. “It is well known that street dealers play a relatively minor role in drug-related crime and are quickly replaced when others are imprisoned. This approach generates media-friendly headlines every few months but does not change the situation on the ground. Moreover, exclusion orders are only marginally effective in deterring drug dealers,” says Johannes Hauenschild. He continues: “The state government’s lack of understanding of the real drug scene in the Bahnhofsviertel is also evident in its description of drug users as ‘aggressive.’ This characterization does not reflect the reality for the vast majority of addicts and dangerously reinforces fears and prejudices among the public.”
Social Minister Heike Hoffmann takes a more constructive approach. Volt welcomes her reference to the importance of preventing homelessness among young people who have been released from psychiatric clinics or prison. The Volt parliamentary group also supports her emphasis on the “Housing First” approach, which Volt is already implementing in cooperation with the Römer coalition in Frankfurt. “Instead of merely considering this approach, the state government should actively support municipalities in implementing it. Housing First is not a Frankfurt invention but a European best practice – and it works. To enable more organizations to adopt it, there should be fixed financial support from the state. North Rhine-Westphalia has done this before, and Berlin is currently leading the way nationwide,” says Martin Huber, chair of the Volt parliamentary group in the Römer.
Rhein claims in the FAZ (09.03.25) that the state has “allocated substantial budgetary resources in recent years for the counseling, care, and treatment of drug addicts.” In reality, the share of state funding required to ensure adequate care for addicts from Frankfurt’s surrounding areas and across Hesse falls significantly short of what is needed. Instead, it is primarily Frankfurt that bears the cost of underfunded addiction services elsewhere.
In conclusion, it is clear that Boris Rhein and the state government offer populist demands rather than serious solutions in collaboration with the city. This approach undermines public trust in the state in the long run, rather than contributing to the declared goal of restoring faith in the effectiveness of democracy. “Forced institutionalizations and biometric video surveillance certainly do not build trust in the state. Instead of trying to impose control over Frankfurt, Boris Rhein should work with other municipalities and support them in finally addressing addiction care on a local level,” concludes Johannes Hauenschild.
