history research

possession 1 · cultivation 1 · enforcement 3 · sharing 1 · consumption 1 · access 0

2009-06-29

Amendments to theResolution 33/2009/QH12 ended criminal law madeliability for unlawful drug use an administrative matterunder Penal Code Article 199 from promulgation of the amending law on 29 June 2009. Pending cases had to be discontinued and affected offenders received relief from unserved sentences and automatic expungement. The Supreme Court's July implementing letter confirmed the June date, ahead of the amending law's general 1 January 2010 commencement. Administrative measures and liability for other offences remained; cannabis possession and supply were not legalised.

Vietnam National Assembly — Resolution 33/2009/QH12, reproduced by Luat Minh Khue Vietnam Supreme People's Court — Letter 105/TANDTC-KHXX of 17 July 2009, reproduced by Tra cuu phap luat International Journal of Drug Policy — Government and law enforcement perspectives on the drug decriminalisation policy in Vietnam

2008-12-20

Austria allowsreserves medicinal cannabis cultivation to be grown for medicineAGES or its controlled subsidiary

ParliamentNew section 6a permitted cannabis cultivation for scientificobtaining narcotics to manufacture medicines and medicalfor related scientific purposes, in practice only by a single state agency that supplies the pharmaceutical industryAustrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), or a subsidiary in which it held at least 75 percent. Patients have accessHarvested and dried plants or cannabis could be supplied only to licensed pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers. This created an institutional production route, not a few cannabinoid medicinespatient home-growing entitlement or general access to cannabis flower.

Austria — original SMG-Novelle 2008, BGBl. I 143/2008 (RIS) Austria — section 6a version and commencement metadata (RIS) Wikipedia — Cannabis in Austria

2008-02-19

Chile toughensplaces cannabis trafficking penaltiesin its serious-harm drug category

Trafficking in cannabis was made punishablePublished on 19 February, Decree 867 listed cannabis flowering or fruiting tops, resin, extracts and tinctures in the same scale ascategory of drugs considered capable of causing serious toxic effects or considerable harm to health, alongside cocaine and heroin. The classification linked cannabis to the more severe trafficking category under Law 20.000; it did not make private personal consumption a new offence.

Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional — Decreto 867, original version published 19 February 2008 1 unchanged

2006-0810-2308

Brazil — Law 11,343 of 23 August 2006, original publication (Câmara dos Deputados) Brazil — Decree 5,912 of 27 September 2006 (Planalto) Wikipedia — Cannabis in Brazil Lei nº 11.343, de 23 de agosto de 2006, Article 28 (Planalto)

2006-02-28

The Fini-Giovanardi law removedreform merged the distinction between softdrug tables and hard drugs. Anyone holding more thanapplied a fixed threshold was presumed common six-to be dealing-twenty-year basic trafficking range. Personal-use possession remained an administrative offence. Criminal possession depended on indications of a non-exclusively-personal purpose, considering quantity, packaging and facedother circumstances; the same sentences as for heroinlaw did not simply make everyone above a fixed threshold a dealer. It took effect on 28 February 2006, after publication of conversion Law 49.

Italy — Law 49 of 21 February 2006, original Official Gazette text DPNSEE — Italy, the legal map on decriminalisation policies (PDF) Wikipedia (Italian) — Legge Fini-Giovanardi

2004-12-25

Algeria passes itspromulgates a replacement drug law

Law 04-18 bans growingreplaced the narcotics provisions of the 1985 health law. Article 12 punished unlawful consumption or possession for personal consumption with two months to two years in prison, trading and possessing cannabisa 5, with an exception for authorised000–50,000-dinar fine, or both. Articles 4–5 allowed specified medical useor scientific activities with health-ministry authorisation. A userArticle 6 provided non-prosecution for qualifying users who agreescompleted prescribed treatment or underwent detoxification or medical supervision; mere agreement to treatment can avoid prosecutionwas not the full statutory condition. The law was promulgated on 25 December and published on 26 December 2004. Article 38 expressly repealed Articles 190 and 241–259 of the 1985 law.

Algeria Official Gazette No. 83 of 26 December 2004 — original Law 04-18 Wikipedia — Cannabis in Algeria

2004-0607-01

For 35 yearsLaw 445 inserted a first offence of holding a small amount for personal use hadrule that warnings could not normally ended with a warning. A change to thebe issued for drug-law made a fineviolations, making fines the standard response to possession for personal use. It also strengthened aggravating factors for sales at nightlife venues and youth events, rising with each repeat offenceand authorised prison urine testing. The law was signed on 9 June but took effect on 1 July 2004. The warning restriction was expressed as a general rule rather than an absolute prohibition on exceptions.

Denmark — original Law 445 of 9 June 2004 (Retsinformation) Wikipedia — Cannabis in Denmark Transnational Institute — Cannabis Regulation in Europe: Country Report Denmark

2003-06-1718

A change to the criminal code spelled out the amounts that count asLaw 28002 specified non-punishable possession for one's own immediate use and are not punished: up to 8 g of marijuana or 2 g of its derivatives. Possession of two or more types of drugs was excluded. The same law introduced Article 296-A on cannabis cultivation, with a lower penalty of two to six years where the number of plants did not exceed one hundred. Published on 17 June, the law took effect the following day under the constitutional commencement rule.

Congress of Peru — original Law 28002 and 24 June 2003 corrigendum Congress of Peru — Constitution, Article 109 Penal Code, Article 299 (Congress of Peru)

Indonesia launches a national war on drugsestablishes the National Narcotics Board

President Megawati's government established an independentPresidential Decree 17/2002 replaced the earlier National Narcotics Coordination Board and beganwith BNN, a nationwide enforcement campaign that later pursuednon-structural body reporting directly to the targetpresident and chaired by the national police chief. Its remit combined coordination of a "drug policy with inter-free Indonesia"agency enforcement task forces. Articles 11–12 also allowed provincial and district or city boards to be established by 2015regional authorities and coordinate with BNN. The decree took effect on signature, 22 March 2002. It reorganised drug-control institutions without creating a new cannabis offence.

Indonesia Presidential Decree 17/2002 — legislative text reproduced by Flevin from the government legislation service Transnational Institute — Cannabis in Indonesia, patterns in consumption, production and policies Antara — Kepala BNN urai perjalanan lembaga pemerang narkoba dua dasawarsa

2001-09-01

Finland starts handlingcreates a separate lower-penalty drug use with on-the-spot finesuse offence

A new offence ofLaw 654 added Penal Code chapter 50 section 2a, covering unlawful drug use let police issueand possession or attempted acquisition of a summary fine without a court hearing. Prosecutionsmall quantity for personal use became rare, thoughincluding cannabis. It carried a fine or up to six months in prison, compared with the ordinary drug offence is still recorded's two-year maximum. Revised section 7 allowed prosecution or punishment to be waived for minor cases or where the person sought approved treatment. The reform took effect on 1 September 2001; it did not remove criminal liability.

Finland — original Law 654/2001, Suomen säädöskokoelma (Finlex) Wikipedia — Cannabis in Finland

finland-drug-use-search-powers-2001

Taiwan rewritespromulgates its rewritten narcotics statute

The full 36-article revision renamed the Narcotics Elimination Act was replaced in full by a text of 36 articles under a new title,as the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act. The presentactual 1998 text sortsdivided drugs into three categories and placesplaced cannabis in the second. Article 10 prescribed up to three years for second-category use; Article 11 set up to two years, short-term detention or a fine for possession. Articles 20 and 23 provided observation, detoxification and compulsory-treatment procedures. These are the historical provisions, rather than a description inferred from today's statute.

Taiwan Ministry of Justice — historical statute of 20 May 1998 Taiwan Ministry of Justice — legislative history of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act — legislative history (Ministry of Justice, Taiwan)

taiwan-drug-use-procedure-revision-2004

Austria adopts "therapy instead of punishment"replaces its drug law and retains diversion with a cannabis-specific assessment rule

The Narcotic Substances Act replaced the 1951 law. Prosecutors were required to drop a first case, retaining provisional withdrawal of possessing a small amount for-quantity personal-use, on condition of cases for a two-year probation period under section 35. A health assessment-authority opinion could be omitted for cannabis-only cases where no health measure appeared necessary, but was required if another such report had been made within five years. This continued earlier diversion provisions rather than introducing treatment instead of punishment for the first time.

Austria — original Suchtmittelgesetz, BGBl. I 112/1997 (RIS) Suchtmittelgesetz (SMG) — consolidated federal law (RIS) Austria-Forum — AEIOU: Suchtgift

austria-drug-law-amendment-1985

19891990-1201-2802

AnThe amendment adopted on 28 December 1989 added Article 96a to the 1985 CriminalPenal Code created four drug offences, combining unlawful manufacture, possession, sale and transport of drugs in a new Article 96aone provision. Its basic penalty was two to seven years; particularly serious cases attracted twelve to twenty years, withlife imprisonment or death as the maximum penalty. The original code had noThis introduced a dedicated capital drug offencesoffence. The reproduced law's legislative metadata records commencement on 2 January 1990; the stable event ID retains the adoption year.

Vietnam National Assembly — Penal Code amendment of 28 December 1989, reproduced by Caselaw Vietnam Law and World — The changes in drug laws to apply the death penalty for drug-related offences in Vietnam

1986-08-29

In the Bazterrica case, soon after the returnSupreme Court held Article 6 of democracy, the court ruled that punishingLaw 20.771 unconstitutional insofar as it criminalised simple drug possession for personal use violatedwithin the constitutional right to privacyprivate sphere protected by Article 19 of the Constitution. The majority reversed the conviction and returned the case for a new decision. The ruling protected private conduct that did not harm others rather than authorising trafficking or every form of public drug use.

Supreme Court of Argentina — Bazterrica, original judgment reproduced by Pensamiento Penal Wikipedia — Cannabis in Argentina Wikipedia (Spanish) — Fallo Arriola

1985-09

Japan's Supreme Court upholds the Cannabis Control Lawrejects constitutional challenges to cannabis controls

The court rejected aIn decisions on 10 and 27 September, the Supreme Court's First Petty Bench dismissed appeals challenging cannabis controls on constitutional challenge togrounds. It accepted the 1948 lawlower courts' findings of harmfulness and rejected the appeals' premise that cannabis was harmless or minimally harmful. The decisions concerned cannabis importation and associated possession controls, leaving the ban on possession and cultivation intactexisting restrictions in place.

法学教室 no. 64 p. 110 — 大麻の有害性を肯定して大麻取締法の違憲論を退けた最高裁決定, reproduced by Cannabist Wikipedia — Cannabis in Japan

japan-cannabis-definition-ruling-1982

1985-0103-3101

1983-07-16

Spain takesconfirms the personal possession out of criminal law-use exception in its Penal Code

A reform of the penal code confirmed what the Supreme Court had held since the 1970s: possessing drugs for one's own use is not a crimeOrganic Law 8/1983 rewrote Article 344 to punish facilitating illegal drug consumption through cultivation, onlymanufacture or trafficking is. Fines, and possession for trafficking. Its wording distinguished personal possession from the trafficking offence and use in public were added in 1992set different penalties according to the statutory harm category. This legislative clarification did not create a right to sell or give cannabis to others.

Boletín Oficial del Estado — Organic Law 8/1983, original gazette text Boletín Oficial del Estado — Organic Law 8/1983, official analysis Wikipedia — Cannabis in Spain Wikipedia (Spanish) — Cannabis en España

1979-1104-0728

Thailand passes the's Narcotics Act takes effect

The Narcotics Act classedexpressly included cannabis as ain category 5 narcoticand repealed the earlier cannabis statute. PossessionUnder original Section 76, unauthorised possession carried up to five years in prison and a fine up to 50,000 baht; possession for sale carried two to fifteen years and a 20,000–150,000-baht fine. Section 75 set the law stayed in forcesame higher band for cannabis until 2022manufacture, sale, import or export. Signed on 22 April 1979 and published on 27 April, the Act commenced the following day under Section 2. Its penalties were subsequently amended.

Thai Food and Drug Administration — original Narcotics Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) Wikipedia — Cannabis in Thailand

1990-07-26

Brazil putsapplies the Heinous Crimes Law's strict regime to drug trafficking beside murder and rape

Law 8,072, the Heinous Crimes Law, gave applied special restrictions to illicit drug offences the same treatment as murdertrafficking alongside heinous crimes, torture and rapeterrorism. It is linked toIts original Article 2 barred bail, provisional release, amnesty, grace and pardon, and required the risewhole sentence to be served in imprisonment for drugs that followeda closed regime. InThis concerned trafficking, not every drug offence or simple possession. The closed-regime provision was later held unconstitutional in HC 82,959 in February 2006 the Supreme Federal Court changed its reading of the law.

Brazil — Law 8,072 of 25 July 1990, original publication (Câmara dos Deputados) STF — Supremo afasta a proibição de progressão de regime nos crimes hediondos, 23 February 2006 TNI — About drug law reform in Brazil

brazil-constitution-drug-provisions-1988, brazil-sentence-progression-ruling-2006

2008-10-20

Ecuador's constitution callstreats addiction as a public-health problem and frees drug couriersissue

Article 364 of the new constitution declared addictions a public-health problem and saidrequired prevention, treatment and rehabilitation for occasional, habitual and problematic users must not be criminalised, whose criminalisation or deprivation of constitutional rights it prohibited. The assembly that wroteThis constitutional protection coexisted with criminal possession provisions and disputed enforcement; it also approved an amnesty for people imprisoned for carrying drugsdid not establish a legal cannabis market. A prison census that May had found 34% of detainees held for drug offences.

Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador — Constitución de la República, edition including the 2011 reforms 1 unchanged

1984-0504-11

medicalother

Sri Lanka exempts medicinalcertifies revised prohibitions on hemp preparations from its drug lawand other drugs

A consolidating amendment toAct 13 of 1984 replaced sections 28 and 29 of the drugs ordinance left the lawful import, supply and use of galenicalexpressly covering preparations of hemp in import and export prohibitions and revising controls on possession, that is extractspreparation, supply and tincturesuse, outside the offencesubject to statutory exceptions. It sat besidewas certified on 11 April; operation required a ministerial Gazette order. It did not introduce the Ayurveda Act of 1961, under which traditional physicians may obtain cannabisexception for their medicineslawful hemp extracts and tinctures: that provision already appears in section 30 of the 1956 revised ordinance.

Parliament of Sri Lanka — Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 13 of 1984 Government of Ceylon — Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, 1956 revision, NDDCB-hosted scan Wikipedia — Cannabis in Sri Lanka

1982-01-01

Sweden allows's LVM law introduces compulsory treatment ofcare for qualifying drug usersand alcohol cases

The Misuser Act, known as LVM, let 1981:1243 took effect alongside the authorities ordernew Social Services Act. It extended the compulsory-care framework to both alcohol and narcotic misuse. The original framework required an adult into treatment for drugurgent care need arising from ongoing misuse, with voluntary or alcohol problemsother care insufficient and additional statutory risk conditions met. In 2007 itIt was useda care law for 330 people with drug problems and 219 with bothqualifying serious cases, not an automatic detention rule for everyone who used cannabis. Parliament's 1982 committee report confirms the 1 January commencement.

Swedish Parliament — report 1981/82:SoU53, background on LVM commencement Swedish Government — proposition 1981/82:8 on care of substance users in certain cases Wikipedia — Drug policy of Sweden

sweden-compulsory-care-expanded-1989

2002-04-05

TheParliament approved the drug-policy goals in the national action plan for 2002 to 2006 named a drug-free society as the objective, added–2005. The government allocated SEK 325 million kronor over three yearsfor 2002–2004 and created the post ofhad already commissioned a national drugs coordinator on 17 January 2002 to implement, monitor and coordinate the plan. In 2000The programme pursued reduced drug supply and demand within the shareexisting prohibition framework. These were policy goals and funding decisions, not proof of sixteen-year-old boys who had used drugsa decline in the past month had almost doubled, from 5% to 10%cannabis use.

Swedish Parliament — report 2001/02:SoU15, Nationell narkotikahandlingsplan Swedish Government — proposition 2001/02:91, Nationell narkotikahandlingsplan Swedish Government — directive 2002:6, En nationell narkotikasamordnare Wikipedia — Drug policy of Sweden

sweden-drug-strategy-renewed-2006

20052003-01-16

European court rejects Sweden lets farmers grow's ban on authorised industrial hemp again

ThirtyIn Hammarsten, case C-five years after the ban462/01, the Court of Justice held that the EU hemp-market regulations precluded national rules prohibiting cultivation and possession of industrial hemp with less than 0covered by those regulations.2% THC became legal under European Union rules. The same year there were 18case concerned a Swedish farmer's 2001 crop,818 prosecutions for drug offences not a right to grow intoxicating cannabis. A September 2004 parliamentary motion confirms that industrial hemp cultivation had again become permissible in early 2003, 73% of them for minor offencessubject to restrictive conditions.

Court of Justice — Hammarsten, C-462/01, judgment of 16 January 2003 Swedish Parliament — Motion 2004/05:MJ254, Industrihampa (27 September 2004) Wikipedia — Drug policy of Sweden

2008-07-10

Italy's highest court acquitsCourt of Cassation orders a new judgment in a Rastafarian caught with 97 grams's cannabis case

TheIn judgment 28720/2008, decided on 3 June and filed on 10 July, the Court of Cassation held that followers of Rastafari may smoke marijuana asannulled a meditative herbconviction for possessing 97.3 grams of cannabis for supply and remitted the case to the Florence Court of Appeal. The manlower court had been sentenced in 2004 to sixteen monthsnot adequately considered the claimed personal-use purpose, religious practice and circumstances, relying too heavily on weight. This was a fine ofremand for a new judgment, not an acquittal or a general religious exemption. The sixteen-month prison term and EUR 4,000 eurosfine originated in 2002 and were upheld on appeal in 2004.

Italian Court of Cassation — sixth section judgment 28720/2008 (Interior Ministry Antidroga archive) Wikipedia — Cannabis in Italy

2005-102006

Catalonia givesoperates a pilot programme supplying a cannabis medicine to 600 patients

The regional government of Catalonia launched's Health Department put a pilot therapeutic-cannabis programme supplyinginto operation in 2006. Patients received the cannabis-based spraystandardised extract Sativex through foreign-medicine or compassionate-use routes, with observational follow-up in the Seguivex and Seguivex-Emesis studies. The programme involved hospital selection and dispensing with pharmacy follow-up; it was not general retail access to 600 patientscannabis.

Generalitat de Catalunya, Department of Health — Uso terapéutico de los cannabinoides, BIT vol. 20 no. 5 (2008) Wikipedia — Cannabis in Spain

The Cannabis Control Act of 1976 was merged with the laws on narcotics and psychotropic drugs into the Narcotics Control Act. The ban on cannabis in every form was unchangedIts definition excluded seeds, roots and mature stalks; it also recognised licensed cultivation for fibre or seed.

Constitutional Court of Korea — 2005Hun-Ba46, reproduced original decision 1 unchanged

2004-10-20

A Korean actress takes theseeks a constitutional referral over cannabis ban to the Constitutional Courtpenalties

After receiving a suspended prison sentence for smoking cannabisDuring her criminal appeal, the actress Kim Bu-seon begansought a public campaigntrial-court referral for legalisation and asked the Constitutional Court toconstitutional review the law. When she repeated on morning televisionThat request was rejected in April 2005; her direct constitutional complaint followed in June 2009 that cannabis is a herb Koreans had used for centuries, not a narcotic, viewers demanded an apology from. The 2004 request preceded the broadcasterConstitutional Court's November 2005 ruling.

Constitutional Court of Korea — 2005Hun-Ba46, reproduced original decision 1 unchanged

south-korea-cannabis-penalties-ruling-2005

2008-0102-2308

Effective on publication, Law 5728 amended Article 23 of the narcotics law. Anyone who sowsSowing hemp without a permit, on more land than the permit states or in another place is punished withknowingly exceeding its area or using a different location, carried a judicial fine of at least fifty days. The same law added aA separate paragraph onprescribed one to seven years in prison for sowing hemp in orderexclusively to obtain cannabis, which carries prison. Cultivation covered the whole process from sowing the seed to harvesting. The law was adopted on 23 January 2008; its commencement date was 8 February.

Türkiye — Law 5728, original Official Gazette text reproduced by the Turkish Bar Association Türkiye — Law No. 2313 on the Control of Narcotic Substances, consolidated text with amendment notes (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi)

turkey-hemp-permit-rule-1990, turkey-law-6545-cultivation-2014

2007-07-2223

tighteningother

Peru rewritesretains its cannabis limits while revising the personal-possession article

Legislative Decree 982 amendedrevised Article 299 while retaining non-punishable possession for one's own immediate use of the Penal Code, which since 2003 lists the amounts a person may hold without punishment: eight gramsup to 8 g of marijuana or two grams2 g of its derivatives. Possession above those amounts can be prosecuted,It also retained the exclusion for possession of two or more types of drugs and a drug policy institute notes that growing a single plant could in theory bring eight to fifteen yearsadded an ecstasy threshold. The cannabis quantities were not newly reduced by this amendment. The decree was published on 22 July and took effect the following day under the constitutional commencement rule.

Congress of Peru — original Legislative Decree 982 Congress of Peru — Constitution, Article 109 Transnational Institute — Reforma de la ley de drogas en Perú, guía básica (2014, updated June 2016)

2003-0102-2303

France makes driving after using cannabispromulgates a specific offence of driving after narcotics use

The law known as the loi MarilouLaw 2003-87 rewrote Road Code Article L235-1 to punish driving, prepared by the justice minister Dominique Perbenor accompanying a learner driver, was presented after the death ofnarcotics use established by a nine-year-old girl killedblood analysis. The original penalty was two years in an accident involvingprison and a driver who had used cannabis4,500-euro fine, rising to three years and 9,000 euros when combined with unlawful alcohol levels. It has applied sinceThe law also set screening and verification procedures. This date records promulgation on 3 February; publication followed on 4 February 2003. The previously recorded 23 January 2003 and created penalties for driving after using narcoticsdate was not the law's commencement.

Journal officiel, 4 February 2003 — original Law 2003-87, scan hosted by OFDT Wikipedia (French) — Cannabis en France

2007-08-10

France applies minimum sentences topromulgates sentencing floors for qualifying repeat drug offendersoffences

TheLaw 2007 law on reoffending-1198 introduced sentencing floors for legally defined repeat offences. For non-felony offences, known as the loi Datifloors were one, introduced minimum sentencestwo, three or four years where the statutory maximum was respectively three, five, seven or ten years. Courts could depart from the floors under specified conditions, with tighter rules for people convicted againfurther recidivism. Cannabis cases therefore depended on the charge, its maximum penalty and these apply to drug offences, the legal requirements for recidivism; the law did not impose a blanket minimum on every cannabis-use andor possession of cannabis among themconviction. The date is promulgation on 10 August, before publication on 11 August 2007.

Journal officiel, 11 August 2007 — original Law 2007-1198, hosted by OFDT Wikipedia (French) — Cannabis en France

2007-07-01

Denmark raises possession fines and clarifies social grounds for repeat possessionwarnings

A change inLaw 526 strengthened the law raised the fine policy for a second charge of possessing illegal drugs by 50 per centunlawful drug possession and for a third by 100 per centrequired sentencing to consider the substances' harmful effects. It also allowedqualified the normal restriction on warnings where social circumstances favoured a warning in place of a fine for heavyand possession resulted from strong dependence after prolonged, persistent drug usersmisuse. The Danish Health Authority reported both the tougher fine policy and wider warning exception. The law took effect on social grounds1 July 2007, an exception that researchers later found was rarely used and not always known to police officersfollowing signature on 6 June.

Denmark — original Law 526 of 6 June 2007 (Retsinformation) Danish Health Authority — Narkotikasituationen i Danmark 2007 Transnational Institute — Cannabis Regulation in Europe: Country Report Denmark (2019)

denmark-fines-2004

Indonesia extends its's provincial narcotics board to the provincesboards expand operations

A year afterThe Transnational Institute's retrospective account dates the National Narcotics Board (setting up of BNN) was created,'s provincial boards were set upbranches to 2003, widening its anti-drug operations under the programme for preventing and combating drug abuse and trafficking (P4GN) prevention and enforcement programme. The BNN's plan aimed atThis is a drug-free Indonesiareported rollout milestone, not the first statutory authority for provincial boards: Article 11 of Presidential Decree 17/2002 had already allowed their establishment by 2015governors. The account does not establish one nationwide day on which every provincial board began operating.

Indonesia Presidential Decree 17/2002 — legislative text reproduced by Flevin from the government legislation service 1 unchanged

Algeria has not executed anyone since 1993. On 5 October 2026 a court in Algiers sentence … of 2004](/history/algeria-law-04-18-2004/) banned growing, trading and possessing cannabis. It provided non-prosecution under conditions involving completed treatment, and let a user who accepteddetoxification or medical supervision. Agreeing to treatment avoid prosecution alone was not the full statutory condition. It replaced the drug provisions of the [1985 health law](/history/algeria-health-law-drug-framework-1985/), which had also combined punishment with treatment routes. That earlier law even permitted capital punishment in specified cases under Article 248; the 2025 law was not Algeria's first historical provision for capital drug offences. Two amendments then raisedfollowed. The two-month-to-two-year personal-use prison range already appeared in the stakesoriginal 2004 law. InThe [2023 amendment](/history/algeria-law-23-05-2023/) personal use was set at two months to two years in prison, andprovided life imprisonment for trafficking by an organised gang at life. On [1 July 2025](/history/algeria-law-25-03-2025/) Law 25-03 added the death penalty for … o score. It marks the point at which a penalty that existed on paper began to be imposed.

Algeria Official Gazette No. 8 of 17 February 1985 — original Law 85-05 Algeria Official Gazette No. 83 of 26 December 2004 — original Law 04-18 1 unchanged

For eight years Italian law made no difference between From 2006 to 2014, Italy applied a common basic trafficking penalty range to cannabis and heroin. A decree-law of 30 December 2005, converted into Law 49 on 21 February 2006 and known by the names of its sponsors, Fini and Giovanardi, abolished the distinction between soft and hard drugs. The amendments took effect on 28 February 2006. In February 2014 the Constitutional Court struck it down. ## What the law did The change was made by amending the drug decree of 1990. It stiffened the penalties for production,unified trafficking, illicit possession and penalties. Personal-use, and at the same stroke removed every distinction between drugs such as cannabis and drugs such as heroin or cocaine possession remained an administrative offence. Before it, the decree's Article 73 had two tracks: one paragraph for hard drugs and a l … ing, buying, receiving and holding a drug, acts that a dealer and a consumer both commit. Whether they were criminal turnedCriminal liability depended on the quantityindications of active ingredient set in a ministerial tablenon-exclusively-personal purpose, together with theassessed through quantity, packaging and other circumstances of the case. The administrative sanctions for personal use no longer distinguish either. Suspensions … ---| | 30 December 2005 | Decree-Law 272 | | 21 February 2006 | converted into Law 49 | | 28 February 2006 | drug-law amendments took effect | | 12 February 2014 | declared unconstitutional | The Constitutional Court removed the amend … 3: personal use stayed an administrative matter, as the 1993 referendum had left it, but the threshold above which a person was treated as a dealercriminal possession now carried the sentences written for heroinsame basic range across the merged drug table; a quantity threshold alone did not establish dealing. The [2014 ruling](/history/italy-constitutional-court-2014/) restored the earlier scores.

On 28 December 1989 Vietnam amendedadopted an amendment to its Criminal Code of 1985 and, in a new. New Article 96a combined unlawful manufacture, created four drug offences with death as the maximum penalty. It is the first provisionpossession, sale and transport of drugs in Vietnamese lawone provision. The basic sentence was two to make a drug crime capitalseven years; particularly serious cases could receive twelve to twenty years, and thelife imprisonment or death penalty has been part of the country. The reproduced law's legislative metadata gives 2 January 1990 as its commencement date. The amendment introduced a dedicated capital drug law ever sinceoffence. ## From one article to seven The provision grew through the 1990s. | Date | Change | |---|---| | 28 December 1989; effective 2 January 1990 | Article 96a: combines four forms of drug offences, each withconduct; death as the maximumis available for particularly serious cases | | 10 May 1997 | Article 96a is split into separate provisions, all keeping death; the s … 2015 | a new code, in force from 1 January 2018, keeps death for three drug crimes | ## What carriesThe death today Underpenalty under the 2015 code The 2015 code retained death remains for illegally manufacturing, transporting and trading in narcotics. It was removed, while removing it for possession and for appropriation. TheThis describes that code's original scheme, before subsequent amendments. Its thresholds are set by weightincluded: - 5 kg or more of cannabis resin, opium resin or coca paste; - 75 kg or more of cannabis leaves, roots, branches, flowers or fruit; - 100 g or more of heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine. So cannabis is inside the capitalThese provisions included cannabis, at 75 kg of plant material against 100 g of heroin. ## How much it is used The figures … nd it gives two different dates for the end of the death penalty for organising drug use. TheFor the 1989 amendmentprovision, the statutory text reproduced by Caselaw Vietnam supplies the wording and its Article 96a are stated without contradictionpenalty bands directly. ## Why the index moved The index moved [Vietnam](/country/vn/) from 8 to 6 with the [1 … fence became death. Possession stays at 1, and cultivation and sharing were already at 0.

Vietnam National Assembly — Penal Code amendment of 28 December 1989, reproduced by Caselaw Vietnam 1 unchanged