This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
en:thc_recht:quasilegal [2023/11/03 16:54] – [2023] sos | en:thc_recht:quasilegal [2024/03/27 08:56] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | |||
===== Sort of legal: the small amount of cannabis ===== | ===== Sort of legal: the small amount of cannabis ===== | ||
Line 29: | Line 28: | ||
===== Advertisement ===== | ===== Advertisement ===== | ||
- | |[[https:// | + | |[[https:// |
\\ | \\ | ||
Line 42: | Line 41: | ||
Since October 2013, this penalty-free minor amount for hemp has been clearly defined by law throughout Switzerland: | Since October 2013, this penalty-free minor amount for hemp has been clearly defined by law throughout Switzerland: | ||
- | ===== A part of the regulatory fine bill ===== | + | ===== A part of the fixed penalty |
- | This gram limit was introduced together with the regulatory fine bill in order to be able to implement | + | This gram limit was introduced together with the fixed penalty |
===== The sort-of-legality... ===== | ===== The sort-of-legality... ===== | ||
Line 53: | Line 52: | ||
===== ...is not applied ===== | ===== ...is not applied ===== | ||
- | However, no police force adhered to this actually clear regulation. In Zurich, the police order even stated that in such cases (possession of less than 10 grams without consumption) a regulatory fine had to be issued. | + | However, no police force adhered to this actually clear regulation. In Zurich, the police order even stated that in such cases (possession of less than 10 grams without consumption) a fixed penalty |
Other police forces tried to establish further illegal activities through questioning (for example, consumption in the past), so that they could report the persons concerned. | Other police forces tried to establish further illegal activities through questioning (for example, consumption in the past), so that they could report the persons concerned. | ||
Line 61: | Line 60: | ||
===== To make an objection or not? ===== | ===== To make an objection or not? ===== | ||
- | Those who received a regulatory fine over 100 francs for possession of a few grams of cannabis generally did not fight back: the effort for the legal fight seemed too great for most. Even those who received a report and a fine often shied away from the effort (and the possible higher costs if they lost in court). | + | Those who received a fixed penalty |
===== A first judicial clarification ===== | ===== A first judicial clarification ===== | ||
- | But some wanted to know exactly and did not pay the regulatory fine, demanded the ordinary procedure, were fined normally with a summary penalty order and objected to it. Finally, one such case reached the Zurich District Court. In September 2015, the court ruled that the possession of an unpunished quantity really cannot be punished and acquitted the person concerned. | + | But some wanted to know exactly and did not pay the fixed penalty, demanded the ordinary procedure, were fined normally with a summary penalty order and objected to it. Finally, one such case reached the Zurich District Court. In September 2015, the court ruled that the possession of an unpunished quantity really cannot be punished and acquitted the person concerned. |
However, the court did not confirm the non-confiscability. After all, the seized hemp should have been used for the preparation of an illegal act (the punishable consumption). Therefore, the material would not be released again. | However, the court did not confirm the non-confiscability. After all, the seized hemp should have been used for the preparation of an illegal act (the punishable consumption). Therefore, the material would not be released again. | ||
Line 92: | Line 91: | ||
Summary of the situation at the end of 2017: the worst seems to be cleared up. The article [[en: | Summary of the situation at the end of 2017: the worst seems to be cleared up. The article [[en: | ||
- | Mostly, the immunity from punishment of the minor amount was ignored. There were at least three variants of how the police proceeded in such cases. For details, see the article [[en: | + | Mostly, the immunity from punishment of the minor amount was ignored. There were at least three variants of how the police proceeded in such cases. For details, see the article [[en: |
====== Updates on the de minimis quantity ====== | ====== Updates on the de minimis quantity ====== | ||
Line 98: | Line 97: | ||
===== 2023 ===== | ===== 2023 ===== | ||
+ | [[en: | ||
- | |**[[https:// | + | |**[[https:// |
===== 2020 ===== | ===== 2020 ===== | ||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
===== Discontinuation order by the Bülach governor' | ===== Discontinuation order by the Bülach governor' | ||
- | Consumption was not proven, possession of hash and weed was clear - but in a minor amount. The Bülach governor' | + | Consumption was not proven, possession of hash and weed was clear – but in a minor amount. The Bülach governor' |
| {{: | | {{: | ||
Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
===== Federal Court: Small amount cannot be confiscated! (2023) ===== | ===== Federal Court: Small amount cannot be confiscated! (2023) ===== | ||
- | The **Federal Court' | + | The **Federal Court' |
Since 2013 we have written this again and again, since the 9th edition of our legal aid brochure Shit happens. After four years the Federal Court made clear: a not punishable quantity cannot be punished. Now it is clear: this quantity cannot be confiscated either. **It is a great satisfaction to be confirmed by the Federal Court after ten years!** | Since 2013 we have written this again and again, since the 9th edition of our legal aid brochure Shit happens. After four years the Federal Court made clear: a not punishable quantity cannot be punished. Now it is clear: this quantity cannot be confiscated either. **It is a great satisfaction to be confirmed by the Federal Court after ten years!** | ||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
===== A first judicial clarification (2015) ===== | ===== A first judicial clarification (2015) ===== | ||
- | In September 2015, the District Court of Zurich judged a case involving a [[en: | + | In September 2015, the District Court of Zurich judged a case involving a [[en: |
\\ | \\ | ||
Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
===== Advertisement ===== | ===== Advertisement ===== | ||
- | |[[https:// | + | |[[https:// |
\\ | \\ | ||
^[[en: | ^[[en: | ||