docs/research/history-cambodia-gap-2026-10-23.md +128 −0
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+# Cambodia: personal-use penalties, treatment law and the anti-drug campaign
+
+23 October 2026. Previous goal turn: **progress**, verified by the Sierra Leone entries,
+articles, build log and cleanup. This pass addresses Cambodia's seven-event/one-article gap.
+Baseline: 2,863 history entries and 746 articles. Snapshots and research files:
+`tmp/history-cambodia-gap-2026-10-23/`; original-law research from 20 October is retained.
+
+Three new entries cover the May 2005 personal-use amendment, July 2011 criticism of the draft
+law and Amnesty's May 2020 investigation/reform demand. Three existing entries were revised
+(1996 adoption, 2012 law, 2017 campaign). Four new articles cover 2005, 2012, 2017 and 2020;
+the existing 1996 article now has inline citations and the missing intervening link to 2005.
+Cambodia now has ten entries and five articles. No claims of comprehensive coverage are made.
+
+## Primary legal evidence and exact comparisons
+
+Read the [NACD compilation, third edition, 2007](https://niph.org.kh/niph/uploads/library/pdf/LD208_Law_on_Drug_Control.pdf),
+particularly English articles 90–98, printed pp. 48–51 (PDF pp. 137–140). Footnotes identify
+which clauses changed through the law promulgated on **9 May 2005**. Visually inspected PDF
+pp. 139–140. The event date is the promulgation date, not a separately certified Gazette
+publication or commencement date. The compilation is not the unamended 1996 text.
+
+Compared amended article 98 directly with the [original unofficial English translation](https://cdc.gov.kh/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Law-on-Drug-Management_full-text_961209.pdf),
+PDF pp. 47–48. Original: six days–one month, 100,000–1,000,000 riel, **or either penalty**.
+Amended: seven days–one month, with a **possible additional** 25,000–100,000 riel fine.
+The ordinary prison wording became stricter while the fine range fell. `other` reflects this
+mixed replacement, with sentencing, traditional and treatment tags. Repeat offending or
+health-professional status doubles the ordinary amended penalties. The very-small-quantity,
+non-addictive ancestral village-use discretion **remained**; it was not abolished in 2005.
+Articles 90–93 retain voluntary presentation before prosecution and treatment-related court
+options; they are not described as wholly new reforms.
+
+Downloaded/extracted the [2012 English law](https://www.sithi.org/medias/files/projects/sithi/law/Drug-Control-Law-2012-Final-English-Version.pdf).
+Read articles 10–14, 38–45, 100–110, 124–125 and the cannabis entry in Table I. Visually checked
+printed pp. 19 and 27. Cannabis, resin and oil are in Table I. Article 38: ordinary unlawful
+cultivation **six months–two years**, or **two–five years for distribution, manufacture or
+trade**; it also contains the limited habitual-consumption discretion. Article 40: ordinary
+unlawful keeping, transport and trafficking **two–five years**, with higher penalties for
+specified circumstances/quantities. No threshold amount is presented as permission to possess.
+The English text has anomalies in some higher quantity tiers; these are not silently repaired
+or used for tourist advice. The final wording on commercial cultivation was corrected against
+the page image before the final build.
+
+Article 45's English wording links the ordinary consumption offence to a person who has
+already accepted compulsory treatment. Article 105 also addresses treatment advice before
+prosecution, refusal and the prosecutor's powers. The earlier summary's simple claim that
+users are offered treatment instead of up to six months was too broad. Revised public wording
+describes the procedures without declaring an unconditional treatment-for-prison swap.
+
+Articles 100–104 address state support, harm reduction, voluntary consent and withdrawal.
+Articles 107–109 set medical conditions, decision-making and appeals for compulsory treatment;
+article 102 gives six months–two years for treatment/rehabilitation in public centres. The
+prosecutor's appeal route has a 72-hour decision period. The law's final date is **2 January
+2012**; article 125 repeals the 1997 law and 2005 amendment, with transitional qualifications.
+Licences under articles 10–14 are for research, clinical, scientific or industrial purposes.
+This is not evidence of an operational cannabis patient programme or a public seed shop route.
+
+## Criticism and enforcement evidence
+
+Read [Kathleen Kingsbury's July 2011 warning](https://idpc.net/news/2011/07/cambodia-s-alarming-new-drug-law),
+published by Open Society Foundations and reproduced by IDPC. It discusses a draft approved
+by Prime Minister Hun Sen, proposed two-year compulsory treatment, the draft's broad addiction
+definition and allegations of abuse in existing centres. The new `debate` event uses the
+publication date **21 July 2011** and distinguishes the draft from the final January 2012 law.
+The article's prediction that signature might follow within weeks is not treated as fact.
+
+Downloaded and read Amnesty's actual [Substance abuses report](https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ASA2322202020ENGLISH.pdf),
+ASA 23/2220/2020: executive summary, methodology, campaign background, detention and
+recommendations. The document's [catalogue](https://www.amnesty.org/fr/documents/asa23/2220/2020/en/)
+is dated **12 May 2020**; the press release is 13 May. The new event uses the report date.
+
+The campaign began in January 2017, initially for six months, and was repeatedly extended.
+Its **55,770 arrests by March 2020 concern all drugs**, amid a regional methamphetamine
+expansion. The report supplies no cannabis-only arrest count, and the public text says so.
+Amnesty interviewed 51 people, including 34 people who used/formerly used drugs, six of whom
+were minors at arrest/detention. It interviewed 20 people held in administrative centres and
+documented 15 prosecution cases; these are research samples, not national prevalence counts.
+The study recorded interviewees' claims, without determining each person's underlying guilt.
+Allegations, the organisation's findings and the law's safeguards retain their attribution.
+
+The 2020 event is `debate`: a published investigation and reform demand, not an enacted
+liberalisation. The 2017 entry retains `tightening` because the controlled category explicitly
+includes a crackdown, with enforcement, treatment and police-powers tags. The new report
+article explains methods and recommendations; the campaign article explains its onset,
+continuation and the two routes into detention.
+
+## Profile corrections and remaining score work
+
+Ten existing profile blocks were corrected to the actual statute/research and migrated to
+inline key citations. Removed unsupported assertions in these blocks that small cannabis
+amounts are routinely ignored or that all transfer begins at five–ten years. Growing for
+oneself and for distribution/manufacture/trade now have their proper ranges. The planting
+section now uses the 2012 law instead of saying it was not read. Production text acknowledges
+restricted permission powers, without inventing issued licences or an industry. The summary
+no longer makes broad claims of loose enforcement.
+
+**Scores and all existing `before` vectors are preserved, not freshly validated.** The site's
+older practice-based judgments (especially possession, enforcement and access) need a separate
+cannabis-specific investigation. This report's methamphetamine-dominated all-drug evidence
+cannot establish typical cannabis sentencing, tolerance or arrest rates. The 2012 penalty
+increase is now documented, but the comparative index allocation remains a reconstruction gap.
+The campaign adds no speculative score step. Existing access, product, medical-programme,
+arrest/seizure statistics and planting/trade status fields were preserved. A later profile pass
+should audit those retained secondary claims and calibrate the complete trajectory together.
+
+Other gaps: pre-1996/colonial rules, published commencement dates, implementing licensing
+rules, cannabis-specific cases, post-2020 treatment practice and the current role of the old
+customary-consumption discretion. The 1996 entry remains an adoption milestone, not a newly
+verified first-ever cannabis ban.
+
+## Verification
+
+The scoped verifier checks all three added/three revised events, unchanged unrelated entries,
+all earlier score vectors, controlled categories/tags and related links; all five articles'
+350–500 words, four headings, source references and internal links; and preserved profile
+scores/statuses/statistical data. It uses the actual `citeParts`, `references` and `sourceTuple`
+functions. New/revised prose has adjacent, sentence-level citations and uses every listed source.
+No staging, commits, resets or changes to unrelated work were performed.
+
+Final build/render checks and deletion of this batch's temporary build are recorded below.
+
+Final verification passed. Production build: **3,746 pages in 33.45 seconds**. The earlier
+complete build preceded the final correction of the commercial-cultivation wording; the final
+build includes it. Rendered checks verified all numbered article reference targets, the three
+new event pages, corrected profile/API, six tag pages, clean exports and unchanged score 13.
+Scoped data/citation/length checks and whitespace checks passed. Totals: **2,866 history entries
+and 750 articles**. The generated `site/` directory used by both builds was deleted after
+inspection; downloads, extracts, page images, scripts and logs remain. The broad coverage goal
+remains active.
docs/research/history-sierra-leone-gap-2026-10-23.md +179 −0
@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+# Sierra Leone: colonial chronology, pharmacy law and medical production
+
+Reviewed 23 October 2026. The preceding research turn made progress by recovering primary
+texts and identifying concrete gaps; it was not a verified wait. This batch follows the active
+goal's larger-gap priority. Baseline: 2,860 history entries, 741 articles, seven Sierra Leone
+entries and two Sierra Leone articles. Authoritative pre-edit snapshots, source files, extracted
+text, page renders and verification scripts are in `tmp/history-sierra-leone-gap-2026-10-23/`.
+
+## What changed
+
+Four new events: the 2001 pharmacy law; the September 2008 commencement amendment; a
+2023 cannabis-and-kush remand reported by the judiciary; and the medical cultivation guidelines
+with an effective date in May 2024. Four existing events were revised. The unsupported 1920
+ban record was consolidated into the documented 1926 ordinance, carrying its initial score
+vector to that record. Sierra Leone consequently has ten entries. Five new articles cover
+1933, 2001, 2008, the April 2024 emergency and the May 2024 medical guidelines. The two
+existing 1851/1926 articles now have inline citations and repaired chronology.
+
+This is a material expansion and correction, not complete coverage. The original 1988 pharmacy
+law, original amendments of 1928/1932, patient-level access, actual cultivation licences issued,
+independence-era changes and original 2008 commencement order remain research priorities.
+
+## Sources read and their limits
+
+### Colonial chronology
+
+Reread Chris Duvall, *The African Roots of Marijuana* (Duke, 2019), printed p. 191 and
+chapter 9 notes 47–53, pp. 316–317, from the retained complete book extraction in
+`tmp/book-intake/duvall.txt`. Note 52 explicitly identifies the 1920 assertion in Akyeampong
+as unsourced and says no listing was located. This contradicts presenting 1920 as a verified
+ban. The earlier turn merely marked it unchecked, leaving an affirmative title and chart date.
+Those product claims are now removed. This does **not** establish that no earlier restriction
+existed: 1926 is the documented statute used here, not proof of an absence of earlier controls.
+
+Downloaded and read the revised [Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 154](https://www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/Cap%20154.pdf).
+The heading dates the ordinance to 10 April 1926 and lists amendments in 1928 and 1932.
+Sections 1–2 and 9–13 establish territory, the Indian-hemp definition, offences concerning
+cultivation/possession/resin, and the separate medicine rules. Duvall connects this law with
+implementation of the 1925 convention. The surviving PDF is a later revised text. The article
+continues to identify that fact; it does not attribute every later penalty or every detail of
+that revised edition to the original 1926 enactment. Recovering the original Gazette and
+amendments would allow a more exact chronology.
+
+Duvall's p. 191 and note 53 supply the 1933 report identifying diamba as cannabis, quoting a
+US Bureau of Narcotics annual report published in 1935. That original annual report has not
+been independently recovered; the article cites Duvall, not a falsely claimed reading of it.
+The 1851 article retains its original botanical source and Duvall's population-history discussion.
+Its new later-law reference has a separate colonial statutory source. The diamba culture page
+receives an internal-link/chronology repair and the supporting statute in its existing whole-page
+bibliography; its unrelated legacy material has not been re-audited or migrated wholesale.
+
+### Pharmacy and Drugs Act 2001
+
+Downloaded the [original Act from UNODC SHERLOC](https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/uploads/res/document/sle/the-pharmacy-and-drugs-act--2001_html/Sierra_Leone_Pharmacy_and_Drugs_Act_2001.pdf),
+extracted it, and visually inspected printed pp. 27, 30 and 31. The Act is signed 30 November
+2001, gazetted and commenced **13 December 2001**. Sections 48–49 address possession,
+smoking, visiting smoking premises, allowing smoking on one's premises and equipment.
+Section 50 requires written Pharmacy Board consent for narcotic-producing plants. Section
+59(3) expressly sets at least **15 years** for an individual convicted of an offence relating to
+Indian hemp. Section 65 retains the Dangerous Drugs Act; section 66 repeals the 1988 pharmacy
+law while saving existing subordinate rules.
+
+The event is `other`, describing a replacement pharmacy law and its overlapping controls.
+The original 1988 text was not recovered, so the prose does not claim that all these offences
+or that minimum were first introduced in 2001. Its score vector places the directly documented
+smoking offence at this statutory milestone. The exact earlier start of a standalone smoking
+prohibition remains uncertain. Current consumption changes from 1 to 0 because use itself is
+expressly criminal, under both the 2001 law and 2008 section 8. The 1926 record's following
+vector retains the old 3-point position; the 2001 record reaches today's 2. Other segment scores
+are preserved. This is a coarse legal chronology, not independently established typical
+sentencing practice in each intervening year.
+
+### National Drugs Control Act 2008 and amendment
+
+Read the [original 2008 Act](https://www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/2008-10.pdf), particularly definitions,
+sections 2–3, 8, 12, 43, 92–93 and schedules. Section 12(3) lets a court reduce imprisonment
+or impose a fine where the usual punishment would be harsh or unconscionable. Therefore the
+old profile's absolute assertion that no fine-only route exists was incorrect. Section 8
+expressly covers consumption, contrary to the old description that use is prosecuted only
+through possession. Sections 92–93 repeal Cap. 154, preserve rules/proceedings and address
+conflicts with the 2001 pharmacy law. Section 43's cannabis-specific crop destruction rule
+is retained with its evidence and urgency safeguards.
+
+**Scheduling anomaly:** as recorded in the earlier research note, the printed schedules put
+cannabis and cannabis resin in the anomalous fourth-schedule list headed toxic chemical
+inhalants, while the definition of drug names the first three categories. No life sentence
+for cannabis cultivation or supply is inferred from section 7's prohibited-drug category.
+The profile distinguishes the 2001 cannabis rule from the 2008 general offence. Direct official
+judiciary evidence, below, confirms practical use of 2008 section 8 for cannabis charges;
+it does not settle every possible scheduling, charging or sentencing question.
+
+The [Library of Congress account of 28 August 2008](https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2008-08-28/sierra-leone-new-drug-control-law-passed/)
+was read for the aircraft carrying cocaine on 13 July, urgency certificate and UN-assisted
+drafting. Cocaine provides the legislative context; it is not presented as cannabis enforcement.
+The duplicate Wayback bibliography entry was removed.
+
+Downloaded and read the one-page [Amendment Act 13/2008](https://www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/2008-13.pdf):
+passed 21 August, signed 2 September, gazetted/commenced 18 September. It inserts presidential
+commencement by statutory instrument. The new event uses 18 September, while the principal
+Act keeps its existing year-only event date. The amendment's own commencement is not treated
+as proof that the principal Act began that day. No retroactive start date is invented.
+
+### 2023 enforcement and April 2024 emergency
+
+Downloaded and read the [Judiciary's 31 August 2023 report](https://www.judiciary.gov.sl/?p=1430).
+Thomas Sowa and John Nyakeh Amara were accused of possessing kush and cannabis under section
+8(a), refused bail and remanded. They were two among ten defendants across separate files;
+the record does not label all ten cannabis defendants, treat accusations as convictions or
+invent the later outcome. This primary evidence replaces synthetic-only sentencing analogies
+in the enforcement explanation.
+
+Read President Bio's **full address of 4 April 2024**, [reproduced by Sierraloaded](https://sierraloaded.sl/news/bio-declares-national-emergency-drug-substance-abuse/),
+including the five strands, district treatment-centre promise, task-force participants and
+justice/enforcement pledges. The speech remains `debate` as an announcement without a scored
+statutory amendment. Treatment, enforcement and youth tags were added. The original headline
+about a marijuana/fentanyl/tramadol mixture was replaced with the source's account of synthetic
+kush and the later testing evidence. Promises are written as promises, not completed services.
+
+Downloaded and read the GI-TOC [June 2024 preliminary testing report](https://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Lucia-Bird-et-al-FTIR-spectrometer-testing-of-kush-in-retail-markets-Sierra-Leone-and-Guinea-Bissau-GI-TOC-June-2024.pdf),
+pp. 1–5, including methods, limitations and findings. It reports synthetic cannabinoids and
+nitazenes in sampled kush and rejects untested ingredient rumours; further laboratory
+confirmation was pending. The article preserves the preliminary status and does not equate
+all kush with cannabis flower. This synthetic-drug science is context for the existing national
+emergency entry, not a new scored cannabis-law change.
+
+The original State House speech PDF returned 404. Parliament's 23 April press-release PDF
+was indexed but direct fetch failed certificate verification and web open failed. The Human
+Rights Commission newsletter also failed verified download/open. Snippets from these files
+were useful leads but were not used to create events or claimed as full-body readings. TLS
+verification was not disabled. The 23 April instruments and March rights-commission appeal
+remain follow-ups.
+
+### Medical production guidelines: a material missed route
+
+The Pharmacy Board's [guidelines index](https://pharmacyboard.gov.sl/Guidelines.php) labels its
+medical cannabis link “2025”. Following that link led to the actual
+[28-page Version 02 guideline](https://pharmacyboard.gov.sl/admin/gallery/561872ecc0e939bdbe88a7f53ea6442d.pdf),
+whose page headers explicitly say issued **15 May 2024**, effective **17 May 2024**, approved
+by the Registrar. Downloaded/extracted it; visually inspected printed pp. 4–5 and read pp.
+4–8, 12–13 and 22–25 for purposes, applicant categories, security, planting material,
+inspection and waste rules. The event uses the effective date in the document itself.
+
+The document relies on section 50 of the 2001 law and describes licensed cultivation,
+harvesting and processing of medical cannabis, specifically including production for export.
+Applicants include licensed corporate bodies/manufacturers and approved health organisations.
+It requires identifiable, traceable planting material and female cuttings, suitable personnel,
+security and quality controls, with inspection and potential licence revocation.
+
+The previous profile's absolute “no medical cannabis”/“no production” claims were contradicted
+by this primary source. Medical status becomes **limited**, matching the project's definition
+that includes production-only routes. No increase to personal cultivation or access scores is
+made: a domestic patient prescribing/dispensing programme or actual licences/exports have not
+been verified. The history event is `medical`, explicitly `unscored` for the production-only
+scope, tagged trade, patients and seeds. Planting statuses become licence-only; retail trade
+statuses become unclear because the guideline does not establish a public seed/cutting shop
+route. Unrelated driving and UNODC seizure sections are preserved.
+
+## Writing, preservation and verification
+
… 21 more lines