better icons; more pre-1900 history

tighteningother

Cabo Verde passespublishes its drug-offences law

Law 78/IV/93 governs drug offences in Cabo Verde; its Article 20 makeswas published on 12 July, with article 45 providing commencement thirty days after publication. It separated small personal consumption punishable, possession and cultivation from ordinary and lesser trafficking and provided conditional treatment measures. The July publication was later officially corrected and republished on 29 November.

Cabo Verde — Law 78/IV/93, original gazette, 12 July 1993 (Judicial Police copy) CCAD — corrected republication of Law 78/IV/93, BO 45 of 29 November 1993, scan part 2 Boletim Oficial de Cabo Verde

1977-08-02

Carter backs state cannabisproposes federal decriminalisation for small personal possession

President Jimmy Carter used aIn his message to Congress, Jimmy Carter supported replacing federal criminal penalties for possession of up to support expanding state-level decriminalisationone ounce with a fine, while retaining trafficking penalties and leaving states free to choose their own laws. Federal cannabis law didThis was a proposal, not an enacted federal change, so the event provides political context without moving the index.

Jimmy Carter — Drug Abuse Message to Congress, 2 August 1977 (American Presidency Project) Cannabis: non solo fumo PRIDE International and Drug War Diplomacy: The Parent Movement’s Global Battle against Marijuana in the United States, ca. 1970–1985

After banning imports in 1897, theThe colonial government moved from licensing to prohibitionadopted a further Indian Hemp Ordinance after the 1897 law had already prohibited bhang and ganja imports, possession and sale. The original 1905 instrument, the reported 1907 version set a fine of 100 rupeespenalties and up to six months in prison. Later law kept an exception thatthe legal history of medical exceptions still stands: licensed Ayurvedic practitioners may use and dispenseneed separate verification. This event should not be read as the beginning of all cannabis prohibition in Ceylon.

true

The Opium and Bhang Ordinance, 1897 (No. 9 of 1897) 1 unchanged

legalisationeasing

Trinidad repealsrevises its restrictive cultivation ordinanceprohibitory ganja regime

Trinidad repealedBanks dates the 1885 ordinance that had imposed heavy licence duties onrepeal of Trinidad’s cannabis cultivation. The asylum superintendent continuedprohibition to argue for restriction1899, after the separate 1894 prohibition ordinance. A later parliamentary account describes a revised distinction between medicinal preparations and smoking ganja. The change should therefore not be summarized simply as repeal of the 1885 cultivation licence; the exact surviving controls require the original 1899 text.

House of Representatives debate, 11 December 2019 (unrevised) 1 unchanged

trinidad-prohibition-1894, trinidad-cultivation-licence-1885

18971898-1104-01

Berar gives its Resident power to license or prohibit hemp growing’s 1897 Hemp Drugs Law comes into force

Orders issued in November 1897 empowered the Resident to prohibit hemp cultivation or allow it under licence. The district gazetteer dates commencement of the Berar Hemp Drugs Commission had named BerarLaw to 1 April 1898, which levied no direct duty on hemp, as a gap between the Central Provinces and Bombayreports cultivation prohibition and imports restricted to the Khandwa storehouse in the administrative year 1898–1899. More than three years laterThe commencement date is distinct from the British Resident issuedissue of the orders on; the production, sale, possession and importprecise date of intoxicating drugs in the Hyderabad Assigned Districts. They let him prohibit the cultivation of hemp outright or allow it only under licence-ban implementing rule remains unverified.

Central Provinces District Gazetteers: Buldana District — General Administration 1 unchanged

1897-11-15

Ceylon bans imports ofprohibits bhang and ganja imports, possession and sale

The colonial governmentOrdinance No. 9 of 1897, assented to on 15 November and published on 26 November, added bhang, ganja and substances containing them to the prohibited importing cannabis-import schedule. It also penalized possession and sale, thirty years after it had limited salesauthorized searches and seizures, and removed bhang from earlier licensing provisions. First convictions carried up to licensed dealers50 rupees, three months’ imprisonment, or both; subsequent convictions up to 100 rupees, six months, or both. The date records assent; a separate commencement date was not established.

The Opium and Bhang Ordinance, 1897 (No. 9 of 1897) Wikipedia — Cannabis in Sri Lanka

bantightening

Greece bans’s Interior Ministry seeks local orders against hashish use

Greece prohibited growingOn 27 March 1890, importingas dated in the cited account, Interior Minister Stephanos Dragoumis asked prefects to obtain municipal and usingpolice orders against hashish, one of the first national bans use in Europecafés and elsewhere. Wikipedia describes it as a royal decreeGkotsinas distinguishes this instruction from the subsequent 1891 Athens–Piraeus order; Stefanis and colleagues, citing the Health Council's report, describecontemporary Indian Hemp Drugs Commission reports permitted cannabis commerce and a circular of the Interior Ministry issued on 27 March 1890 after a decision of the Medical Councillocal café restriction. It stayed in force until 1920Older accounts describe a broader cultivation/import/use ban, but hashish was still smoked openly inthat scope is not established by the tekedes of Piraeusnewer archival account. The existing score values and central Athenssource-reported date are preserved pending review.

Les acteurs sur scène (1875-1920) Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, volume I 2 unchanged

greece-athens-piraeus-public-hashish-order-1891

Morocco's sultan regulates kif and licenses theAccounts attribute Rif cannabis privileges to Hassan I

Accounts conventionally dated around 1890 attribute cannabis cultivation privileges in five Rif villages to Sultan Hassan I put strict rules on growing. Chouvy’s later research questions whether those specific privileges were ever granted and trading cannabis while granting the right to produce it to certain tribesidentifies a lack of historical written evidence. The retained year is a conventional reference point, not a verified decree date. An original order establishing the Rifscope and beneficiaries has not been found.

true

Moroccan hashish as an example of a cannabis terroir product Production de cannabis et de haschich au Maroc : contexte et enjeux Wikipedia — Cannabis in Morocco

tighteningdebate

Natal tightens its ban on’s immigration commission recommends cannabis for Indian immigrantsprohibition

Natal'sThe Indian Immigrants Commission of 1885–1887 asked the Governor in Council to use section 70 of the 1870 law forbiddingto prohibit cannabis use and possession among Indian immigrants. Paterson reports that no implementing rule appears to use or possess cannabis was tightened in 1887have followed; Waetjen likewise finds no additional legal controls. Rural Africans went on using dagga for pleasure, medicine and religious purposes without it being treated asThis was a problemrecommendation rather than a verified tightening of an operative ban.

Prohibition & Resistance: A Socio-Political Exploration of the Changing Dynamics of the Southern African Cannabis Trade, c. 1850–the present Dagga: How South Africa Made a Dangerous Drug, 1902–1928 Transnational Institute — The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition (2014, PDF)

south-africa-natal-1870, natal-prohibition-proposal-1884, natal-wragg-commission-1887

Egypt bans growing cannabisAn Egyptian cultivation prohibition is conventionally dated to 1884

Five years after banning importsLater summaries place a cultivation prohibition in 1884, but the Egyptian government prohibitedIndian Hemp Drugs Commission’s 1894 account already describes cultivation as wellprohibited in March 1879. It identifies March 1884 with a different measure: export sale of confiscated hashish to fund enforcement rewards. The original instrument behind the separate 1884 cultivation claim has not been established; this retained record is unresolved, not a verified first cultivation ban.

true

Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94, Vol. I Wikipedia — Cannabis in Egypt

1879-03

Egypt bans the import ofprohibits hashish importation and cultivation

After earlier attempts to stamp outThe Indian Hemp Drugs Commission describes a Khedivial decree of March 1879 prohibiting both importation and cultivation of hashish,. This corrects the Khedivate banned its import, andimplication that cultivation was first prohibited only five years later its cultivation. Egypt went on to ask for cannabis to be included inThe report provides a contemporary retrospective account rather than the 1925 Geneva conventionfull Egyptian decree. Existing score values are preserved pending a separate reconstruction of earlier Egyptian restrictions.

Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94, Vol. I Wikipedia — Cannabis in Egypt

The government of India concludes that cannabis causes insanitygathers provincial opinions on restricting hemp drugs

In 1871–1872, responding to a spreading belief that cannabis led to insanity, the governmentGovernment of India asked everysought provincial government about its effectsviews on hemp drugs and whether to restrictthe practicability of restricting or prohibit itprohibiting them. On evidenceThe 1894 commission dates the chapter calls spurious it concluded the link was realinquiry’s launch to 1871 and toldreproduces the provincesformal policy response as Resolution No. 3773 of 17 December 1873. The inquiry period is kept distinct from that later direction to discourage use by restricting cultivationconsumption through restrictions and raising dutyduties. Most provinces objected that hemp grew wildAssertions linking cannabis and users would turn to something worse; only the Central Provinces and Burma favoured a Bengal-style systeminsanity in these documents are historical official claims, not medical findings endorsed here.

Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94, Vol. I 2 unchanged

bantightening

Natal bans dagga forauthorizes cannabis restrictions targeting Indian workersimmigrants

Section 70 of Natal'’s Law No. 2 of 1870 prohibited the smoking, use and possessionsupplied powers for cannabis restrictions directed at Indian immigrants. Paterson’s reading of any part of the hemp plant by Indian indentured labourers, and its sale, barter or gift1887 commission report distinguishes those powers from implementing rules: the commission still asked the Governor in Council to exercise them. This verifies an enabling measure, one ofnot the earliest cannabis laws anywhere. Other provinces followed with restrictionscommencement of their own before the nationala general cannabis ban of 1922; the original statute and implementing notices remain uninspected.

Prohibition & Resistance: A Socio-Political Exploration of the Changing Dynamics of the Southern African Cannabis Trade, c. 1850–the present Wikipedia — Cannabis in South Africa 1 unchanged

natal-prohibition-proposal-1884, natal-law-tightened-1887

1870-07-15

bantightening

The Straits Settlements ban cannabisregulate bhang through a licensed monopoly

The British colony that included Singapore prohibited cannabis amid concern about use among Indian labourersExcise Ordinance dated 15 July 1870 provided for exclusive licensed rights over bhang preparation and sale. Its text, making it one ofread in the first1886 consolidated edition, permits licensed retail shops and penalizes imports, dealings and knowing possession outside the authorized supply system. It therefore supports restrictive excise control rather than a blanket cannabis bans in Asiaban. The compilation incorporates later amendments; the original session-law version and separate commencement notice were not inspected.

Excise Ordinance, 1870 (No. IV of 1870), as consolidated in 1886 Wikipedia — Cannabis in Singapore

malaysia-straits-ban-1870

1870-07-15

bantightening

The Straits Settlements ban covers Penang and Malacca come under the Straits bhang monopoly law

The British colony of the Straits Settlements Excise Ordinance provided for a licensed monopoly in bhang preparation and sale, which included Penangwith licensed shops and Malaccapenalties for unauthorized supplies and possession. The 1886 consolidated text contradicts describing the arrangement simply as well as Singapore, prohibiteda blanket cannabis ban. TheThis entry concerns Penang and Malacca within the colony; it does not establish the law of every Malay states followed under British rulestate. The date is the ordinance date, not a separately verified commencement date.

Excise Ordinance, 1870 (No. IV of 1870), as consolidated in 1886 Wikipedia — Cannabis in Singapore

singapore-ban-1870

Egypt first forbidsintroduces a nineteenth-century cannabis prohibition

Cannabis and its preparations were forbidden in Egypt in 1868, one of the first modern attemptsa nineteenth-century attempt at a national ban following earlier medieval and French-occupation restrictions. The historian Liat Kozma links the Egyptian campaign to public health and religious concerns, the country's image abroad and a centralising state's wish to civilise its lower classes.

UK Parliament — Hill Coolies, House of Commons, 14 July 1840 Wikipedia — Timeline of cannabis law Wikipedia — Cannabis in Mauritius 1 unchanged

1830-10-04

The municipal council of Rio de Janeiro forbade the sale’s municipal council prohibited selling and use ofusing pito de pango, cannabis smoked in a water pipe, and its presencekeeping it on public premises. Sellers faced a fine of 20 milreis,; the custodial provision explicitly mentioned enslaved people and any slave or other person using itusers. França quotes eight days in jail’ imprisonment, according towhile the 1830 code as quoted by Jean Marcel Carvalho França; some secondary accounts giveaccount of Avelar’s research distinguishes three days. Other councils followed: Caxias in 1846, São Luís1830 from eight in 18661854. Original code editions remain to be compared; this was a municipal measure, Santos in 1870 and Campinas in 1876not a national ban. It is unclear whether these directives were enforced.

Maurides de Melo Ribeiro — A evolução histórica da política criminal e da legislação brasileira sobre drogas Francisco Camargo — Pito do pango? Transnational Institute — The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition (2014, PDF) 1 unchanged

1800-10-08

Alarmed by itsGeneral Jacques-François “Abdallah” Menou prohibited hashish use among their troops, theand supply across French authorities banned smoking hashish-occupied Egypt, closing supplying establishments and drinking preparations made fromordering proprietors detained for three months. Guba dates the order to 8 October 1800; de Sacy’s early reproduction gives 17 Vendémiaire, leaving a one-day discrepancy. Menou issued it after Napoleon had left Egypt.

David A. Guba Jr. — The Real History of France’s First Anti-Drug Law Chrestomathie arabe, tome II, première partie de la traduction Wikipedia — Cannabis in Egypt

1798-05-29

otherdebate

Britain taxes bhang, ganja and charas in IndiaBengal’s Board recommends taxation rather than total prohibition

The British Parliament imposed a tax on cannabis productsIn letter No. 22 of 29 May 1798, saying the aim was to reduce consumption forBengal Board advised the sakeGovernor-General in Council against altogether prohibiting the sale of the healthintoxicants it examined, including ganja, bhang and sanity of Indianscharas. Attempts to criminalise cannabis in 1838, 1871It proposed restraining use and 1877 wereimproving revenue through suitable taxation. The 1894 commission reproduces this recommendation. The reviewed passage does not enactedestablish a British parliamentary tax act or the immediate enactment of a particular tariff.

Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94, Vol. I Wikipedia — Cannabis in India

King Andrianampoinimerina prohibited cannabis acrosssmoking in the Merina kingdom of Madagascar; Condominas places smoking among capital offences. Molet’s account, with death asciting the penaltyTantara, distinguishes forbidden smoking in central Imerina from permitted cultivation for cloth and rope. ItThe conventional 1787 date is one ofnot independently established by these passages, and the earliest national bans on recordrestriction should not be projected uniformly across present-day Madagascar.

La conception malgache du monde, du surnaturel et de l’homme en Imerina, tome 1 Fokon’olona et collectivités rurales en Imerina Wikipedia — Timeline of cannabis law

AHaggai Ram reports a sultanic decree of 1725 forbade the use offorbidding hashish use in 1725, and the Grand Vizier sent circularsciting Marinos Sariyannis. The original decree has not been inspected. Ram’s separate reference to all the provinces sternly prohibiting any furtherprovincial cultivation or use of the drugcirculars cites an 1876 newspaper report and cannot establish their issue in 1725. Hashish consumption remained openly usedvisible in nineteenth-century Ottoman Syria in the following century.

nonelimited

Prohibited under Law 78/IV/93Small personal-use possession, which punishescultivation and consumption are criminal but have a separate three-month-or-fine provision. Trafficking has heavier penalties. Scientific growing and controlled-medicine authorisations exist in law; a 2023 court case shows 15 g offunctioning cannabis leading to a prison sentence for lesser traffickingpatient service remains unverified.

Article 20 of Law 78/IV/93 of 1993 punishes consumption (Article 20) andcovers small quantities held or acquired for personal use, with up to three months in prison or a lesser formfine of up to 30 days. It gives no fixed gram threshold. Lesser trafficking (Articleunder article 6) instead carries one to five years for Table I/II substances. In theThe case behinddescribed in Constitutional Court ruling 18/2023, a man found with involved 15 g of cannabis was convicted ofand an eighteen-month lesser-trafficking and sentenced to 1 year and 6 months, which two appeal courts upheldsentence; he argued it was for personal use. The scores are kept as before because the statute's own text wasdefendant disputed that classification. That case does not availablemake every 15 g possession offence trafficking or establish typical sentencing.

law1993, correction1993, tc2023

Not confirmed. The statute text was not availableSmall cultivation intended for the grower’s own consumption falls under article 20, so nothingwith up to three months or a fine of up to 30 days; it is stated here aboutnot legal home-growing. Other unauthorised cultivation falls under article 3, ordinarily four to twelve years, subject to lesser-trafficking provisions where applicable. Article 6 of Decree-Law 92/92 separately permits Health Ministry licences for scientific or teaching cultivation. No recreational plant allowance was established.

tc2023law1993, correction1993, licensing1992

The 2023 ruling shows a prison sentence of 1 yearstatute provides both fines and 6 monthscustody for 15 g of cannabis, upheld on appealpersonal consumption offences. A discretionary article 20 waiver requires minority, no repeat offence and a solemn undertaking before a magistrate, cumulatively. Article 22 already allowed conditional sentence suspension for a dependent offender voluntarily undertaking treatment; the vetoed 2020 reform to add suspended sentences with compulsory-treatment was vetoedproposal should not be mistaken for the first treatment provision. One reported eighteen-month lesser-trafficking sentence for 15 g is not a representative sentencing survey; the enforcement rating remains provisional.

law1993, correction1993, tc2023, obs2020

Not confirmed. The 2020 news reports say the 1993 law punishes leading a trafficking group of twoArticle 3 covers offering, distributing, transferring or more people with 10providing controlled drugs to 20 years; the penalty for passing cannabis to another person was, ordinarily four to twelve years for Table I/II substances. It provides no general unpaid-gift exception. Article 6 permits a lesser-trafficking band where unlawfulness is considerably reduced, but does not foundlegalise sharing. Article 12 separately addresses inciting or facilitating illicit use.

obs2020law1993, correction1993

ConsumptionUse itself is a crime under Articlean article 20 of Law 78/IV/93offence, as citedpunishable by up to three months in the 2023 rulingprison or a fine of up to 30 days. The waiver is discretionary and restricted to a minor meeting all listed conditions, not every first offender. Article 21 protects anonymity and professional confidentiality for people who voluntarily seek health assistance.

tc2023law1993, correction1993

Not confirmed. No lawful sourcerecreational supply route or operating cannabis patient service was found in the sources readestablished. Decree-Law 92/92 provides scientific/teaching cultivation licences and a controlled medicines system; Table II substances require special prescriptions under article 22. ERIS identifies cannabis and resin as controlled under Table II-A. These statutory powers do not establish stocked cannabis medicines or permission for ordinary retail sales.

tc2023licensing1992, cosmetics2024

Reliable national information about lawfulDecree-Law 92/92 article 6 expressly prohibits cannabis production wascultivation but permits Health Ministry licences for scientific or teaching purposes. Its authorisation and manufacturing provisions impose controls on licensed entities; they are not a recreational or general industrial-hemp exemption. Issued cannabis-growing licences and lawful output volumes were not established by the retained sources.

licensing1992

Reliable national information about legally availableERIS’s 6 May 2024 circular reiterates a prohibition on cannabis products was not established by-related preparations and CBD or other cannabinoid ingredients in cosmetics under the retained sourcesframework it describes. It warns that a blank CBD entry in an ingredient inventory is not permission. This cosmetics guidance should not be extrapolated into an unsourced rule for every food, medicine or seed product.

cosmetics2024

The retained sources dolimited label reflects a statutory framework, not establish whether a medical cannabisverified patient programme operates. Decree-Law 92/92 permits scientific or teaching cultivation licences and provides controlled medicines authorisations, special prescriptions for Table II substances and pharmacist dispensing. ERIS places cannabis and resin in Table II-A. Current cannabis prescribing practice, issued product authorisations and availability remain unverified.

licensing1992, cosmetics2024

The retained sources do not establish collateral consequences beyondArticles 16–17 provide forfeiture of controlled substances, relevant equipment and crime proceeds, subject to stated protections for good-faith third parties. Article 19 permits the penalties described abovecourt to expel a foreign national convicted under the law for no more than fifteen years; expulsion is discretionary, not an automatic outcome in every possession case.

law1993, correction1993

No cannabis clubs are known, and the law leavesThe reviewed framework establishes no room for them: recreational collective-growing cannabisor distribution permission. Personal cultivation remains criminal and supplying itarticle 3 includes transfers to another person are both prohibitedothers. Article 13 separately penalises operators who allow premises to be used for illicit trafficking or consumption. No claim is made about the prevalence of informal associations.

tc2023law1993, obs2020correction1993

There is no legalNo recreational supply for anyonevisitor purchase route was established. British travel advice says there are severe penalties for possessing, usingPersonal-use custody or trafficking drugs, including fines remain possible under article 20, and long prison sentencesforeign offenders can face discretionary expulsion under article 19. Decree-Law 92/92 article 30 contains a medical-document rule for travellers carrying Table II/III substances; it does not by itself validate a foreign cannabis recommendation or every cannabis product at the border.

tc2023law1993, fcdocorrection1993, licensing1992

Cabo Verde — Law 78/IV/93, original gazette, 12 July 1993 (Judicial Police copy) CCAD — corrected republication of Law 78/IV/93, BO 45 of 29 November 1993, scan part 2 Legis-PALOP+TL / PACED — Quadro Jurídico, third edition, February 2021: Decree-Law 92/92 ERIS — Information Circular 012/ERIS-CA/2024, CBD in cosmetic products, 6 May 2024 3 unchanged

grey

unclear

illegal

banned

Personal-use cultivation remains criminal under article 20, while Decree-Law 92/92 reserves authorised cultivation to scientific or teaching purposes. Growing cuttings has no recreational exemption. The reviewed provisions do not expressly resolve isolated seed possession or seed commerce; grey records that uncertainty rather than a verified permission.

law1993, licensing1992

On 4 October 1830, Rio de Janeiro's municipal council prohibited the sale and use of *pit … is. An enslaved person or anyone else found using it faced eight days in jail, in the code's own words as thequoted by historian Jean Marcel Carvalho França quotes them; some later accounts give. A competing account gives three days in 1830 and an increase to eight in 1854. The language singled out enslaved people even while formally extending the punishment to other users. The distinction may reflect different versions of the municipal code. Francisco Camargo’s 2014 report of Lucas Avelar’s research explicitly separates the 1830 and 1854 penalties. Until the relevant original code editions are compared, eight days should remain attributed to França rather than presented as an independently verified 1830 tariff. ## Cannabis and racial control Cannabis had longstanding recreationalFrança places cannabis consumption among enslaved Africans, medicinaltheir descendants and religious associations among Afro-Brazilianpoorer communities. The Transnational Institute's historical account traces, and discusses names including *fumo de Angola*, *diamba*, *liamba*, *riamba* and *maconhapango* to languages spoken in present-day Angola and Congo. The surviving records often come from people condemning the practice rather than from the consumers themselves. The ordinance emerged in a slaveholding city and directed its custodial penalty explicitly at … itself establish a comprehensive drug prohibition. ## A pattern spreads between cities Other councils later adoptedFrança describes comparable directives: Caxias in 1846, São Luís in 1866, Santos in 1870 and Campinas in 1876. The surviving record does not establish how consisten … ly prohibition and the local, racialised path by which cannabis control began to develop.

Francisco Camargo — Pito do pango? Transnational Institute — The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition (2014, PDF) 2 unchanged

gpt-6.1-sol

The first penal law against cannabis in the modern sense was In October 1800, General Jacques-François “Abdallah” Menou issued by an armya prohibition of occupation, hashish in French-occupied Egypt. The order reached beyond soldiers to protectthe establishments supplying the drug and to customs. Its authorship is clearer than its own soldiersexact day: David Guba’s archival research gives 8 October, while an early printed reproduction carries a different Republican-calendar date. ## An army without wine Napoleon's troops landedThe order in Egyptprint Silvestre de Sacy reproduced three articles of the measure in 1798his 1806 Chrestomathie arabe. Alcohol was hard to come by,The first prohibits a strong drink made with hashish and what the soldiers tooktext calls smoking hemp seed throughout Egypt. It justifies the restriction with claims about loss of reason and violent delirium. That wording belongs to what the country offered instead: hashish, smokedhistorical document. It does not identify a chemically tested preparation or taken in drinksestablish a modern botanical explanation of what soldiers and residents consumed. In October 1800 The text is evidence of the French command banned bothauthorities’ categories and fears. Smoking hashish The second article prohibits preparation of the drink. Cafés and drinking preparations made frompublic or private houses distributing it were prohibitedto be walled up, withand their proprietors arrested and detained for three months in prison. The fear, by one account, was that cannabis would cost the army its fighting spiritthird orders arriving bales of hashish confiscated at customs and publicly burned. ## Enforcement The order went beyondMenou’s decision Guba identifies Menou as the barrackscommander responsible. Cafes that soldNapoleon had left Egypt in 1799. According to Guba, complaints about intoxicated soldiers mistreating Egyptians helped prompt the drinks were shutmeasure. His interpretation also connects it with Menou’s effort to align colonial government with the religious and boarded up, their owners were jailed, and imported hashishmoral expectations of Egyptian Sunni elites. The resulting prohibition was burnedtherefore broader than a rule for a barracks. It made little difference. The troops mostly ignored the ban,printed order names establishments and whenimports across the French left in 1801 they took supplies of hashish home with themoccupied territory. Its claims about violence remain official justifications, not demonstrated facts about all consumers. ## What followed in France The episode introduced hashishWhy the day needs a note Guba dates the order to France8 October 1800 and cites an archival order of 16 Vendémiaire, Year IX. De Sacy’s reproduction instead introduces it as a subject17 Vendémiaire. In [1809](/history/france-sacy-assassins-lecture-1809/) a scholarThese are different dates in Paris linked it to the medieval Assassins Republican calendar. The database retains Guba’s 8 October date, fixing an association withbut the Orientdiscrepancy is now explicit. An early printed reproduction is valuable evidence of the operative wording; it does not remove the need to compare the surviving manuscript and madnessother printings before treating the day as settled. ## A generation latertemporary occupation The measure belongs to the history of French doctors were prescribing it: occupation and Egyptian cannabis control. It does not establish an uninterrupted prohibition extending into the later nineteenth century. Earlier [Moreau's bookmedieval campaigns](/history/franceegypt-moreauhashish-dusuppression-hachisch-18451378/) of 1845 proposed hashish as a way to study mental illness. ## What followed inand Egypt Egypt'’s own rulers issued bans fromlater [1868 prohibition](/history/egypt-first-ban-1868/) remain separate events, with no more success. The index lists the decree for contextdifferent authorities and gives it no score changeevidential problems. It applied under an occupation that lasted three years, and it was not obeyed even byCalling the men who issued it. [Egypt'1800 order Napoleon’s](/country/eg/) scored history begins with the [1879 first worldwide cannabis ban](/history/egypt-import-ban-1879/) would erase those distinctions.

opusgpt-56.51-sol

Chrestomathie arabe, tome II, première partie de la traduction David A. Guba Jr. — The Real History of France’s First Anti-Drug Law Wikipedia — Cannabis in Egypt TNI / GDPO — The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition (2014) Taming the Orient: France and the First Global Movement to Medicalize Cannabis, ca. 1800–1850

The modernIndian Hemp Drugs Commission’s 1894 account places an Egyptian prohibition of cannabis did not beginon both hashish importation and cultivation in Washington or GenevaMarch 1879. It began in Cairo, half a centuryThat chronology corrects the earlier, and it failed there implication on this page that cultivation first became prohibited five years later. ## An old habit, an old quarrel Hashish reached Egypt in the twelfth century,A decree described by one account with Sufi travellers from Syria,a later report Paragraph 559 identifies a Khedivial decree and its use among Sufis is documented from the thirteenth. Authorities regarded itgives March 1879 as the habitdate of the poorimportation and the mystic, and tried to punish it as early as the fourteenth centurycultivation prohibition. The first penal law came fromoriginal Egyptian decree has not been independently inspected for this article. The report is an occupierofficial contemporary retrospective account. Napoleon's armyIt supplies a stronger basis for describing the nineteenth-century chronology than an uncited modern summary, cut offwhile remaining distinct from wine, took to hashish, and in [October 1800](/history/egypt-french-ban-1800/)direct examination of the French command banned smoking it and drinking preparations made from itfull law. It does not establish every definition, with three months exception or penalty in prisonthe original instrument. Cafes that sold it were boarded up ## Earlier restrictions and their owners jailed. changing arrangements The troops mostly ignored the order,same account describes earlier prohibitions and took hashish home with theman intervening period in 1801which hashish could be imported on payment of duty. ## A ban in instalments Egypt's own rulers then tried repeatedly. | Year | Measure | |---|---| | [1868](/history/egypt- That sequence matters because a later decree need not be the first-ban-1868/) | Cultivation, use and import forbidden | | [1874](/history/egypt-import-tax-1874/) | A tax placed occasion on imports that were already illegal | | [1877](/history/egypt-destruction-order-1877/) | which authorities attempted to restrict cannabis. The Ottoman sultan orders all hashishevent should consequently be read as one stage in Egypt destroyed | | 1879 |changing regulation. A new law bans cultivationsequence of prohibitions, revenue arrangements and import | | [1884](/history/egypt-cultivation-ban-1884/) | Cultivation madeenforcement measures cannot safely be compressed into a criminal offence | The bans were reissued in 1891single claim that cannabis became illegal once and 1894remained under an identical system thereafter. The index dates Egypt's prohibition from 1879, the law that stayed on the books. ## Why it did not work Hashish was cheap, easy to grow and easy to smuggle from Greece. 1884 needs separate treatment The rules exempted foreigners. And thereport associates March 1884 law let customs officers with permission to [sell seizedconfiscated hashish for delivery abroad to pay informers and themselves, instead of destroying it. Use among the urban and rural poor carried on much as before. In [1892](/history/egypt-caillardseized-regulationhashish-proposalexport-1892sales-1884/) the British head of customs reported that prohibition had produced trafficking and proposed the Indian system instead: license it and tax it. A law was drafted and never applied. ## From Cairo to Geneva Unable to stop the supply at home, Egypt pressed its neighboursusing proceeds for enforcement rewards. Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine were all asked to restrict growing and trade, and GreeceThat is a customs disposal measure with a particular export condition. The older [banned hashish1884 cultivation record](/history/greeceegypt-hashishcultivation-ban-18901884/) in 1890 while remaining a major exporter intonow states the 1920sdating problem explicitly. That frustration An original instrument is still needed to determine whether a distinct cultivation measure was introduced then and, if so, what the Egyptian delegate carriedit added to the [Geneva conference of 1925](/history/geneva-opium-convention-1925/), where he asked earlier prohibition. ## What the worldcorrection does The database now dates this event to do what Egypt could not. Egypt's own law hardenedMarch 1879 and identifies both activities named in [1960](/history/egypt-law-182-1960/), with the death penalty for traffickingreport. A century and It avoids assigning an exact day or a half afterpenalty unsupported by the first ban, cannabis ininspected passage. The existing score values for [Egypt](/country/eg/) are preserved. This content correction does not certify that the earlier restrictions have been fully reconstructed or that the scored chain captures every nineteenth-century legal change. It makes the evidence and its limitations visible while leaving a broader score reconstruction for a separate source-based assessment. The immediate result is by one description "widely used privatelya more accurate distinction between prohibition and informally tolerated in some regions", and the country scores close to zero on the indexadministration of seized goods.

opusgpt-56.51-sol

Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94, Vol. I TNI / GDPO — The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition (2014) Wikipedia — Cannabis in Egypt

On 27 March 1890, after a decision of its Medical Council, the Greek Greece’s Interior Ministry issued a hashish circular banning the import on 27 March 1890, growing and use of hashish as an imminent threataccording to society. Greece was one of the first countries in Europe to outlaw the drug historical accounts consulted. The ban stayed on the books until 1920Recent archival scholarship describes it as an instruction to obtain local police orders against use, rather than an enactment prohibiting all cannabis cultivation and for most of those years hashish was smoked almost openlycommerce nationwide. ## A new habit fromWhat the ports Greeks had known hempministry requested Konstantinos Gkotsinas identifies Interior Minister Stéphanos Dragoumis as the author of a fibre and a seed, not a drugcircular addressed to prefects. The first Greek pharmacopoeia of 1837Following medical advice, translated he asked them to obtain orders from municipal and police authorities prohibiting hashish use in cafés and elsewhere. The distinction between a Bavarian text, listed only cannabis seed,ministerial request and a pharmacology textbook did not call cannabis a narcotic until 1875subsequent local order matters. Hashish smoking arrived with trade. Stefanis and his colleagues traceThe circular directed officials toward a restrictive policy; it to the busy port of Hermoupolis on Syros after 1850 does not, and to Piraeus inon the 1870s and 1880sevidence examined here, where dock labourers, boatmen, porters and carters took it upestablish every offence later attributed to a national 1890 ban. People called it the "weed of the poor". Growing followed. In [1887](/history/greece-orchomenus-hashish-report-1887/) the mayor of Orchomenus in Arcadia The date is retained as reported that immigrants from Egypt, Cyprus andin the East had taught local farmers to grow and process hashish about ten years earlier, for local use and for exportsources. | Year | Step | |---|---| | 1837 | First It has not been independently normalized between the Greek pharmacopoeia lists only cannabis seed | | about 1875 | Hashish growing beginscalendar then in the Peloponnese | | 1890 | Import, growing and use banned | | 1912 | First hashish users admitted to the Dromokaiteion asylum, by the authors' count | | 1920 | [Growing banned](/history/greece-cultivation-ban-1920/) by a new law | | 1922 | [Refugees and soldiers](/history/greece-asia-minor-refugees-1922/) return from Asia Minor |the Gregorian calendar. ## A ban without teeth Middle-class Greeks saw hashish as a danger and its users as degenerates; according to M. G. Stringaris, cited by Abel, "criminal" itself became a word for a smoker. Yetcontemporary account of the 1890 circular changed little. Hashish was smokednarrower rule The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission’s 1894 report summarizes diplomatic information supplied in the *tekedes*, cafés in the harbour1892. Paragraph 560 describes a police order of Piraeus1891 prohibiting sale and consumption in centralsmall cafés in Athens, whose regulars were mostly young, jobless men living by their wits and knownPiraeus. It also reports that the product could be traded as *manges*merchandise. Rebetiko That account supports distinguishing public-premises restrictions from a general cultivation or commerce ban. It has limits of its own: the commission was summarizing diplomatic correspondence, not reproducing a music Stefanis and his colleagues compare tocomplete Greek legislative code. ## Why the American bluesolder description needs qualification Older accounts attached to this history entry, grew up inincluding the same rooms1975 chapter by Stefanis, Ballas and they linkMadianou, described the two closely 1890 measure more broadly. The habit spread further They remain in the 1920s, when soldiers came home from the war in Asia Minor and around a million and a half refugees were resettled in the slumsevent’s bibliography as part of Athens and Piraeusthe source history. In those years, Abel writes, Greece became Gkotsinas’s more recent reconstruction traces the circular to a major producer. ## Later The 1920 law banned growing,contemporary agricultural periodical and separates it from the [1932Athens–Piraeus order of 1891](/history/greece-stocksathens-lawpiraeus-1932public-hashish-order-1891/). The contemporary commission provides additional evidence against treating the laws grew steadily harsherentire cannabis trade as already prohibited. Stefanis ## A restriction whose implementation must be traced The later police order addressed public use, establishments and his colleagues write that they were not strictly enforced until the end of the civil war in 1950equipment. By the early 1970sA [police filesfurther order in 1897](/history/greece-policeathens-piraeus-hashish-archivesorder-1973renewal-1897/) recorded about three thousand hashish users repeated its content, and the law allowed upaccording to ten years in prisonGkotsinas. [Greece](/country/gr/) allowed [medical cannabis](/history/greece-medical-2018/) only in 2018 This article corrects the scope of the 1890 event while preserving its existing identifier. The historical score values have not been reconstructed: narrowing the legal claim also means their allocation needs separate review. The original circular and local instruments remain targets for direct inspection.

opusgpt-56.51-sol

Les acteurs sur scène (1875-1920) Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, volume I Sociocultural and Epidemiological Aspects of Hashish Use in Greece Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years

The first thing On 29 May 1798, Bengal’s Board advised the British did about cannabisGovernor-General in India was to taxCouncil against altogether prohibiting the intoxicants it had examined. They went on taxing it for a centuryThe recommendation favoured restricting use and a halfraising revenue through suitable taxes. It is an early statement of colonial regulatory policy, and never banned itrather than evidence of a British parliamentary cannabis-tax act passed that day. ## The tax In 1798document behind the British Parliament imposed a tax on bhangdate The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission reproduced the conclusion in paragraph 556 of its 1894 report. It identified Board letter No. 22 and supplied its date. The inquiry considered several intoxicants, including ganja, bhang and charas, alongside substances such as opium, tobacco and toddy. The stated aim was to reduce consumptionoriginal 1798 letter has not been independently inspected here. The account rests on its reproduction by the later official commission, forwith the sake ofdistinction between the health and sanity oftwo documents retained in the people who used themcitation. Attempts to make cannabis a crime were made or discussed in 1838, 1871 and 1877. None was enacted. ## How it worked ForWhy the first halfBoard opposed total prohibition The reproduced reasoning considered the practical difficulty of permitting original substances while prohibiting preparations made from them. It also recognized uses in medicine or otherwise and did not recommend altogether prohibiting sales of the nineteenth century the tax was loosely runsubstances examined. In Bengal These are the right to sell ganja was auctioned to the highest bidder, who then traded with little interference Board’s historical arguments. From [1854](/history/india-bengal-ganja-mahal-1854/) Bengal replaced this with close control: one licensed growing tract The account does not establish that all preparations were harmless, a government warehousethat every form of use was officially approved, duty paid before saleor that no prohibition could ever be introduced elsewhere. Officials summed up A recommendation concerning the aim insubstances under examination has a phrase first used in Bombay in 1838, "maximum revenue from minimum consumption". Raise the duty until people use less,particular institutional and collect more while they dogeographical setting. Bengal's excise reports recorded exactly that: consumption fell and revenue rose. ## Why notTaxation as a banproposed instrument The question was put directly in [1871–72](/history/india-cannabis-insanity-inquiry-1872/), when the government of India asked every province whetherBoard proposed considering taxes suited to prohibit cannabisrestraining use and improving revenue. Most answered that hemp grew wild, thatThat identifies both a ban could not be enforced,regulatory objective and that users would turn to something worsea fiscal one. The [Hemp Drugs Commission](/history/india-hemp-drugs-commission-1894/) reached the same conclusion in 1894 after hearing almost 1 passage does not,200 witnesses by itself, enact a tariff, identify a particular rate or establish the day on which collectors began receiving a new tax. Turning the recommendation into a completed tax statute would collapse an important distinction between advice and implementation. ## What it left A system of licences and dutiesCorrecting the older account This page previously described a British parliamentary tax on bhang, province by province, that independent India inherited ganja and kept untilcharas in 1798. The inspected passage supports a Bengal Board recommendation to the [1985 Act](/history/indiaGovernor-ndps-act-1985/)General in Council. Even that Act left bhang alone. The index liststitle, date and description now follow that evidence, while the 1798 tax for contextoriginal page identifier is preserved. A tax limits access a little The event is recorded as debate and freedom hardly at all, so it moves no scorepolicy context for [India](/country/in/). It does not establish the first taxation of cannabis, a single arrangement across the subcontinent, or an uninterrupted regulatory regime lasting into modern times. Specific tax enactments and territorial rules still require their own sources and dates.

opusgpt-56.51-sol

Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94, Vol. I Wikipedia — Cannabis in India Ganja and the Government of India: Cannabis, Excise, and Colonial Administration in the Late Nineteenth Century

The idea that cannabis causes insanity became official doctrine in British India in In 1871–1872, on evidence that the historian who has studied it calls spurious. MostGovernment of the officials asked to actIndia collected provincial opinions on it refusedhemp drugs. The formal policy response reproduced by the later Hemp Drugs Commission is dated 17 December 1873; the inquiry period and the resolution should not be conflated. ## The question In 1871 the government of India, responding to a spreading belief that he … cultivation be restricted further, or the drugs prohibited outright? ## The verdict The government concluded that the[resolution of 17 December 1873](/history/india-hemp-restriction-resolution-1873/) asserted a link between cannabis and insanity. That was realan official historical claim. The governor-general called on the provinces to discourage the use of ganja and bhang by … statistics were compiled and found the effect of hemp on insanity "greatly exaggerated". By then the 1872 conclusion hadThe belief also travelled beyond India. Colonial doctors in [Trinidad](/history/trinidad-cultivation-licence-1885/) and British … s. The index lists the inquiry for context; it moved no score for [India](/country/in/).

opusgpt-56.51-sol

Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94, Vol. I 3 unchanged

The oldest ban King Andrianampoinimerina prohibited cannabis smoking in the index's history comes from aMerina kingdom in the highlands of Madagascar. Later historical accounts associate the offence with severe punishment, thirteen years before Napoleon's army banned hashish in Egyptincluding death. They also preserve an important distinction: cultivation for cloth and rope was allowed. The conventional date 1787 does not come with a verified day or surviving decree examined here. ## The king's law Andrianampoinimerina ruledSmoking and useful cultivation Louis Molet reproduces a royal statement, citing the Tantara collection of Merina kingdom athistory. The speaker prohibits consuming or smoking hemp in the endheart of the eighteenth centuryImerina while expressly permitting people to cultivate it for textiles and cordage. Under him, consuming This distinction changes the meaning of the familiar phrase “the king banned cannabis became a capital crime.” The timelineplant had several uses, and the index follows dates the prohibition to 1787reported command treated them differently. The reason recorded is It supports a judgement about whatrestriction on intoxicating consumption; it did to peopledoes not establish that every hemp field or fibre use was outlawed. The kingroyal explanation links smoking with loss of reason. That is reported to have said that when you smoke hempevidence of the ruler’s stated justification as transmitted through later texts, "you become halfrather than a present-witted"day medical assessment. The ban was not aimed at strangers: use was widespread ## Punishment and royal authority Georges Condominas places hemp smoking among capital offences in his own courtiersdiscussion of Andrianampoinimerina’s monarchy. This was a His account connects the king’s rules about personal conduct with measures protecting royal prohibition inauthority and the Merinaunity of the kingdom,. Condominas also describes tobacco and alcohol restrictions in that political setting. His rhetoric about intoxication and the previous court reflects the perspective of his historical account. It should not legislation passedbe mistaken for independent clinical evidence about the borders effects of cannabis. Together, the present republictwo sources strengthen the identification of a royal restriction while showing why its scope needs precision. Neither passage supplies a detailed record of cannabis prosecutions or a count of executions. ## A kingdom and an uncertain year The distinction matters:relevant jurisdiction was Imerina under the index associatesking’s authority. It was not identical to the event with territory of the present Republic of Madagascar's history, but. A statement about the sources do not establish thatheart of the order was enforcedkingdom cannot establish uniform policing across the entirewhole island. The article therefore treatsexisting history entry uses 1787 as its conventional date. The additional passages examined here support attribution to the earliest documented political ban therereign, but do not independently fix enactment to that year. The article therefore treats the precise date as proof of uniform national policingunresolved. ## What came before Cannabis use on the island predated the royal ban by well over a century. Neil Carrier's chapter in *Cannabis: Global Histories* says consumption in Madagascar was known from the mid-seventeenth century and places it within the plant's longthis history in eastern and southern Africa. Later accounts use several names for the plant. does establish The country overviewepisode records *rangani* and *zamal*, while nineteenth-century visitors continued to report local use. Together those references show why the 1787 order belongs in a history of regulation: it responded to an existing practice rather than introducing cannabis tolocally articulated prohibition before the islandmodern international drug-control system. ## What remains The ban outlived It cannot be called the kingdomoldest ban in form and failed in substancethis index now that medieval restrictions are included. Cannabis is illegal in It also cannot establish a continuous legal regime from the king’s reign to contemporary [Madagascar](/country/mg/) today and, by the same account, used everywhere. It is grown mainly for localThe historical consumption, around Mahajanga ban and Antsiranana in the north and Toliara and Fianarantsoa in the south, with some export to neighbouring countries. ## Why it matters Historiescontinuing usefulness of prohibition usually begin with empires and treaties: [Egypt in 1868](/history/egypt-first-ban-1868/), the [Geneva convention of 1925](/history/geneva-opium-convention-1925/). The Merina law is a reminder that a state could decidehemp need to ban cannabis on its own account, for its own reasons, long before anyone asked it to. The index records itremain visible as the first step down from an unregulated state, though it covers one kingdom and not the whole island; the sources read give no detailseparate parts of how it was enforcedthe record.

opusgpt-56.51-sol

La conception malgache du monde, du surnaturel et de l’homme en Imerina, tome 1 Fokon’olona et collectivités rurales en Imerina Sub-Saharan Africa, Cannabis, and Contemporary Drug Policy Wikipedia — Cannabis in Madagascar Wikipedia — Timeline of cannabis law

Accounts of Morocco'’s cannabis heartland owes its position to a decision madehistory commonly attribute cultivation privileges in 1890five Rif villages to Sultan Hassan I. A sultan restricted the crop everywhereOften placed around 1890, and made anthe story has helped explain a supposed historical exception for the mountainsregion. Later scholarship challenges how securely that still grow itaccount is documented. ## The decree Cannabis had been grown onAn influential historical account In a small scale across Morocco since the sixteenth century2008 article, and by the eighteenth the north Pierre-west was known for it. In 1890 SultanArnaud Chouvy repeated the account of Hassan I put strict rules onauthorizing local cannabis cultivation and trade, while granting the right to produce to several tribes of thein five villages associated with Rif tribes. It was regulation by privilege. The crop was not banned; it was reserved. ## Under His historical discussion placed the protectorates The colonial powers keptepisode within the principleruler’s nineteenth-century reign and fought over the detailpolitics of governing the region. Kif was sold That account helps explain how the story circulated through research and later summaries. It does not, by itself, supply an original decree with a monopolyverified date, the Régiea list of beneficiaries and an independently established legal scope. In 1932 France, citing its obligations under ## A later qualification Chouvy’s 2022 study revisits the [Geneva convention](/history/geneva-opium-convention-1925/), prohibited supposed historical growing in its zone except for the monopoly's own supply around Kenitra and Marrakechthe five villages. InHe questions whether the Spanish zone licensed cultivation continued,sultan ever granted those specific privileges and a decree of 1935 confined itpoints to the villages absence of Ketama, Beni Seddat and Beni Khaleda historical written source explicitly identifying them. France banned all cultivationThe change in its zone in 1954assessment matters. The Spanish zone still licensedRepetition of an account across publications can make it that year seem independently confirmed even when writers rely on the same earlier claims. The newer discussion also identifies confusion between tribal names and the names of particular villages. ## After independenceWhat remains uncertain The Rif tribes' rights had been reconfirmed indatabase retains 1890 as the early 1950s, during a period of tension inconventional reference year associated with the regionearlier entry. In 1956It does not now present that year as the newly independent kingdom prohibited cannabis nationwide, and narcotics legislationverified date of 1974 repeateda recovered decree. The title and description have been revised to make the banattribution and uncertainty visible. The mountains went on growingentry is also no longer marked checked. Demand from Western visitors inThe sources have been read, but the 1960s and 1970s pushed farmers to produce on a larger scaleclaimed instrument, its exact date and by 2003 Morocco supplied an estimated 70 per cent ofits beneficiaries remain unresolved. A historical order or another contemporary record would be needed to strengthen the hashish used in Europelegal claim. ## Full circle In 2021 Morocco legalisedAvoiding an invented continuous privilege Evidence that cannabis for medical and industrial use under licence, and in [2024](/cultivation has a long history/morocco-royal-pardon-2024/) in the king pardoned more than 4,800 growersRif does not automatically establish that a particular set of villages held an enduring legal exemption. Licensed growing has returned, 131 years after Nor does later tolerance prove the first licencecontents of a nineteenth-century order. The index listsThis article therefore records an important claim in the 1890 regulations for context; the scored history of [Morocco](/country/ma/) beginstogether with the later bansevidence problem attached to it. It replaces the earlier confident narrative of a precisely dated licence system. No current country score is changed, and no continuous legal entitlement is inferred from a story whose documentary basis is disputed.

opusgpt-56.51-sol

Moroccan hashish as an example of a cannabis terroir product Production de cannabis et de haschich au Maroc : contexte et enjeux Wikipedia — Cannabis in Morocco TNI / GDPO — The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition (2014)