Verein Legalize it! - en:thc_recht

Acceptance of driver's license by police

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Acceptance of driver's license by police ======
	+
	+	If a rapid test is positive for THC degradation products and/or abnormalities are detected by the police, the driver's license can be confiscated by the police on the spot. This is not obligatory, sometimes the driver's license is also left (because only the blood test provides clarity and until the results are available, weeks can pass). In both cases, the road traffic licensing authority decides later on how to proceed.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:abnahmefuehrerscheinpolizei.jpg?direct}} \|

File inspection

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== File inspection ======
	+
	+	As soon as the investigations are completed, the accused person can inspect the files. This means going to the relevant authority and looking at all the documents that are available about the case: Statements of police officers, interrogation protocols, lists of seizures, etc. These are copied there or you can photograph them, sometimes you have to copy the information by hand.
	+
	+	Only someone who knows what exactly is against him or her can consider whether to file an appeal against a summary penalty order - or whether it is better to accept the punishment. These files can also be passed on to other authorities (e.g. road traffic office). In this way, various authorities then possess these files - only the persons concerned do not automatically receive them. It is really useful to know which files exist about you.

Order traffic medical clarification

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verkehrsmedizinischeabklaerung.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Order traffic medical clarification ======
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verkehrsmedizinischeabklaerung.jpg}} \|

Order blood sample

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Order blood sample ======
	+
	+	Driving under the influence of drugs is a misdemeanor and to clarify this, a blood sample can be ordered. The prosecutor usually gives the police instructions over the phone to take a blood sample from the suspect in hospital. This decision is then communicated to the person concerned in writing.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:anordnungblutprobesaa.jpg?direct}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:anordnungblutprobesab.jpg?direct}} \|

Application for an exception permit

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Application for an exception permit ======
	+
	+	Since hemp with a THC content of 1% or more is a prohibited narcotic by law, an exemption permit is required for each patient. For this, the doctor must submit an application. Here is an example:
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:gesuchausnahmebewilligungbag_2019a.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:gesuchausnahmebewilligungbag_2019b.jpg}} \|

Strongly illegal: Driving with THC in the blood

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-10-06T07:10:32+00:00

2025/10/06 09:10		Version actuelle
Ligne 286:		Ligne 286:
	===== Advertisement =====		===== Advertisement =====

-	\|[[http://www.fourtwenty.ch/\|{{:thc_recht:fourtwenty.jpg\|fourtwenty.ch}}]]\|	+	\|[[https://fourtwenty.ch/\|{{:thc_recht:fourtwenty.jpg\|fourtwenty.ch}}]]\|

	\\		\\

Example of a seizure protocol

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verzeichnisbeschlagnahmtergegenstaende2004aargauteil1seite1_4neu.jpg?200x150}} \|\|{{:thc_recht:strafbefehlbremgarten800.2004seite1_2neu.jpg?200x150}}
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Example of a seizure protocol ======
	+
	+	If the police take objects, i.e. confiscate them, they must draw up a confiscation protocol. Because the police can only seize - whether these items are then illegal (and confiscated and destroyed) or whether they are legal (and must be returned) can only be decided by a court.
	+
	+	Note in the following example: the police could not seize everything in 1x during the search. The first search went from 6:10-7:30am and from 10:10-10:40am they came by a 2nd time....
	+
	+	The seizures included paraphernalia for consumption, as well as the components of a small indoor facility.
	+
	+	===== The first part of the seizures =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verzeichnisbeschlagnahmtergegenstaende2004aargauteil1seite1_4neu.jpg?800x}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verzeichnisbeschlagnahmtergegenstaende2004aargauteil1seite2_4neu.jpg?800x}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verzeichnisbeschlagnahmtergegenstaende2004aargauteil1seite3_4neu.jpg?800x}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verzeichnisbeschlagnahmtergegenstaende2004aargauteil1seite4_4neu.jpg?800x}} \|
	+
	+	===== The second part of the seizures =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verzeichnisbeschlagnahmtergegenstaende2004aargauteil2seite1_2neu.jpg?800x}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verzeichnisbeschlagnahmtergegenstaende2004aargauteil2seite2_2neu.jpg?800x}} \|
	+
	+	===== And here is the corresponding bus =====
	+	Note: The bus is only so deep because the cultivation is only for personal use.
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:strafbefehlbremgarten800.2004seite1_2neu.jpg?800x1200}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:strafbefehlbremgarten800.2004seite2_2neu.jpg?800x1200}}\|
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+	===== Seizure protocol Ticino =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verbale.jpg}} \|

Examples smaller misdemeanor

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:strafmandatbern750.2008_5ts.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Examples smaller misdemeanor ======
	+
	+	As soon as there is a transfer, there is more than "just" a fine. Now a criminal record is set and in addition there is a monetary penalty, in these examples between three and twelve daily rates. These are usually conditional on a first conviction, so do not have to be paid. In the past, instead of these daily sentences, there were imprisonment or jail sentences (see example at the end of the page), this also conditional the first time. The entry in the criminal record was also common in the past. The amount of the daily sentences depends on the personal circumstances (income, assets, support obligations) and ranges from 30 to 3000 francs per daily sentence.
	+
	+	===== Penalty Ticino =====
	+
	+	Dealing with 50 grams has resulted in a misdemeanor conviction (monetary penalty 20 daily sentences, entry in the criminal record, plus fine and costs of 400 francs). The consumption acts are of little importance in the punishment. What is decisive is the transfer, which leads to the higher level of criminality.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:strafbefehl_tessin_klvergehen_1.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:strafbefehl_tessin_klvergehen_2.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:strafbefehl_tessin_klvergehen_3.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+	===== Lucerne penalty =====
	+
	+	This summary penalty order cannot be dated exactly, we estimate it to be 2008. A standard penalty - probably due to passing on. If the cultivation had been exclusively for personal consumption, only a fine for a contravention should have come. This is now about a misdemeanor.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:strafverfuegungluzernvergehen.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	===== Penalty Bern for the first =====
	+
	+	The fine must be paid, the conditional monetary penalty not. This would only have to be paid if such an offense occurs again during the probationary period. The fees must also be paid.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:strafmandatbern750.2008_5ts.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	===== Penalty Bern for the second =====
	+
	+	Similar to the first penalty, but with "only" three daily sentences monetary penalty.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:strafmandatbern500.2007_3tsneu.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	===== Penalty mandate Wallis =====
	+
	+	Here is an example of a punishment with three days in prison. It dates back to the time before the monetary penalties.
	+
	+	Even though the penalty below was created on April 1, 2004: It is not a joke. Valais has been known for a long time as a very repressive region, but this punishment beats everything. The woman in question was caught by the police with a gram of weed, then admitted to spending about 20 francs on its consumption during four months. She had never sold anything before, but she gives to others free of charge. She had never dealt with the police before - so it was her first time.
	+
	+	For this ridiculously minor illegal activity, she has now been punished with three days in jail, conditionally for two years. And on top of that she has to pay 301.20 francs expenses. All this because of a gram and the admission of occasional consumption, purchase and gratuitous distribution. Here we see clearly what a malicious judge can do with the current narcotics law if he wants to. The mere consumption (without possession, purchase, transfer, etc.) can already be punished with imprisonment. This is what the law says.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li302222.jpg?800x1200}} \|

Medium misdemeanor

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Medium misdemeanor ======
	+
	+	Here, two illegal acts come together, both of which constitute misdemeanor. On the one hand driving under drugs, on the other hand selling. Both together lead to the following punishment:
	+
	+	\| {{thc_recht:strafbefehlbernvergehen2018a.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{thc_recht:strafbefehlbernvergehen2018b.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+	Finally, the enclosed info to summary penalty order, with the possibility to object to the summary penalty order:
	+
	+	\| {{thc_recht:rechtsmittelbelehrungbern2018.jpg?800}} \|

Example easy case

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:leichterfallc.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Example easy case ======
	+
	+	There are very few cases in which "minor case" was recognized and thus no penalty was imposed. Here is an example:
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:leichterfalla.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:leichterfallb.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:leichterfallc.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:leichterfalld.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	However, this can hardly be invoked. The application of the easy case is entirely at the discretion of the authority.
	+
	+	====== Another example easy case ======
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:einstellungteea.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:einstellungteeb.jpg}} \|

Examples of larger misdemeanor

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Examples of larger misdemeanor ======
	+
	+	===== summary penalty order from Zurich =====
	+
	+	Now here comes a lot together: Attachment, transfer, driving without a driver's license ... The costs are quickly very high. There is also an entry in the criminal record.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:zh_strafbefehl_geldstrafe1.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:zh_strafbefehl_geldstrafe2.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:zh_strafbefehl_geldstrafe3.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:zh_strafbefehl_geldstrafe4.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:zh_strafbefehl_geldstrafe5.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:zh_strafbefehl_geldstrafe6.jpg}} \|

Opportunity principle: cannabis is confiscated (with confirmation), without consequence of fine

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verfuegungsicherstellungbasel1.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Opportunity principle: cannabis is confiscated (with confirmation), without consequence of fine ======
	+
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verfuegungsicherstellungbasel1.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verfuegungsicherstellungbasel2.jpg}} \|

Confiscation form driver's license Ticino

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Confiscation form driver's license Ticino ======
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:ti_fuehrerausweisentzug_formular1.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:ti_fuehrerausweisentzug_formular2.jpg.jpg}} \|

The federal court confirms his views (2019)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== Federal court upholds his views (2019) ======	+	====== The federal court confirms his views (2019) ======

	===== Small amount of cannabis =====		===== Small amount of cannabis =====

-	Once again, the Federal Supreme Court had to rule on the impunity of a small amount of cannabis. This time it was about the possession of one gram by a young person. Although the Federal Supreme Court had already clearly stated its position in the 2017 ruling, the Zurich Chief Juvenile Prosecutor's Office wanted to know again. And lost all the way.	+	Once again, the Federal Supreme Court had to rule on the impunity of a small amount of cannabis. This time it was about the possession of one gram by a young person. Although the Federal Supreme Court had already clearly stated its position in the 2017 ruling, the Zurich Chief Juvenile Prosecutor's Office wanted to know again. And lost all along the line.

-	===== Consumption of a small amount =====	+	===== Consumption of a minor amount =====

-	However, the judgment also contains other interesting passages, for example on how to deal with the consumption of a small amount. Here, the Federal Supreme Court repeatedly argues in favour of not punishing this.	+	However, the ruling also contains other interesting passages, for example on how to deal with the consumption of a small amount. Here, the Federal Court repeatedly advocates not punishing this.

-	===== The ten-page judgment with some comments from us =====	+	===== The ten-page verdict with some comments from us =====

-	On 8.1.17 a juvenile was controlled, on 23.1.17 the Juvenile Prosecutor's Office Winterthur issued a reprimand, on 29.6.17 the District Court Winterthur ruled, on 5.4.18 the Supreme Court of the Canton of Zurich followed and now on 2.7.19 the ruling came from the Federal Court. What you can see from these dates: Even a small case, with an actually clear legal situation, takes two and a half years until it is clarified by the Federal Court. This is also one of the reasons why only a few defend themselves: The case may then remain pending for years. The public prosecutor's offices also know this: they simply issue a penalty order and can see whether the punished defend themselves - or, as in the vast majority of cases, simply accept this verdict. They have been successful with this in tens of thousands of cases over the past decades.	+	On 8.1.17 a juvenile was controlled, on 23.1.17 the Juvenile Prosecutor's Office Winterthur issued a reprimand, on 29.6.17 the District Court Winterthur ruled, on 5.4.18 the Supreme Court of the Canton of Zurich followed and now on 2.7.19 the ruling came from the Federal Court. What you can see from these dates: Even a small case, with actually clear legal situation, needs two and a half years until the Federal Court clarification. This is also one of the reasons why only few defend themselves: The case may then remain pending for years. The public prosecutor's offices also know this: they simply issue a summary penalty order and can see whether the punished defend themselves - or, as in the vast majority of cases, simply accept this verdict. They have been successful with this in tens of thousands of cases over the past decades.

-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_1.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_1.jpg}} \|

-	The issue to be clarified here is: Is the possession of a small amount of cannabis by juveniles punishable?	+	To be clarified here: Is the possession of a small amount of cannabis by juveniles punishable?
-	For the sake of understanding: The complainant is the Chief Juvenile Prosecutor's Office in Zurich, the respondent is the lawyer of the accused.	+	For comprehension: The complainant is the Chief Juvenile Prosecutor's Office Zurich, the respondent is the lawyer of the accused.

-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_2.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_2.jpg}} \|
-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_3.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_3.jpg}} \|

-	Here, the Federal Supreme Court becomes fundamental and reminds us that acts that are designated as non-punishable in the law may not be punished in a constitutional state. Actually a truism, but the Chief Juvenile Prosecutor's Office does not seem to take it to heart.	+	This is where the Federal Supreme Court becomes fundamental and reminds us that in a state governed by the rule of law, acts that are not defined as punishable by law may not be punished. This is actually a truism, but the Office of the Chief Juvenile Prosecutor does not seem to take it to heart.

-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_4.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_4.jpg}} \|

-	The topic does not really belong to the case, but the Federal Court mentions repeatedly that the consumption of a small amount (which is actually always punishable) does not fall under BetmG 19a1 but under BetmG 19a2. However, this article (minor case of violation) is practically never applied. In such a minor case, the proceedings can be discontinued, a warning can be given or punishment can be waived. Or rather: could be.	+	This topic does not really belong to the case, but the Federal Court repeatedly mentions that consumption (which is actually always punishable) in the area of consumption of a small amount does not fall under NarcA 19a1 but under NarcA 19a2. However, this article (light case for transgressions) is practically never applied. In such a light case, the proceedings can be discontinued, a warning can be given or punishment can be waived. Or rather: could be.

-	The Federal Court also reaffirms here that BetmG 19b has already been in force since 1975. And: That the consumption should remain exempt from punishment to a certain extent even since this revision. This is just another thing that the criminal prosecution authoritiesprosecutionsimply do not want to admit. But we should stay on this topic.	+	The Federal Court also reiterates here that NarcA 19b has been in force since 1975. And: That the consumption should continue to be exempt from punishment to a certain extent even since this revision. That is just again something that the law enforcement agencies simply do not want to admit. But we should stay on this topic.

-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_5.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_5.jpg}} \|

-	Now comes the consideration of juveniles or how juveniles are to be distinguished from adults according to the BetmG. But it sees no distinction in the case of the minor amount.	+	Now comes the consideration of juveniles or how juveniles are to be distinguished from adults according to NarcA. But it sees with the minor quantity no distinction given.

-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_6.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_6.jpg}} \|

-	Then the Federal Supreme Court also explains the protection of minors to the Office of the Juvenile Prosecutor. "However, the BetmG does not take into account the protection of minors by punishing young people more severely than adults. Rather, the legislator envisaged the harsher punishment of distribution (...) to juveniles (...)." And that makes sense. After all, we punish the distribution of spirits to juveniles, but not the possession of spirits by juveniles.	+	Then the Federal Supreme Court also explains the protection of minors to the Youth Prosecutor's Office. "However, the protection of minors is not taken into account in NarcA with a harsher punishment of juveniles compared to adults. Rather, the legislature provided for the harsher punishment of dispensing (...) to juveniles (...)." And that makes sense. After all, we punish the distribution of spirits to juveniles, but not the possession of spirits by juveniles.

-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_7.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_7.jpg}} \|

-	The power to report is not linked to a criminal conviction, again the Federal Supreme Court explains the legal position to the Office of the Attorney General for Young People. Young people at risk can also be reported without a criminal conviction prosecution. Note: Criminal law is not responsible for everything - nor does it make sense.	+	The power to report is not linked to a criminal conviction; here, too, the Federal Supreme Court explains the legal situation to the Office of the Attorney General for Juveniles. Juveniles at risk can be reported even without a criminal conviction prosecution. Note: Criminal law is not responsible for everything - nor does it make sense.

-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_8.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_8.jpg}} \|

-	Ultimately, the conclusion for the complainant is devastating. One has to wonder what kind of "lawyers" work there. But of course, they are in good company: practically no criminal authority wanted to interpret the BetmG the way the Federal Court did. And whether they will from now on, we will have to see. Therefore we are glad to receive copies of penal orders from all areas!	+	Ultimately, the conclusion for the complainant is devastating. One has to wonder what kind of "lawyers" are working there. But clearly, they are in good company: Practically no criminal authority wanted to interpret the NarcA the way the Federal Court did. And whether they will do it from now on, we will have to see. Therefore we are glad to receive summary penalty order-copies from all areas!

-	Unfortunately, the confiscability of a minor amount is again not clarified by the Federal Court and thus remains open.	+	The confiscability of a minor amount is unfortunately not clarified by the Federal Court this time either, so it remains open.

-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_9.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_9.jpg}} \|

-	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_10.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bge_2019_10.jpg}} \|

	===== Conclusion =====		===== Conclusion =====

-	Both the small amount and BetmG 19a, number 2, the criminalprosecutionauthorities never really wanted to apply. Instead, they complain about an unclear law that burdens them with so much work. But it would be so simple and the Federal Court is waving a fence post:	+	Law enforcement agencies never really wanted to apply both the minor quantity and NarcA 19a, item 2. Instead, they complain about an unclear law that puts so much work on them. But it would be so easy, and the federal court is waving a fence post there:

-	For possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis they would not have to do anything, for consumption of a small amount they would not even have to issue a fine. Just a little more moderation and concentration of forces on the important problems!	+	For possession under 10 grams of cannabis, they wouldn't have to do anything at all; for consumption of a minor amount, they wouldn't even have to issue a fixed penalty. Just a little more moderation and concentration of the forces on the important problems!

"CBD Hemp": Hemp flowers with less than 1% THC

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-08-27T13:13:07+00:00

2025/08/27 15:12		Version actuelle
Ligne 49:		Ligne 49:

	==== Supplement from March 2021 ====		==== Supplement from March 2021 ====
-	Unfortunately, [[https://www.bazg.admin.ch/bazg/en/home.html\|the Federal Customs Administration]] has deleted the said page from its website without comment or redirection.	+	Unfortunately, the [[https://www.bazg.admin.ch/bazg/en/home.html\|Federal Customs Administration]] has deleted the said page from its website without comment or redirection.

	{{:thc_recht:originalseite_legales_cannabis_zollverwaltung.png?linkonly\|Original page as image (on 11/25/2020) from archive.org (retrieved on 3/19/2021).}}		{{:thc_recht:originalseite_legales_cannabis_zollverwaltung.png?linkonly\|Original page as image (on 11/25/2020) from archive.org (retrieved on 3/19/2021).}}

Checklist arrest

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:checklisteverhaftung.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Checklist arrest ======
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:checklisteverhaftung.jpg?600x}} \|

"Regulating Cannabis": A Comprehensive Guide

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-08-29T08:18:28+00:00

2024/03/27 08:56		Version actuelle
Ligne 21:		Ligne 21:
	But otherwise, the book contains a wealth of suggestions and is a valuable compilation of all the problem-areas we need to think about if we want to legalize.		But otherwise, the book contains a wealth of suggestions and is a valuable compilation of all the problem-areas we need to think about if we want to legalize.

-	Short and long versions of the guide can be found as PDFs here: [[https://www.legalisierung.info\|Regulating Cannabis, A Practical Guide]]	+	Short and long versions of the guide can be found as PDFs here: [[https://transformdrugs.org/assets/files/PDFs/How-to-Regulate-Cannabis_3rd_ed.pdf\|Regulating Cannabis, A Practical Guide]]

	The main page about our info on legalization can be found [[en:thc_recht/legalisierung\|here]].		The main page about our info on legalization can be found [[en:thc_recht/legalisierung\|here]].

On the hemp situation: ideas, papers and terms, summer 2014

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

Brief overview of the latest changes to the NarcA

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-11-25T08:33:30+00:00

2025/11/25 09:29		Version actuelle
Ligne 4:		Ligne 4:

	2025: The subcommittee has completed its work. The text of the law and the explanatory report is available at the end of summer, and the consultation runs until the end of November.		2025: The subcommittee has completed its work. The text of the law and the explanatory report is available at the end of summer, and the consultation runs until the end of November.
-
-	2024: First results of the sub-commission on cannabis regulation are expected in the fall

	2022: The medical prescription of cannabis no longer requires an exceptional permit.		2022: The medical prescription of cannabis no longer requires an exceptional permit.

Examples of the different police forces

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\|\|\|{{:thc_recht:befragungsprotokoll01aargauneu.jpg?200x150}}{{:thc_recht:befragungsprotokoll_zuerich01seite1_2neu.jpg?200x150}}
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Examples of the different police forces ======
	+
	+	===== Interview protocol of the cantonal police Aargau =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:befragungsprotokoll01aargauneu.jpg?800x1200}}\|
	+
	+	===== Interview protocol of the railroad police =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:befragungsprotokoll_zuerich01seite1_2neu.jpg?800x1200}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:befragungsprotokoll_zuerich01seite2_2neu.jpg?800x1200}}\|
	+
	+	===== Interview protocol of the cantonal police Ticino =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:protokollti1.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:protokollti2.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	===== Police report from Ticino =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:protokolltessin2008.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+	===== Police protocol Ticino blank, general for any ads =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:dichiarazioneleer.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+	===== Ticino police log blank, for charges of consumption, acquisition and possession of narcotics. =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:dichiaraziones1.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+	===== Police protocol Ticino filled out, with a charge of consumption and possession of weed =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:dichiaraziones2.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+	===== Standard protocol railroad police Ticino =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:ferroviarias1.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:ferroviarias2.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+	===== Police protocol Ticino for misdemeanor =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:rapportos1.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:rapportos2.jpg}} \|

Penalty for driving under the influence of THC (Bern, 2010)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2022/03/26 16:23		Version actuelle
Ligne 7:		Ligne 7:
	The summary penalty order shows the different elements of punishment:		The summary penalty order shows the different elements of punishment:
	* conditional penalty of 10 daily sentences (which you do not have to pay if you prove yourself)		* conditional penalty of 10 daily sentences (which you do not have to pay if you prove yourself)
-	* the connecting buses (so that it hurts after all)	+	* the connecting fine (so that it hurts after all)
-	* the buses for consumption	+	* the fine for consumption
	* as well as fees and expenses (especially for the blood test)		* as well as fees and expenses (especially for the blood test)

	\| {{:thc_recht:fud2010.jpg?800x}} \|		\| {{:thc_recht:fud2010.jpg?800x}} \|

Penalty for driving under the influence of THC (Zug, 2012)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fudzug2012a.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Penalty for driving under the influence of THC (Zug, 2012) ======
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fudzug2012a.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fudzug2012c.jpg}} \|

Penalty for driving under the influence of THC (Bern, 2013)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2022/03/26 16:23		Version actuelle
Ligne 7:		Ligne 7:
	The summary penalty order shows the different elements of punishment:		The summary penalty order shows the different elements of punishment:
	* conditional penalty of 10 daily sentences (which you do not have to pay if you prove yourself)		* conditional penalty of 10 daily sentences (which you do not have to pay if you prove yourself)
-	* the connecting buses (so that it hurts after all)	+	* the connecting fine (so that it hurts after all)
-	* the buses for consumption	+	* the fine for consumption
	* as well as fees and expenses (especially for the blood test)		* as well as fees and expenses (especially for the blood test)

	\| {{:thc_recht:fudstrafbefehl20131010aa.jpg}} \|		\| {{:thc_recht:fudstrafbefehl20131010aa.jpg}} \|

Penalty for driving under the influence of THC (Aargau, 2015)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:stv_strafbefehl_2015_b.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Penalty for driving under the influence of THC (Aargau, 2015) ======
	+
	+	In Aargau it comes to more than the usual 10 to 20 daily sentences monetary penalty, here it is 40.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:stv_strafbefehl_2015_a.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:stv_strafbefehl_2015_b.jpg}} \|

Penalty for driving under the influence of THC (Bern, 2018)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:stv_strafbefehl_2018_a1.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Penalty for driving under the influence of THC (Bern, 2018) ======
	+
	+	Here the 1.5 micrograms of THC per liter of blood was exceeded, so driving under drugs is proven. The punishment is in the usual range.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:stv_strafbefehl_2018_a1.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:stv_strafbefehl_2018_b1.jpg}} \|

summary penalty order Driving under drugs (Aargau, 2020)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== summary penalty order Driving under drugs (Aargau, 2020) ======
	+
	+	Traces of THC in the blood are enough for a conviction. Here is a typical summary penalty order the first time. Again, it already costs over 3,000 francs, plus there is an entry in the criminal record.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fud_ag_2020_a.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fud_ag_2020_b.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fud_ag_2020_c.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	====== summary penalty order Driving under drugs (Bern, 2020) ======
	+
	+	Here it is a bit more favorable, but still: 2'500 francs. Decisive for the punishment was driving under drugs, which is a misdemeanor. Cultivation and possession for personal use, on the other hand, is a trifle (contravention).
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fud_be_2020_a.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fud_be_2020_b.jpg}} \|

Summary penalty order driving under the influence of drugs (Lucerne, 2022)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Summary penalty order driving under the influence of drugs (Lucerne, 2022) ======
	+
	+	If the monetary penalty is pronounced absolutely, it quickly becomes very expensive!
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:strafbefehl2022luzernstva.jpg}} \|

Penalty for driving under the influence of THC (St. Gallen, 2013)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2022/03/26 16:23		Version actuelle
Ligne 9:		Ligne 9:
	* conditional penalty of 10 daily sentences (which you do not have to pay if you prove yourself)		* conditional penalty of 10 daily sentences (which you do not have to pay if you prove yourself)

-	* the buses (you always have to pay them)	+	* the fine (you always have to pay them)

	* as well as fees and expenses (especially for the blood test)		* as well as fees and expenses (especially for the blood test)

Introduction and overview

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-03-28T12:56:39+00:00

2025/03/26 13:31		Version actuelle
Ligne 57:		Ligne 57:
	Unfortunately, the answer is clearly yes. In fact, it is a big part of the overall state repression. The narcotics law is a harsh law. If you think you are safe and then, due to carelessness or bad luck, you are confronted with police violence, you may be shocked at how you are treated.		Unfortunately, the answer is clearly yes. In fact, it is a big part of the overall state repression. The narcotics law is a harsh law. If you think you are safe and then, due to carelessness or bad luck, you are confronted with police violence, you may be shocked at how you are treated.

-	===== ...but tens of thousands of people affected each year =====	+	===== ...but over ten thousand people affected every year =====

	The official prosecution figures are still alarmingly high: around 13,000 people were prosecuted by the police for hemp in 2024. They were accused of almost 15,000 illegal acts related to consumption and trafficking. If we assume a few hundred thousand THC users in Switzerland, about 10 percent are bothered by the police, the public prosecutor or the courts every year.		The official prosecution figures are still alarmingly high: around 13,000 people were prosecuted by the police for hemp in 2024. They were accused of almost 15,000 illegal acts related to consumption and trafficking. If we assume a few hundred thousand THC users in Switzerland, about 10 percent are bothered by the police, the public prosecutor or the courts every year.

Termination of proceedings for trading

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:einstellungsverfuegunghandel.jpg?200x150}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:einstellungsverfuegunghandel.jpg?200x150}} \|

-	====== dismissal of a case concerning a trade ======


-	\| {{:thc_recht:einstellungsverfuegunghandel.jpg?800x}}	+	====== Termination of proceedings for trading ======
		+
		+
		+	\| {{:thc_recht:einstellungsverfuegunghandel.jpg?800x}} \|

Overview summer 2015: There are now (at least) three variants in dealing with the minor quantity

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

Spring 2015: A year fixed penalties, but not always!

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-09-12T09:28:01+00:00

2024/03/27 08:56		Version actuelle
Ligne 11:		Ligne 11:
	====== Summer 2014: The fixed penalties are reality ======		====== Summer 2014: The fixed penalties are reality ======

-	A total of 2,198 fixed penalties were issued for cannabis use in the three months from October to December 2013 ([[https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kriminalitaet-strafrecht/polizei/betaebungsmittelsubstanzen.html\|fines for use of a narcotic drug of the cannabis effect type by adults, 2013. The table can be found at the bottom of the page.]]). Virtually all cantons are included in the statistics. Only Appenzell Innerrhoden does not show fixed penalties, but there are few referrals there anyway. Geneva and Jura only introduced fixed penalties on January 1, 2014, so they did not yet issue fixed penalties for cannabis use in 2013. Ticino has only started as of 1.7.2014. Thus, all cantons have now implemented fixed penalty.	+	A total of 2,198 fixed penalties were issued for cannabis use in the three months from October to December 2013 ([[https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/crime-criminal-justice/police/narcotic-drugs-substances.assetdetail.23584611.html\|Fixed penalties for the consumption by adults of narcotics having cannabis like effects, 2013-2021]]). Virtually all cantons are included in the statistics. Only Appenzell Innerrhoden does not show fixed penalties, but there are few referrals there anyway. Geneva and Jura only introduced fixed penalties on January 1, 2014, so they did not yet issue fixed penalties for cannabis use in 2013. Ticino has only started as of 1.7.2014. Thus, all cantons have now implemented fixed penalty.

	However, one must see: The normal reprimands have reached over 50,000, which makes the fixed penalties rather a marginal issue, even when extrapolated to a full year. The 2014 statistics will probably show how these figures develop.		However, one must see: The normal reprimands have reached over 50,000, which makes the fixed penalties rather a marginal issue, even when extrapolated to a full year. The 2014 statistics will probably show how these figures develop.

Association Legalize it! for legal THC consumption

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-09-28T19:16:52+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:

	+	//Imprint//
	+
	+	\|[[en:thc_recht/einleitung\|{{:thc_recht:sh10s1s40.jpg?200\|Shit happens 10}}]]\|
	+
	+	====== Association Legalize it! for legal THC consumption ======
	+
	+	<WRAP left ligelb 100%>
	+	===== Membership =====
	+	A [[en:verein_li/mitgliedschaft\|membership]] in the [[en:verein_li/verein\|association Legalize it!]] is available for 50 francs per year[[en:verein_li/statuten\|(statutes]]). We gladly accept small or large [[en:mithilfe/spende\|donations]]. Thank you very much! [[en:mithilfe/spende\|Here you find all transfer possibilities]].
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP left liorange 100%>
	+	===== Order =====
	+	Members of the association Legalize it! each receive one Shit happens and are welcome to order two additional copies free of charge: [[rhb@hanflegal.ch]] (please indicate address number). The prices for larger quantities as well as for non-members can be found at: [[https://hanflegal.ch/bestellung\|hanflegal.ch/bestellung]]
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP left ligruen 100%>
	+	===== Consulting =====
	+	This brochure contains the basics. We can clarify further questions in person, either by [[rhb@hanflegal.ch\|e-mail]], by phone 079 581 90 44 or at a meeting by appointment. For our [[en:verein_li/mitgliedschaft\|members]] such consultations are free of charge, non-members pay 70 francs per hour.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP left lirot 100%>
	+	===== Imprint =====
	+	Shit happens , 10th edition, fall 2016. Publisher: Verein Legalize it!, [[http://map.search.ch/zuerich/quellenstr.25.de.html?x=312m&y=-330m&poi=verkehr\|Quellenstrasse 25]], CH-8005 Zürich, [[li@hanflegal.ch]]. Text and design: Sven Schendekehl. Figures/graphics and editing: Fabian Strodel. The detailed imprint with all contributors follows [[en:thc_recht/epilog_sh10\|below]].
	+	</WRAP>
	+	<WRAP clear></WRAP>
	+
	+	===== For the tenth edition =====
	+
	+	In 1996, we published the first Shit happens. 20 years later now this 10th edition of our legal aid brochure. The prosecution of hemp has become more and more absurd and has increased from year to year: in the number of cases and in the amount of the penalties.\\ Nevertheless, repression has not been able to eradicate the phenomenon of smoking pot. Instead, it creates daily injustices and a black market with many negative consequences for the users as well as for the whole society: a market worth billions without safety, without quality and without transparency.
	+
	+	\\
	+
	+	===== Legalize it!? =====
	+
	+	Yes, we have a right to smoke pot, to use one of the oldest medicines and stimulants: self-responsibly, without state paternalism. This right must now be built into the concrete legislation of all countries - a huge job.\\ Legalization in Switzerland is still a long way off. A working group of our association is in the process of building up the necessary foundations for a popular initiative on the subject. When it will be possible to find a majority for a legalization in Switzerland (with whatever regulations) is open.
	+
	+	\\
	+
	+	===== End the prosecution! =====
	+
	+	Internationally, things don't look quite so obdurate: Colorado has pulled off proper legalization, Uruguay is getting started, and the U.S. will hold important votes in November 2016. Perhaps this will provide an impetus to end the wretched drug war in this country as well and develop something more meaningful. Legalization is feasible.
	+
	+	===== Our association =====
	+
	+	The association Legalize it! has been active for over 25 years. We have had various phases and have experienced a lot: from the beginning of the 1990s until today, in the fall of 2016. We have been able to publish ten legal aid brochures, countless legal consultations have been provided, 74 Legalize it! magazines have been printed, information events and member meetings have been organized and parties have been celebrated. All of this has been made possible by the active help of our members, their membership fees and donations. But one thing is clear: if we want to win, we need to increase our numbers and our financial strength.
	+
	+	===== Your support =====
	+
	+	If you have resources (time, money or know-how) that you would like to use for the goals of our association Legalize it! please send us an [[aktiv@hanflegal.ch\|email]] or call 079 581 90 44, merci.
	+
	+	<WRAP left round ligelb>
	+	Support our work!\\ [[en:mithilfe/spende\|Here you can find all transfer options]]
	+	</WRAP>
	+	<WRAP clear></WRAP>
	+
	+	\\
	+	====== Imprint Shit happens 10 ======
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:sh10titel.jpg?direct&400\|Cover page Shit happens 10}} \|Shit happens, 10th edition, Fall 2016\\ \\ Hemp, smoking pot, THC and the laws\\ to the prosecution of cannabis\\ \\ Publisher\\ Association Legalize it!\\ Quellenstrasse 25\\ 8005 Zurich\\ [[li@hanflegal.ch]]\\ \\ Text and design\\ Sven Schendekehl\\ \\ Figures/graphics and editing\\ Fabian Strodel\\ \\ Many thanks to our helpers\\ Ruth, Fabian, Sh., Markus, Sandra, Rebecca, Priska \\ \\ Many thanks to the donators\\ For the big and small contributions!\\ \\ Circulation\\ 1'600 copies\\ \\ Printing\\ Saxoprint \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \|
	+	\\
	+	====== Company list ======
	+
	+	Besides the private members, these [[en:verein_li/firmenliste\|organizations and companies]] support our association Legalize it!

Recognition service

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== Recording for identification purposes ======	+	====== Recognition service ======

-	In the canton of Berne, it seems that identification services are ordered very often, even if it is only a matter of an offence. Here is an example (without DNA profile).	+	In the canton of Bern, it seems that identification services are ordered very often, even if it is only about a contravention. Here is an example (without DNA profile).

-	\| {{:thc_recht:erkennungsdienstlicheerfassunga.jpg?direct\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:erkennungsdienstlicheerfassunga.jpg?direct}} \|
-	\| {{:thc_recht:erkennungsdienstlicheerfassungb.jpg?direct\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:erkennungsdienstlicheerfassungb.jpg?direct}} \|

-	In case of a suspicion of a misdemeanour, an identification service is often carried out: Fingerprints, swabbing of the car's mucous membrane (WSA, DNA profile), etc. Here is a corresponding order, albeit with some confusion: the reason for recording mentions a misdemeanour, the penalty article mentions BetmG 19. This does not correspond: 19 = misdemeanor, 19a = infraction. In any case, the document shows how quickly one can end up in an identification service (even if without a DNA profile), even if one has only imported some hempseeds for oneself.	+	In the case of a suspicion of a misdemeanor, an identification service is often carried out: Fingerprints, smear car mucosa (WSA, DNA profile), etc. Here is a corresponding order, albeit with some confusion: At acquisition reason is the talk of a contravention, at the penalty article is NarcA 19 mentioned. This does not correspond: 19 = misdemeanor, 19a = contravention. In any case, the document shows how quickly one can end up in an identification service (albeit without a DNA profile), even if one has only imported a few hemp seeds for oneself.

-	\| {{:thc_recht:erkennungsdienstlicheerfassung.jpg?direct\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:erkennungsdienstlicheerfassung.jpg?direct}} \|

Example of an unconditional sentence for FuD

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 4:		Ligne 4:
	^ CHF ^ Position ^		^ CHF ^ Position ^
	\| 91\| Police Cost Report \|		\| 91\| Police Cost Report \|
-	\| 100 \| Buses \|	+	\| 100 \| Fine \|
	\| 10'800 \| monetary penalty \|		\| 10'800 \| monetary penalty \|
-	\| 1'600 \| Penalty order fee \|	+	\| 1'600 \| Summary penalty order fee \|
	\| 716 \| Disbursement stores to distribute \|		\| 716 \| Disbursement stores to distribute \|
	^ 13'307 ^ Total, payable within 30 days ^		^ 13'307 ^ Total, payable within 30 days ^

Driver's license, case 1

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:polizei_abnahme_fuehrerausweis.jpg?200x150}} \|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_abnahme_fuehrerausweis.jpg?200x150}}\|

-	====== Driving licence, case 1 ======

-	This is one of the first cases to be dealt with under the new zero tolerance after 1.1.2005. We can trace here the main stages from the police control to the court decision. Likewise, we publish here the documents originating from the Road Traffic Department. A facsimile with the results of the blood test is also available. The court decision formulates some clear statements regarding THC in the blood and driving a car.	+
-	What's particularly absurd is that the actual medical examination... "finds no abnormalities..." and yet a conviction is handed down. Merely because of THC traces in the blood, which are close to the detection limit. This means that not only those who are effectively impaired are taken out of circulation, but also people who are obviously capable of driving.	+	====== Driver's license, case 1 ======
		+
		+	This is one of the first cases handled under the new zero tolerance after Jan. 1, 2005. We can trace here the main stages from the police control to the court decision. Likewise, we publish here the documents coming from the Road Traffic Office. A facsimile with the results of the blood control is also available. The court decision formulates some clear statements regarding THC in blood and driving.
		+	Especially absurd is that the specific medical examination finds "no abnormalities" and yet a conviction is issued. Solely because of THC traces in the blood, which are close to the detection limit. This means that not only those who are effectively impaired are taken out of circulation, but also people who are obviously capable of driving.

	===== Acceptance of the driver's license / police =====		===== Acceptance of the driver's license / police =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_abnahme_fuehrerausweis.jpg\|}} \|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_abnahme_fuehrerausweis.jpg}} \|

	===== Driving while unfit to drive / police, hand report =====		===== Driving while unfit to drive / police, hand report =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz1.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz1.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz2.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz2.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz3.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz3.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz4.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz4.jpg}}\|

-	===== Violation of BetmG, police, protocol =====	+	===== contravention NarcA , Police, Protocol =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:uebertretungsprotokoll.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:uebertretungsprotokoll.jpg}}\|

-	===== Driving while unfit to drive / police, protocol =====	+	===== Driving in non-driving condition / police, protocol =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz1.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz1.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz2.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz2.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz3.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz3.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz4.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz4.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz5.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz5.jpg}}\|

	===== Medical examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, protocol =====		===== Medical examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, protocol =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_arzt1.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_arzt1.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_arzt2.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_arzt2.jpg}}\|

	===== Chemical-toxicological examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, report =====		===== Chemical-toxicological examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, report =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox1.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox1.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox2.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox2.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox3.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox3.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox4.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox4.jpg}}\|

-	===== Opening of criminal investigation / public prosecutor's office, order =====	+	===== Opening of the criminal investigation / public prosecutor, order =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_eroeffnungsverf.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_eroeffnungsverf.jpg}}\|

	===== Initiation of administrative proceedings / Road Traffic Office, legal hearing =====		===== Initiation of administrative proceedings / Road Traffic Office, legal hearing =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_einleitungadministrativverfahren.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_einleitungadministrativverfahren.jpg}}\|
		+
		+	===== Provisional revocation of driver's license / Road Traffic Office, order =====

-	===== Provisional withdrawal of driving licence / Road Traffic Office, order =====	+	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis1.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis2.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis3.jpg}}\|

-	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis1.jpg\|}}\|	+	===== interrogation / public prosecutor, Protocol =====
-	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis2.jpg\|}}\|	+
-	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis3.jpg\|}}\|	+

-	===== Interrogation / Public Prosecutor's Office, Protocol =====	+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll1.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll2.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll3.jpg}}\|

-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll1.jpg\|}}\|	+	===== Arraignment / public prosecutor, Indictment =====
-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll2.jpg\|}}\|	+
-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll3.jpg\|}}\|	+

-	===== Arraignment / Prosecution, Indictment =====	+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_anklageschr1.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_anklageschr2.jpg}}\|

-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_anklageschr1.jpg\|}}\|	+	===== Conviction / District court, judgment =====
-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_anklageschr2.jpg\|}}\|	+

-	===== Conviction / District Court, Judgment =====	+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil1.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil2.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil3.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil4.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil5.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil6.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil7.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil8.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil9.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil10.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil11.jpg}}\|

-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil1.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil2.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil3.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil4.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil5.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil6.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil7.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil8.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil9.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil10.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil11.jpg\|}}\|

Driver's license, case 2

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\|\|{{:thc_recht:vorlaeufige_abnahe_des_fuehrerausweises_.jpg?200x150}}
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Driver's license, case 2 ======
	+
	+	Another case in which no concrete impairments were found - and yet there was a conviction. Again, we can present central stations of the repression. Withdrawal of the driver's license, forensic examinations, protocols and the verdict. Once again, it becomes clear that the punishment is severe and the costs are very high. And all this without any concrete problem being apparent. Traces of THC in the blood are enough according to the law and the users commit a misdemeanor, if they drive a car. Even without concrete impairment, even long after the last joint.
	+
	+	===== Suspicion of narcotics use / police, protocol =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizeiprotokoll_bei_verdacht_auf_betaeubungsmittelkonsum_seite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizeiprotokoll_bei_verdacht_auf_betaeubungsmittelkonsum_seite2.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs / Police, interrogation =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:einvernahmeprotokoll_seite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:einvernahmeprotokoll_seite2.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:einvernahmeprotokoll_seite3.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:einvernahmeprotokoll_seite4.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Temporary acceptance of the driver's license / police =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:vorlaeufige_abnahe_des_fuehrerausweises_.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Blood Collection / Institute of Forensic Medicine, Protocol =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:protokoll_der_blutentnahme.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Forensic toxicological examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, report =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:forensisch-toxikologische_untersuchung_provisorisch.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:forensisch-toxikologische_untersuchung_definitiv.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Report to road traffic office / police =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizeibericht_an_stva_seite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizeibericht_an_stva_seite2.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Provisional revocation of driver's license / Road Traffic Office, order =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:verfuegung_seite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:verfuegung_seite2.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:verfuegung_seite3.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Completion of the investigation / district office, inspection of files =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:akteneinsicht.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Sentencing/District Office, summary penalty order =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:strafbefehlseite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:strafbefehlseite2.jpg}}\|

Driver's license, case 3

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Driver's license, case 3 ======
	+
	+	A special case: consumption occurred after driving. Thus, FuD cannot be proven.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalla.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallb.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallc.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalld.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalle.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallg.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallh.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallf.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalli.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallj.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallk.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalll.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallm.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalln.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallo.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallp.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallq.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallr.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalls.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallt.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallu.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallv.jpg}} \|
	+

Provisional return of the driver's license and opening of an administrative investigation

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:vorlaeufige_rueckgabe_fuehrerausweis.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Provisional return of the driver's license and opening of an administrative investigation ======
	+
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:vorlaeufige_rueckgabe_fuehrerausweis.jpg}} \|

Warnings

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| \| {{:thc_recht:verwarnungzug30neu.jpg?200x150}} {{:thc_recht:verwarnungaffoltern0neu.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Warnings ======
	+
	+	The law in force today offers various possibilities to refrain from punishment in the case of minor quantities at the discretion of the judge. Unfortunately, however, only a few punishers take advantage of this non-criminalization explicitly made possible by the law. Here are examples where this has been achieved.
	+
	+	===== Warning with cost sharing from train =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verwarnungzug30neu.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	===== Warning without cost sharing from Zurich/Affoltern =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verwarnungaffoltern0neu.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	===== Warning with cost sharing from Ticino =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verwarnungtessin2008.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verwarnungtessin2008s2.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	===== Warning without sharing the costs from Ticino =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verwarnungtessin2005neu.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	===== Warning with cost sharing from Valais =====
	+
	+	A warning can also be expensive...
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:sh0707verwarn.jpg?800x1200}} \|

house search

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:hausdurchsuchungsbefehl1.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== house search ======
	+
	+	This invasion of privacy by the authorities is always unpleasant. If there is suspicion of consumption, there should be no house search, but if there is suspicion of distribution, there should be. However, there is a great deal of discretion here - and if a house search investigation on suspicion of trafficking reveals only consumption activities, then there will be a fine for that.
	+
	+	===== House search warrant =====
	+
	+	Below are three examples of a search warrant. The police need this to search a home or other private premises. If a contravention is suspected, a house search is rarely done. Suspicion of a misdemeanor, on the other hand, can quickly lead to a house search because the responsible prosecutor orders it. Already ordering some hemp seeds can be sufficient for this. Without a search warrant, the police may only enter homes if there is "imminent danger". This vague term thus leaves a kind of back door open to the police.
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:hausdurchsuchungsbefehlsz_1.jpg?395&direct}}\|{{:thc_recht:hausdurchsuchungsbefehlsz_2.jpg?395&direct}}\|
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:hausdurchsuchungsbefehl1.jpg?395&direct}}\|{{:thc_recht:hausdurchsuchungsbefehl2.jpg?395&direct}}\|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:hausdurchsuchung.jpg?800}} \|
	+
	+	\\
	+	===== House search protocol =====
	+
	+	The police should issue a receipt for the seized, confiscated items. For whether these are illegal and will definitely be confiscated and destroyed, or whether what has been seized must be returned, can only be decided by the judiciary.
	+
	+	Protocols on house searches can look like this:
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:sichergestellte_gegenstaende_1.jpg?395&direct}} \| {{:thc_recht:sichergestellte_gegenstaende_2.jpg?395&direct}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:sichergestellte_gegenstaende_3.jpg?395&direct}}\|{{:thc_recht:sichergestellte_gegenstaende_4.jpg?395&direct}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:durchsuchungsprotokoll.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:hausdurchsuchungzuerich2009.jpg}} \|

Imprint Shit happens 11

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-09-28T19:16:52+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 4:		Ligne 4:
	====== Imprint Shit happens 11 ======		====== Imprint Shit happens 11 ======

-	\|{{:thc_recht:sh11_titel.jpg?direct&500\|Front page Shit happens 11}} \| Shit happens\\ 11th edition\\ Summer 2018\\ \\ Hemp, Smoking, THC\\ and the laws on\\ prosecution of cannabis\\ \\ Publisher\\ Association Legalize it!\\ Quellenstrasse 25\\ 8005 Zurich\\ [[li@hanflegal.ch]]\\ \\ Text and design\\ [[sven@hanflegal.ch\|Sven Schendekehl]]\\ \\ Figures/Graphics &amp; Editing\\ [[fabian@hanflegal.ch\|Fabian Strodel]]\\ \\ By\\ Markus, Priska, Sheron\\ \\ Corrections\\ Rebecca, Ruth, Sandra\\ \\ Circulation\\ 2'500 copies\\ \\ Print\\ saxoprint.ch \|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:sh11_titel.jpg?direct&500\|Cover page Shit happens 11}} \| Shit happens\\ 11th edition\\ Summer 2018\\ \\ Hemp, pot, THC\\ and the laws on the\\ prosecution of cannabis\\ \\ Publisher\\ Association Legalize it!\\ Quellenstrasse 25\\ 8005 Zurich\\ [[li@hanflegal.ch]]\\ \\ Text and design\\ [[sven@hanflegal.ch\|Sven Schendekehl]]\\ \\ Figures/Graphics & Editing\\ [[fabian@hanflegal.ch\|Fabian Strodel]]\\ \\ **Assistance\\ Markus, Priska, Sheron\\ \\ Corrections\\ Rebecca, Ruth, Sandra\\ \\ Circulation\\ 2'500 copies\\ \\ Print\\ saxoprint.ch \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\** \|

	\\		\\
Ligne 11:		Ligne 11:
	===== About this edition =====		===== About this edition =====

-	Shit happens - this is experienced every day by over 100 THC-users in Switzerland. That is why this brochure is unfortunately still necessary. In 1996 we brought out the first Shit happens, 22 years later now this 11th edition of our legal aid brochure. The hempprosecution became more and more absurd during this time and increased almost from year to year: in the number of cases and in the amount of the punishments.\\ Nevertheless, repression has not been able to eradicate the phenomenon of smoking pot. Instead, it creates daily injustices and a black market with many negative consequences for the users as well as for the whole society: a market worth billions without safety, without quality control and without transparency.	+	Shit happens - this is experienced every day by over 100 THC-users in Switzerland. That is why this brochure is unfortunately still necessary. In 1996 we brought out the first Shit happens, 22 years later now this 11th edition of our legal aid brochure. During this time, hemp prosecution became more and more absurd and increased almost from year to year: in the number of cases and in the amount of penalties.\\ Nevertheless, repression has not been able to eradicate the phenomenon of smoking pot. Instead, it creates daily injustices and a black market with many negative consequences for the users as well as for the whole society: a market worth billions without security, without quality control and without transparency.
		+
		+	\\

	===== Document... =====		===== Document... =====

-	As long as cannabis use remains illegal, as long as every joint can be punished, as long as today's narcotics law with its harsh penalties continues to exist, we want to educate about hemp repression:\\ To give everyone an idea of what the law is and then how it is enforced by police and prosecutors - and what levels of fines and fees the prosecution of cannabis can reach.\\ With this brochure, with consultations and our collected penalty orders, we can also provide assistance with legal problems.	+	As long as cannabis use remains illegal, as long as every joint can be punished, as long as today's narcotics law with its harsh penalties continues to exist, we want to educate about hemp repression:\\ So that everyone gets an impression of how the legal provisions read and are then implemented by the police and public prosecutor - and what heights of fines and fees the prosecution of cannabis can reach.\\ With this brochure, with consultations and our collected summary penalty orders, we can also provide assistance with legal problems.
		+
		+	\\ \\

	===== ...and change =====		===== ...and change =====

-	But ultimately we would like to change the existing Swiss BetmG, to achieve a different, reasonable, legal handling of hemp. Internationally, there is a lot going on: Maybe this will provide impulses to end the miserable drug war in this country as well and to develop something more sensible. The legalisation of hemp is feasible.	+	But ultimately we would like to change the existing Swiss NarcA, to achieve a different, reasonable, legal handling of hemp. Internationally, there is a lot going on: Maybe this will provide impulses to end the miserable drug war in this country as well and to develop something more sensible. The legalization of hemp is feasible.

	===== For hemp legalization =====		===== For hemp legalization =====

-	In the spring of 2018, a number of initiatives are pending in parliament that call for a change in the current situation. On the one hand, the basis for an experimental operation with cannabis should be made possible by a revision of the BetmG, on the other hand, a hemp law is demanded, which should be formulated analogously to the legislation on spirits. In preparation is also our cannabis initiative, with a similar demand. But:	+	In the spring of 2018, a number of proposals are pending in parliament that call for a change in the current situation. On the one hand, the basis for a trial operation with cannabis is to be made possible by a revision of NarcA, on the other hand, a hemp law is demanded, which is to be formulated analogously to the legislation on spirits. In preparation is also our cannabis initiative, with a similar demand. But:

-	===== The prohibition shall continue to apply =====	+	===== The ban still applies =====
-	As long as today's BetmG with its comprehensive prohibitions is in force, one has to be very careful if one appreciates THC consumption. Because: Shit happens.	+	As long as today's NarcA with its comprehensive prohibitions is in force, it means to be very careful if you appreciate THC enjoyment. Because: Shit happens.

	\\		\\
Ligne 33:		Ligne 37:
	<WRAP left ligelb 100%>		<WRAP left ligelb 100%>
	===== Membership =====		===== Membership =====
-	The [[en:verein_li/mitgliedschaft\|Members]] of the association Legalize it! receive our quarterly [[en:magazin/legalize_it\|magazine]] and the [[en:rechtshilfe/shit_happens\|legal aid brochure Shit happens]], can ask legal questions for free and support our work for hemp legalization.\\ The membership fee is 50 francs and can be rounded up if possible.\\ Small or large [[en:mithilfe/spende\|donations]] we gladly accept. Thank you very much!\\ The statutes of our association can be found [[en:verein_li/statuten\|here]].\\ The board leads our [[en:verein_li/verein\|association]] and consists of [[fabian@hanflegal.ch\|Fabian Strodel]], [[markus@hanflegal.ch\|Markus Graf]] and [[sven@hanflegal.ch\|Sven Schendekehl]].	+	The [[en:verein_li/mitgliedschaft\|Members]] of the association Legalize it! receive our quarterly [[en:magazin/legalize_it\|magazine]] as well as the [[en:rechtshilfe/shit_happens\|legal aid brochure Shit happens]], can ask legal questions for free and support our work for hemp legalization.\\ The membership fee is 50 francs and can be rounded up if possible.\\ We gladly accept small or large [[en:mithilfe/spende\|donations]]. Thank you very much!\\ The statutes of our association can be found [[en:verein_li/statuten\|here]].\\ The board of directors leads our [[en:verein_li/verein\|association]] and consists of [[fabian@hanflegal.ch\|Fabian Strodel]], [[markus@hanflegal.ch\|Markus Graf]] and [[sven@hanflegal.ch\|Sven Schendekehl]].
		+	\\ \\ \\ \\
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>

	<WRAP left liorange 100%>		<WRAP left liorange 100%>
	===== Order =====		===== Order =====
-	All members of the association Legalize it! will receive one Shit happens by mail and are welcome to request two additional copies free of charge. free of charge [[rhb@hanflegal.ch\|order]] (please indicate address number).	+	All members of the association Legalize it! will receive one Shit happens by mail and are welcome to [[rhb@hanflegal.ch\|order]] two additional copies free of charge (please indicate address number).

-	**Get more Shit happens \\ Orders can be placed via our [[https://www.hanflegal.ch/forms/rhb_bestellen.html\|form]] or by sending an [[li@hanflegal.ch\|e-mail]] or by phone 079 581 90 44.\\ \\ All [[https://www.hanflegal.ch/forms/rhb_bestellen.html\|prices]] including** shipping, larger quantities on request, for members on account.	+	**Order more Shit happens \\ Orders can be placed via our [[https://hanflegal.ch/forms/rhb_bestellen.html\|form]] or by [[li@hanflegal.ch\|e-mail]] or phone 079 581 90 44.\\ \\ All [[https://hanflegal.ch/forms/rhb_bestellen.html\|prices]] include** shipping, larger quantities on request, for members on account.
		+	\\ \\ \\
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>

	<WRAP left ligruen 100%>		<WRAP left ligruen 100%>
	===== Consulting =====		===== Consulting =====
-	For the legal information is Sven Schendekehl, who has gathered a lot of information from practice since 1996.	+	Sven Schendekehl is responsible for the legal information. He has collected a lot of information from practical experience since 1996.

-	**The aim of the counselling is to provide the legal basis, explain the procedures of the law enforcement authorities, compare the case with similar cases and indicate the types of punishment. This brochure contains the basics** for this.	+	Theaim of the advice** is to convey the legal basics, to explain the procedures of the law enforcement agencies, to compare the case with similar cases and to show the types of punishment. This brochure contains the basics** for this.

-	**Further questions we can clarify personally, be it by [[rhb@hanflegal.ch\|e-mail]], or by telephone 079 581 90 44** or at a meeting by appointment. For our [[en:verein_li/mitgliedschaft\|members]] such consultations are free of charge, for non-members we charge 70 francs per hour.	+	We can clarify**further questions personally, either by [[rhb@hanflegal.ch\|e-mail]], by phone 079 581 90 44** or at a meeting by appointment. For our [[en:verein_li/mitgliedschaft\|members]] such consultations are free of charge, for non-members we charge 70 francs per hour.
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>

	<WRAP left lirot 100%>		<WRAP left lirot 100%>
	===== Imprint =====		===== Imprint =====
-	Shit happens, 11th edition, summer 2018\\ Legal aid pamphlet on hemp, pot, THC, and the laws surrounding cannabis prosecution \\ Publisher\\ Association Legalize it!, [[http://map.search.ch/zuerich/quellenstr.25.de.html?x=312m&y=-330m&poi=verkehr\|Quellenstrasse 25]], 8005 Zurich\\ Text and design\\ [[sven@hanflegal.ch\|Sven Schendekehl]]\\ Figures/graphics and editing\\ [[fabian@hanflegal.ch\|Fabian Strodel]]\\ Assistance: Markus, Priska, Sheron\\ Corrections: Rebecca, Ruth, Sandra\\ Printing: saxoprint.ch\\ Circulation: 2'500 copies	+	Shit happens, 11th edition, summer 2018\\ Legal aid brochure on the topic: hemp, smoking pot, THC and the laws on cannabis prosecution \\ Publisher\\ Association Legalize it!, [[http://map.search.ch/zuerich/quellenstr.25.de.html?x=312m&y=-330m&poi=verkehr\|Quellenstrasse 25]], 8005 Zurich\\ Text and design\\ [[sven@hanflegal.ch\|Sven Schendekehl]]\\ Figures/graphics and editing\\ [[fabian@hanflegal.ch\|Fabian Strodel]]\\ Assistance: Markus, Priska, Sheron\\ Corrections: Rebecca, Ruth, Sandra\\ Printing: saxoprint.ch\\ Circulation: 2'500 copies
		+	\\ \\ \\
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
	<WRAP clear></WRAP>		<WRAP clear></WRAP>
Ligne 60:		Ligne 67:
	===== Our association =====		===== Our association =====

-	The association Legalize it! has been active for over 28 years. We had different phases and experienced a lot: from the foundation in 1991, in the middle of the time of the open drug scenes and the discussions about syringe and heroin dispensing, to the special boom of the "scent bags" from the mid-90s and the official discussions about decriminalization, which the National Council buried in 2004 - in parallel the dismantling of the hemp shops until about 2005. In this year the zero tolerance in road traffic was also introduced. Later the vote on the hemp initiative in 2008, the introduction of regulatory fines in 2013, the hempseedsprosecution in 2015 and the discussions until 2017 whether a penalty-free quantity is really penalty-free.	+	The association Legalize it! has been active for over 28 years. We had different phases and experienced a lot: from the foundation in 1991, in the middle of the time of the open drug scenes and the discussions about syringe and heroin dispensing, to the special boom of the "scent bags" from the mid-90s and the official discussions about decriminalization, which the National Council buried in 2004 - in parallel the smashing of the hemp stores until about 2005. In this year also the zero tolerance in road traffic was introduced. Later the vote on the hemp initiative in 2008, the introduction of the fixed penalties in 2013, the hemp seed prosecution in 2015 and the discussions until 2017 whether a penalty-free quantity is really penalty-free.

	===== Our activities =====		===== Our activities =====

-	Eleven editions of the legal aid brochures have been published over the years, countless legal consultations have been provided, 80 Legalize it! magazines have been produced, a wide range of information events and member meetings have been organised and parties have been held.\\ Since 2016, a working group of our association has been working with other interested parties to build up the necessary foundations for a popular initiative on the topic.	+	Eleven editions of the legal aid brochures have been published in these years, countless legal consultations have been provided, 80 Legalize it! magazines have been produced, a variety of information events and member meetings have been organized, and parties have been celebrated.\\ Since 2016, a working group of our association has been working with other interested parties to build up the necessary foundations for a popular initiative on the topic.
		+
		+	\\

	===== Your support =====		===== Your support =====

-	What we have achieved so far has been made possible by the active help of our members, their membership fees and donations. If you have resources (time, money or know-how) that you would like to use for the goals of our association Legalize it!, please contact us (see above).	+	What we have achieved so far has been made possible by the active help of our members, their membership fees and donations. If you have resources (time, money or know-how) that you would like to use for the goals of our association Legalize it! please contact us (see above).

	<WRAP left round ligelb>		<WRAP left round ligelb>
-	Support our work!\\ [[en:mithilfe/spende\|Here you can find all transfer possibilities]]	+	Support our work!\\ [[en:mithilfe/spende\|Here you can find all transfer options]]
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
	<WRAP clear></WRAP>		<WRAP clear></WRAP>

-	===== Board of Directors and responsibilities =====	+	===== Management Board and responsibilities =====
-	Details about our club, the board and the responsibilities you can find on the [[en:verein_li/verein\|club page]].	+	Details about our club, the board and the responsibilities can be found on the [[en:verein_li/verein\|club page]].

-	===== List of companies =====	+	===== Company list =====
-	In addition to the private members, these [[en:verein_li/firmenliste\|organizations and companies]] our association Legalize it!	+	Besides the private members, these [[en:verein_li/firmenliste\|organizations and companies]] support our association Legalize it!

	\\		\\
-	^[[en:thc_recht/medizin\|Medicine]] ^\| [[en:thc_recht/impressum_sh11\|upwards]] \|^ [[en:thc_recht/einleitung\|Introduction]]^	+	^[[en:thc_recht/medizin\|Medicine]] \| [[en:thc_recht/impressum_sh11\|up]] ^ [[en:thc_recht/einleitung\|Introduction]]^

Imprint Shit happens 13

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2026-09-28T19:16:52+00:00

2022/08/28 22:28		Version actuelle
Ligne 28:		Ligne 28:
	\|[[en:verein_li/firmenliste\|Company list]] \|List of companies that support us \| 40\|		\|[[en:verein_li/firmenliste\|Company list]] \|List of companies that support us \| 40\|
	\|[[en:thc_recht/impressum_sh13\|Imprint]] \|The legal aid brochure Shit happens \| 42\|		\|[[en:thc_recht/impressum_sh13\|Imprint]] \|The legal aid brochure Shit happens \| 42\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:sh13_rueckseite.jpg?linkonly\|Back}} \|Overview: gradations of legality and illegality of THC \| 44\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:sh13_rueckseite.jpg?linkonly\|Back}} \|Overview: levels of legality and illegality of THC \| 44\|

	The quickest way to reach the main pages is via the entries in the sidebar on the left. This table of contents also shows the page numbers of the corresponding articles in the printed edition of our [[en:rechtshilfe/shit_happens\|legal aid brochure Shit happens]].		The quickest way to reach the main pages is via the entries in the sidebar on the left. This table of contents also shows the page numbers of the corresponding articles in the printed edition of our [[en:rechtshilfe/shit_happens\|legal aid brochure Shit happens]].
Ligne 39:		Ligne 39:
	===== About this edition =====		===== About this edition =====

-	In 1996 we published the first Shit happens, 24 years later now this 13th edition of our legal aid brochure. During this time, hemp prosecutions became more and more absurd and increased almost from year to year: in the number of cases and in the amount of penalties. In recent years, for the first time, there has been a decrease. Mainly because the Federal Court finally clarified that the penalty-free amount is really penalty-free. That was an uphill battle, but now reports and regulatory fines have been decreasing for two years. Nevertheless, there are still 100 THC users per day: Shit happens!	+	In 1996 we published the first Shit happens, 24 years later now this 13th edition of our legal aid brochure. During this time, hemp prosecutions became more and more absurd and increased almost from year to year: in the number of cases and in the amount of penalties. In recent years, for the first time, there has been a decrease. Mainly because the Federal Court finally clarified that the penalty-free amount is really penalty-free. That was an uphill battle, but now reports and fixed penalties have been decreasing for two years. Nevertheless, there are still 100 THC users per day: Shit happens!

	Repression has not been able to eradicate the phenomenon of smoking pot. Instead, it creates daily injustices and a black market with many negative consequences for the users as well as for the whole society: a market worth billions without security, without quality control and without transparency.		Repression has not been able to eradicate the phenomenon of smoking pot. Instead, it creates daily injustices and a black market with many negative consequences for the users as well as for the whole society: a market worth billions without security, without quality control and without transparency.
Ligne 79:		Ligne 79:
	All members of the association Legalize it! will receive one Shit happens by mail and are welcome to [[rhb@hanflegal.ch\|order]] two additional copies free of charge (please indicate address number).		All members of the association Legalize it! will receive one Shit happens by mail and are welcome to [[rhb@hanflegal.ch\|order]] two additional copies free of charge (please indicate address number).

-	Order more Shit happens \\ Orders can be placed via our [[https://www.hanflegal.ch/forms/rhb_bestellen.html\|form]] or by [[li@hanflegal.ch\|e-mail]] or phone 079 581 90 44.\\ \\ All [[https://www.hanflegal.ch/forms/rhb_bestellen.html\|prices]] include shipping, larger quantities on request, for members on account.	+	Order more Shit happens \\ Orders can be placed via our [[https://hanflegal.ch/forms/rhb_bestellen.html\|form]] or by [[li@hanflegal.ch\|e-mail]] or phone 079 581 90 44.\\ \\ All [[https://hanflegal.ch/forms/rhb_bestellen.html\|prices]] include shipping, larger quantities on request, for members on account.
	\\ \\ \\		\\ \\ \\
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>

The young people as a special case of the prosecution

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-03-26T12:37:44+00:00

2024/03/27 08:56		Version actuelle
Ligne 32:		Ligne 32:
	===== Targeting the young =====		===== Targeting the young =====

-	6,213 adolescents were reported in 2020. If THC users are not yet 18 years old, the procedure is different than for adults. Basically, the prohibition is valid, as we describe it on the other pages, but the range of punishment is even more open than with adults. This means that the youth prosecutor's office has a very large discretion as to how to intervene when it learns that young people are smoking pot. They can summon them or give them a written warning (possibly also impose fees ).	+	2,673 adolescents were reported in 2024. If THC users are not yet 18 years old, the procedure is different than for adults. Basically, the prohibition is valid, as we describe it on the other pages, but the range of punishment is even more open than with adults. This means that the youth prosecutor's office has a very large discretion as to how to intervene when it learns that young people are smoking pot. They can summon them or give them a written warning (possibly also impose fees ).

	The police report young people they catch smoking pot. The youth prosecutor's office then makes the decision. This can be a warning (with e.g. 100 francs fees ), it can also be a fine (e.g. 50 francs and 50 francs fees ). For this purpose, addiction courses are always imposed on the young people, which can last hours to half days. Those who are otherwise conspicuous or have been reported several times are of course dealt with more severely. The possibilities then range from a higher fine to work assignments to conditional or unconditional incarceration.		The police report young people they catch smoking pot. The youth prosecutor's office then makes the decision. This can be a warning (with e.g. 100 francs fees ), it can also be a fine (e.g. 50 francs and 50 francs fees ). For this purpose, addiction courses are always imposed on the young people, which can last hours to half days. Those who are otherwise conspicuous or have been reported several times are of course dealt with more severely. The possibilities then range from a higher fine to work assignments to conditional or unconditional incarceration.

Legal for all: food with THC traces

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-08-23T11:21:18+00:00

2025/08/23 13:17		Version actuelle
Ligne 40:		Ligne 40:
	Low THC flowers are also offered as smoked products. There, the THC content may then be up to almost 1%.		Low THC flowers are also offered as smoked products. There, the THC content may then be up to almost 1%.

		+	[[https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/en/home/lebensmittel-und-ernaehrung/rechts-und-vollzugsgrundlagen/bewilligung-und-meldung/bewilligung/cannabis-cannabidiol.html\|Cannabis, Hemp extracts and Cannabinoids as foodstuffs (FSVO)]]
	===== Urine tests quickly become positive =====		===== Urine tests quickly become positive =====

Legalization: For a better way!

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-08-27T10:49:15+00:00

2024/09/02 19:31		Version actuelle
Ligne 39:		Ligne 39:
	* [[https://idpc.net/publications/2020/09/principles-for-the-responsible-legal-regulation-of-cannabis\|Principles for the responsible legal regulation of cannabis]]		* [[https://idpc.net/publications/2020/09/principles-for-the-responsible-legal-regulation-of-cannabis\|Principles for the responsible legal regulation of cannabis]]

-	* [[https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/de/home/das-bag/organisation/ausserparlamentarische-kommissionen/eidgenoessische-kommission-sucht-praevention-ncd-eksn/eksn-stellungnahmen.html\|EKSN: Lessons learned und Good Practice der Cannabisregulierung (2022-12-01)]]	+	* [[https://www.bag.admin.ch/de/stellungnahmen-und-publikationen-der-eksn-cannabis\|EKSN: Lessons learned und Good Practice der Cannabisregulierung (2022-12-01, german)]]

	* [[https://transformdrugs.org/publications/how-to-regulate-cannabis-3rd-ed\|How to regulate cannabis, a prcatical guide]]		* [[https://transformdrugs.org/publications/how-to-regulate-cannabis-3rd-ed\|How to regulate cannabis, a prcatical guide]]
		+
	* [[en:thc_recht:DiskussionCannabisRegulieren\|Our questions, comments, and opinions on "Regulating Cannabis, A Practice Guide"]]		* [[en:thc_recht:DiskussionCannabisRegulieren\|Our questions, comments, and opinions on "Regulating Cannabis, A Practice Guide"]]

Heroin delivery before hemp legalization

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li182123.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Heroin delivery before hemp legalization ======
	+
	+
	+	At a lecture in February, Felix Gutzwiller, a preventive physician and member of the National Council, explained his assessment of the status of the narcotics law revision in Switzerland. An interesting lecture with a clear overview of the political problems in the revision of the Narcotics Law.
	+
	+	===== Lecture at the Institute for Addiction Research =====
	+
	+	The Institute for Addiction Research in Zurich organizes an event every month on prevention and treatment services in the field of addiction as part of the ISF Forum. It aims to bring together practice and research and to inform about trends in the field of addiction.
	+	At the beginning of 2000, the ISF had asked Felix Gutzwiller, a well-known bourgeois member of the National Council and professor of preventive medicine, to report on the revision of the Narcotics Law on February 6, 2001. At that time, it was still assumed that the Federal Council's message would certainly be available by the beginning of February, so that it could be informed and discussed at this lecture. But like so much in the history of the narcotics law revision, this deadline was not met. Nevertheless, the lecture took place - but the speaker would have preferred to discuss this next step concretely, rather than speculating about it rather vaguely. (We also discuss the message itself in this issue starting on page 35).
	+
	+	===== Everybody wants to know =====
	+
	+	Before the presentation, the expert on the revision of the Narcotics Law was asked by various interested parties what the status of the Federal Council's message was and - above all - what it would and would not contain. Gutzwiller was unable to resolve this tension. Instead, he gave an interesting lecture with two focal points. On the one hand, his topic was the technical side of law revision: What has to happen in which order for an amended law to come into force? Secondly, he outlined the possible contents of the revision and pointed out the problems associated with these contents, which set the framework for the political discussion in parliament as well.
	+
	+	===== About the revision process =====
	+
	+	So everyone was waiting anxiously for the message of the Federal Council, which has been published in the meantime. According to this message, the first council has to be determined. Switzerland has a bicameral parliament (National Council and Council of States) and every business is first discussed in one council and then referred to the second council. Before the actual discussion in the first council, its commission deliberates on the Federal Council's message (during June, the commission of the Council of States probably started these deliberations). When the discussions in the First Council are completed (this should happen in the course of 2001), the business will be brought to the Commission of the Second Council and then dealt with by the Second Council itself (this could happen in 2002). There may be two delays in this area. On the one hand, the commissions may still decide to hold further hearings or have additional reports prepared by experts. On the other hand, differences may arise between the two councils during the deliberations, which will then have to be settled.
	+	Once the councils have reached agreement and passed the federal decree, a referendum can be lodged against it. It is almost certain that this will happen: there are enough die-hards who will fight even the most minimal improvements on principle. These forces are also strong enough to collect the necessary 50,000 signatures within 90 days, so that the referendum comes about. Finally, the amended narcotics law must be approved in a referendum (which is expected to be in 2003) and then be enacted (around 2004). However, if it fails in the referendum, the whole discussion would be set back by years: Apart from a pile of broken pieces, nothing would have been achieved.
	+	So much for the technical procedure. Now to the possible contents of the revision.
	+
	+	===== Tobacco and alcohol cannot be defined as addictive substances =====
	+
	+	At the beginning of the discussions about a revision, the idea was not simply to carry out a narcotics law revision, but to create a general narcotics law. Alcoholic beverages and tobacco products would then also have been included. Not in the sense that they would have been banned as well. They would have remained legal, but they would also have been listed as addictive substances. However, the innkeepers and other well-organized circles mobilized massively against this, so that this part fell silently under the table. Although especially preventive medicine knows that legal drugs are a much bigger problem for the health of the population than illegal drugs. But in terms of realpolitik, it is impossible to push through a law against the resistance of the landlords and the tobacco companies.
	+
	+	===== Heroin levy to be anchored =====
	+
	+	The first issue remaining for the revision of the law is the definitive anchoring of heroin dispensing for severely addicted fixers. Until now, this very successful form of treatment has been based on an urgent federal decree that expires in 2004. Many preventive physicians and those working in addiction support want this form of treatment to be definitively anchored in the law. If this does not succeed, the heroin program would have to be terminated at the end of 2004 and many fixers would be back on the street - with all the negative consequences (procurement crime, spread of HIV and hepatitis). So there is a lot of pressure to deal with this issue.
	+
	+	===== No longer punish consumption =====
	+
	+	The second issue is the exemption from punishment for consumption. Either for all narcotics, or only for hashish and weed. In principle many see that the punishment of the consumption brings nothing, but the reservations straight against the punishment exemption of the heroin and cocaine consumption are nevertheless still quite large. Exempting smoking pot from punishment, on the other hand, should find a majority among the population, according to Gutzwiller's assessment. For preventive medical reasons, a ban on consumption on public property would be desirable. How far the preparatory acts could then also be exempted from punishment (possession of 5 grams?, possession of 10 grams?, how many balcony plants are okay?, etc.), that remains open and will still trigger some interesting discussions.
	+
	+	===== Tolerate hemp trade? =====
	+
	+	Finally, the third topic is the new handling of commercial cultivation and sale. This is certainly the most controversial chapter. The proposed opportunity principle is nowhere integrated in Swiss legislation, unlike in Holland, and there are still many people against making money from the sale of hash and weed. Of course completely hypocritical, considering how much money is made with the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco. And these cannot even be defined as addictive substances for political reasons, because otherwise the landlords would threaten with a referendum.
	+
	+	===== Beautiful models and realpolitik =====
	+
	+	For Gutzwiller, it is problematic that the last vote on controlled heroin distribution resulted in an acceptance, but with only 55 percent yes votes. Even if it can be assumed that the first issue mentioned above, namely heroin distribution, would be accepted again, it is questionable how many other issues can be combined in a voting proposal so that there is still an acceptance. And it is clear to him that it does not bear much more additional: perhaps the exemption from punishment of cannabis use, that could be in.
	+
	+	===== A template or step by step? =====
	+
	+	He could also imagine a division of the various issues. After all, it would be a rather strange vote if there were a joint bill for the controlled release of heroin and the exemption from punishment of the consumption of cannabis products. Two issues that actually don't have much to do with each other (except that both substances are in the same total prohibition category). A staging or parallel treatment seems to be possible to Gutzwiller, he will probably push for it in the National Council.
	+	As a preventive physician, it is clearly important to him to anchor heroin distribution. For him, there is a need for action there, and he wants to make a difference. On the subject of hemp, he certainly tends to be on our side, but I already sensed that this subject is not very close to his heart. For him, smoking pot is primarily a harmful behavior (smoking) and he certainly does not consider it desirable that people smoke pot. There is also simply no pressure for him to move forward with this issue (there is no threat of HIV and hepatitis epidemics from people smoking pot, there is no threat of open drug scenes, people smoking pot are not perceived by him as a powerful force, such as the Restaurant Owners Association). He is certainly in favor of legalizing consumption, but this does not have the same importance for him as the definitive anchoring of heroin distribution.
	+
	+	===== Desirable and feasible =====
	+
	+	Gutzwiller also made a clear distinction between two levels: On the one hand, one can discuss what would be just, logical, beautiful models of a new way of dealing with psychoactive substances. On the other hand, one must ask oneself the question: How do we get what to the point where it is approved in a referendum in the next few months? These are effectively two different considerations. Beautiful concepts may be beautiful and also morally convincing, perhaps even just. But political enforceability does not necessarily have anything to do with it. Only proposals that reach a majority are enforceable. This will be the exciting process of the coming months: Who will bring together which majorities for which issues in parliament and among the population?

Cannabis Use in Switzerland - A Study Part 1

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li183133.jpg}} \|

	+
	+
	+	====== Cannabis Use in Switzerland - A Study Part 1 ======
	+	**
	+	In mid-February of this year, the SFA (Swiss Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems) published a study looking at weed- and hash consumption in Switzerland. In a telephone survey representative of the whole of Switzerland, 1,600 people were asked about their consumption of and opinion about cannabis products.**
	+
	+	===== Many data =====
	+
	+	The official title of the study, by the way, is "Cannabis on the threshold to becoming a legal intoxicant - What the Swiss think of cannabis consumption". Briefly summarized, the study first deals with the question of who has ever smoked pot. Then the researchers were interested in who currently smokes pot, since when and how often; finally, they were also asked what is smoked and how the users get the dried flowers or the pressed resin. These are the core questions about smoking pot. Further questions were then asked about problems with consumption, the utility value of cannabis and the consequences or effects of its use. Also the image of the smokers and the opinion about the current situation were asked. Finally, a whole range of questions was asked about cannabis policy options that are still open at the moment, but which could lead to new legal regulations in a few years' time.
	+
	+	The whole report covers 32 pages and this obviously huge amount of information leads to the fact that the following report is mainly dedicated to the results concerning smokers and their habits.
	+
	+	===== Who has ever smoked pot? =====
	+
	+	According to the study, around 27% of 15- to 74-year-old Swiss people have smoked pot at least once in their lives. Among those surveyed, 44% of young people and as many as 58% of young adults had smoked a joint at least once. Another 35% of 25- to 44-year-olds, 16% of 45- to 59-year-olds and as many as 5% of those over 60 have had experience with the use of cannabis.
	+
	+	^ Experience with cannabis, by age ^
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li183133g1.png?nolink}} \|
	+	\| Question: "Have you ever used cannabis (marijuana, hashish) in your life?" \\ Basis: 1,584 persons (total sample) \\ \|
	+
	+	For the authors of the report, these results are an expression of the fact that the generation of "hash rebels" of the 70s and 80s is now in their fifties and experiences that their offspring let the joint circle. Well, I don't know if this generation really exists as such, because it seems that not everyone in the "wild seventies" was really wild, even if not only the SFA today collectively calls them the generation of "hash rebels". Even today, this is the easiest thing to recognize: Not everyone smokes pot, and even those who can be classified into this group are so different from each other that this classification can't tell us much. Rather, it is a sign of the times that, in addition to the "fun society" as a whole, there are also subculture-like consumption structures. Whether smoking pot is the alternative to drinking alcohol or using synthetic drugs - I don't think that parents have a big influence on the choice of stimulants for young people, but rather on the way in which they are consumed.
	+
	+	It only remains to add the results of the evaluation by language region. This shows that the higher repressiveness in French-speaking Switzerland is not reflected in a lower proportion of cannabis users - rather the opposite is the case: in French-speaking Switzerland, the proportion of cannabis users is comparable to that in German-speaking Switzerland and significantly higher than in Ticino. As will be shown later, the repression is then rather reflected in the way in which the stimulants come from.
	+
	+	===== Who smokes pot? =====
	+
	+	18% of the 15-59 year olds surveyed stated that they had used cannabis products in the last 12 months. In terms of age, this means that just under a quarter of young people and a good quarter of young adults currently use cannabis. Among those aged 25 to 44, the figure is still just under 10%, and among those aged 45 to 59, it is still a good 5%. No smokers over the age of 60 were involved in this study, even though the real situation is certainly different.
	+
	+	^ Current use of cannabis, by age ^
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li183133g2.png?nolink}} \|
	+	\| Question: "Do you still use cannabis (marijuana, hashish)?" \\ Basis: 1,365 persons (total sample) \\ \|
	+
	+	From the explanatory text it is clear that for the SFA the unique experience with cannabis products exemplifies a norm violation. However, the focus should be on the more important current consumption. Regarding these results, it is stated that although there is significantly more "hash" in young years than in later years, today there can no longer be any question of cannabis use being an exclusive phenomenon of youth.
	+
	+	===== How often do people who smoke pot smoke? =====
	+
	+	In the press, the main emphasis was on the figure of 87,000 daily smokers. In the survey, this was 6.5% of adolescents, 5.4% of young adults and 1.7% of 25-44 year olds who said they smoke pot daily. Those over 45 seem to prefer not to smoke pot daily.
	+
	+	Using other numbers, this means that one-third of 15- to 74-year-olds who have cannabis experience still smoke pot today.
	+
	+	===== What is being stoned? =====
	+
	+	Be it weed or hash, of domestic or foreign origin - what is consumed, i.e. what might be available where, is not only in the interest of the smokers, but also the law enforcement agencies would like to know what is on the market. In the study, unfortunately, only one question was asked on this topic. Thereby 44% of the stoners stated to consume mainly marijuana. Still 22% consume mainly hashish and 34% smoke weed and hash comparably often.
	+
	+	^ Current use of cannabis by preferred substance form ^
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li183133g3.png?nolink}} \|
	+	\| Question: "Do you still use cannabis (marijuana, hashish)?" \\ Basis: 143 persons (current users) \\ \|
	+
	+	Already in the past, we have interpreted the extreme increase in marijuana arrests since the mid-1990s - especially among young people - as an indication of a change in the consumption structure: Due to the possibility of purchasing (mostly domestic) weed in stores, many young people never even started to consume (mostly foreign) "alley" hash. But more on the sources of supply of cannabis products in a moment.
	+
	+	===== Where do you get "it"? =====
	+
	+	A quarter of the respondents grow hemp themselves and more than half have friends who sometimes give some away. More than a third of the respondents buy something from a hemp store or from friends. Not even one tenth goes "on the street" to get something stoned.
	+
	+	^ Procurement of cannabis products ^
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li183133g4.png?nolink}} \|
	+	\| Question: "How do you usually obtain cannabis?" Multiple answers possible \\ Basis: 143 persons (current users) \\ \|
	+
	+	As already mentioned in the results on single use, the analysis of the language regions is of particular interest here. Since there are fewer or no stores in French-speaking Switzerland due to the greater repression against smokers, other sources of cannabis should come into play in this part of the country compared to German-speaking Switzerland and Ticino. And really, while in German-speaking Switzerland one fifth and in Ticino even one third buys in stores, in French-speaking Switzerland it is only about one tenth. On the other hand, they are more likely to get it from friends (two thirds, D-CH: 48%, I-CH: 42%). There is also a difference in home cultivation. A quarter of the Italian-speaking respondents grow their own. Among the German-speaking Swiss, it is still a fifth, and in French-speaking Switzerland there are still 13 percent of potential self-suppliers. However, the number of respondents is too small to make general statements about people who smoke pot. But one last detail seems to be appropriate: Especially the 15 to 24 year olds - they have to endure the most reprimands - more often did not give any information about their sources of supply.
	+
	+	===== In conclusion =====
	+
	+	I would estimate that 1.5 to 2 million inhabitants of our small hemp country have already taken a drag on a joint. Of these, about 500,000 are likely to be current users, perhaps half of them weekly or more often. Finally, there are about 100'000 almost daily users - so within the smokers again a minority ...
	+
	+	If someone consumes cannabis on a daily basis, the SFA classifies this consumption as "problematic" - just because of the "daily". Without further information about the person and the environment, I find this conclusion daring and arrogant towards responsible users. But it is not surprising that a specialized agency dealing with drug problems should take this view. In a further report on this study, it should be clarified whether the approximately 100,000 more or less daily smokers see this consumption as a problem or rather as a pleasure.
	+
	+	//Source: "Cannabis on the threshold of legal intoxication: a representative study on the phenomenon "Cannabis" : consumption, attitudes, politics" by Richard Müller, Hermann Fahrenkrug, Sandra Müller. SFA, Swiss Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, 2001. ([[http://books.google.ch/books/about/Cannabis_auf_der_Schwelle_zum_legalen_Ra.html?id=iJy5AAAACAAJ\|books.google.ch]] - {{:thc_recht:li18bis20_cannabisbefragung.pdf\|PDF}})//
	+
	+	[[en:thc_recht/li191317\|To the second of three articles]]

Cannabis study part 2

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li191317.jpg}} \|

	+
	+
	+	====== Cannabis study part 2 ======
	+
	+	After the Swiss Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems (SFA) published its cannabis study in February and various results have already been reported in Legalize It! 18, the following is mainly about experiences with and opinions about the use of cannabis.
	+
	+	===== Numbers and opinions =====
	+
	+	In recent months, the mass media have also published one or the other figure from this study when it came to describing the group of pot smokers. The bare numbers are still the easiest and quickest thing to have at hand. So, for the time being, the ostensibly most important questions have been answered. I do believe, however, that people interested in cannabis want to take a closer look at their stimulant - contrary to certain prejudices. Thus, a view focused more on opinions than on numerical quantities also seems interesting. What experiences have cannabis users had and what opinions do they have in common with each other and with non-users or not?
	+
	+	===== Use vs. abuse =====
	+
	+	When it comes to the use of cannabis, not only concerned parents and teachers often ask about the dangers of abuse that could lead to worse. However, as is the case with illegalized cannabis products, by law any use becomes abuse. Thus, from the health-preventive point of view, only a part of the whole situation can be judged. Thus, I feel that the division into legal and illegal drugs - especially in the case of cannabis - is a hindrance for everyone involved when it comes to solving problems. But also from a "pure" health point of view, it is difficult to make statements about the effect of cannabis and THC in particular, since this is all very individual, as we know.
	+
	+	Thus, also in the text of the SFA it is stated that there is no agreement about which form and which frequency of cannabis use is to be called abusive (daily use is called "problematic"). International studies are mentioned - the Roque study (F) and the Kleiber study (D) - "which prove that the health risk from cannabis use is to be classified as low and the toxicity of cannabis is less than that of alcohol, for example".
	+
	+	However, there are also reports of an increasing number of young people who have already tried cannabis. However, the proportion of "potential abusers" (i.e. daily smokers) has not increased to the same extent. Thus, the so-called quitting rate - the proportion of "quitters" who give up smoking pot over time - still seems to be considerable: While more than 15% of 15- to 19-year-olds (with cannabis experience) use at least daily, the figure is just under 10% for 20- to 24-year-olds and still a good 5% for 25- to 44-year-olds.
	+	For the SFA, there is no question that "daily smoking has an unfavorable effect on the psychosocial development of adolescents (young people; editor's note) in particular."
	+
	+	It is therefore quite clear that, from a health perspective, (young) adolescents are the most important target group. It is important to inform these young people as well as possible, so that they know what they are dealing with when it comes to cannabis - and what are rather horror stories. The efforts of not only these experts are also aimed at ensuring that the use of cannabis is not started too early and that it is then better not practiced on a daily basis. Even if these goals are plausible, it can be assumed that the repression and its consequences massively complicate the work in the field of prevention.
	+
	+	===== Age of first consumption =====
	+
	+	"When did you smoke your first joint?" This question has certainly come up in many conversations - and not just in so-called "stoner circles." Most could certainly tell long stories about what "the first time" was like: what people were involved and the exact environment in which it happened.
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:li191317g1.png?nolink}}\|
	+
	+	Estimating the average age of first use is difficult, according to the SFA text, and even more so is the shift in that age over time. Recent calculations have shown "that the age of first use has decreased by about three-quarters of a year in recent years and should be placed between 15 and 16 years." Nearly 60% of the 15- to 19-year-olds surveyed placed their first cannabis use before the age of 15, while the corresponding figure for 20- to 24-year-olds is still just over a quarter.
	+
	+	===== Do you have a problem? =====
	+
	+	For the authors of the study it is immediately obvious that the use of cannabis can bring problems. According to the study, one fifth of the younger respondents with cannabis experience also perceived problems.
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:li191317g2.png?nolink}}\|
	+
	+	Reference is also made to the fact that not only psychological and physical problems were perceived, but the respondents also noticed social difficulties. However - and here I am really grateful - it is immediately added that this is not a consequence of the effect of THC, but rather a consequence of the illegal status of cannabis products. This could also be an explanation for the fact that more problems are perceived in French-speaking Switzerland (D-CH: 10.3%, F-CH: 21.6% and
	+	I-CH: 10.3%).
	+
	+	The striking difference between the young and the older is attributed in the text to the fact that "the unpleasant sides of consumption fade after a while of years." However, I find this explanation to be minimalist. I would say that users of cannabis also adopt a personal pattern of norms and rules, a culture, in other words, that "regulates" the use of the stimulant - in such a way that it is not perceived as problematic. Secondly, people of a higher age who smoke pot are no longer "under observation" in the same way as students whose cannabis use has been noticed and who are punished. Young people are most likely to perceive their cannabis use as a source of friction between the world of youth and adult society. Perhaps in later life it is the physical and psychological problems that begin to replace those with parents, teachers and the police?
	+
	+
	+	===== What is the benefit of smoking pot? =====
	+
	+	Why do people actually smoke pot? An interesting and yet difficult question to answer. But since there does seem to be a huge amount of people who get something out of consuming cannabis products, the text to the study also points out the socio-political importance of drugs in general. "They not only provoke intoxication and ecstasy, promise new feelings and artificial paradises, but they also help to displace frustration and suffering and can even be used as a remedy. What is true of drugs in general is also true of cannabis."
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:li191317g3.png?nolink}}\| \|{{:thc_recht:li191317g2l.png?nolink}}\|
	+
	+	It quickly becomes apparent that non-users cannot easily comprehend the recreational aspect of smoking pot (recreational pleasure and against everyday stress); only a few can even imagine that cannabis is used as a remedy. Most current users, on the other hand, do not perceive cannabis as a "protest drug". This image from rebellious years is still attached to hash and weed, although after decades of increasing repression a new category could be created - that of the "martyr drug" cannabis.
	+
	+	===== What are the consequences of smoking pot? =====
	+
	+	The consequences attributed to cannabis use were divided into three independent dimensions for the survey: A positive experience aspect ( Graph 4a), a negative experience aspect (Graph 4b), and a performance aspect (Graph 4c).
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:li191317g4a.png?nolink}}\|{{:thc_recht:li191317g4b.png?nolink}}\|
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:li191317g4c.png?nolink}}\|{{:thc_recht:li191317g2l.png?nolink}}\|
	+
	+	Similar to the use value of cannabis, non-users cannot relate to the increase in creativity through cannabis use, for example. On the negative side, the eternal myth of cannabis as a gateway drug also resurfaces. The discussions on this topic are endless - the results of the study on this issue are refreshingly clear in this respect.
	+
	+	If the results are not evaluated according to cannabis experience but according to age and thus refer to the total sample, it becomes apparent that the young assign significantly more positive consequences to cannabis use than older persons. The negative aspects, however, are not ignored by the younger ones. Young people even perceive the consequences in terms of performance more critically, which leads the SFA to conclude that young users are probably better informed, not least because of educational drug prevention.
	+
	+	===== ... I still have one =====
	+
	+	In two articles have now but numerous results of this cannabis study in the Legalize it! found place. In another (and last) article, the image of the smokers and cannabis-political opinions of the respondents will be discussed. Until then, hopefully new facts will arrive from the Federal House about the political processes - let's wait and see.
	+
	+	//Source: "Cannabis on the threshold of becoming a legal intoxicant: a representative study on the phenomenon "cannabis" : consumption, attitudes, politics" by Richard Müller, Hermann Fahrenkrug, Sandra Müller. SFA, Swiss Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, 2001. ([[http://books.google.ch/books/about/Cannabis_auf_der_Schwelle_zum_legalen_Ra.html?id=iJy5AAAACAAJ\|books.google.ch]] - {{:thc_recht:li18bis20_cannabisbefragung.pdf\|PDF}})//
	+
	+	[[en:thc_recht/li201922\|To the third and last article]]

Cannabis study part 3

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li201922.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Cannabis study part 3 ======
	+
	+	This is the third and last report on the cannabis study of the SFA (Swiss Agency for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems). It is about the image of stoners and opinions about the cannabis policy alternatives of the future.
	+
	+	===== The image of the stoner =====
	+
	+	Image is everything! Sounds very much like advertising. I don't even remember where this slogan comes from - and I don't like to agree with it, but especially in politics it could be like that or similar. Images, however, are, as the word implies, only images we have of mostly unknown persons, i.e. projections or illusory images. In a media world where not every politician can be interviewed in person, these images are a means of transport for forming opinions. In order to make decisions more quickly, we form (pre)judgments through a wide variety of information. We all have prefabricated labels that we attach to unknown people, otherwise we would be much slower in our decisions.
	+
	+	In the SFA survey, we were limited to eight adjectives as descriptors. Of course, many questions could have been asked - I would have liked to know more or even the opinion of other "labels" that are attached to people who smoke pot.
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:li201922g1.png?nolink}}\|
	+
	+	It can be seen that the older respondents tend to perceive cannabis users as reckless and unreasonable. A little curious the stoners will probably be, but also misinformed - why else would they do something harmful? Well, the boys only answered slightly positive, i.e. approving, for "curious". For the "labels" that were not agreed with, there are more similarities between the generations. For example, cannabis users are not seen as cool or brave. People who smoke pot are also relieved to learn that they are not considered criminals - it is enough if many are treated as such...
	+
	+	These (negative) images are rejected much more clearly by the younger ones. The biggest differences of opinion between the generations are found in recklessness and misinformation.
	+
	+	In several of the results of this study, the differences between the language and cultural areas within Switzerland were striking. The image of pot smokers is no exception. In German-speaking Switzerland, pot smokers are considered to be rather curious and somewhat unreasonable, while in French-speaking Switzerland they are seen as reckless. In all parts of the country, people who smoke pot are not considered uninformed. However, they are considered neither cool, nor brave, nor criminal.
	+
	+
	+	===== The cannabis policy options =====
	+
	+	The revision of the Narcotics Law is making small progress every now and then. Finally, the whole thing comes to the parliament to be discussed fiercely. However, it will still take years until the conclusion, i.e. a vote. That's where the probe among those surveyed in the study comes in just at the right time. It is a foretaste of "popular opinion," even though the SFA report emphasizes that no conclusions can be drawn from these results for an eventual vote. This also makes sense, since the respondents were asked to express their opinion on each of the different models and were not presented with the four options as alternatives.
	+
	+	These attitude questions are thus intended to assess how high the openness towards the use of cannabis is in the population or whether different parts of the population can imagine a liberalization in the area of cannabis (use) or whether they would rather continue to stick to prohibition.
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:li201922g2.png?nolink}}\|
	+
	+	* 1) Tolerance or Opportunity Model: "You should just tolerate cannabis use."
	+	* 2) Legalization model: "Prohibition must be lifted. The consumption, cultivation and trade of cannabis should be legal (as with alcohol and tobacco)."
	+	* 3a) Decriminalization model for all: "At the very least, the use and purchase of cannabis for personal use should be exempt from punishment for all."
	+	* 3b) Decriminalization model for adults: "The consumption and acquisition of cannabis for personal use should be exempt from punishment only for adults."
	+	* 4) Prohibition model: "Production, distribution and consumption of cannabis must remain prohibited for all."
	+
	+	The answers to this question show quite clearly that opinions are divided for and against liberalization. Three groups of almost equal size would have been quite conceivable:
	+
	+	The "liberalization supporters," the "repression supporters" and the "undecideds." Here, however, we see that only a weak majority would be in favor of liberalization. The opponents are not much smaller. There remains a small proportion of undecideds - according to the SFA, an indication that opinions have already been made.
	+
	+	The report on the study also looks at the differences in terms of gender, age, language region and education. Men seem to be more open to liberalization than women. Younger people are also more in favor of a liberalized variant than the older generation. In German-speaking Switzerland, a tolerant approach to cannabis (users) finds more approval than in French-speaking Switzerland and Ticino. Better educated people are more likely to want liberalization than people with a smaller school bag. But these slices of the whole should not be seen as too rigid - the differences are quite small depending on model and group. And yet, some surprising details emerge: for example, 15- to 19-year-olds approve of the current prohibition model by 40%, while only slightly older 20- to 24-year-olds are in favor of prohibition by only 32%. This growing liberality in the period between youth and adulthood is attributed in the report to the likely changing influence of parents and peers.
	+
	+	===== Arguments for and against liberalization =====
	+
	+	In order to better identify people's opinions on cannabis and on how to deal with its users in the future, the participants in the study were asked additional detailed questions. This should make it clearer why one or the other model was preferred.
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:li201922g3.png?nolink}}\|
	+
	+	* 1) "Public consumption of cannabis should remain prohibited so as not to set a bad example for youth."
	+	* 2) "Should Switzerland implement its own cannabis policy, even against international drug treaties?"
	+	* 3) "Cannabis prohibition deters potential users."
	+	* 4) "Cannabis is the first step to using hard drugs."
	+	* 5) "Prohibiting cannabis only makes it more enticing."
	+	* 6) "Legalizing cannabis encourages use."
	+	* 7) "Police should crack down on cannabis users everywhere."
	+	* 8) "People should be allowed to plant cannabis for personal use."
	+
	+	When it comes to setting an example for young people, many no longer understand any joke - so legal cannabis use should also rather not take place in public. If, however, an independent Swiss policy is on the agenda, people are committed to a more liberal cannabis policy against international agreements, even though the highest proportion of undecideds is on this issue. There is no belief in prohibition as a deterrent, which is what today's situation also makes one temporarily aware of. The myth of cannabis as a gateway drug lives on in the minds of many people, but at least it has been acknowledged that prohibition might attract young people in particular. At least it is pleasing that the police are not being considered as a solution to the problems.
	+
	+	Only on the question of whether legalization would promote consumption, there was no majority, however small. But only legalization can provide certain answers, otherwise such questions can never be answered realistically. Only a small majority is in favor of home cultivation - which is a pity, because this would be one of the ways to calmly and pragmatically address the conflicts surrounding the procurement of cannabis.
	+
	+
	+	===== That's it... =====
	+
	+	So much for the extremely interesting and, in my opinion, sensible cannabis study that the SFA has brought us. This and other recent studies on cannabis and its use also show that the topic is no longer considered unimportant and negligible - the population is definitely interested in what is going on with hemp, or not. As already mentioned, it will still be some time before the Swiss electorate can decide on a new cannabis regulation. Which model will be debated at all and which will be overturned earlier by the parliament, nobody knows today. Even though opinions seem to be made based on this study, a lot can still happen. In the next few years, many young people who have experience with cannabis today will become eligible to vote, which will hopefully further strengthen the "pro cannabis" vote. Only then could a perhaps even meager improvement really become a lived reality. Let's legalize!
	+
	+
	+	//Source: "Cannabis on the threshold of legal intoxication: a representative study on the phenomenon "cannabis" : consumption, attitudes, politics" by Richard Müller, Hermann Fahrenkrug, Sandra Müller. SFA, Swiss Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, 2001. ([[http://books.google.ch/books/about/Cannabis_auf_der_Schwelle_zum_legalen_Ra.html?id=iJy5AAAACAAJ\|books.google.ch]] - {{:thc_recht:li18bis20_cannabisbefragung.pdf\|PDF}})
	+	//

Clarifications and abysses

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| \| {{:thc_recht:li202729b.jpg}} {{:thc_recht:li202729a.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Clarifications and abysses ======
	+
	+	The Federal Supreme Court has once again dealt with hemp in two decisions. In doing so, it comes to clarifying conclusions on some questions and essentially confirms its previous case law.
	+
	+	===== The first decision =====
	+
	+	The NZZ of August 17, 2001 claimed that with the one new Federal Court decision "the ban is now extended to early developmental stages of the plant". However, this interpretation is not entirely correct. As before, the intended use determines whether a plant or even a seeds is legal or illegal.
	+	Specifically, this case involves an indoor grower who also consumed cannabis products himself. The Federal Court further states, "If the complainant has cultivated hemp in order to harvest seedlings and seeds from it, which, after the plants have been grown, serve to produce narcotics, he has ... made punishable". And further: "In view of the determined THC content (from 1 to 11%) of the seized hemp plants, it is beyond question that the cuttings and seeds grown by the complainant came from hemp varieties suitable for narcotics production."
	+
	+	===== How much circumstantial evidence is needed? =====
	+
	+	However, this alone is not a sufficient basis for a conviction. And therefore: "The complainant was aware of this (the possibility of obtaining narcotics), his own consumption, his statements and the warning in the price list (one should not produce narcotics from hemp) clearly show this. Under these circumstances, the complainant accepted that his customers would grow the hemp cuttings and hemp seeds offered by him into THC-rich hemp plants and use them to obtain narcotics. The lower court does not violate federal law when it concludes from this that there was a violation of the Narcotics Act with contingent intent." Or in other words: in principle, hemp cultivation remains permitted. However, if the THC content is "high" (above 0.3%), then according to the Federal Court, such plants can be used for illegal narcotics production. If then a few indications are added (for example, established cannabis consumption of the accused; indications on the product list that narcotics could be produced from the material), then it is very quickly enough for a conviction. And with this, the NZZ article is of course right again, because in reality it should be very difficult to find a case in which, in addition to THC-rich plants, a few indications do not come together that are sufficient for a conviction.
	+
	+	===== The second decision =====
	+
	+	In a second federal court decision, our highest court assessed whether one could legally consume cannabis products out of a (medical) emergency - despite the prohibition of consumption in the Narcotics Act. The defendant produced various hemp products herself and consumed them as tea. The consumption of hemp had enabled her to shake off her alcohol addiction and to abstain from alcohol. The defendant further stated that she consumed only domestic hemp and not Indian hemp, which has much higher THC levels, and that she did not consume hemp for hedonistic motives but exclusively for therapeutic considerations.
	+
	+	===== Intoxicating effect = illegal =====
	+
	+	The Federal Court holds that in principle everything falls under the Narcotics Law: "englober indifférement toutes les variétés de chanvre (indigène, indien, autre), toutes ses parties (fleurs, fruits, feuilles, résine, poils glanduleux, tige, graines), toutes ses formes (marijuana, soit feuilles et fleurs desséchées et hachées; hachisch, soit résine des poils glanduleux façonnée en plaquettes) et tous ses produits (textiles, cordes, papiers, huiles, bières, thés, cosmétiques, etc....).» However, the Federal Court also says that the aim of the Narcotics Law is to cover only those substances that have a narcotic or psychotropic effect. According to the Federal Supreme Court, this is the purpose of this law, precisely to cover all products that actually have such an effect. Nothing else is decisive (variety, type of hemp, etc.).
	+
	+	===== THC content is important ... =====
	+
	+	It is also clear to the Federal Supreme Court that the law does not define a THC content above which a hemp product is to be considered a narcotic. However, the content of THC is a decisive criterion for the assessment of a hemp product: The content of THC is directly related to the (illegal) narcotic effect, according to the Federal Supreme Court. In this context, the 0.3% THC, as it applies to hemp in the catalog of varieties, can serve as a guideline as to whether a product is illegal (above 0.3% THC) or legal (below 0.3% THC, in the case of foodstuffs even lower).
	+
	+	===== ... but not the only decisive factor =====
	+
	+	And yet: "Cela étant, le taux de THC ne permet pas, à lui seul, de conclure à une activité tombant sous le coup des art. 8 et 19 LStup. Encore faut-il que le but visé soit effectivement l'extraction de stupéfiants. Ainsi, par exemple, toute personne peut librement posséder une plante de chanvre à des fins d'ornementation exclusivement, quand bien même il s'agirait d'une variété riche en THC." The Federal Court has never put it so nicely: Hemp products are actually free, even if they have a high content of THC, it is effectively the intended use that decides. That is, after all, what all hemp dealers have always emphasized. However, a small word shows that the Federal Court already sees very narrow limits to this freedom: It says a plant for ornamentation can be grown, even if it has a high content of THC. One. A field would be very difficult to bring legally through the Federal Court. But at least one plant is certainly entitled to us the highest court.... Basically, the Federal Court confirms that it is up to the investigating authorities to prove illegal use, even if that is not so easy in individual cases.
	+	However, the court also states that the products found on the defendant had a high content of THC (several percent), moreover, the defendant has stated that these products, when consumed, have a sedative and euphoric effect. Thus, according to the Federal Court, these products are narcotics.
	+
	+	===== No hardship =====
	+
	+	Also the medical purpose is not believed by the federal court. Thus, the doctor had only certified to the defendant that the hemp helped her to get away from alcohol. However, he never said that the hemp products were the only means to get away from alcohol addiction, nor did the doctor prescribe her such hemp products. (Incidentally, says the Federal Court, such a prescription would also constitute a violation of the law).
	+	Thus, the appellant remains convicted.
	+
	+	===== Well, it is not easy =====
	+
	+	These two federal court decisions show that an increased THC content alone is not sufficient to prove the illegality of a hemp product (after all, that would be the goal of all investigating authorities, because it would massively facilitate their work). Furthermore, the investigating authorities must prove that the hemp products are intended for the production of narcotics. And here these two, and also earlier, federal court decisions clearly show that the federal court does not want to throw a club between the legs of the investigating authorities - a few indications in addition to a high THC content are sufficient to come to a conviction.
	+
	+	Source:
	+	Federal court decision 6S.189/2001/zga and Federal court decision 6S.15/2001/vlc

Smoking pot in the UN

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-09-12T10:26:09+00:00

2024/03/27 08:56		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
	\| \| {{:thc_recht:li211719b.jpg}} {{:thc_recht:li211719a.jpg}} \|		\| \| {{:thc_recht:li211719b.jpg}} {{:thc_recht:li211719a.jpg}} \|
-
-

	====== Smoking pot in the UN ======		====== Smoking pot in the UN ======
Ligne 39:		Ligne 37:
	===== There are several international agreements on drug policy =====		===== There are several international agreements on drug policy =====

-	Under [[http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/0.81.html#0.812.121\|Overview of international conventions (0.812.121ff)]] you will find the collection of international treaties on health. We are then mainly concerned with the conventions that begin with 0.812.	+	Under [[https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/de/cc/international-law/0.81#0.812.121\|Overview of international conventions (0.812.121ff)]] you will find the collection of international treaties on health. We are then mainly concerned with the conventions that begin with 0.812.
	Central are the 1961 Single Convention, the 1971 Psychotropic Convention, the 1961 and 1972 Supplementary Conventions to the Single Convention, and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Switzerland has already ratified all but the 1988 Convention.		Central are the 1961 Single Convention, the 1971 Psychotropic Convention, the 1961 and 1972 Supplementary Conventions to the Single Convention, and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Switzerland has already ratified all but the 1988 Convention.
	UN drug policy is changing (although even more slowly than Swiss drug policy). Since the USA has not paid its membership fees, it has been kicked out of various UN commissions. This could lead to a renewal, especially since in recent years the UN has mentioned education, prevention and therapy as elements of drug policy in addition to repression.		UN drug policy is changing (although even more slowly than Swiss drug policy). Since the USA has not paid its membership fees, it has been kicked out of various UN commissions. This could lead to a renewal, especially since in recent years the UN has mentioned education, prevention and therapy as elements of drug policy in addition to repression.

Regulations are quickly changed

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-09-12T09:36:07+00:00

2024/03/27 08:56		Version actuelle
Ligne 25:		Ligne 25:
	Once again a victory of the hemp opponents. Many of us believe that everything is actually coming along just fine, the way things are going now. But in reality the hemp opponents score the points: Raids and raids, the Federal Court strengthens the repression against hemp, even the agricultural law and its regulations are used for hemp prosecution (because the narcotics law is not enough...). Even if fines for violations of the Agriculture Act / Seed Ordinance are certainly less severe than penalties for misdemeanor against the Narcotics Act, it is still a piece of the mosaic in the fight of hemp opponents.		Once again a victory of the hemp opponents. Many of us believe that everything is actually coming along just fine, the way things are going now. But in reality the hemp opponents score the points: Raids and raids, the Federal Court strengthens the repression against hemp, even the agricultural law and its regulations are used for hemp prosecution (because the narcotics law is not enough...). Even if fines for violations of the Agriculture Act / Seed Ordinance are certainly less severe than penalties for misdemeanor against the Narcotics Act, it is still a piece of the mosaic in the fight of hemp opponents.

-	The exact wording and the chronology of the discussed ordinance can be found at www.admin.ch under the Systematic Collection of Laws: [[http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c916_151.html\|SR 916.151]].	+	The exact wording and the chronology of the discussed ordinance can be found at www.admin.ch under the Systematic Collection of Laws: [[https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/51/de\|SR 916.151]] (//only in German, 2025//).

Smoking pot on train

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li230303.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Smoking pot on train ======
	+
	+	A train ride from Bern to Zurich. I sit in the smoker, roll one and smoke on. While I am discussing with my companion, the smoke penetrates the smoker compartment and suddenly there is an outcry: "Are you actually still okay smoking a joint in the presence of a child!" A man looks over at us in anger, takes his child by the hand and leaves the smoking compartment, while I ask him, puzzled, "What's the problem?" But he doesn't want to be argued with and is gone.
	+
	+	Strange people there are. They take a child into the smoker, smoke cigarettes in front of the child, and are outraged when scents other than tobacco waft around. What does a child have to do in a smoker? Why does an adult smoke in the presence of his child? Where is the difference in the smoke of a joint and the smoke of a cigarette? Would smoking a joint also be cause for a freak-out?
	+
	+	I would have been happy to discuss these questions with the agitated gentleman. He preferred to just walk away in a huff. Smoking pot is already a scapegoat for many things. A lot of people can obviously get off on the fact that they don't smoke pot. They then no longer have to admit to themselves that they may also have addictions that are harmful to their health. No drug kills more people than cigarettes, and no other psychoactive substance causes more illnesses than tobacco smoke.
	+
	+	Sooner or later, children also have to deal with the fact that adults and even teenagers engage in unhealthy activities. Parents must certainly protect their children, but equally prepare them for the fact that there are very many drugs, that they are consumed by many, that they cause damage to health and that it is also allowed to say no.
	+
	+	But if you take your child to the smoker, smoke in front of them and then simply portray those who smoke pot as the bad guys, you are certainly not doing your child any favors.
	+
	+	//This article dates back to the good old days when smoking pot on the train was almost undisturbed.//

Urine Testing

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2023/01/13 19:46		Version actuelle
Ligne 33:		Ligne 33:
	The test used is a qualitative test, i.e. it only tells whether someone is positive (one bar) or negative (two bars). The test does not indicate the smallest amounts of THC degradation products (so-called cut off). Only when the amount of THC degradation products reaches a certain level, the test indicates positive. This can be seen very well in the THC line: It becomes denser and denser in the test person (who of course did not consume any further joints during the entire testing) until it is as clear as it was during the first test before the joint. A sample is considered negative even if the line is only faint, but this is still an indication that THC degradation products are present, albeit in a low concentration (a line is formed when the amount of THC degradation products is lower than 50 nanograms per milliliter of urine).		The test used is a qualitative test, i.e. it only tells whether someone is positive (one bar) or negative (two bars). The test does not indicate the smallest amounts of THC degradation products (so-called cut off). Only when the amount of THC degradation products reaches a certain level, the test indicates positive. This can be seen very well in the THC line: It becomes denser and denser in the test person (who of course did not consume any further joints during the entire testing) until it is as clear as it was during the first test before the joint. A sample is considered negative even if the line is only faint, but this is still an indication that THC degradation products are present, albeit in a low concentration (a line is formed when the amount of THC degradation products is lower than 50 nanograms per milliliter of urine).

-	By the way, a doctor who performs such a quick and cheap test still needs to check the result with a quantitative test. This then determines the effective amount of THC degradation products in the urine, but is also much more expensive than the test we use. On the other hand, this type of test is considered to be very reliable; the test we use gives a reliability of about 98 to 99 percent, which means that one or two tests per hundred give a false result.	+	By the way, a doctor who performs such a quick and cheap test can check the result with a quantitative test. This then determines the effective amount of THC degradation products in the urine, but is also much more expensive than the test we use. On the other hand, this type of test is considered to be very reliable; the test we use gives a reliability of about 98 to 99 percent, which means that one or two tests per hundred give a false result.

	The bottom line is that if you smoke pot regularly, you will be positive in such tests. Whether he is stoned or not!		The bottom line is that if you smoke pot regularly, you will be positive in such tests. Whether he is stoned or not!

A walk through the mills of justice

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:li240709.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li240709.jpg}} \|
		+

	====== A walk through the mills of justice ======		====== A walk through the mills of justice ======

-	**Over 30,000 fines are issued against us smokers every year. The vast majority of those convicted simply pay the 100 to 1000 francs. And that's it.	+	**More than 30,000 fines are issued against us smokers every year. The vast majority of those convicted simply pay the 100 to 1000 francs. And that's it.
-	But what happens in detail if you appeal against your fine? We document a walk through the mills of justice.	+	But what happens in detail when you appeal your fine? We document a walk through the mills of justice.
	**		**

	===== The control =====		===== The control =====

-	On 12 August 2001, L. was on a car journey through Aargau. During a routine traffic check, police officers also checked L. When asked whether he was in possession of illegal drugs, L. handed over about two grams of hashish and a joint. The police officers drew up a report (you can find an example of such a report in our legal aid brochure). L. signed the sheet called "Brief questioning/declaration".	+	On August 12, 2001, L. was driving through Aargau. During a routine traffic control, police officers also checked L. When asked whether he was in possession of illegal drugs, L. handed over about two grams of hashish and a joint. The police officers drew up a report (you can find an example of such a report in our legal aid brochure). L. signed the sheet called "brief questioning/declaration".

-	===== The penalty order =====	+	===== The summary penalty order =====


-	On 24 September 2001, on the basis of the record, a penalty order was issued and served on L.. In it he was sentenced to a fine of 60 francs. He was also ordered to pay costs in the amount of 40 francs for the state fee and 30 francs as registry fees. Which made a total of 130 francs. The payment slip was enclosed.	+	On September 24, 2001, based on the protocol, a summary penalty order was issued and served on L.. In it he was sentenced to a fine of 60 francs. He was also ordered to pay costs in the amount of 40 francs for the state fee and 30 francs as chancery fees. Which made a total of 130 francs. The payment slip was enclosed.

	===== The objection =====		===== The objection =====

-	On 16 October 2001, L. lodged an objection against this penalty order. That is, he wrote a letter to the Brugg District Office, which had drawn up the penalty order. He made the following requests: No fine, but acquittal! As grounds for these motions he stated the following:	+	On October 16, 2001, L. filed an objection against this summary penalty order. That is, he wrote a letter to the Brugg District Office, which had drafted the summary penalty order. He made the following requests: No fine, but acquittal! As reasons for these requests he stated the following:
	- he had behaved cooperatively, had handed over the material voluntarily and had not tried to hide it (which would have been possible)		- he had behaved cooperatively, had handed over the material voluntarily and had not tried to hide it (which would have been possible)
	- the two grams were a small amount		- the two grams were a small amount
	- therefore, it was a minor case		- therefore, it was a minor case
-	- his reputation was good and he did not want to get into trouble professionally because of a punishment	+	- his reputation was good and he did not want to get into trouble professionally because of a punishment.

	===== The note =====		===== The note =====

-	On 18 October 2001, the investigating judge in charge wrote a note to L.. She asked him to telephone her before she dealt with his objection.	+	On October 18, 2001, the investigating judge in charge wrote a note to L.. She asked him to telephone her before she dealt with his objection.

-	===== The telephone =====	+	===== The phone =====

-	On 22 October 2001, L. reached the investigating judge by telephone. She explained to him that he had no chance at all. He should withdraw his plea. There was no point - he was guilty anyway. But L. stuck to his guns: he wanted a trial on his case.	+	On October 22, 2001, L. reached the investigating judge by telephone. She explained to him that he had no chance whatsoever. He should withdraw his plea. There was no point - he was guilty anyway. But L. stuck to his guns: he wanted a court hearing on his case.

-	===== The injunction =====	+	===== The order =====
-	On 14 November 2001, it was clarified in an order that the case would be transferred to the Brugg District Court. On 12 December 2001, both the competent public prosecutor and L. were informed that they could submit evidence within ten days.	+	On November 14, 2001, it was clarified in an order that the case would be transferred to the Brugg District Court. On December 12, 2001, both the responsible public prosecutor and L. were informed that they could submit evidence within ten days.

-	===== The subpoena =====	+	===== The summons =====
-	On 7 January 2002, he received a summons. In it, he was summoned to appear as a defendant before the District Court of Brugg on 22 January 2002, at 11:15 a.m.	+	On January 7, 2002, he received the summons. In it, he was ordered to appear as a defendant before the District Court of Brugg on January 22, 2002, at 11:15 am.

	===== The postponement =====		===== The postponement =====

-	On 11 January, L. asked for a postponement of the trial, as he wanted to attend an important course to which he would have access for the first time. This was granted on 16 January 2002 and the new date for the trial was set.	+	On January 11, L. asked for a postponement of the trial because he wanted to attend an important course to which he would have access for the first time. This was granted on January 16, 2002, and the new date for the trial was set.

-	===== The District Court =====	+	===== The district court =====

-	Then, on February 19, 2002, at 8:15 a.m., the trial took place. In addition to the president of the court, the vice-president, two district judges and one district judge, as well as the court clerk were part of the court. As prosecutor the public prosecutor's office was represented and as defendant of course L. The defendant was questioned about the person, the case was rolled up again. The defendant L. had dressed well and tried to make a positive impression. He just wanted to try it, it was really available everywhere, he was not a regular consumer....	+	On February 19, 2002, at 8:15 a.m., the trial took place. In addition to the president of the court, the vice-president, two district judges, one district judge and the court clerk were also part of the court. The prosecutor was public prosecutor and the defendant was of course L. The defendant was questioned about his person and the case was reviewed. The defendant L. had dressed well and tried to make a positive impression. He just wanted to try it, it was really available everywhere, he was not a regular consumer...

	===== The verdict =====		===== The verdict =====

-	On February 28, 2002, the verdict was issued. This contained the following:	+	The verdict was issued on February 28, 2002. This contained the following:
-	* The defendant L. is guilty of the offence of narcotics law	+	* The defendant L. is guilty of contravention the narcotics law
-	* Based on Art. 19a Nos. 1 and 2 BetmG, the following are exempted from punishment	+	* Based on Art. 19a No. 1 and 2 NarcA, the following shall be exempt from punishment
-	* The seized hashish and the joint will be confiscated and destroyed.	+	* The seized hashish and the joint are confiscated and destroyed
-	* The defendant must pay the costs of the proceedings: Court fee 500 francs, the registry fee and the expenses of 161 francs	+	* The costs of the proceedings must be paid by the defendant: Court fee 500 francs, the chancery fee and the expenses of 161 francs


	If he wanted to get the full verdict, it would cost more again, L. was told.		If he wanted to get the full verdict, it would cost more again, L. was told.

-	===== The reasons for the judgment =====	+	===== The reasons for the verdict =====

-	Then, on 4 March 2002, L. applied for the full judgment.	+	Then, on March 4, 2002, L. applied for the full judgment.
-	At the outset, the court notes for once that all these discussions about changing the way cannabis is dealt with are only discussions. "Since the penal provisions in force are legally binding on the judge, the current discussion in the federal councils about the intended legalisation of soft drugs must be disregarded in the present proceedings." Basically, the court finds L. guilty. Hashish and a "hashish cigarette" have been found on him. Thus a guilt is beyond doubt. However, it was to be examined whether, because of the small quantity found, no punishment should take place on the basis of Art. 19b (small quantity) or 19a No. 2 (minor case).	+	First of all, the court states once that all these discussions about changing the handling of cannabis are only discussions. "Since the penal provisions in force are legally binding for the judge, the current discussion in the federal councils about the intended legalization of soft drugs has to be disregarded in the present proceedings." Basically, the court finds L. guilty. Hashish and a "hashish cigarette" have been found on him. Thus a guilt is beyond doubt. However, it had to be examined whether, due to the small amount found, no punishment should be imposed on the basis of Art. 19b (small amount) or 19a No. 2 (minor case).
-	With regard to the small quantity, the District Court considers that this is only a one unit of consumption could be meant. In the case of the defendant, however, nine units of consumption were found, which is no longer a small quantity.	+	Regarding the small amount, the district court stated that only one unit of consumption could be meant. However, nine units of consumption were found in the defendant's possession, which is no longer a small amount.
-	As to the minor case, the court then says: "The defendant acquired, possessed and partially consumed a 'soft' drug. He is, moreover, a citizen of good repute who (...) came into conflict with the BetmG for the first time (...). The accused procured the drugs in order to try out their effects (...). Even if the motivation of the blameless defendant cannot be readily comprehended, the court is convinced that it was (...) a unique incident in his life".	+	On the minor case, the court then says: "The defendant acquired, possessed and partially consumed a 'soft' drug. He is a citizen of otherwise good repute, who (...) first came into conflict with the NarcA (...). The accused procured the drugs in order to try out their effect (...). Even if the motivation of the blameless defendant cannot be readily understood, the court is convinced that it is (...) a one-time incident in his life."
-	So the defendant is found guilty, but no sentence is imposed. The defendant, because found guilty, will still have to pay the costs of the whole trial (now including the court). And because of the detailed verdict, the disbursements are increased to 319 francs, so that he now has to pay 819 francs.	+	So the defendant is found guilty, but no sentence is pronounced. The costs for the whole procedure (now including the court) have to be paid by the defendant anyway, because he was found guilty. And because of the detailed verdict, the expenses are increased to 319 francs, so that he now has to pay 819 francs.

	===== Summary =====		===== Summary =====

-	Anyone who receives a fine for smoking pot can appeal against it. The case described shows that it is possible to get off without a fine. However, only if you have not been conspicuous to the police, can sell yourself well in court and the court does not consist of complete hardliners. The fine is then dropped, but the incidental costs go into the money.	+	Anyone who receives a fine for smoking pot can appeal against it. The case described shows that it is possible to get off without a fine. However, only if you have not been conspicuous to the police, can sell yourself well in court and the court does not consist of complete hardliners. The fine is then omitted, but the additional costs go into the money.
-	At the beginning of our case there was a fine of 60 francs plus incidental costs of 70 francs. In the end the fine is 0, but the incidental costs have risen to 819 francs plus the lawyer's fee....	+	At the beginning of our case there was a fine of 60 francs plus additional costs of 70 francs. In the end, the fine is 0, but the incidental costs have risen to 819 francs plus chancery fees....
-	If all the defendants moved on there would be quite a mess in the courts already. That's why they are also trying to get all the objectors to withdraw their plea. As long as only a few people move on, the courts can easily cope.	+	If all the defendants would move on, there would be quite a chaos on the courts. That is why they are trying to get all the objectors to withdraw their plea. As long as only a few people continue to pay a fine, the courts can easily cope with it.
		+
		+	===== Our summary penalty order collection also needs your fine notices and judgments =====

-	===== Our collection of criminal charges also needs your fine notices and judgments. =====	+	Many thanks to L. for making his extensive dossier available! You can also fill our collection with summary penalty orders, judgments, appeals and other documents. We are very interested in your documents! The more cases we can evaluate, the more comprehensive our overview of the repression against pot users in Switzerland will be.

-	Many thanks to L. for making his extensive dossier available! You can also fill our collection with penalty orders, judgments, appeals and other documents. We are very interested in your documents! The more cases we can evaluate, the more comprehensive our overview of the repression against pot smokers in Switzerland will be.	+	Please send your documents to [[li@hanflegal.ch\|Documents]] or contact us.

-	Please send your documents to [[li@hanflegal.ch\|documents]] or contact us.

The Bernese stores between repression and prevention

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li241517.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The Bernese stores between repression and prevention ======
	+
	+	**Geneva was cleaned up very early on, St. Gallen followed soon after, then Zurich and Graubünden joined in. In Bern and Basel, the climate was hemp-friendly for longer. But in 2002, the pressure of repression increased there as well. A report from Bern.
	+	**
	+
	+	===== A hot summer 2002 =====
	+
	+	This summer was hot. First, the governor of Bern surprisingly had the idea to wipe out all the stores in the federal capital. Fortunately, the administrative court made it clear to him that he could not be responsible. However, a certain Dr. Kurt Wasserfallen, police director and avowed opponent of any legalization, took over this office without delay and with almost greater enthusiasm.
	+
	+	The result of this summer action is grotesque. Huge amounts of taxpayers' money have been wasted. The justice has again a heap of unnecessary work to perform and stores as well as weed has it certainly not less. One asks oneself, how long the Stimmbürger accept such nonsense still and/or such useless politicians are further selected.
	+
	+	===== The emergence of the IG HSB =====
	+
	+	Already after the public statements of the government governor that the goal was to close down all stores, movement came into the scene. Initially only six stores, later twelve, joined together to form the Interessengemeinschaft Hanfläden Stadt Bern (IG HSB).
	+
	+	Their goal was to give the authorities a proper media battle and to steal their (hypocritical) arguments.
	+
	+	The first step was to introduce various rules regarding the sale of hemp products. We introduced the obligation of identification, sale only to people over 18 years old, maximum quantities of 50 francs per day and a ban on advertising. Thus, all the arguments of our opponents had been eliminated. Nevertheless, it went on. After the dismissal of the government governor, we thought that there would be at least two-three quiet weeks, but we were to be mistaken.
	+
	+	===== The campaign continues =====
	+
	+	The next raid was targeted at the oldest, most respected and both in the IG HSB and the SHK most active hemp store in the city, the Growland. Since all arguments regarding the protection of minors and the support of intermediaries were no longer valid, they invoked an ongoing procedure.
	+
	+	===== Cooperation with the Contact =====
	+
	+	We did not give up and even offered the drug counseling center Contact to finally be able to start their prevention where they actually reach the young people, namely in the hemp stores. We also sent the vendors of the hemp stores on courses to recognize problem cases and to seek a dialogue with them. But even these efforts were hardly noticed by the authorities.
	+
	+	===== The uncertain future =====
	+
	+	Despite all our efforts, we have not noticed any sign of relaxation until today. The establishment of the hemp control center, which should check the stores, turned out to be very difficult. We still hope that the authorities will take up our good approaches after all and see in a cooperation with us a constructive concept for the design of the transition period until legalization.
	+
	+	For the IG HSB: Robin Koenig, Press Spokesman IG HSB
	+
	+
	+	===== Contact net =====
	+
	+	An innovative addiction prevention center is the Berner Contact Netz - Berner Gruppe für Jugend-, Eltern- und Suchtarbeit. It is the first prevention center that has discussed with hemp stores and wants to try to bring prevention to the hemp stores. We quote from the Contact Netz press release.
	+	"The Contact Net now offers prevention in all hemp stores that abide by certain rules of the game and cooperate with our counseling centers. For us, the prerequisites for prevention in hemp stores are the following:
	+	* Putting up flyers about cannabis and its dangers visible to customers
	+	* to draw attention to the dangers of cannabis on scented sachets and to label them with the relevant address of the Contact Network advice center.
	+	* Putting Contact Netz cannabis advice and courses on display for customers to see in stores
	+	* Have store clerks trained in dealing with youth and young adults regarding possible referral to Contact Net counseling services.
	+	* to comply with the protection of minors, i.e. no sale to under 18s - identification requirement" Other prevention agencies in other Bernese cities also agreed to cooperate with hemp stores that meet these conditions.
	+
	+	===== You can also do differently =====
	+
	+	In Zurich, on the other hand, there are no longer any stores with which to cooperate. Repression has swallowed them up. Instead, a funny debate took place in the Zurich Cantonal Council.
	+	It was asked: "For the above-mentioned reasons, we ask the government council to carry out the necessary educational work in the sense of effective youth protection and to prevent the sale of cannabis products to young people with targeted measures". However, they did not have any concrete ideas on how this could be implemented. Nevertheless, the motion was approved by 112 votes to 5.
	+	This was immediately followed by a similar discussion on strengthening prevention for young people in the alcohol sector. Although the SVP vigorously defended itself here (there was talk of "regulations à la police state"), the postulate was approved by 65 to 41 votes - i.e. by a much narrower margin. From this it can be concluded that the Zurich Cantonal Council considers the dangers posed by hemp for young people to be greater than the dangers posed by alcohol. This opinion is fundamentally wrong, alcohol causes massively bigger problems, also for the youth. But this opinion is unfortunately still widespread.
	+
	+	===== On the revision of the Narcotics Act =====
	+
	+	In the run-up to the discussions of the committee of the National Council that is debating the NarcA revision, it was above all the prevention agencies that were heard to say that they did not like the fact that only the consumption of cannabis was to be legalized in the bill. Contact Netz, for example, stated in the "Bund" of October 29, 2002: "Our goal is clear: We demand the decriminalization of consumption and preparatory acts for personal consumption of all narcotics. Decriminalizing the use of cannabis alone is not acceptable, "because we support the definition of the World Health Organization (WHO), according to which addicts are sick people and not criminals."
	+	It will be interesting to see whether this demand is heard in the National Council; if it is, there would be an important difference to the Council of States, which only wants to decriminalize the use of hemp. The consumption of other currently prohibited narcotics (e.g. heroin, cocaine, LSD, psylocibine) should remain punishable.

Repression on the rise. On the case of Basel

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li252325.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Repression on the rise. On the case of Basel ======
	+
	+	While the last Legalize it! was already in print, another demo against repression and for a reasonable handling of smoking pot took place in Basel on November 30, 2002. Afterwards the Basel government council wrote a few lines about smoking pot, which we don't want to withhold from you...
	+
	+	==== ====
	+	The demo in Basel was the conclusion of the series of demos in 2002 - we already reported from St. Gallen, Olten and Bern (see last Legalize it! issues). In Basel the weather was quite nasty. Cold, wet - no suitable demo weather. Nevertheless, it was the biggest demo of the last year on the topic of smoking pot: About 400 people followed the organizers' call to demonstrate against the repression against hemp stores. As with the other demonstrations, there were too few demonstrators to achieve a broader effect. The vast majority of consumers are interested in a decent piece at a good price. The defense of hemp stores is not included in that. Why should it? The smokers buy their weed, pay for it - and that's where the solidarity ends. The risk of the store owners is covered for the vast majority of consumers with the margin on the weed. A personal commitment remains alien to so many. Instead of standing up for the stores, the vast majority prefer to spend their time looking for replacements for the closed stores...
	+
	+	Bigger demonstrations always had a little treat for the demonstrators: Free sacks of perfume, contests, or individuals who were known for their activities. Only very few people go to demos just like that. Will that change this year? Whether the hemp scene will be able to organize powerful demos? We are of course curious and will certainly go to as many events as possible, distribute Legalize it! and report about it.
	+
	+	The Basel SP parliamentarian Peter Aebersold asked the Basel government the following questions before the demo: "Doesn't the government think that there is an interest in allowing a limited local market so that the scenes of hard and soft drugs can continue to be separated? Is the government willing to see that the opportunity principle is used to control for this purpose? Are those responsible open to discussions with the serious part of the hemp shop scene? Is the government willing to see to it that conditions for tolerating a restricted sales scene are formulated, controlled and enforced (e.g. regarding store density, protection of minors, prohibition of sales to foreigners not resident in Switzerland, fair trade, avoidance of nuisance for residents, separation of markets, etc.)?"
	+
	+	The answer of the government council followed on January 7, 2003: "(...) The revision of the NarcA has been discussed for years in the various committees of the federal government and is taking an unduly long time. Therefore, it cannot be completely ruled out that, on the one hand, this has created a certain uncertainty in enforcement among the law enforcement agencies, and on the other hand, it has given the wrong impression to a part of the population that trade and consumption of cannabis is allowed. (...) According to current forecasts, the revision of NarcA will be passed in 2004 at the earliest, more realistically in 2005. (...) For reasons of separation of powers, it is far from the government council to give any instructions to public prosecutor regarding criminal prosecution; (...) However, to apply the (...) opportunity principle to the entire narcotics trade (i.e., among others, also to the commercial trade in larger quantities of cannabis products) cannot be considered for reasons of legal policy. This is to be introduced only with the federal revision bill and at the same time also clearly defined. However, consensus on the "whether" and the "how" of this new regulation currently exists neither in the federal councils nor in society. An official anticipation of certain provisions of the draft revision is neither justifiable nor lawful. (...) It is at least questionable whether (...) the "serious part" of the hemp shop scene addressed by the interpellant actually exists. (...) Official negotiations and agreements between authorities and hemp shop operators are out of the question in view of the current legal situation. (...)». All clear? It is and remains forbidden.
	+
	+	On February 13, 2003, the Basel section of SHK submitted a petition with 3000 signatures to demand a change of this attitude. Nevertheless, there were over 250 raids in Basel.

The End of the Store Boom - How Can We Optimize Retail?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li261519.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The End of the Store Boom - How Can We Optimize Retail? ======
	+
	+	The repression has destroyed most of the stores. The new law is under discussion, but it will be some time before it comes into force (if ever). Nevertheless, we continue to smoke pot. Is there only the underground? Dealer and consumer again, like before? A few suggestions that maybe things could be different.
	+
	+	===== Overview =====
	+
	+	First, I would like to present my five starting points. Then I will present a model of which I think this is how I would like to see the trade organized under today's difficult conditions (in principle, I am in favor of a complete legalization of cannabis products analogous to alcohol and tobacco - but just, this is my opinion and not that of the legislator). And finally, I will address a few problems and open questions.
	+
	+	===== 1. stoned anyway =====
	+
	+	Whether legal or illegal, people smoke pot anyway. Society is under great illusions about the controllability of the drug market. As long as people want to smoke pot (or consume anything else), there will be a market for it. Since there are no victims - the users only harm themselves - there is no one who really has an interest in suppressing this use. Thus, many activities can go on for a long time without the police and investigating authorities even suspecting anything. This is because there is practically no one who could file a complaint (as long as it goes on covertly). And even if the police find out about it, they often do nothing, because they really have more important things to do than chasing after a few stoners and traffickers. If there is no report, if no one notices....
	+
	+	===== 2. the new handling is waiting =====
	+
	+	The political process will take at least until the beginning of 2005 before a new law is available. But this law will have to be applied and tested first. But we are already smoking pot yesterday, today and tomorrow. At the moment, the whole trade is simply going back into the old channels: in the streets, in private homes, in record stores, clothing stores, and whatever else: Just don't attract attention is the motto.
	+	But after years of stores, selection and stress-free shopping, the question already arises: Are we satisfied with this again? Just the old game again: Here the consumers, there the retailers?
	+
	+	===== 3. the negative image of the cannabis trade =====
	+
	+	The leftists see the dealers/hemp shop owners as money-grubbing types with whom one can hardly be in solidarity: "They're just people who are only in it for the money", one hears again and again from SP and GP circles. There is no great distinction made between the traders, who are really only out for a quick buck, and those who really want to stand up for quality and clean sales. And even on the right side of the political spectrum, the traders are not welcome. Even though I think there is no difference in principle between making money by selling cars, cannabis products, chocolate or alcohol: For many people from the FDP and CVP it does make a difference. (The SVP is against everything anyway).
	+	How could we prevent this - how could we improve the image of selling hash and weed so that larger parts of society can find it ok?
	+
	+	===== 4. the lack of solidarity =====
	+
	+	Consumers simply buy weed and hash - if the seller then gets into trouble, they are not in solidarity with the seller. They look for a new one. And while the old seller has problems with the police, the consumers just give their money to the new seller.
	+	How can we improve the solidarity between the customers and the merchants?
	+
	+	===== 5. the missing money =====
	+
	+	There is a lack of money for political activities. Be it media work (giving interviews, writing letters to the editor, conducting media meetings, developing and carrying out media-friendly actions), publishing magazines - like the Legalize it! - publish, negotiate with authorities, organize demonstrations, or collect a popular initiative sometime in the future to enforce full legalization (and not just partial decriminalization as is being proposed today): Everything needs money. Especially to pay people who can then protect the interests of the stoners and carry out such actions as described above. The stoners are willing to spend hundreds of millions francs every year to buy hash and weed, but for political work currently barely half a million francs per year comes together. That's about one per mille of cannabis sales, and it's not nearly enough. So "lack of money" doesn't refer to money in general - there is money, but mainly for smoking pot.
	+	How could this be improved? How could we get to regions where about one percent of the annual expenditures for smoking pot flow into political work? One percent doesn't sound like much, but it would be ten times more than the current per mill. One per mill corresponds to about 500,000 francs, while one percent would be about 5 million francs. That would be enough to implement a wide range of activities. But how do we get there?
	+
	+	===== And now: What could a better way of dealing with trade look like? =====
	+
	+	It seems central to me that hemp trade and hemp consumption and hemp politics move closer together. We need a structure that makes it possible to provide the smokers with their substance, the traffickers with their wages and the activists with the necessary budgets. If we don't achieve this linkage, the very largest part of the turnover will simply remain with the money-against-smoke turnover - and for an improvement of our reputation in politics and society only the extremely limited resources of today remain.
	+
	+	===== The idea: break up the stoner role and the dealer role =====
	+
	+	Switzerland is full of associations. I propose associations as the basic form here. They are quickly founded, clear by law and democratically structured (members, board). The assets of an association do not belong to a single person, but to the entirety of the members, i.e. the association. It follows that no one can enrich himself personally. Any increase in assets belongs to the association - and the board or the association meeting decides how it should be used. With this we can already solve one problem: Nobody can enrich himself privately, so both leftists and rightists should not be able to recognize money-grubbing dealers in it.
	+	The goal of an association must also not be to make a profit, but an association should take care of political, cultural, social issues. And that's exactly what it's about: it's about influencing politics, it's about promoting the culture of smoking pot, it's about improving the situation of people who smoke pot.
	+	Such an association would not run a store - stores are much too obvious and are quickly targeted by neighbors and the police. Stores are public structures. I rather have in mind a clubhouse. This can be an office space, a commercial space. It's important that people can meet each other. So it needs seating, tables, maybe a refrigerator.
	+
	+	===== Problems of a clubhouse =====
	+
	+	If too many people come by and the whole thing looks like a canteen or even a restaurant, a variety of problems arise. In order to run such a restaurant, a landlord's license is required, otherwise the serving of drinks or the sale of food is illegal. Such a permit, however, entails massive infrastructure costs. Even more difficult is the fact that obtaining such a permit will of course also draw the attention of other state authorities to the locality. However, the goal of our association is not to organize an easy place for the stoners to hang out. Central for our project are the following elements: It needs a place where you can pass by and buy hash and/or weed (an office room is sufficient for this). It needs to have as many different kinds and qualities in stock as possible (there it is best to have one or more freezers - frozen keeps weed and hash best). It should be possible to hold a club meeting from time to time (for this a few chairs and tables and a Harass mineral are enough).
	+
	+	===== The problem of smoking =====
	+
	+	As long as only individual club members come over, the problem of smoking should not be one yet. However, as soon as several people sit down for a longer time and start rolling, the smoke is a problem. Not only for the smokers themselves, who very soon can hardly see each other anymore - also the surrounding (neighborhood, possibly passers-by) can feel more than disturbed. Therefore, ventilation is a central problem that should be given a lot of attention. If necessary, a ventilation system must be installed. This is associated with large costs. An alternative would be to smoke very little and inhale with vaporizers instead: Breaking in does the trick, it would be healthier than smoking, and you can even judge the taste of weed or hash better than if the smoke overpowers the taste. (Vaporizers are devices that can heat hash or weed in such a way that they do not start to burn, but that the psychoactive THC nevertheless changes from a solid state to a gaseous one, so that it can be inhaled).
	+
	+	===== And how is action taken? =====
	+
	+	But who does the work? Who buys, prepares, sells? Who runs the club? Well, every club has the possibility of hiring people to do certain jobs, in addition to unpaid free labor, as is common in many clubs. And such a club would certainly need one or more employees. They would have to guarantee certain opening hours, keep the place in good shape, organize the supplies and they would also have to do paid political work. Be it legal advice, media work or actions in public space.
	+	But how is this work to be paid for? The members of the association have to pay membership fees. With these the rent of the location is paid, also the telephone, the costs of actions and above all the wages and the ancillary wage costs (AHV&Co., BVG, insurances). In return, the association does not have to charge a surcharge or margin on the hash and weed sold: It can buy, and sell again for the same price. If it succeeds in employing people to produce the necessary cannabis themselves (either indoors or outdoors on balconies and small fields), the association can even provide its members with the smoking material free of charge - the necessary wages and expenses would be deducted from the membership fees. Ideally, the board of the association, or a commission formed from it, would decide what the association buys or from whom it lets produce. This commission would then also check the quality and see to it that any sellers charge a reasonable, not exorbitant price (as long as the entire production is not under its own control).
	+
	+	===== How big should such an association be? =====
	+
	+	Smokers are mostly quite individualistic. And it is effectively not the goal to bring all stoners in Switzerland into one club. It is sufficient if a club has about 100 to 200 members (see also provisional budget of such a "standard club for stoners"). The diversity of the smokers could be expressed in the different clubs. Conceivable would be associations for pure hashish users, for pure pot smokers, for cannabis eaters, for pure smokers. A distinction could also be made according to musical taste and scene affiliation. It would be nice if the different associations knew each other and, above all, could carry out political actions together or at least coordinate them.
	+
	+	===== When the police come... =====
	+
	+	If, despite the relative smallness and inconspicuousness of such an association, a raid takes place, the police cannot simply pick up and prosecute the vendors. Of course, the employees of such an association are the first target. But then it is important that all members stand together, make appropriate statements ("We consumers have joined together to oppose the absurd ban on our stimulant with a reasonable model of self-organization"). These statements should of course be consciously practiced in the association, statements can also be deposited in written form in the office, so that all members can refer to them. In parallel, the association would then immediately go public, talk to the media and use the whole repressive process to do public relations for legalization, for our stimulant. And this public would then have to come to terms with the fact that it wasn't just a few evil, money-hungry dealers who organized this, but a group of responsible stoners who finally broke out of the black market and created a good solution to the problem. Without personal enrichment... With this, it should be possible to meet with much more understanding than today's hemp shop owners. Because the consumers have clearly more credit in the public than the traffickers.
	+
	+	===== A possible budget =====
	+
	+	200 members pay a monthly membership fee of 50 francs, making a total of 10'000 francs income per month. With this, the following activities can be financed:
	+	Two jobs at 60% and 3000 francs net per month results in monthly costs (incl. ancillary wage costs) of 7500 francs. For the location one could spend (incl. incidental rental costs) about 1000 francs, which corresponds to about 40 to 60 square meters of space. The rest of the money (1500 francs per month) flows into telephone, Internet, other office expenses and beverages, as well as the expenses for the political work (expenditures for journeys, Flyers, brochures, actions).
	+	The paid working time would be spent on organizing (as fine as possible) stoner goods, running the location, and political work. For the purchase of weed and hash a fund must be accumulated at the beginning (with 200 members about 20'000 francs), so that one has money to be able to buy (or produce). Then one can sell this (without profit) again - in such a way the fund should maintain itself (one buys weed and Hasch, sells it at the cost price to the members, thus one has again money, etc.). There also needs to be an initial budget for setting up the clubhouse.
	+
	+	===== What's the point? =====
	+
	+	The bottom line is that a member should get the weed or hash cheaper than from the "dealer", but since they have to pay a membership fee, it should roughly balance out. However, there is a big gain: The association is not an anonymous dealer, but the member can influence the quality, has a social place available and enables political work, which should lead in the longer term to our stimulant becoming legal. (If this should ever happen, such associations can be dissolved). If the new law, including the regulation to stop criminal prosecution in certain cases, comes into force, the association could also adapt to this new possibility - after all, with its non-profit orientation it has the best prerequisites to fulfill the official regulations. The biggest advantage, however, is that such a project could be started today and it would have a good chance of not being bothered by anyone. And if it were, one could also vouch for such a project in public without being portrayed as an evil, money-grubbing dealer.
	+
	+	===== Summary =====
	+
	+	The members form the association. The board, elected from the members, controls the activities. The employees organize the smoking (at the beginning on the free black market, later by employed producers), manage the clubhouse and carry out political activities. Hash and weed are sold to the members at cost price. There is no profit in the hemp trade. The expenses are covered by the membership fees. The project takes place (with the exception of the political activities) in the covert. Should a raid happen anyway, everyone, members, employees and board, stand together and make prepared statements and go public. Everyone would also appear in court to document: We are not in it for the money, we are in it to finally eliminate the black market and satisfy our need for pot in the most reasonable way possible.
	+
	+	===== And what do you think? =====
	+
	+	So much for the idea. Now we are curious: Where do you see weaknesses or problems? Which questions are still open for you? Are you interested in such a project? Would you like to participate in one?
	+	As always, your answers can reach us at [[li@hanflegal.ch]]. We are curious.
	+
	+
	+	//After note: I still find my five year old text very interesting. Unfortunately, hardly anyone has commented on it in these many years - so we have the old conditions again and the smokers make their fist in the bag. But organize something like that, that then but not.... Too bad. It is interesting that the models that are being built in California today come close to these considerations. Also in Holland and other countries people try to implement similar ideas in the "Cannabis Social Clubs".
	+	//
	+	--- //[[sven@hanflegal.ch\|sos]]//2010/06/03 19:05

Vaporizing instead of smoking - the new pleasure

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-08-25T20:33:28+00:00

2024/03/27 08:56		Version actuelle
Ligne 21:		Ligne 21:
	===== How does a vaporizer work? =====		===== How does a vaporizer work? =====

-	The basic principle of vaporization is to try to construct the heat source (in the joint, the embers) in such a way that that hardly any pollutants are produced ([[https://tinyurl.com/57krjppd\|FOPH fact sheet]]). So you just want to heat the THC and the flavors to the point where they become gaseous and can be absorbed into the lungs.	+	The basic principle of vaporization is to try to construct the heat source (in the joint, the embers) in such a way that hardly any pollutants are produced. So you just want to heat the THC and the flavors to the point where they become gaseous and can be absorbed into the lungs.

	This, of course, presents several problems. THC begins to vaporize at temperatures above about 150 degrees. In chemistry literature, one finds the value 200 degrees for the boiling point of THC. In practice, vaporization begins at lower temperatures. But at temperatures from about 250 degrees plant material (hemp flowers, tobacco) begins to burn (so you have then the same as in a joint or a pipe). And even before that, at about 220 degrees, plant material starts to turn black - it doesn't burn, but it slowly chars.		This, of course, presents several problems. THC begins to vaporize at temperatures above about 150 degrees. In chemistry literature, one finds the value 200 degrees for the boiling point of THC. In practice, vaporization begins at lower temperatures. But at temperatures from about 250 degrees plant material (hemp flowers, tobacco) begins to burn (so you have then the same as in a joint or a pipe). And even before that, at about 220 degrees, plant material starts to turn black - it doesn't burn, but it slowly chars.

An excursion into chemistry and biology

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-03-18T13:19:53+00:00

2024/03/27 08:56		Version actuelle
Ligne 2:		Ligne 2:


		+
	====== An excursion into chemistry and biology ======		====== An excursion into chemistry and biology ======

Overview of 3 vaporizers

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:18+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li281113.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Overview of 3 vaporizers ======
	+
	+	**THC vaporization is arguably the future of smoking pot. For reasons of efficiency, health and because of the ongoing repression.
	+	We subjected three very different vaporization devices to an initial series of tests. About our picture above: It shows hemp flowers before and after vaporization. Vaporizers are not supposed to burn or char the herb. Just brown it a bit - and release as much THC as possible.**
	+
	+	===== Vapir =====
	+
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li281113vapir.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	==== First impression ====
	+
	+	This device is almost entirely made of plastic. Even the hose, which you pull on, is made of PVC. Accordingly, the whole thing stinks extremely of plastic at the beginning. This settles somewhat over time.
	+
	+	==== Functionality ====
	+
	+	A kind of hairdryer blows heated air through a drawer into which the weed is inserted. The temperature can be adjusted with an electronic control. The vapors jet upward and are collected makeshift in a very small chamber. If you don't draw fast enough (or turn off the heat), the vapir will steam out of all the joints and cracks - the THC spreads around the room . . .
	+
	+	==== Place of manufacture ====
	+
	+	China (production), USA (design)
	+
	+	==== Specific negatives ====
	+
	+	The stench of plastic is really degoutant. Even if this subsides with time, it is pretty gruesome.
	+	The manufacturer recommends this device only for tobacco smoking cessation - not at all for cannabis inhalation.
	+	The instructions for use are written in a rather cumbersome way.
	+	It is very easy to overheat the weed, it gets very brown at times.
	+	The device itself gets very hot in certain places, so you have to be careful. Since you have to hold it in your hand (it doesn't stand up well by itself), this is a big negative.
	+
	+	==== Special positive points ====
	+
	+	The Vapir can also be operated mobile in a version with a battery. Otherwise, we do not notice any other positive features.
	+
	+	==== Price ====
	+
	+	About 500 francs.
	+
	+	==== Overall rating ====
	+
	+	It is possible to vaporize hemp with this device. But in our test series, it was the most unpopular device, mainly because of the plastic taste. To date, we have not found a fan of this device.
	+
	+	===== Element =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li281113element.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	==== First impression ====
	+
	+	Almost entirely made of (domestic) wood and glass is this device, the hose is made of odorless silicone. Very nice it looks, especially in the dark when the lamp glows.
	+
	+	==== Functionality ====
	+
	+	A small lamp heats the air, which slides through the weed when pulling the hose and can still be filtered by water in the glass container (which is actually unnecessary). One can determine the strength of the lamp by means of three levels. You can see how the vapor develops and you have to develop a feeling for how long you leave the strongest level set before you "switch down" again and vice versa.
	+
	+	==== Place of manufacture ====
	+
	+	Biel (Switzerland)
	+
	+	==== Specific negatives ====
	+
	+	The glass in which the weed is located can get very hot. So if you have been steaming for a long time and want to change the mixture, you have to be careful.
	+	If you leave the lamp on the highest setting for too long, the weed can get a little dark (but it won't ignite).
	+	Depending on which way you draw, the temperature in the weed is different.
	+
	+	==== Special positive points ====
	+
	+	It is an inexpensive device that achieves a good result with very little technology and low power consumption.
	+	The element is relatively small and handy.
	+	It is produced in Switzerland, largely from local wood.
	+	If you do not use water, the operation is absolutely silent.
	+
	+	==== Price ====
	+
	+	About 450 francs.
	+
	+	==== Overall rating ====
	+
	+	An interesting device, but one in which you have to "participate": You have to observe and develop a feeling for what is happening. This is not everyone's cup of tea, but you can vaporize hemp well with this device after a period of familiarization.
	+
	+	===== Volcano =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li281113volcano.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	==== First impression ====
	+
	+	A massive volcano made of metal stands in front of you, absolutely stable. In addition, an accustomed, crackling bag made of food-safe oven foil.
	+
	+	==== Functionality ====
	+
	+	A pump conveys air into a metal block, where it is heated. The temperature can be regulated continuously by means of a rotary switch. The heated air enters the balloon through a filling chamber with the weed. After 45 seconds, an average balloon is filled with THC vapors. Then the balloon is removed from the device, a valve prevents THC from escaping. The balloon can then be carried around freely.
	+
	+	==== Place of manufacture ====
	+
	+	Tuttlingen (Germany)
	+
	+	==== Specific negatives ====
	+
	+	The pump makes noise when inflating the balloon (but heating up and maintaining the temperature is silent).
	+	The crackling of the balloon (when inflating and deflating) takes some getting used to.
	+	The price is high (but worth it).
	+
	+	==== Special positive points ====
	+
	+	The removable balloon allows you to pass it around to friends and acquaintances, as well as to smoke pot in bed. One does not come into contact with any hot parts during inhalation because of the separation of vaporization and consumption.
	+	The device is very efficient, as almost nothing is lost. This thanks to the valve on the balloon.
	+	The temperature is kept extremely accurate, so that the weed is vaporized very evenly. Once you have found your favorite temperature, you can vaporize the weed over and over again in exactly the same way.
	+
	+	==== Price ====
	+
	+	About 750 francs.
	+
	+	==== Overall rating ====
	+
	+	A fully functional vaporizer. You can't go wrong, it always works. If it has THC in the weed, then the balloon is full of it. So you can vaporize very well.

Repression in the military

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Repression in the military ======
	+
	+	"Zero tolerance - drug prevention in the armed forces bears first fruits" was the headline of the DDPS (Defense, Civil Protection, Sports) in its media information of December 9, 2003. Instead of 683 disciplinary sanctions for illegal drug use in 2002, there were "only" 472 sanctions in the armed forces in 2003 (most of them probably for cannabis use). According to the DDPS, this shows that fewer members of the armed forces are using illegal drugs today than in the past. This seems to me to be too superficial a view. When the army in this and the last year also increasingly punished smokers, word must have got around among the smokers recruits, soldiers and officers that it is better not to get caught using hemp. Thus, better care was taken when smoking pot. Because the consumption of drugs, whether legal or illegal, is still widespread. Also in the military. And to ensure that members of the armed forces behave well on the SBB, military police officers will now also patrol the trains. However, they will strictly look after soldiers and recruits only, not civilians. So soon, recruits who smoke pot will be heckled by military and railroad police ... . .

THC - The forbidden drug

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li282729.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== THC - The forbidden drug ======
	+
	+	**Smoking pot just for the fun of it is forbidden. This is a great injustice. But anyone who ingests THC to alleviate their discomfort is also liable to prosecution. This is an unbelievable mess.
	+	**
	+	Hemp is an ancient remedy - long before the pharmaceutical industry came into being, THC-containing hemp was used to combat various ailments. So you can use it for pain relief, need it as a sleep aid, use it as a relaxant (both for muscle tension and mental tension). Even today, cannabis is used by many patients, although its use is illegal (see box). We describe here, using the disease multiple sclerosis as an example, how this happens and what problems arise.
	+
	+	===== What is multiple sclerosis? =====
	+
	+	Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a still incurable disease that disrupts the function of nerve cells. The body's own immune system attacks the sheathing of the nerve cells and gradually breaks them down. As a result, signal transmission from the brain to the arms and legs, as well as sensory perceptions (sight, taste, etc.) are disturbed. Common symptoms of the disease are: You have double or limited vision, you develop strange sensations in your arms and legs (tingling, numbness, burning, stinging), you often feel dizzy.
	+
	+	The disease begins, for example, with tremors, continues with general coordination weakness, so that one can no longer walk without a cane, for example. In more advanced stages, sufferers need crutches, and eventually many need a wheelchair.
	+
	+	In most cases, the disease starts slowly and worsens either continuously or in relapses, each of which triggers a new stage of the disease. There are about 10,000 people in Switzerland affected by this disease.
	+
	+	===== How is MS treated? =====
	+
	+	Most patients receive Betaferon. They have to inject this, usually every two days. However, it does not provide a cure, but only a certain limitation of the disease. It can have the effect that the damage to the nerve cells is slower, that the disease episodes occur less frequently or that the episodes are less severe. However, the possible side effects are massive: migraines, flu-like symptoms such as chills, sweating, muscle pain, fever, flushing. Or even depression and anxiety. Therefore, many patients have to give up this drug again.
	+
	+	===== What can cannabis do? =====
	+
	+	Most people with MS did not smoke pot before they became ill. But with the disease, many realize that hemp helps them: "When I have eye problems, I sometimes smoke. I noticed that it helps me," says D. in the work on which this article is based.* Or C. says, "Now I treat myself with hemp," after he too had to stop taking Betaferon. "The hemp takes away my tremors a little bit. But also when I have convulsions, it relieves them. I have to say the Betaferon has more side effects than the hemp does." He was familiar with hemp before his illness, "I've always smoked one in between, that doesn't mean I was high all day. I realized that it really helps me. Once I have all the ingredients for a hemp liquor, then I stop smoking (pot)."
	+
	+	And P. finds, "Cannabis enables a bit of quality of life despite severe illness." Cannabis is also frequently discussed in the many self-help groups that exist on the topic of MS. For example, V., president of one such MS group, says, "Hemp is also a big topic."
	+
	+	===== What does conventional medicine say about THC? =====
	+
	+	The Montana High Altitude Clinic in Bern specializes in MS cases. Around 400 patients suffering from MS come here every year. The main goal of the rehabilitation stays is to improve the independence and quality of life of MS sufferers, since a cure is still impossible today. Claude Vaney, head physician of the clinic, was also asked about hemp: "We have had very good experiences with hemp." At the Montana Clinic, a team of doctors conducted the Swiss Cannabis Study. MS patients who suffered from muscle spasms (i.e. very strong muscle tension) and were unable to get them under control despite their (conventional) medication were first given a placebo (i.e. a dummy medication) for a few days, then cannabis extracts. The patients became more mobile as a result of this treatment, i.e. they were able to move better again. Spasms occurred less frequently. Cannabis can help relieve the muscle spasms that many people with MS suffer from. It does not cure the disease, but it is a way to positively influence the course of the disease.
	+
	+	===== How do affected individuals consume THC? =====
	+
	+	Many people smoke joints. This is of course not very healthy, because smoke always (even if cannabis is smoked pure without tobacco) has many very harmful substances. Others make tea or cookies with hemp. Another possibility is inhaling with the help of vaporizing machines. However, many people are afraid to use cannabis: All the predator stories about smoking pot scare them. And then, of course, there's a big side effect with cannabis: it kicks in. Compared to many other approved drugs with their sometimes grotesque side effects, this is of course a minor side effect - many people even like it (just like those who use THC for the sheer pleasure of it). This run-in is frightening to some of those affected. But many learn to appreciate hemp in the course of their illness: As one of the few means that can help them.
	+
	+	===== How do they procure the hemp? =====
	+
	+	No doctor has the right to dispense products containing THC. Therefore, a doctor can only tell a patient that he has heard from many MS patients that it helps them. But the patients themselves have to search for the substance, they have to find the right dosage for themselves, they have to take the risks of the black market themselves. Of course, the secure supply of high quality and equally strong hemp is a big problem: In the illegal market, such properties, which are, after all, a matter of course in all other markets, simply cannot be found. In any case, we always have sick people calling Legalize it! asking how they could get THC-containing products. These are very difficult calls to make - after all, I can't tell anyone a reliable source. But to hear the suffering of these people is really a burden.
	+
	+	So M. says, "It can't be that people who rely on cannabis in their need are put in a criminal corner by legislation." It must not be. But it is!
	+
	+
	+	* Independent in-depth work "Living with MS" by Andrea L. and Barbara F. They wrote this work in their third year of teaching. We would like to thank them for making it available to us!
	+
	+
	+
	+	===== Medical consumption is also prohibited =====
	+
	+	If someone is caught using cannabis for medical reasons, such a person can also be reported and fined for it. It may be that a court does not like to punish a seriously ill person because of his THC use; the judge may stop the proceedings in such a case, issue a warning. This also happens occasionally. In this case, however, the hashish or weed found remains confiscated and is destroyed. The costs of the proceedings can also be imposed on the person concerned, which can quickly amount to a few hundred francs even without a fine.
	+
	+	In one case, for example, the Federal Court ruled that a woman who claimed to be using cannabis for health reasons should be punished: the products found had a high THC content (several percent), and the defendant had also stated that these products, when consumed, had a sedative and euphoric effect. Thus, such products are precisely narcotics and are prohibited.
	+
	+	In passing, the Federal Court also mentioned that a doctor who prescribes or recommends products containing THC to a patient is also guilty of a misdemeanor against the Narcotics Law - because telling someone to consume cannabis is also punishable. Even if this is done by a doctor.

How many people smoke pot in Switzerland?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li283133.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== How many people smoke pot in Switzerland? ======
	+
	+	**Many do not admit that they occasionally "smoke one". For good reason, because on the one hand this is still forbidden, on the other hand a large part of the population still reacts with aversion to smoking pot. And yet it is always a question: How many people smoke pot in our country?
	+	**
	+
	+	If you do surveys and ask people if they smoke pot, you will only partially hear the truth. There are those who give information about their THC consumption without further ado. Others, however, don't even tell close friends about their preference. Nevertheless, there are various studies that try to find out how many people actually smoke pot. The first problem is, of course, who is a pothead? Do you have to smoke at least 22 joints a day, or is one joint every 2.5 weeks enough for this label? Or one hash scone per year? Most studies help themselves with the following questions.
	+
	+	===== Possible questions =====
	+
	+	Either you are asked whether you have ever smoked pot in your life (i.e. used hashish or weed ). This so-called lifetime prevalence of course says nothing about the current consumption. The answer to such a question is whether someone has had experience with THC at some time or has never come into contact with it.
	+
	+	Or it is asked whether one has used in a certain period of time (for example today, this week, this month, in the last twelve months). This tells you something about recent consumption.
	+
	+	And finally, you can also ask people how often they use cannabis: Never? Annually? Monthly? Weekly? Daily? Several times a day? This is how you ask about a person's specific, current pattern of use.
	+
	+	===== Current health survey =====
	+
	+	The Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO) has conducted a survey every five years since 1992, asking various questions about health. This is a very comprehensive study; 31,000 households were surveyed. 19,700 people agreed to provide information about their situation. The survey also asks about the consumption of psychoactive substances, whether legal or illegal. Now the third study (after 1992 and 1997) is available for the year 2002. With regard to cannabis use, the study asked, "Did you use hashish or marijuana in 2002?" To this, 4.7 percent of respondents answered yes. Extrapolated to the entire population between the ages of 15 and 64, this amounts to 225,000 people. Among men, the proportion was 6.6 percent, and among women, 2.9 percent. This corresponds quite well to the empirical value that for every two men who smoke pot, there is one woman who smokes pot. In the last ten years, we have seen a doubling of the rates for both men and women.
	+
	+	The percentage frequency of cannabis use by gender (in the health survey of the Federal Statistical Office) then looks as follows:
	+
	+	* In 1992, the share was 1.4% for women and 3.4% for men.
	+	* In 2002, the share was 2.9% for women and 6.6% for men.
	+
	+	===== Comparison of two studies =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li283133gb.jpg?direct&400}} \| {{:thc_recht:li283133co.jpg?direct&400}} \|
	+
	+	On the left side we see the graphic of the BfS health survey. On the right, we have the results of a study conducted by the Link Institute on behalf of the Coop newspaper. If we compare the two studies, the following stands out. According to the BfS, 4.7 percent said they had smoked pot in 2002. In the Coop survey, by contrast, 7 percent said they "still smoke hashish or cannabis today." The difference is huge; about 50 percent more . . .
	+
	+	In the individual age groups, the differences are just as large - even if one cannot compare them directly, because the BfS indicates five age groups and the Coop survey only their three. Nevertheless, it can be seen that in this survey more people in all age groups stated that they smoke pot. If you extrapolate the 7 percent from the Coop survey, you arrive at around 350,000 people who smoke pot in our country. Compared to the 225,000 people in the BfS survey. Where is the truth now? Well, in the end nobody knows. A large part of the smokers will certainly not give an honest answer when asked about cannabis consumption. After all, this behavior is punishable by law - so there is probably a large number of unreported cases. So one has no choice but to estimate - and then comes to about 500,000 stoners in Switzerland, who at least every few weeks pull on a joint. However, there are far fewer THC lovers who smoke a joint every day.

Trans, levo isomer of delta-9-tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC).

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li290405.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Trans, levo isomer of delta-9-tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC). ======
	+
	+	Cannabis resin is the sticky, delicately fragrant part of the cannabis plant. Good weed contains a lot of it - recognizable by the small white to brown droplets on the flowers, but also on the leaves and stems. Good hashish consists almost exclusively of these resin droplets. The worse it is, the more plant material, soil, sand, dust, screenings, mold and insects it contains.
	+
	+	But what is contained in the resin? Two classes of substances are predominantly represented. One is essential oils (caryophyllene, humulene, beta-farnesene, alfa-selinene, beta-phellandrene and others). These cause the weed or hash to have the typical cannabis scent. The different distribution in different varieties also results in the differences in taste. However, the fragrances have no psychoactive effect.
	+	Second, the resin contains the cannabinoids, probably around 60 different ones. Among them, there are those that are not psychoactive or have little psychoactive effect. For example, the cannabidiol (CBD) that is supposed to influence the actual effect. Some say it reduces anxiety. Next, cannabinol (CBN), which is said to have little effect. More rarely also the Cannabichromen (CBC) and as said many more.
	+
	+	The most important cannabinoid is THC. But again, there are quite different ones. Occasionally the delta-8-THC occurs, also the tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) can be found. And there are others, both those found in nature and artificially produced ones (some of which have x times the strength of natural THC). So tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC) is again just a generic term. The THC that we most often get is the trans, levo isomer of delta-9-tetra-hydro-cannabinol.
	+
	+	The vaporization point of THC is about 200° Celsius, and the molar weight is about 314 grams. So if we consume a quarter gram of a good hash containing 20% THC, that means we are ingesting 0.05 grams of THC, which is equivalent to about 100,000,000,000,000,000 molecules (as shown below). The chemical formula is C21H30O2, which means that one molecule of THC is formed by 21 carbon atoms, 30 hydrogen atoms and two oxygen atoms.
	+
	+	The effect varies depending on the strain and the way it is consumed, depending on the mood and the dose. But in all THC ingestors, the molecules dock on nerve cells and cause a change in their way of thinking. In a considerable number of different ways.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li290405.jpg?800x550}} \|

The Cantonal Basel Cannabis Report

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:li291113.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li291113.jpg}} \|

-	====== The cantonal Basel cannabis report ======

-	In Basel, people have had enough of waiting for the big revision of the Narcotics Act. An interdepartmental report of 2004 analyses the situation around hemp and proposes concrete measures. The whole Basel administration should be able to orientate itself on this.	+
		+	====== The Cantonal Basel Cannabis Report ======
		+
		+	Basel has had enough of waiting for the big NarcA revision. An interdepartmental report from 2004 analyzes the situation around hemp and proposes concrete measures. The entire Basel administration should be able to orient itself on this.

	===== Unité de doctrine =====		===== Unité de doctrine =====

-	"The present Cantonal Cannabis Report was drawn up in close cooperation with all the administrative bodies involved in the cannabis problem and thus represents a 'unité de doctrine'. 'unité de doctrine' of the Basel administration", it says in the introduction to the Basel report. In fact, a great number of authorities have been involved in the elaboration of this report: Councillors from the Sanitary Department, the Police and Military Departments, the Justice Department, as well as the heads of the Health Service, the "Youth, Family, Prevention" Department and the "Schools" Department. In addition, the police commander and the first public prosecutor. The list shows that the relevant people and the decisive offices are behind this report. (Even the head of "City Gardening and Cemeteries" was there . . . )	+	"The present Cantonal Cannabis Report was prepared in close cooperation with all administrative offices involved in the cannabis problem and thus represents a 'unité de doctrine' of the Basel administration," it says in the introduction to the Basel report. In fact, a large number of authorities were involved in the preparation of this report: Councillors from the Sanitary Department, the Police and Military Departments, the Justice Department, as well as the heads of the Health Service, the "Youth, Family, Prevention" Department and the "Schools" Department. In addition, the police commander and the first prosecutor. The list shows that the relevant people and the decisive offices are behind this report. (Even the head of "City Gardening and Cemeteries" was there . . . )

	===== Facts =====		===== Facts =====

-	Now the report counts some facts about the current situation: Cannabis use is widespread; there has been a switch from (imported) hashish to (domestic) weed; there are risks to smoking pot, but they are no greater than with legal alcohol and tobacco. "The risks of cannabis use are particularly person and behaviour specific." One can only subscribe to this: There are stoners who have not found a sensible way to deal with THC products. But there are many who manage their consumption responsibly. Then follow some frank words about the repression against the shops: "Between October 2002 and the end of January 2003, the public prosecutor's office and the police carried out intensified measures against the cannabis shops. Out of 87 shops identified, 11 were still operating at the end of January 2003." That there are still some shops, the report justifies with the limited human resources available for law enforcementprosecution.	+	Now the report lists some facts about the current situation: Cannabis use is widespread; there has been a switch from (imported) hashish to (domestic) weed; there are risks to smoking pot, but they are no greater than with legal alcohol and tobacco. "The risks of cannabis use are particularly person- and behavior-specific." One can only subscribe to this: There are stoners who have not found a sensible way to deal with THC products. But there are many who manage their consumption responsibly. Then follow some frank words about the repression against the stores: "Between October 2002 and the end of January 2003, public prosecutor and the police carried out intensified measures against the cannabis stores. Out of 87 stores identified, 11 were still operating at the end of January 2003." The report justifies the fact that some stores still exist by the limited human resources available to criminal prosecution.

	===== Teenagers =====		===== Teenagers =====

-	The report also states that more and more young people but that these young people are also turning to alcohol more and more often. And: "Today, cannabis use can hardly be associated with subcultural affiliation or breaking social norms. It is rather associated - in line with alcohol and tobacco - with the 'socializer' and relaxation functions of these substances, which are also widespread and appreciated among adults. On the basis of various representative studies, it can be assumed that the vast majority of all cannabis users engage in experimental or occasional use without any health-relevant problems arising. Cannabis users come from all social, demographic and educational groups. Individuals who develop dependence as a result of excessive use often show deficits in personal and social resources."	+	The report also notes that more and more young people are smoking pot, but that these young people are also turning to alcohol more and more often. And: "Today, cannabis use can hardly be associated with subcultural affiliation or social norm-breaking. Rather, it is associated - in line with alcohol and tobacco - with the 'socializer' and relaxation functions of these substances, which are also widespread and appreciated among adults. Based on various representative studies, it can be assumed that the vast majority of all cannabis users engage in experimental or occasional use without any health-relevant problems arising. Cannabis users come from all social, demographic and educational groups. Individuals who develop dependence as a result of excessive use often exhibit deficits in personal and social resources."

	===== Narcotics Act =====		===== Narcotics Act =====

-	Go to Narcotics Act the report states: "The trade in cannabis and the cultivation associated with it is consistently prosecuted in Basel on the basis of the mandatory provisions of the current Narcotics Law. Repressive measures against individual cannabis shops are therefore still possible and necessary.	+	Regarding the Narcotics Act, the report states: "The trade in cannabis and the cultivation associated with it is consistently prosecuted in Basel on the basis of the mandatory provisions of the current Narcotics Act. Repressive measures against individual cannabis stores are therefore still possible and necessary.
-	The use of cannabis and acts related to its use constitute offences for which the principle of opportunity is applied prosecution.	+	Consumption of cannabis and acts related to its consumption constitute contraventions for which the principle of opportunity is applied prosecution.
-	The Youth Ombudsman's Office conducts proceedings against young cannabis users when they become aware of their use."	+	The Youth Prosecutor's Office conducts proceedings against young cannabis users when they become aware of their use."
-	So here a triage is made: trafficking is always prosecuted (as far as the capacities allow it), consumption is actually not prosecuted, unless it concerns young people, where one does not want to simply stand by and watch. But what exactly does "opportunity principle" mean here?	+	So here a triage is made: trafficking is always prosecuted (as far as capacities allow), consumption is actually not prosecuted, unless it concerns young people, where one does not want to simply stand by and watch. But what exactly does "opportunity principle" mean here?

-	===== BetmG revision =====	+	===== NarcA-Revision =====

-	After the report for the current **BetmG revision and also wants to make the existing support services for young people with addiction problems more accessible, the first rather theoretical part concludes: "Until the new Narcotics Act enters into force, the general situation will inevitably continue to be marked by uncertainties and contradictions with regard to** a coherent cannabis policy. A clear stance by the canton or the relevant authorities should help to reduce the number of these uncertainties and contradictions and to clearly communicate and justify those that inevitably remain."	+	After the report expresses its support for the ongoing **NarcA revision and also wants to make existing help services for young people with addiction problems more accessible, the first rather theoretical part concludes: "Until the new narcotics law comes into force, the general situation will inevitably continue to be characterized by uncertainties and contradictions regarding a coherent cannabis policy. A clear stance on the part of** the canton or the relevant authorities should help to reduce the number of these uncertainties and contradictions and to clearly communicate and justify those that inevitably remain."

	===== Key figures =====		===== Key figures =====

-	Then follow some key data** of Basel's cannabis policy: "Basel-Stadt pursues a pragmatic cannabis policy with the aim of separating soft and hard drugs", "There is a priority regulation with a focus on the prosecution trade in hard drugs (especially heroin and cocaine)", "The priorities in the measures on cannabis use are in the areas of prevention, protection of young people and counselling and help. The measures are aimed at the problem areas of early entrants, problematic use by young people, excessive use and other forms of risky use". Remarkable: There is nothing** to read about repression? So really a comprehensive decriminalization?	+	Then follow some key figures** of Basel's cannabis policy: "Basel-Stadt pursues a pragmatic cannabis policy with the aim of separating soft and hard drugs", "There is a priority regulation with a focus on the prosecution of trafficking in hard drugs (especially heroin and cocaine)", "The priorities in the measures on cannabis use are in the areas of prevention, protection of minors, and counseling and help. The measures target the problem areas of early entrants, problematic use among young people, excessive use and other forms of risky use". Remarkable: Nothing to read here** about repression? So really a comprehensive decriminalization?

	===== Action plan =====		===== Action plan =====

-	Then follows the **Action Plan, Now it becomes really concrete. Regarding repression, the report says: "Repressive measures against individual cannabis shops are still possible and necessary. However, following the priority rule will inevitably mean that a small number of cannabis shops will continue to exist. If the number of cannabis shops increases again, the public prosecutor's office will have to examine the possibility of a concentrated deployment of personnel, reinforced by members of the cantonal police, against the cannabis shop scene in order to reduce it again." This is probably the most honest assessment of how to deal with the cannabis shops that I have ever heard from official sources. Basically, trafficking in hash and weed will be prosecuted. But not in the first priority, but in the second or third. As for** consumption, the report states:	+	Then follows the **plan of measures, now it becomes really concrete. Regarding repression, the report says: "Repressive measures against individual cannabis stores are still possible and necessary. However, following the priority rule will inevitably mean that a small number of cannabis stores will continue to exist. If the number of cannabis stores increases again, the public prosecutor will have to examine the possibility of a concentrated deployment of personnel, reinforced by members of the cantonal police, against the cannabis store scene for the purpose of renewed reduction." This is probably the most honest assessment of how to deal with cannabis stores that I have ever heard from official sources. Basically, the trafficking of hash and weed will be prosecuted. But not in first priority, but in second or third. And regarding** consumption, the report states:
-	"The **consumption will be prosecuted in Basel, as before, only if there is a need to do so due to special circumstances (e.g. harassment of the public and residents by a consumer scene or simultaneous suspicion of trafficking in cannabis)". This is the concrete version of the Basel Opportunity Principle: consumption is prohibited, but in some cases not prosecuted. Whereby the criteria for this notprosecution are already very fuzzy. Does a single pothead "bother" other people at a tram station now and is a case brought after all? Do you have to stand alone somewhere on the Rhine and if the smoke doesn't** stress anyone it's ok? That leaves the police a lot of leeway. But at least it is the very first version of a concrete opportunity principle. It's the most minimal form of partial decriminalization of consumption, so to speak.	+	" **Consumption will be specifically prosecuted in Basel, as before, only if there is a need for it due to special circumstances (e.g. harassment of the public and residents by a consumer scene or simultaneous suspicion of trafficking in cannabis)." This is the concrete version of the Basel Opportunity Principle: consumption is prohibited, but in some cases it is not prosecuted. Whereby the criteria for this non-prosecution are already very vague. Does a single stoner "bother" other people at a streetcar station and is a case brought against him? Does one have to stand somewhere alone on the Rhine and if then the smoke does not stress anyone it is ok? That leaves the police a lot of leeway. But at least it is the very first version of a concrete opportunity principle. It is, so to speak,** the most minimal form of a partial decriminalization of consumption.
-	However, it only applies to adults. "Against **juvenile The principle is that the younger and the more frequently a minor has used cannabis, the more action will be taken. The consequences are information of the parents and appropriate sanctions under youth** law (reprimands, fines and, in future, above all, compulsory participation in courses in order to deal with one's own consumption and life situation)".	+	However, it only applies to adults. "The Youth Prosecutor's Office conducts proceedings against **young cannabis users when they become aware of their use, whereby the principle applies that the younger and the more frequently a minor has used cannabis, the more action is taken. The consequences are information of the parents and appropriate sanctions under juvenile law (reprimands, fines and, in the future, above all, compulsory participation in courses in order to deal with one's own consumption and life situation there**)."

	===== View =====		===== View =====

-	This view from Basel could set a precedent in the whole of Switzerland, at least in the cities. It will probably be the maximum possible until the new Narcotics Act comes into force (if it is not scuttled by the National Council after all). There is hardly any room for manoeuvre when it comes to trade: anyone who opens a shop will sooner or later have to face a raid. But the shop may well run for a few months. When it comes to consumption, the focus is increasingly on the conspicuous smokers: The very young; those who cause further problems or those who consume quite a lot. The Bernese "Bund" wrote about this report: "Normal stoners should not be excluded." A wonderful word, "normal stoners". If one really doesn't want to exclude us THC-users anymore, then the BetmG has to be changed, there is no way around it. But at least: if you smoke pot at home, don't stress anyone out with it, are an adult and don't ingest too much THC, you won't be actively prosecuted. That's not enough, but it's a step in the right direction. Initially only in Basel . . .	+	This view from Basel could set a precedent throughout Switzerland, at least in the cities. It will probably be the maximum possible until the new NarcA comes into force (if it is not scuttled by the National Council after all). There is hardly any room for maneuver in the retail sector: anyone who opens a store will sooner or later have to face a raid. The store may well run for a few months. When it comes to consumption, the focus is increasingly on the conspicuous smokers: The very young; those who cause further problems or those who consume quite a lot. The Bernese "Bund" wrote about this report: "Normal stoners should not be excluded." A wonderful word, "normal stoners". If one really does not want to exclude us THC-users anymore, then the NarcA must be changed, there is no way around it. But at least: those who smoke pot at home, don't stress anyone out with it, are adults and don't ingest too much THC, won't be actively prosecuted. That's not enough, but it's a step in the right direction. Initially only in Basel . . .
		+
		+	[[http://www.gesundheitsdienste.bs.ch/as_04_cannabis_bericht.pdf\|You can download the whole report.
		+	]]

-	[[http://www.gesundheitsdienste.bs.ch/as_04_cannabis_bericht.pdf\|You can download the whole report.]]

Prohibiting smoking pot would actually be forbidden

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

Further figures from the health study

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li293133.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Further figures from the health study ======
	+	**
	+	The Swiss Health Survey contains a lot of data on the smoking behavior of the population in Switzerland. This time we are interested in how various percentages have changed over the last ten years.**
	+
	+	==== ====
	+	In the first article (see Legalize it! 28) on the health survey of the Swiss Federal Statistical Office, we presented the frequencies for current consumption according to the different age groups and compared them with the results of another study. These data were for 2002, and in this second article we would like to document the change over the past decade. It should be noted that the data for all three study years are only available for 15-39 year olds.
	+
	+
	+	==== Lifetime prevalence over time, between genders, German-speaking and French-speaking Switzerland, urban and rural areas, educational levels ====
	+
	+	The first interesting question is whether someone has ever smoked pot in their lifetime, or whether no THC molecules have passed through their brain at all. This question about lifetime prevalence says nothing about current use, but only whether someone has had experience with cannabis at some point in their life or not. So how has the experience with cannabis developed over time? The following table shows the values for the three years of the health study:
	+	\| ^1992 ^1997^2002^
	+	\|"ever"\| 16.3% \|26.7% \|27.7%\|
	+
	+	In the last five years, the percentage of those who have smoked pot at least once has remained fairly stable at just over 25%. About a quarter of the 15-39 year olds try cannabis use at some point in their lives. The vast majority of the population still has no experience with smoking pot (72.3% in 2002).
	+
	+	The following table shows the lifetime prevalence of cannabis use by gender:
	+	\| ^1992 ^1997^2002^
	+	\|Men\| 21.5% \| 33.4% \| 34.2% \|
	+	\|Women \| 11.1% \| 19.9% \| 21.1% \|
	+	Every third man and every fifth woman has had some experience with smoking pot. In the last five years, the values are practically constant - a large increase was only recorded between 1992 and 1997.
	+
	+	Then to the ratio German- to French-speaking Switzerland. The proportions here are:
	+	\| ^1992^1997^2002^
	+	\|German-CH\| 16.3% \| 27.2% \| 27.2% \|
	+	\|Romandie\| 17.3% \| 26.9% \| 31.9% \|
	+	The Welsh are more experienced in smoking pot than the Alemannic. However, the general trend is very similar to the total figures.
	+	Now let's look at the values for urban and rural areas:
	+	\| ^1992^1997^2002^
	+	\|City \| 17.7% \| 29.7% \| 28.7% \|
	+	\|Country \| 13.0% \| 20.5% \| 25.4% \|
	+	So urbanites are better acquainted with smoking pot, though the differences have largely leveled out.
	+	And then we take a look at the different levels of education:
	+	\| ^1992^1997^2002^
	+	\|deep \| 14.0% \|25.5% \| 23.8% \|
	+	\|medium \| 16.6% \| 27.5% \| 29.0% \|
	+	\|high \| 19.7% \| 29.4% \| 33.4% \|
	+	We see that among the most educated, one in three had experience with THC, while among those who attended compulsory school, it was just under one in four. Drug-trying behavior thus seems to increase with increasing education.
	+
	+
	+	Current use over time, between age groups, German and French-speaking Switzerland, urban and rural areas, educational levels.
	+	However, even if a quarter have had experience with smoking pot, this does not mean that these people are still smoking pot today. When the survey asked about current use, the following proportions of 15-39 year olds said they still smoke pot:
	+	\| ^1992^1997^2002^
	+	\|"current" \| 4.4% \| 7.0% \| 7.5% \|
	+	Here, too, we see that the big jump happened in the first five years - since then, the growth has been rather small. And we also see that the vast majority (around three quarters, from 27.7% to 7.5%) of those trying no longer have a current use, i.e. have already stopped smoking pot again.
	+	The above figures also mean that 92.5% of the population no longer have (or have never had) a current use of cannabis. So we stoners are really a small minority. Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that "current use" means use in 2002: already smoked once in 2002 - and you are already in the category "current smoker". So the 7.5% includes occasional and hardcore smokers. Unfortunately, the study makes no distinction between different groups of people who smoke pot. We all know, of course, that there are massive differences between someone who takes a drag on a joint once every three weeks and someone who is predominantly busy rolling and smoking their 25 joints a day. But both (and all possible intermediate levels) are subsumed into this one category of current stoners.
	+
	+	In the different age groups, smoking pot is also represented to different degrees (see also the graphs in Legalize it! 28, page 32/33). Here we want to look at the development over time:
	+	\| ^ 1992 ^2002 ^ Increase^
	+	\|15-24 years old \| 7.1% \| 12.0% \| + 69% \|
	+	\|25-34-year-old \| 3.8% \| 6.3% \| + 66% \|
	+	\|35-39 years old \| 1.3% \|3.4% \| +162% \|
	+	\|Total \| 4.4% \| 7.5% \| + 70% \|
	+	Unfortunately, there are no such figures for the over-40s. But even so, we can see that the increase in current users is very large, especially in the 40-plus category. Slowly, we stoners have become firmly anchored among the elderly. This trend is likely to continue in the future until a certain ceiling is reached. With this spreading of active smoking also into older (and mostly better earning and better respected) age groups, our power (understood as the ability to influence this society) naturally increases. This could make one optimistic about the implementation of legalization in the long run.
	+
	+	Now a comparison between French-speaking Switzerland and German-speaking Switzerland. Again, the current smokers in the three age groups:
	+	\| ^1992^1997^2002^
	+	\|German-CH\| 4.5% \| 7.5% \| 7.4% \|
	+	\|Romandie\| 4.3% \| 6.0% \| 8.8% \|
	+	The number of people smoking pot in the French-speaking part of Switzerland has increased and has now surpassed the number of people smoking pot in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. And this despite (or because of?) the fact that repression against smoking pot is more frequent in French-speaking Switzerland than in the German-speaking part of our country. We also see that smoking pot in French-speaking Switzerland has increased massively in the last five years from 6 to 8.8 percent, while in German-speaking Switzerland a kind of ceiling has already been reached, or the proportion has even declined slightly for the first time (from 7.5 to 7.4 percent).
	+
	+	Do people in rural areas smoke pot more or less frequently than people in urban areas? Our next table shows the development of current consumption over the last ten years:
	+	\| ^1992^1997^2002^
	+	\|City\| 5.2% \| 7.6% \| 7.6% \|
	+	\|Country\| 2.5% \| 5.9% \| 7.3% \|
	+	We see that the differences (more than twice as many current pot smokers in 1992 in the city than in the countryside, 5.2 to 2.5 percent) have practically leveled out in 2002 (7.6 and 7.3% in 2002). After this catch-up (almost tripling the rate in ten years, from 2.5 to 7.3%), an upper ceiling will have been reached here, as it has been for five years in the city. The value for rural areas could now also stabilize at around 7.5%.
	+
	+	Do the less educated smoke pot more or less than the better educated? The table shows the values for three cohorts:
	+	\| ^1992^1997^2002^
	+	\|deep\| 5.2% \| 8.6% \| 8.7% \|
	+	\|medium\| 4.3% \| 7.3% \| 7.7% \|
	+	\|high \| 3.4% \| 5.2% \| 4.9% \|
	+	Thus, in the lower educational levels, 75% more respondents smoke pot than, for example, among people with a university degree (8.7 to 4.9%). Nevertheless, every twentieth highly educated person currently smokes pot. These results are now exactly the opposite of the lifetime prevalence (see at the beginning of our article): There, more than one third of the highly educated were THC-experienced, while among the less educated it was only one in four.
	+	Thus, the less educated try cannabis less often than the highly educated, but stay with it more often.

vaporize instead of smoking - what makes vapor healthier?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li301518.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== vaporize instead of smoking - what makes vapor healthier? ======
	+
	+	We have reviewed a study that examined hemp smoke and hempvapor and compared the different ingredients. Why vaporize is more efficient and massively less harmful than smoking is explained in our article.
	+
	+	===== Basics =====
	+
	+	For an introduction to the topic of vaporization, three articles that we have printed in previous issues of Legalize it! are suitable. In the article "Vaporizing instead of smoking - the new pleasure" we described the technical basics of vaporizing and compared it with the processes in a joint (Legalize it! 27, pages 11-13). In the article "Overview of three vaporizers" we conducted a small test with different vaporizers that are on the market (Legalize it! 28, pages 11-13). Regarding the substances contained in cannabis, the article "Trans, levo isomer of delta-9-tetra-hydro-cannabinol" in Legalize it! 29, pages 4-5, is recommended.
	+
	+	===== Result of the self-testing =====
	+
	+	If you really want to get stoned again and you do it with joints, you can definitely feel it in your lungs the next morning. The strain is there, no question. However, if you have such a stoned evening and vaporize and inhale THC instead of smoking, you will hardly notice any impairment of lung function the next morning. Furthermore, one needs less hemp flowers for the same stoned state. This is the assessment of many stoners, including myself. But it is not so easy to put this subjective feeling into scientific criteria.
	+
	+	===== The original study =====
	+
	+	The study we will discuss here was conducted in 2003, is 55 pages long and is titled "Evaluation Of Volcano® Vaporizer For The Efficient Emission Of THC, CBD, CBN And The Significant Reduction And/Or Elimination Of Polynuclear-Aromatic (PNA) Analytes Resultant Of Pyrolysis". So, the first is to find out how efficiently THC is released by vaporization and the second is to determine the presence of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (these are specifically problematic because they are carcinogenic and are produced primarily by incomplete combustion).
	+	The original study was commissioned by the MAPS and NORML organizations in the U.S. - two organizations that seek to study psychedelic issues and change cannabis laws, respectively.
	+
	+	===== How did we investigate the study? =====
	+
	+	First I read the extensive study a few times, discussed it with a natural scientist and then we commissioned the Institute IOS3 in Bern with a small study about this study, so that we were really sure to understand the essential parts and to be able to assess their quality.
	+	Furthermore, in this article we include our, admittedly subjective, but concrete vapor experiences that we have gained with vaporizing for over a year now. However, we always point out whether a result comes from the study or from ourselves.
	+
	+	===== Which evaporator was examined? =====
	+
	+	The authors of the study first examined various vaporization devices and came to the same conclusion as we did at Legalize it! 27, concluded that the Volcano was the most sophisticated device currently on the market (and also the one we use most often).
	+	The Volcano pumps air through holes in a piece of metal that has been heated to the desired temperature (around 200 degrees Celsius). The warm air flows through the weed and the resulting vapor is collected in a balloon and can then be consumed.
	+
	+	===== How did the study go about investigating THC? =====
	+
	+	A portion of hemp herb was divided into different parts of equal size and thus examined in three different ways. Firstly, the THC content of the substance itself, secondly, the THC yield during combustion and thirdly, the THC yield during vaporization were each measured in several runs.
	+
	+	1) The extraction was performed as follows. Several portions of weed were treated with ethanol (a solvent) and the resulting solutions were then analyzed for their constituents. This was probably able to dissolve pretty much all THC from the sample material.
	+
	+	2) Combustion was performed as follows. Several portions of weed were dissolved into smoke in a special machine that heated the weed to over 230 degrees Celsius (causing the weed to ignite itself). Then this smoke was dissolved in methanol (a solvent) and analyzed for its constituents. Nothing was left behind by this procedure (except ash) - so all the material was destroyed. In relation to smoking, this experimental arrangement has of course a crucial difference: If you smoke weed pure in a joint, you can never inhale all the smoke produced - a large part pulls away from the joint, if you do not pull and especially if you stop pulling.
	+
	+	3) Vaporization was done with the Volcano, as mentioned. Several portions of weed were heated three times each with the Volcano and the vapor thus produced was collected and again dissolved with methanol and analyzed for the ingredients. Of course, there is still material left over, because evaporation does not destroy all the material used, but merely dissolves a small portion of the total mass into a gaseous phase. Unfortunately, the remaining material was not further examined in this study (although further THC can of course be found in it - in any case, in self-experiments, we find that even after the fifth heating process, incoming THC is still dissolved).
	+
	+	===== THC yield efficiency comparison =====
	+
	+	If the weed was treated with ethanol to dissolve the THC, the results gave an average of 4.15 percent THC. Thus, it can be said that the weed used in all three experiments has a (rather low) content of about 4 percent THC. (Good weed has 10 to 20 percent THC.) So now that the basic value for the weed had been established, it was possible to compare this with the values for combustion and vaporization.
	+	For vapor a value of 1.95 percent THC was found, for burning one of 3.24 percent THC. So, if the 4 percent THC represents the maximum, i.e. 100 percent, complete combustion managed to get about 80 percent of the THC out of the material (the rest was destroyed by the heat), while vaporize dissolved about 50 percent of the THC.
	+
	+	===== What does this result mean in practice? =====
	+
	+	Anyone who smokes must therefore always reckon with a basic loss of 20 percent THC. In addition, there is the loss caused by the smoke drifting away. Here, the type of consumption probably has a decisive effect on the efficiency of the absorption of THC. Unfortunately, the study was not able to determine this loss. The 80 percent found in the laboratory would only be usable if all smoke were inhaled, but this is impossible with joint smoking. We assume that about half of the THC disappears in the smoke, and half reaches the lungs. Calculated in this way, the yield under real conditions would be about 40 percent.
	+	In the case of vaporization, as mentioned above, 50 percent yield is achieved after three heating cycles. Unfortunately, the study did not provide exact information on how much THC each vaporization pass dissolved (three vaporizations were performed and then all vapor was examined together). From our vaporization experience, we would estimate that the first balloon/heating pass released about 20 percent, the second then 15 percent, the third perhaps another 15 percent, the fourth still about 10 percent, the fifth also 10 percent, the sixth and the following then under 10 percent each. Up to the third balloon it is very fine, then the quality of the taste slowly decreases. From there, one can make four to seven passes in practical use, which should dissolve over two-thirds, or 70 percent, of the THC present. This is also confirmed by the impression that the same amount vaporized goes in stronger than when smoked.
	+	But on the whole, it can be said that in the end, in the consumer, there are losses of THC in both smoking and vaporizing. (Actually, only eating is imaginable without losses. Those who eat cannabis should have the best utilization, because all THC enters the body). However, losses are likely to be greater with smoking than with vaporizing. We would say the vaporize seems about twice as efficient.
	+	But the biggest difference between vaporize and smoking is not primarily in efficiency, but in the ingredients.
	+
	+	===== Semi-quantitative study =====
	+
	+	In a second step, it was now investigated which other substances (besides THC) can be found in vapor, respectively in the smoke. In the analyses of the vapor, the study authors found that the THC and other cannabinoids make up about 95 to 98 percent of the vapor. The rest is partly (about 1 percent) caryophyllene (a flavoring agent), and one to two polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found (about 2 to 4 percent). These substances can cause cancer and are problematic. The cannabinoids, on the other hand, do not cause any health problems as far as is known today (they simply go to sleep), but the flavoring agent caryophyllene can irritate the lungs (which is also noticeable when smoking strong-smelling cannabis). But just: the vast majority of the vapor is simply THC, the problematic substances are only found on the periphery. The ratio of cannabinoids to the rest is between 98:2 and 95:5 at vaporize. This means that the largest part of the vapor is certainly unproblematic. On the other hand, it is also not completely harmless.
	+	In the smoke, on the other hand, the researchers found about 12 percent cannabinoids, about 0.75 percent caryophyllene, and all the rest consisted mainly of various PAHs. More than 100 (!) different problematic substances were found - substances that do not contribute anything to driving in, but can pollute the lungs and cause cancer. The ratio of cannabinoids to the rest is about 12:88 when smoking. This ratio is practically the opposite of vaporize.
	+	(By the way: Since only weed pure was tested here, the normal joint smoker, who mixes cannabis with tobacco, also has to deal with other substances that only occur in tobacco: above all nicotine. The PAHs, however, are of course very similar - whether you smoke weed, tobacco or anything else, such substances are always released).
	+
	+	===== Summary =====
	+
	+	The IO3S writes in its final report on this study: "The study is certainly useful for qualitative statements; i.e. to prove that practically no combustion substances are produced." The exact quantification of the ingredients, however, has not been convincingly solved, it says. "As for the carcinogenic effect, it will certainly be several hundred times lower, but also some substances naturally occurring in the plant (e.g., some aromatic substances) can be carcinogenic in excessive doses. What has been proven for sure is that far fewer problematic substances are ingested." It is also likely that higher amounts of THC would be ingested. However, this could not be clearly proven by this study.
	+
	+	===== Test evaporator =====
	+
	+	For those who would like to see a vaporizer up close and test it, we offer the following. In our office we have four vaporizers: the Volcano (with which the study described here was conducted), the Element, the Vapir and an older model of the Aromed.
	+	You should be able to spare a few hours and be in Zurich on a Friday. From 4pm to 9pm we can make an appointment and show you the devices.
	+	We find vaporizing a very good alternative to smoking. Taste-wise, vaporizing is unsurpassable, the break-in is strong and clear. You need less material than smoking. But the main advantage is the stanklessness: even if you vaporized a whole evening in a closed room, it does not stink in any way. Even blatant smoke haters can't detect any emissions by any stretch of the imagination (vaporizers, however, can very much detect the effects of THC in their brains). This makes vaporizing ideal for small apartments, or in places where non-smokers and smokers (have to) live together.
	+	The only disadvantage of vaporizing is the initial cost of such a device. 500 to 800 francs should be budgeted (there are also bad or even non-functioning "vaporizers"). But the price is quickly recovered by the higher efficiency. And the taste is priceless!

No April Fool's joke - repression continues in 2004!

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li302222.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== No April Fool's joke - repression continues in 2004! ======
	+
	+	Even though the penalty below was created on April 1, 2004: It is not a joke. Valais has been known for a long time as a very repressive region, but this penalty beats everything. The woman in question was caught by the police with a gram of weed, and admitted to spending about 20 francs on its consumption over a period of four months. She had never sold anything before, but she gives to others free of charge. She had never dealt with the police before - so this was her first time.
	+	For this ridiculously minor illegal activity, she has now been punished with three days in jail, conditionally for two years. And on top of that she has to pay 301.20 francs expenses. All this because of a gram and the admission of occasional consumption, purchase and gratuitous distribution. Here we see clearly what a malicious judge can do with the current narcotics law if he wants to. The mere consumption (without possession, purchase, transfer, etc.) can already be punished with imprisonment. This is what the law says.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li302222.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	===== Silence =====
	+	We can only keep pointing this out: Silence is usually the best thing you can do when questioned by the police. Anything you admit can (and will, if they feel like it) be used against you. Anything they find will speak against you. But so will anything they don't find but you confess to them. Your signature on the police interrogation report is essential. You don't have to incriminate yourself, but if you do, it can be used against you. You should never underestimate the narcotics law. It is a very harsh law!

Criminal already as a teenager

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li310911.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Criminal already as a teenager ======
	+
	+	**The age of initiation into smoking pot is falling and more and more young people are trying cannabis products. That's why more and more of them are coming into contact with the police. What happens when under-18s get caught in the clutches of the justice system?
	+	**
	+	When young people smoke pot, it is illegal and the police report them and take away the weed or the hash. But the punishment is not carried out by the adult authorities (governor, district office, police judge or district attorney's office), but by the youth prosecutor's office. This is responsible for all persons who are less than 18 years old. The documents we are documenting here show exemplarily how the behavior of the judicial authorities develops over several referrals.
	+
	+	===== 1 summons =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li310911vorl.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	The teenager has become conspicuous because he smoked a joint in public. To this end, he admitted to having started smoking pot almost four months ago. In the first letter, the juvenile lawyer asks the juvenile to participate in a discussion about drug use. Instead of punishment, a round of talks takes place at the addiction prevention center. Various negative effects of drug use are discussed. Addressing these potential problems together with young people is certainly not a bad thing. However, the most important aspect of drug use is often missing: it is nice to use drugs. Hemp products in particular can have a variety of positive effects, including on young people. And it's not the negative effects that make people consume hash and weed, but the positive ones: the relaxation, the funny feeling, the pleasant mood, the experience of a completely new space for thinking and sensory perception. This is generally a big problem with prevention: it often "forgets" all the positive things that people can experience when smoking pot (or it simply doesn't want to admit it). In this way, however, prevention always falls short. The concrete experience of the smokers is then so different from what the prevention experts say that they are simply not taken seriously. (Which is also a pity, because there are negative effects of smoking pot, especially the damage caused by smoking).
	+
	+	===== 2 Reference =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li310911verw.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	But a course is not enough - after all, smoking pot is a criminal offense. Therefore, in the second letter, a reprimand is issued, whereby no fine is pronounced, but the young person must pay 30 francs fees .
	+
	+	===== 3 Parents information =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li310911praev.jpg?800x}} \|
	+
	+	In addition, the parents are informed in a third letter that their offspring has committed an illegal act and that they should please take better care of their child.
	+
	+	===== 4 Juvenile penalty =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li310911strafjug.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	In the case of the second incident, the juvenile prosecutor's office then issues a summary penalty order, i.e. there is a fine and fees of a total of 84 francs. On the reverse side, the juvenile prosecutor still points out that the juvenile probably did not draw any conclusions from the addiction prevention course and "unflinchingly" continued his drug consumption. He explains that this punishment is also rather symbolic, that in adult criminal law the fines are higher and even prison sentences are possible. He suggests to the juvenile that he should go to an addiction counseling center again.
	+
	+	===== 5 Adult penalty =====
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li310911straferw.jpg?800x1200}} \|
	+
	+	Now the teenager has reached the age of majority and simply does not think about stopping smoking pot, why should he? However, the police continue to hold on to the criminal liability and report the new adult again at the next opportunity. This time, the district office is responsible and issues a first adult licensesummary penalty order. It costs 180 francs this time.

Smoking is only one way to consume THC

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2025-03-18T13:24:27+00:00

2024/09/20 22:29		Version actuelle
Ligne 4:		Ligne 4:

	{{ :thc_recht:li311315.jpg}}		{{ :thc_recht:li311315.jpg}}
		+
	Our article in Legalize it! 30 about the fight against smoking was almost prophetic: As of 2005, smoking was banned in many places. And the pressure will continue to mount. So here are some further thoughts on smokeless THC use.		Our article in Legalize it! 30 about the fight against smoking was almost prophetic: As of 2005, smoking was banned in many places. And the pressure will continue to mount. So here are some further thoughts on smokeless THC use.

The NarcA-revision starts again from the beginning

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:bundeshausnacht.jpg?200x150}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bundeshausnacht.jpg?200x150}} \|

-	====== The revision of the BetmG starts all over again ======


-	After the definitive failure of the last revision of the Narcotics Law in June 2004, various things have happened in the field of drug policy. The hemp initiative was launched and various parties and parliamentarians have submitted proposals.	+	====== The NarcA-revision starts again from the beginning ======

		+
		+	**After the final failure of the last revision of the Narcotics Law in June 2004, various things have happened in the field of drug policy. The hemp initiative was launched and various parties and parliamentarians have submitted proposals.
		+	**
	The disillusionment in reform-oriented circles was very great last June. But after months of discussions behind closed doors, the first tentative proposals are now being made on how to proceed.		The disillusionment in reform-oriented circles was very great last June. But after months of discussions behind closed doors, the first tentative proposals are now being made on how to proceed.
-	Following the National Council (see Legalize it! 31, page 6), the Council of States has now also approved the UN Convention on the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs. This does not change anything for the current Swiss legislation, because our BetmG is a very strict law. But it will become even tighter in the future if Switzerland wants to take steps towards decriminalization. However, all the caveats were also accepted, so there are definitely possibilities, especially for consumption. In the case of trafficking, on the other hand, it will be almost impossible to take any steps towards legalisation.	+	Following the National Council (see Legalize it! 31, page 6), the Council of States has now also approved the UN Convention on the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs. This does not change anything for the current Swiss legislation, because our NarcA is a very strict law. But it will be tighter in the future if Switzerland wants to take steps towards decriminalization. However, all reservations have also been accepted, so there are definitely possibilities, especially for consumption. For trafficking, on the other hand, it will be almost impossible to take any more steps towards legalization.
-	Switzerland has thus approved all three UN agreements. But it seems that a new revision of the Narcotics Law is possible. In any case, the Committee for Social Security and Health of the National Council (SGK-N, yes that is the committee of the Council which last June scuttled the whole revision of the Narcotics Law) decided on 3 February 2005 to propose a partial revision of the Narcotics Law. It should therefore no longer contain all the points of the old revision - it should be tried to summarize the points that are acceptable to the majority, as the media release of the commission of February 4, 2005 shows (underlining by us):	+	Thus, Switzerland has approved all three UN agreements. But it seems that a new edition of the revision of the Narcotics Law is possible. In any case, the Commission for Social Security and Health of the National Council (SGK-N, yes that is the commission of the Council that last June scuttled the whole NarcA revision) decided on February 3, 2005, to propose a partial revision of NarcA. It should therefore no longer contain all the points of the old revision - it should be tried to summarize the points that are acceptable to the majority, as the media release of the commission of February 4, 2005 shows (underlining by us):

	===== "SGK-N wants to relaunch drug policy =====		===== "SGK-N wants to relaunch drug policy =====

-	(...) On 3 February 2005, the Committee for Social Security and Health of the National Council (SGK-N) held a fundamental discussion on drug policy in the National Council for the first time since the failure of the BetmG revision on 16 June 2004 in connection with various proposals on the Narcotics Act (BetmG)."	+	(...) On February 3, 2005, the Committee for Social Security and Health of the National Council (SGK-N) held its first fundamental discussion on drug policy in the National Council since the failure of the NarcA revision on June 16, 2004, in connection with various proposals on the Narcotics Act (NarcA)."
	Four items of business were up for discussion:		Four items of business were up for discussion:
-	In the last Legalize it! you can find more information about the three parliamentary initiatives 04.439, 04.443, 04.459. As a fourth business the commission dealt with the petition "For a legal situation regarding hemp/cannabis that is adapted to reality" (04.2014), which was submitted by the Swiss Hemp Coordination on June 15, 2004. Further in the media release:	+	In the last Legalize it! you can find more information about the three parliamentary initiatives 04.439, 04.443, 04.459. As a fourth business the commission dealt with the petition "For a legal situation regarding hemp/cannabis that is adapted to reality" (04.2014) submitted by the Swiss Hemp Coordination on June 15, 2004. Further in the media release:
	"By 13 votes to 9 with 3 abstentions, the Commission decided on the following Commission initiative:		"By 13 votes to 9 with 3 abstentions, the Commission decided on the following Commission initiative:

	===== Partial revision of the Narcotics Act =====		===== Partial revision of the Narcotics Act =====
-
-	* The Narcotics Law is to be partially revised, in which the majority elements of the revision that failed on 16.6.2004 (in particular 4-pillar policy, prevention and therapy, protection of minors, tasks of the Confederation) are quickly anchored in law.
-	* In addition, the cannabis issue is to be taken up with the inclusion of the pending parliamentary initiatives and proposals are to be drawn up.

-	In this way, the National Council Commission is expressing the view that the current drug policy situation is unsatisfactory. It wants to give clear signals to the circles concerned with regard to the further development of Swiss drug policy with clear federal legal regulations.	+	* The NarcA is to be partially revised, in which the majority elements of the revision that failed on 16.6.2004 (in particular 4-pillar policy, prevention and therapy, protection of minors, tasks of the federal government) are quickly anchored in law.
-	At the same time, the Commission decided to suspend decisions on the three parliamentary initiatives on the agenda for the time being. Further work on a partial revision of the Narcotics Law is now subject to the approval of the SBC of the Council of States.	+	* In addition, the cannabis issue will be taken up with the inclusion of the pending parliamentary initiatives and proposals will be developed.

-	Finally, the Commission took note of the petition by a vote of 15 to 9 with 1 abstention, with no further action."	+	With this, the National Council Commission expresses that the drug policy situation today is unsatisfactory. It wants to give clear signals to the circles concerned with regard to the further development of Swiss drug policy with clear federal legal regulations.
		+	At the same time, the Commission decided to suspend decisions on the three parliamentary initiatives on the agenda for the time being. Further work on a partial revision of NarcA now still requires the approval of the SGK of the Council of States.

-	Well, that's what happened to the earlier petitions: They take note of it. And that was it.... Nevertheless:	+	Finally, the commission took note of the petition by 15 votes to 9 with 1 abstention without further consequence."

-	===== A tender plant sprouts =====	+	Well, that's what happened to the earlier petitions: They take note of it. And that was it... Nevertheless:

-	At least something is happening again in official politics. The approval of the commission of the Council of States still has to be awaited, but it would be astonishing if members of the Council of States should now cause problems - in the Council of States the old revision of the Narcotics Act had always gone through without a fuss.	+	===== A tender little plant sprouts =====
-	But it's not about much anymore: The anchoring of the 4-pillar-policy brings, besides some nice words in general law texts, especially the anchoring of heroin distribution, which is still on shaky legal ground.	+
-	But our topic, smoking pot, is to be dealt with separately from this, not more speedily, but even more slowly. After all, the Commission wants to draw up "proposals". There is already a huge collection of such possibilities. In any case, I have a concrete proposal: proceed in several stages!	+	At least something is happening again in official politics. We still have to wait for the approval of the commission of the Council of States, but it would be astonishing if members of the Council of States should cause problems now - in the Council of States, the old NarcA revision had always gone through without a fuss.
-	First (and immediately!) allow consumption for adults living in Switzerland in private premises, as well as possession and cultivation for personal use. Then one could allow semi-public places where people consume together. Finally, we could allow places where trade is highly regulated. I don't mind ten years passing between the steps, but it would be really nice if the politicians would take a concrete step - however small - instead of always just talking about it.	+	But there is not much at stake anymore: The anchoring of the 4-pillar policy brings, besides some nice words in general legal texts, especially the anchoring of heroin distribution, which is still on shaky legal ground.
		+	But our topic, smoking pot, is to be dealt with separately from this, not more expeditiously, but even more slowly. Because the commission wants to work out "proposals". There is already a huge collection of such possibilities. In any case, I have a concrete suggestion: proceed in several steps!
		+	First (and immediately!) allow consumption for adults living in Switzerland in private premises, as well as possession and cultivation for personal use. Then one could allow semi-public places, where people consume together. Finally, allow places where trade is strongly regulated. I don't mind ten years passing between the steps, but it would be really nice if the politicians would take a concrete step, however small, instead of just talking about it all the time.

	===== Interesting idea =====		===== Interesting idea =====

-	In such hopeless times it is good when a newspaper at least writes about a concrete idea. The Berner Bund reported on 12 March that various officials in Biel are considering setting up a trial operation for cannabis sales. Strictly regulated and scientifically supervised, of course. But this would require a permit from the federal government. It would at least be a first step if the Biel authorities were to submit an application. We are curious to see whether something real will develop from this or whether the whole thing will remain an idea.	+	In such hopeless times it is good when a newspaper at least writes about a concrete idea. The Berner Bund reported on March 12 that various officials in Biel are considering setting up a trial operation for cannabis sales. Of course, strictly regulated and scientifically monitored. But this requires a permit from the federal government. It would at least be a first step if the Biel authorities were to submit an application. We are curious to see whether something real will develop from this or whether the whole thing will remain an idea.

All psychoactive should be treated equally

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	~~NOTOC~~
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li330102_a.jpg}} \|{{:thc_recht:li330102_c.jpg}} \| {{:thc_recht:li330102_b.jpg}} \| {{:thc_recht:li330102_d.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	====== All psychoactive should be treated equally ======
	+
	+	Psychoaktiv.ch wants to treat all stimulants equally. Whether legal or illegal - all drugs can be used and abused. So we should legalize the illegal ones and regulate the legal ones more strictly. But maybe just turn the legal ones into illegal ones?
	+
	+	===== The commission =====
	+
	+	The Federal Commission on Narcotic Drugs EKDF is a federal commission. It is based on Article 30 of the Narcotics Law and has repeatedly issued reports (including the Cannabis Report of 1999) on its core topic, illicit drugs.
	+	The Commission does not want to pick up the pieces left behind by the National Council's No to the proposed revision. No, it wants to think more on a general level and make proposals. Concrete political implementation is not their thing.
	+
	+	===== The first part =====
	+
	+	First, the EKDF turns its attention to the past. It believes that psychoactive substances were increasingly consumed in the 1960s and 1970s. In doing so, it completely disregards (contrary to its later pronouncements) that alcohol and tobacco were also widespread stimulants in those times. Of course, it was mainly new drugs that emerged at that time, such as cannabis products.
	+	The Commission's opinion that it was the supply that created the demand for such substances can also be doubted with a clear conscience. After all, people consume the various substances because they are good for them. These positive experiences with the various, new substances for most consumers led to a greater supply.
	+	After all, the commission admits that people have been consuming psychoactives for thousands of years, thereby "influencing their body and emotional balance." In doing so, the EKDF recognizes that a society's approach to its drugs has rarely corresponded to their dangerousness. It has never been rational considerations by which psychoactive substances have been judged, but always very ideological justifications why certain substances were and are banned and others allowed.
	+	But then the commission makes a bigger blunder when it says that the focus on the hard drug scene in the 1980s led to "de facto tolerance of the use of soft drugs in German-speaking Switzerland". The statistics on consumption reports prove just the opposite: the number of reports against people smoking pot is also rising sharply in these years.
	+	It is true that in the 1990s, hemp was cultivated on a very large scale in Switzerland itself. But then she tells the fairy tale again that extremely high THC contents were produced. The fact is that good weed and good hash have always had high THC contents. The only thing that was new was that Swiss outdoor hash, which was considered to be hay before the boom, became better and better in quality and was soon on a par with imported hash, even surpassing it in taste.
	+	Also the opinion of the commission that "only since June 2004 the repression has been intensified again" misses the reality quite a bit. The repression against the stores already began slowly in the mid-1990s and increased enormously after the decision of the Federal Supreme Court in 2000. It varies from canton to canton, but by mid-2004, the vast majority of hemp stores and hemp producers were already deeply involved in harsh prosecutions. Raids, confiscations and pre-trial detention have been the order of the day for years.
	+	The Federal Council is strongly criticized for dropping the old proposals of the experts to include all addictive substances in prevention. But the legal alcohol dealers successfully resisted the designation "addictive substance" for their stimulants at the time.
	+
	+	===== The second part =====
	+
	+	Now the commission is looking at the current state of knowledge about the various substances. It distinguishes between sedative (alcohol, opiates), stimulant (caffeine, nicotine, cocaine) and hallucinogenic substances (cannabis, LSD). So far, one can follow the EKDF. Especially when it adds that the concrete effects on different people can vary greatly.
	+	It is also good that the distinction is made between low-risk use (which is well under control), problematic use (harmful to health, with concrete negative consequences on body, mind and social environment) and dependence (which causes a loss of control in the user, so that they use even though they know it is not good for them).
	+	It is also good that she is in favor of a general health promotion, and no longer wants to pick on individual substances, but wants to combat problematic consumption.
	+	Then it sounds a bit like the commission is at least of the opinion that the consumption and the preparatory acts could be exempt from punishment.
	+	But immediately follows the sentence: "By putting all psychoactive substances on an equal footing, a gain in legitimacy could probably be expected for the prohibition norms of the narcotics legislation. The Commission's aim is to "harmonize and combine repression, self-responsibility and state control". So more repression after all?
	+
	+	===== The third part =====
	+
	+	Finally, the commission comes to the future, and for the first time, on page 54, a concrete positive sentence is made about consumption: "In the future, it must be taken into account that the consumption of a substance also has positive effects for the users. And: Repression should not be directed against users, the EKDF finds, after all.
	+	There are nice, good sentences in the report. For example, that the new overarching addiction policy proposed by the commission
	+
	+	proposed by the commission should fundamentally dispense with the distinction between legal and illegal drugs. Instead, it must identify ways to minimize the undesirable consequences of consumption. In other words, individual freedom should no longer be restricted without justification, as was the case with the ban on cannabis use, but only where the restriction is in the overriding interest of society.
	+	Thus, for cannabis products, the Commission concludes that the "prohibition of all use unspokenly assumes that there is no low-risk use of this substance at all. The fact that this is wrong has become more and more apparent in the awareness of the population in recent years. Today, experts generally even assume that most users exhibit unproblematic, low-risk patterns of use."
	+
	+	===== What remains? =====
	+
	+	The commission does not make any concrete recommendations. Nor does it consider how majorities could be found for its new policy. Thus, it is to be feared that the positive, liberal approaches will be forgotten, but sentences such as "a ban on production, trade and consumption would also be possible for certain psychoactive substances that are still legal today" will be implemented. This sentence shows where it is likely to go (and what the campaigns against cigarette smoking in the public currently demonstrate as well): It is already going in the direction of equal treatment of legal and illegal substances. But it is not going in the direction of legalizing the illegal, but illegalizing the legal!
	+
	+	===== www.psychoaktiv.ch =====
	+
	+	"From the Politics of Illicit Drugs to the Politics of Psychoactive Substances," May 2005 working version, 81 pages.
	+	As of September 2005, the website www.psychoaktiv.ch was launched, and as of November the report is available as a book. The link now (June 2009) leads to the Federal Office of Public Health.

Constitution says: we can smoke pot

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:li330202.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li330202.jpg}} \|

-	====== Constitution says we can smoke pot ======

-	"Everyone has the right to personal freedom, in particular to physical and mental integrity and to freedom of movement." This article 10, paragraph 2 of our federal constitution gives us the right to shape our own lives - also in relation to THC use.	+
		+	====== Constitution says: we can smoke pot ======
		+
		+	"Everyone has the right to personal freedom, in particular to physical and mental integrity and to freedom of movement." This article 10, paragraph 2 of our federal constitution gives us the right to shape our own lives - also with regard to THC consumption.

	===== A professor speaks plainly =====		===== A professor speaks plainly =====
Ligne 9:		Ligne 11:
	Peter Albrecht, professor in Basel and Bern, has already published quite a bit on the subject of criminal law. In the 6/2004 issue of "plädoyer", the magazine for law and politics, he poses fundamental questions about the legality of today's narcotics law on 10 pages.		Peter Albrecht, professor in Basel and Bern, has already published quite a bit on the subject of criminal law. In the 6/2004 issue of "plädoyer", the magazine for law and politics, he poses fundamental questions about the legality of today's narcotics law on 10 pages.

-	"Where does the state get the right to prohibit the use of certain substances such as heroin, cocaine or cannabis? For him, the consumption of narcotics is primarily an act of self-endangerment. However, such behaviour is usually not punishable in our legal system - even the most extreme form of this behaviour, suicide, is not punished. For him, the impunity of self-endangerment follows directly from Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution, quoted in the lead. All people have the right to live their lives as they wish and may therefore also commit dangerous acts. Freedom is precisely also the freedom to do something that others do not approve of. "In this area (of psychoactive substances), too, there is therefore a right to consume, and the strict prohibition of Art. 19a BetmG proves to be unconstitutional in this respect," Albrecht writes.	+	"Where does the state actually get the right to prohibit someone from using certain substances such as heroin, cocaine or cannabis?" is his initial question. For him, the consumption of narcotics is primarily an act of self-endangerment. Such behavior, however, is usually not punishable in our legal system - even the most extreme form of this behavior, suicide, is not punished. For him, the impunity of self-endangerment follows directly from Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution cited in the lead. All people have the right to live their lives as they wish and may therefore also commit dangerous acts. Freedom is just also the freedom to do something that others do not find good. "Accordingly, there is also a right to consumption in this area (of psychoactive substances), and the strict prohibition of Art. 19a NarcA proves to be unconstitutional in this respect," Albrecht writes.

	===== But drugs have a social cost, don't they? =====		===== But drugs have a social cost, don't they? =====

-	The professor does not find much to gain from this argument. The protection of "public health", a possible "social harmfulness" or even the costs that could arise from THC consumption, for example, are not reasons for illegalization for him. Because costs do not justify punishability.	+	The professor does not find much to gain from this argument. The protection of "public health", a possible "social harmfulness" or even the costs that could arise from THC consumption, for example, are not reasons for illegalization for him. After all, costs do not justify criminal liability.

-	We also believe that any costs could be reclaimed from consumers through taxation or incentive taxes. Criminal law, which is a very sharp instrument, is neither necessary nor permitted for this purpose. Criminal law should only be used where the rights of other people are affected.	+	We, too, believe that any costs could be reclaimed from the users through taxation or incentive taxes. Criminal law, which is a very sharp instrument, is neither necessary nor permitted for this purpose. Criminal law should only be used where the rights of other people are affected.

	But Albrecht doesn't stop at consumption - even actions that enable others to consume can't be punished just like that. "Therefore, it should be made clear here that the mere support of a self-endangerment entered into consciously and on one's own responsibility cannot constitute a criminal wrong."		But Albrecht doesn't stop at consumption - even actions that enable others to consume can't be punished just like that. "Therefore, it should be made clear here that the mere support of a self-endangerment entered into consciously and on one's own responsibility cannot constitute a criminal wrong."
Ligne 21:		Ligne 23:
	===== The courts should become more flexible =====		===== The courts should become more flexible =====

-	Albrecht further complains about the "excessive special justice, which stems from a very one-sided perception" of the law in force today. Albrecht does not think that the current law is bad at all, what he finds bad is the specific jurisdiction of the courts. He also clearly states that the BetmG applies, even if there are many constitutional concerns. However, he unmistakably calls on the courts to use the existing leeway in the law and thus to incorporate the guarantees of the constitution.	+	Albrecht further complains about the "excessive special justice, which stems from a very one-sided perception" of the law in force today. Albrecht does not think that the current law is bad at all; what he finds bad is above all the specific jurisdiction of the courts. He also clearly states that the NarcA applies, even if constitutionally there are many concerns. But he unmistakably calls on the courts to use the existing leeway in the law and thus incorporate the guarantees of the constitution.
-	We think this would certainly be possible in the case of consumption and preparatory acts. Article 19 a) 2 states that proceedings can be dropped in minor cases, and Article 19 b) of the Narcotics Act even stipulates that there is no criminal liability for handling small quantities. Here, the courts would have a great deal of room for manoeuvre, which they could use especially with regard to cannabis. If they were to set the negligible amount of cannabis at 500 or 1000 grams per year, 95% of the legal consumption problems would be solved. Today, this negligible quantity is not applied at all, or is based on gram fractions.	+	We think that this would certainly be possible in the case of consumption and preparatory acts. After all, Article 19 a) 2 states that proceedings can be discontinued in minor cases, and Article 19 b) of the NarcA even requires that no criminal liability exists when dealing with minor quantities. Here, the courts would have a lot of room for maneuver, which they could use especially with regard to cannabis. Because if they would set the minor amount of cannabis to 500 or 1000 grams per year, 95% of the legal consumption problems would be solved. Today, this negligible quantity is not applied at all or is based on gram fractions.
	Albrecht also complains about the "refusal attitude" of the judiciary towards the law and the disregard they have for the constitutional rights of freedom. According to Albrecht, only a new composition of the Federal Supreme Court can change this.		Albrecht also complains about the "refusal attitude" of the judiciary towards the law and the disregard they have for the constitutional rights of freedom. According to Albrecht, only a new composition of the Federal Supreme Court can change this.
		+

2004: A new vintage Repression in figures

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li340102.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== 2004: A new vintage Repression in figures ======
	+
	+
	+	**27,379 seizures with a total of 482,071 confiscated hemp plants and 6,179,690 grams of seized THC goods, plus 40,384 reprimands against people who were handling THC - that's what we had in 2004 from a police perspective.
	+	**
	+
	+	2004 confirms now also statistically, what we could determine during our legal consultations in the last year: The fight against hemp and the people who handle it continues undaunted. In many police, prosecutorial and judicial working hours THC products are confiscated, THC-sellers are sentenced and THC-users are fined. After all, this way quite a few police officers, prosecutors and judges get a job - there must be hundreds of people in Switzerland who make a living out of rummaging around for the oh-so-evil hemp.
	+
	+	However: The seizures at weed have dropped quite a bit after the highs of the last years. This clearly reflects the fact that there are hardly any more hemp fields on a large scale. This means that no more tons can be found at once during a raid. And in the case of hash (which is again increasingly taking the place of weed), the police could not really make a find. It is unclear whether really only little hash has been imported (again) or whether the police have not yet seen through these new-old hash connections?
	+
	+	In any case, the numbers of hemp plants remained surprisingly high, even though there were no more large, open outdoor fields to be confiscated. We suspect that now more and more hemp plant seizures come from indoor plants that have been busted. Unfortunately, the police do not make a distinction in their statistics between hemp plants grown under artificial light and hemp plants grown under sunlight.
	+
	+	In any case, police and newspaper reports indicate that a large number of indoor plants were discovered and confiscated by the police last year. Among them were also many large and professionally run. After the increasing repression since the turn of the millennium, many producers moved from the open fields to the covered halls. But here, too, many were caught: because of high electricity bills, because of ventilation problems, because of break-ins, because of water damage and also because of internal disputes (and subsequent charges).
	+
	+	But despite the intense repression, police forces were able to seize much less THC products than in previous years. The quantity consumed, however, is likely to have remained pretty much the same. Thus, the efficiency of police work in this area has declined.
	+
	+	However, the numbers are slightly increasing in the case of referrals. For the first time in years, more people were reported for hashish consumption in 2004 (see top left). In the case of hashish trafficking, the number has been on the rise for two years (see bottom left). Both are an indication that hashish is again increasingly being consumed and traded. Anyone who wants to stock up on THC products on the black market quickly notices that much less (and above all much less high-quality) weed is on offer. On the other hand, in all major Swiss cities the "hash alleys" are flourishing again, where imported hash is offered (often again in exactly the same places where the open cannabis scene used to trade before the hemp stores).
	+
	+	Nevertheless, most of those arrested are reported for weed use (see above right). The values are very high, but it is noticeable that they have hardly increased for three years - the upper limit has probably been reached here. And in the next few years, we expect a decrease. The same can be seen in the case of the arrests for trafficking in weed (see bottom right): the arrests are still at a high level, but last year they fell for the first time.
	+	The more the warehouses will be depleted and the less weed can be grown fresh, the more the old hashish routes (from Morocco especially) will be reactivated. And the product finds its buyers, although it is often not satisfactory in quality and the prices are too high. Only a few consumers do not make any compromises here and rather abstain from smoking pot than procure inferior goods. Those who have the space for it, try to grow hemp themselves, thus ensuring the quality and avoiding the black market.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li34_1.jpg?800&direct}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li34_2.jpg?800&direct}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li34_3.jpg?800&direct}} \|

The signatures are almost collected

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:li340303.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li340303.jpg}} \|
		+

	====== The signatures are almost collected ======		====== The signatures are almost collected ======


-	128,000 signatures have been collected and many of them have already been certified. There is still some work to be done, but a submission of the initiative seems to be within reach. Slowly one can think about how the vote could be won.	+	128,000 signatures have been collected and many of them have already been certified. There is still some work to be done, but a submission of the initiative seems to be within reach. Slowly, one can think about how the vote could be won.

	===== A hard piece of work =====		===== A hard piece of work =====

-	After the death of the narcotics law revision in June 2004, everyone finally saw it: an improvement of our situation would not come just like that. (That the proposed changes in the BetmG were not really a good solution either, many did not want to believe anyway). The Swiss hemp scene was already pretty decimated at that time: The confiscations, shop closures, pre-trial detentions and criminal proceedings had left a clear mark.	+	After the death of the narcotics law revision in June 2004, everyone finally saw it: an improvement of our situation would not come just like that. (That the proposed changes in NarcA were not really a good solution either, many did not want to believe anyway). The Swiss hemp scene was already pretty decimated at that time: Seizures, store closures, pre-trial detentions and criminal proceedings had left a clear mark.
-	And to start an initiative in this situation was certainly not an easy task. (It would have been better to launch this initiative when there were still many shops with large turnovers - but then most people thought that the improvement would come by itself). So the start was not grandiose. After a few months, nothing remained of the goal to collect signatures very quickly. But thanks to the efforts of some tireless people, the collection continued and slowly became more professional, the certification office made better progress. But of course nothing happened on its own. Most politicians who supported the initiative in the initial euphoria stuck to supporting it with words. But undaunted, the committee Pro Jugendschutz gegen Drogenkriminalität fought its way forward and today it can be said that the necessary signatures have been gathered. The certification process has not yet been completed, but there is a very good chance that the initiative can be submitted before the end of the collection period in January 2006.	+	And to start an initiative in this situation was certainly not an easy task. (It would have been better to launch this initiative when there were still many stores with large turnovers - but then most people thought that the improvement would come on its own). So the start was not grandiose. After a few months, nothing remained of the goal to collect signatures very quickly. But thanks to the efforts of some tireless people, the collection continued and slowly became more professional, the credentials office made better progress. But, of course, nothing happened on its own. Most of the politicians who supported the initiative in the initial euphoria stuck to supporting it with words. But undaunted, the committee Pro Jugendschutz gegen Drogenkriminalität fought its way forward and today it can be said that the necessary signatures have been gathered. The certification process has not yet been completed, but there is a very good chance that the initiative can be submitted before the end of the collection period in January 2006.
-	Already the first brains are at work preparing the campaign for the referendum. It will not be easy. It is still unclear where the millions for a successful referendum campaign are to come from - or what the forms of action would have to look like, which "pull" with the public but require hardly any funds.	+	Already the first brains are at work preparing the campaign for the referendum. It will not be easy. It is still unclear where the millions for a successful referendum campaign are to come from - or what the forms of action would have to look like that "pull" with the public but require hardly any funds.

	===== New assessment of THC use =====		===== New assessment of THC use =====

-	For me it is clear: What is needed if the initiative is to succeed is a reinterpretation. Today, THC users are for most people "hashish-fixers" or figures we Giaccobos "Fredi, the stoner". In other words, people who belong to the dregs of society, incapable, stupid, unattractive, primitive, pissing about and good for nothing. We have to make known that THC-users are in their overwhelming majority parents, businessmen, integrated and working, simply normal people, for whom THC-use is an unproblematic, but extremely beautiful part of their life.	+	For me it is clear: What is needed if the initiative is to succeed is a reinterpretation. Today, THC users are for most people "hashish-fixers" or figures we Giaccobos "Fredi, the stoner". In other words, people who belong to the dregs of society, incapable, stupid, unattractive, primitive, potty-mouthed and good for nothing. We should make it known that THC users are in their overwhelming majority parents, businessmen, integrated and working people, simply normal people, for whom THC use is an unproblematic, but extremely beautiful part of their life.
-	In that way, the task we face is similar to what homosexuals have managed to accomplish in recent decades: Most people today no longer perceive gays and lesbians as perverted, sick, or perhaps even criminal elements from whom society must protect itself (even with police and criminal law). Today, homosexuals can register their partnership with the state and their sexual preference for the same sex is seen by society for what it is: love.	+	In this way, the task we face is similar to what homosexuals have managed to accomplish in recent decades: Most people today no longer perceive gays and lesbians as perverted, sick or perhaps even criminal elements from whom society must protect itself (even with police and criminal law). Today, homosexuals can register their partnership with the state and their sexual preference for the same sex is seen by society for what it is: love.
-	Such a reinterpretation does not happen overnight. It can only succeed if courageous THC-users stand up and say: we are successful, nice, decent, self-confident members of this society. We have achieved a lot economically and socially. We are very different, but we have our stimulant under control - it is a part of our lives with much else going on: Family, work, hobbies, involvement. Only when we manage to motivate hundreds of such people to stand up in public and represent our cause in a positive way, do we have a chance to win. But these are the very people who are afraid to expose themselves because they fear social ostracism. So they keep a low profile. All the more often, some crashed people appear in public, claiming to represent the THC-users (although they themselves are often simply polytoxicomaniacs, for whom smoking pot is an element of their drug consumption). This further cements the false image of us in the public eye.	+	Such a reinterpretation does not happen overnight. It can only succeed if courageous THC-users stand up and say: We are successful, nice, decent, self-confident members of this society. We have achieved a lot economically and socially. We are very different, but we have our stimulant under control - it is a part of our lives with much else going on: Family, work, hobbies, commitment. Only when we manage to motivate hundreds of such people to stand up in public and represent our cause in a positive way, do we have a chance to win. But it is precisely these people who are afraid to expose themselves because they fear social ostracism. That's why they keep a low profile. All the more often, some crashed people appear in public, claiming to represent the THC-users (although they themselves are often simply polytoxicomaniacs, for whom smoking pot is an element of their drug consumption). This further cements the false image of us in the public eye.

	===== Honorable THC enjoyers =====		===== Honorable THC enjoyers =====

-	Putting together a group of experienced, older, integrated, presentable people who come out - that seems to me to be the main task for the referendum campaign. Because we won't find the big bucks (we simply don't have the millions and the dealers have zero interest in legalization because they'll go out of business). There are those people with positive, successful biographies. But they don't want to burn themselves out individually. But to stand up in a group of 100 or 200 selected personalities and to talk about their own life consumption in public (TV, press, events), that could work. But it takes some building up: trust has to develop between these people. And they need an environment, let's say another 1,000 or 2,000 people who support them. Because there will certainly be individual cases of hardship: People who lose their job or their car ticket. The support club would then have to help them effectively. With money, relationships, services and also moral support. In this way it could be possible to turn the referendum campaign into an effective show where we can win, even if we do not achieve a majority in the vote. After all, it probably won't take just one initiative, but several attempts. The vast majority of initiatives do not find a majority - but even those that do can have positive effects. For example, by advancing a revision of the law.	+	To put together a group of experienced, older, integrated, presentable people who will come out - that seems to me to be the main task for the referendum campaign. Because we won't find the big money (we simply don't have the millions and the dealers have zero interest in legalization because they will go out of business). There are these people with positive, successful biographies. But they don't want to burn themselves out individually. But standing up in a group of 100 or 200 selected personalities and making their own consumption of life a topic of discussion in public (TV, press, events) could work. But it would take some building up: Trust would have to develop between these people. And they need an environment, say another 1,000 or 2,000 people, who support them. Because there will certainly be individual cases of hardship: People who lose their job or their car ticket. The support club would then have to help them effectively. With money, relationships, services and also moral support. In this way, it could be possible to turn the referendum campaign into an effective show where we can win, even if we do not achieve a majority in the vote. After all, it will probably take not just one initiative, but several attempts. The vast majority of initiatives do not find a majority - but even such initiatives can have positive effects. For example, by advancing a revision of the law.

Fixed penalty for THC use

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

A new multi-year political cycle begins

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| \| {{:thc_recht:li350404_a.jpg}} {{:thc_recht:li350404_b.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== A new multi-year political cycle begins ======
	+
	+
	+	**The hemp initiative was submitted in January 2006 with 106,314 signatures. The Federal Chancellery has recounted and declared it valid in February with 105'994 signatures. Thus it comes compellingly to an intensive discussion with referendum.
	+	**
	+
	+	===== Wording of the initiative =====
	+
	+	The initiative calls for the following four points in a new hemp article 105a to be created, which we comment on in two parts:
	+
	+	"1. the consumption of psychoactive substances of the hemp plant as well as their possession and acquisition for personal use shall be exempt from punishment.
	+
	+	2. the cultivation of psychoactive hemp for personal use shall be exempt from punishment."
	+
	+	The first two articles are mandatory law and can be applied immediately after the initiative is adopted. This would completely decriminalize all THC users in Switzerland. We would therefore be allowed to ingest, possess, buy or even produce THC products ourselves and no one would be allowed to punish us for such actions anymore or take away weed and hash.
	+	Sharing, however, is not listed here as exempt from punishment - here the legislation would have to decide whether, for example, passing on a joint would remain punishable or, in the case of joint consumption, for example, would also become exempt from punishment.
	+	The first two articles thus aim at a release of the individual, personal handling of THC products.
	+
	+	"3 The Confederation shall issue regulations on the cultivation, production, import and export of, and trade in, psychoactive substances of the hemp plant.
	+
	+	(4) The Confederation shall take appropriate measures to ensure that adequate account is taken of the protection of minors. Advertising for psychoactive substances of the hemp plant as well as advertising for the handling of these substances shall be prohibited."
	+
	+	===== Implementation in legislation =====
	+
	+	These provisions cannot be applied immediately. More detailed legislation is needed here (and it may well be years before this is in force). Point three merely requires that such legislation be created. In this regard, the legislator is quite free in its design. It can therefore determine who is allowed to trade THC-rich hemp commercially under which conditions with which tax consequences, accounting obligations and control mechanisms. It is mandatory that there must be a ban on advertising, both for the products hash and weed as well as for consumption. In addition, the protection of minors must be taken into account - but here again there is more leeway. It would be conceivable to ban the sale of the products to under-16s, but also to under-18s. It would also be possible that no one would be allowed to legally sell THC products to young people, or that only very special places would be allowed to do so.
	+	The last two articles are therefore aimed at commercial trafficking. This is to be possible, but the exact conditions can be freely defined by the parliament, i.e. more restrictive or more liberal.
	+
	+	===== What would remain =====
	+
	+	Nothing would change in the current repressive approach to road traffic if the initiative were adopted. These laws and, above all, the relevant ordinance will remain in force even after the initiative is adopted. And here, a person with minimal traces of THC in his blood is already considered unfit to drive (which is fined and results in a driving ban) or someone who regularly consumes THC products is considered a drug addict anyway and is therefore also unfit to drive. The initiative does not change this legal situation.
	+	Likewise, schools, businesses and other institutions can continue to prohibit the consumption of THC products on their premises - just as they can prohibit the consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The initiative only demands that THC-users may no longer be hunted down with criminal law.
	+	But one really has to be aware: The vast majority of initiatives fail in the popular vote, and it would be a miracle if this initiative were accepted. But the value of an initiative lies in the discussions it triggers and often parts of it are implemented by the legislator. Perhaps the first two articles?
	+
	+	===== How does the cycle of an initiative work? =====
	+
	+	After the submission and the declaration of validity by the Federal Chancellery (which happened in February 2006), the concern of the initiative comes to the Federal Council. Within 12 months, the Federal Council has to prepare a message to the Parliament. If it presents a counter-proposal, it may take 18 months.
	+	Subsequently, the business comes to the parliament. There, first the Commission for Social Security and Health, then the First Council (National Council or Council of States) must deal with the matter.
	+	Then follows the commission of the second council and the second council itself. This work must be completed by 30 months after the declaration of validity. If a counter-proposal is prepared, it may take 12 months longer.
	+	Then the final vote takes place in both councils: Is the initiative recommended for approval or rejection? Is there a counter-proposal?
	+	At the latest 10 months later, the referendum on the initiative (and possibly the counter-proposal) must take place.
	+	This gives a maximum of 52 months. Starting from February 2006, June 2010 would be the last possible date. But it could also be faster: It could also take 40 months (without a counter-proposal, this would be the maximum time), or less, if the Federal Council and Parliament move the business forward quickly.
	+	However, one must always keep in mind that the prescription of heroin to severely addicted persons will expire at the end of 2009. So from then on, heroin can no longer be dispensed by doctors. But many politicians who deal with drug issues certainly want to clean up this business. And resources are limited.

THC use should not be a human right

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li360202.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== THC use should not be a human right ======
	+
	+	In an interesting decision, the Federal Supreme Court has laid down all the currently valid principles for dealing with THC consumption. Unfortunately, it does not want to make use of its leeway and adheres to a restrictive interpretation of the Narcotics Law.
	+
	+	===== The case =====
	+
	+	The Federal Court had to judge a case in which a juvenile had been caught with 3.8 grams of weed. During questioning, he admitted that he consumed between one gram per month and one gram per week. As punishment, the juvenile had received a reprimand.
	+
	+	The prohibition to consume THC products violates the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR, specifically Article 8 (respect for private life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the lawyer of the teenager said in his complaint.
	+
	+	In concrete terms, the Federal Court had to decide whether the punishment of THC use was compatible with the ECHR - or not.
	+
	+	===== On the current legal situation =====
	+
	+	In its ruling, the Federal Supreme Court once again summarizes the current legal situation: In principle, the consumption of THC products is punishable. In minor cases, however, a penalty can be waived. But the slight case is something that the judge is completely free to assume - or just practically always not assume. The Federal Court does not want to interfere with the first instance and leaves it a great deal of freedom. However: As soon as it is a "regular" consumption and the person concerned does not show any effort to stop the consumption, a light case is never given. It does not seem to matter how much or little someone consumes.
	+
	+	Then the Federal Court also relativizes the Federal Constitution. It is easy to deduce from this that the consumption of THC products must be free (see the article in Legalize it! 29, pages 14 to 19). But the Federal Court is of the opinion that judges are only bound by the applicable laws. Even if they were to deem a federal law unconstitutional, they could not deviate from it. This opinion now degrades the Federal Constitution, after all the foundation of our state system, to a pile of scrap paper. For what use are the fundamental rights and other articles defined there if they are not supposed to be binding on the federal court?
	+
	+	===== The assessment of the ECHR =====
	+
	+	But still: The ECHR is for the federal court just like the federal laws a piece of law to be respected. First of all, it therefore deals with the freedom of private life (Article 8). Specifically, this right means three things:
	+
	+	* Right of self-determination over the body
	+	* Privacy protection
	+	* Free design of the way of life
	+
	+	At most, the Federal Court sees the freedom to shape one's lifestyle as being threatened. But this does not mean a general freedom of action, but only a freedom of action reduced to the essential points.
	+
	+	===== THC use - (in)important? =====
	+
	+	Now follows the essential conclusion of the Federal Court: it finds it difficult to see the consumption of narcotics as an elementary manifestation of the development of personality.
	+
	+	Our federal court probably needs some tutoring here. The consumption of mind-altering substances is obviously an essential part of being human: THC products have been consumed for thousands of years, either as a remedy or as a stimulant. These products are very proven as a remedy for many ailments and equally proven as a means to make one's life more colorful and enjoyable. Here also the right of self-determination over the body would come into play (an element that was not discussed at all by the Federal Court). Because how my body is, that has to do very directly with the intake of psychoactive substances!
	+
	+	But for the Federal Court the consumption of THC products is just nothing really important - therefore it is not protected by the ECHR. Thus, it is of no use to refer to the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14): This prohibits discrimination only with regard to the really important human rights. And for the Federal Court, this does not include the consumption of hash or weed. Therefore, the reference to the unequal treatment of alcohol and THC is of no use: It is just nothing important, and that's that.
	+	Finally, the Federal Court points out that it is not a legal decision whether THC may be consumed or not. It is exclusively a political decision.
	+
	+	Such an attitude is extremely despondent. THC consumption is a private matter. Just like religious beliefs or sexual orientation, it must be the sole decision of the individual. It is therefore a private matter in which neither the legislator (nor a majority of the people), nor the courts have anything to say.
	+
	+	===== Total ban no, restrictions yes =====
	+
	+	This does not mean that we want to be allowed to consume THC everywhere and all the time - freedom is of course limited where it interferes with the freedom of others. Thus, a society is allowed to prohibit consumption in public, or to intervene if smoke is a nuisance to others. We consider that to be perfectly permissible. But those who consume at home or in (private) places where THC-users meet and do not bother anyone: This area must be protected as a private sphere. This is only of concern to those affected, and no one else.
	+
	+	Unfortunately, the Federal Court does not share this opinion. If it did, however, the current narcotics law could be interpreted without difficulty in such a way that personal handling of THC products would be considered exempt from punishment. The legal terms "minor case" and "minor quantity" would be the key.

The policy at discuss, weigh and consider

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li360303.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The policy at discuss, weigh and consider ======
	+
	+
	+	**Dealing with THC products remains a political issue. A commission has discussed it, the Federal Council wants nothing more to do with it and the city of Bern wants to consider a trial run. An overview of the state of the political debate.
	+	**
	+
	+	===== Commission of the National Council =====
	+
	+	At the beginning of 2005, the National Council's Commission for Safety and Health proposed a new start for the revision of the Narcotics Law (see Legalize it! 32, page 3). The Council of States Commission for Social Security and Health SGK-S then gave the green light for this commission initiative in May 2005. On April 10, 2006, the SGK-N spoke out again in a press release: by 17 votes to four with three abstentions, it agreed to deal with the partial revision of the Narcotics Law. A rejection motion had no chance. However, our topic THC should not be a topic (see also next section).
	+	What exactly is to be regulated in this partial revision is not yet entirely clear. However, the goal of abstinence was specified in Article 1. This is strange in that it is mainly the four-pillar policy (prevention, therapy, repression, survival assistance) that is to be enshrined in law. And with it precisely the insight that wanting abstinence is not a suitable means of drug policy. Based on the insight that abstinence cannot be enforced, heroin has been medically dispensed to severely addicted persons for several years. This is why this expedient article is so astonishing.
	+	Even if the THC issue remains excluded, this partial revision is also interesting for us. It is particularly important to know what exactly will happen to the penal provisions against the use of narcotics - will they be tightened, will they remain the same, or will there perhaps be a slight relaxation? Only the exact wording of the legal text will be able to provide information on this.
	+
	+	According to the committee secretary, the SGK-N has finished its detailed deliberations and approved the partial revision by 18 votes to 6 with one abstention. The text is now with the Federal Council and could reach the National Council at the end of 2006.
	+
	+	===== Subcommission of the SGK-N =====
	+
	+	A sub-commission of the SGK-N is still in the process of considering the issue of THC consumption and THC trafficking. The subcommission met at least in August 2005, but we have not heard anything concrete from it. It seems that the sub-commission does not want to prepare its own proposal after all - or if it does, then in the form of a counter-proposal to the initiative. This would be the only way that the legal situation could change fundamentally in the next few years.
	+
	+	===== Federal Council and initiative =====
	+
	+	Surprisingly fast the Federal Council reacted to the popular initiative "for a reasonable hemp policy with effective youth protection". On May 3, 2006, for example, the NZZ stated that the Federal Council recommends to reject the initiative and does not want to prepare a counter-proposal. But by the time of going to press, no official message had been prepared - so the business is still pending with the Federal Council. The formulated message could be available by the end of the year, then it continues in parliament.
	+
	+	===== The city of Bern sets an example =====
	+
	+	In March 2005, more than a year ago, one read in the Bernese "Bund" about an idea in the city of Biel. In a pilot project, it was to be tested whether hash and weed could be sold in a controlled manner. This would be a similar procedure to the controlled distribution of heroin: there, too, scientific experiments were started despite a fundamental ban. However, this innovative idea from Biel was never implemented. Incidentally, the canton of Berne also refused to initiate such a trial.
	+	At the end of May 2006, it was the city of Bern that took up the idea. Here, things have now become more concrete: The government and parliament of the city of Bern are in favor of such a trial. At the request of the Green Alliance and the Young Alternatives, the Bern City Council decided by 38 to 22 to clarify what is possible. In the "Bund" the Federal Office of Public Health BAG let itself be heard: "This is not possible." A pilot test would not be compatible with the current law. But for scientific research, experiments would be possible. Ultimately, it is probably a question of the political balance of power whether a trial operation will be possible. But first, the city of Bern wants to clarify all open questions properly.
	+	Because there are still a few problems with this idea. For example, the police, justice and social affairs departments would have to work together, and the main political parties would have to really want such a trial. That is not yet the case. But the vote in the Bern City Council shows that our topic has not been completely forgotten. And it shows that there is a different opinion in the city of Bern than in the federal government.
	+	In the city of Zurich, a similar proposal was submitted by the Young Greens. It may well be that this will also find a majority - this will not change anything in concrete terms, but such symbolic resolutions do have their value. They put pressure on and annoy the opponents of legalization.
	+
	+	===== Overview =====
	+
	+	Much is being discussed around the topic of THC. Here are the ongoing political projects:
	+
	+	1 The commission initiative wants a partial revision of the Narcotics Law.
	+
	+	2 The subcommission is considering whether the handling of THC should be changed.
	+
	+	3 The popular initiative calls for the legalization of THC products and will ultimately be decided by the people.
	+
	+	4 The city of Bern wants to examine a trial operation for the sale of THC products.
	+
	+	5 Finally, there is a plethora of parliamentary initiatives - here there are all kinds of variants from the demand for even much harsher penalties to the demand for legalization.
	+
	+
	+	===== Wasserfallen against drugs =====
	+
	+	In motion 04.3376, Kurt Wasserfallen (FDP) demanded that the ban on THC products be clearly anchored. He further demanded that the penalties for dealing with THC products be greatly increased and that abstinence be given greater weight. In short: With his motion, he wanted to achieve a tightening of the already repressive Swiss drug policy.
	+
	+	===== Fehr wants a differentiated view =====
	+
	+	Jacqueline Fehr (SP) thought nothing of this motion and wanted to prepare the new revision of the Narcotics Law:
	+	"Well, this next revision is already at the doors of the National Council. The preparatory commission has completed its work. We have followed a two-step procedure. On the one hand, in a first step, the majority elements are to be regulated in a new and modern way by law. This concerns in particular the anchoring of the four-pillar policy as well as the strengthening of a genuine protection of minors. In addition, this new revision, as proposed by the SGK of our Council, will provide a legal regulation for the medical use of cannabis.
	+	In a second step, on the other hand, with regard to the submitted hemp initiative, a legal regulation for the handling of cannabis should then be found, which ends the current arbitrariness, provides legal certainty and strengthens the protection of minors."
	+	And she takes a look into the future (see also Legalize it! 33, pages one and two): "Now the Federal Drug Commission (...) has shown how the four-pillar concept could be expanded, namely by a new dimension, the dimension of consumption intensity. There is low-risk consumption, problematic consumption and dependent consumption. (...) With this model, we see that (...) cannabis can be used in a low-risk way, but it can also be used in a problematic or dependent way. (...) So, with this model, we are approaching an actual discussion about the actual risk from the use of individual substances."
	+
	+	===== Vermot does not want criminalization =====
	+
	+	Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold would also like to continue the discussion: "The Commission for Social Security and Health has now completed its work, and we will discuss the first part of this narcotics law in September. The hemp initiative has been submitted. It points in the right direction for practitioners and experts, even if the Federal Council unfortunately rejects it without a counter-proposal. Decriminalization and youth protection are the basic demands. (...) Criminalization always falls short. Rather, prevention is needed, which really deals with the young people and their various problems.
	+
	+	===== Gutzwiller emphasizes the repressive parts =====
	+
	+	Felix Gutzwiller (FDP) did not want to support his party colleague: "The partial revision, which is now completed within the framework of the commission, brings a clear concept. It brings the anchoring of the four-pillar policy, but also brings (...) some things that meet the concerns here (of the motion Wasserfallen, the editor). For example, at the request of a commission member, the abstinence target was included in the bill. Certain penalties were also tightened. There is an improvement in the protection of minors."
	+	We can be curious about the final text - especially the tightening of certain penalties makes us look with concern at this partial revision, as well as the newly included abstinence goal.
	+
	+	===== Another close vote =====
	+
	+	80 members of the National Council spoke in favor of the motion, 90 against. Thus, Wasserfallen could not prevail with his tightening. But it is once again a close result - and it shows that large forces are not only against any liberalization, but are even in favor of further tightening. At least the reform-oriented forces were able to prevail. But will that be enough for a majority for a reasonable partial revision?

Tolerance, withdrawal symptoms and dependence with THC

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li360506.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Tolerance, withdrawal symptoms and dependence with THC ======
	+
	+	THC products have a very low risk potential. Many THC users stop using between the ages of 30 and 40 or drastically reduce the amount they use. This is practically without withdrawal symptoms.
	+
	+	===== About the term tolerance =====
	+
	+	Tolerance means that at a constant dose the effect decreases and consequently the dose must be increased to achieve the same effect. Tolerance development is described for almost every cannabis effect. The exact mechanisms are not yet fully understood. One assumes an adaptation of the cannabis receptors in the brain. In this process, the speed of degradation of cannabinoids increases, the stimulus threshold of the receptors increases, and the number of receptors decreases. However, all of these changes are reversible, meaning that after a certain period of abstinence, they return to the baseline situation as before use.
	+	There is a cross-tolerance to some drugs. This means that the tolerance formed by the use of cannabis also has an effect on other substances. However, there is no cross-tolerance to other drugs such as hallucinogens, amphetamines or opiates.
	+	Studies of tolerance often show that with continued use, the positive effects, such as euphoria (feelings of happiness), diminish over time. But physiological (physical) components, such as the increase in heart rate, also increasingly diminish.
	+
	+	===== About the term withdrawal symptoms =====
	+
	+	The most common withdrawal symptoms described by cannabis users after they stop using are: Anxiety, insomnia, appetite disturbances, increased sweating, nervous irritability, and depressive moods. A correlation was also found between abstinence symptoms and THC dose and frequency of use.
	+
	+	===== How dangerous is THC use? =====
	+
	+	Here is another example of how cannabis opponents try to convince the public how dangerous cannabis can be.
	+	This is a study conducted on behalf of the NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse). Researchers administered high-dose infusions of THC to mice continuously for four days. They were then given an antagonist (a type of cannabinoid blocker). This antagonist displaced the THC from the receptors in one fell swoop, greatly forcing withdrawal symptoms in the animals. These findings were then used to prove how physically addictive cannabis can be. However, since no human willingly ingests such a cannabinoid blocker after they have stopped using, these results are completely irrelevant to humans.
	+	Many of the more recent books and articles warning about cannabis addiction have been written by people who have designed programs to help addicts. Of course, these people profit immensely from the ever-increasing number of allegedly addicted users who, intimidated by such articles, seek treatment in rehab clinics.
	+
	+	===== Dependence and risk factors =====
	+
	+	There are two major clinical manuals that contain the criteria of addiction: The DSM-IV (USA) and the ICD-10 (Europe). The following table lists the criteria for substance dependence according to ICD-10.
	+
	+	===== Criteria of substance dependence according to ICD-10 =====
	+
	+
	+	1) Strong desire or some kind of compulsion to use drugs/medication.
	+
	+	2) Decreased ability to control drug/medication use in terms of onset, cessation, or amount
	+
	+	3) A physical withdrawal syndrome.
	+
	+	4) Evidence of tolerance development
	+
	+	5) Narrowing down to drug/medication use.
	+
	+	6) Continued drug/medication use despite clearly harmful consequences
	+
	+	===== The term "addiction =====
	+
	+	In addiction research, a distinction is made between psychological and physical dependence. The terms "addiction" and "dependence" are explained in more detail below.
	+	In scientific literature, a distinction is often made between "addiction in the broader sense" as any compulsive satisfaction of a need and "addiction in the narrower sense" as an abuse of intoxicants that has become compulsive.
	+
	+	In 1964, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially replaced the term "addiction" with the term "dependence," distinguishing between physical and psychological dependence.
	+
	+	===== Physical dependence =====
	+
	+	This is characterized by a series of physical and psychological phenomena that occur after withdrawal. The withdrawal effects differ for the individual drugs. Physical dependence, in contrast to psychological dependence, is the expression of a pathological interaction between the person and the drug in question.
	+	Important here is the pharmacological term tolerance, which means that the dose of a substance must be increased in order to achieve the same effect.
	+
	+	===== Psychological dependence =====
	+
	+	According to WHO, the irresistible desire to continue taking a drug periodically or continuously to produce pleasure or avoid discomfort.
	+
	+	===== The term substance dependence =====
	+
	+	Addiction is closely related to the term substance dependence. The main feature of substance dependence is a characteristic pattern of thought-related, behavioral, and physical symptoms that indicate that the individual continues substance use despite drastic substance-related problems. A pattern of repeated substance use is present, usually leading to tolerance development, withdrawal symptoms, and the irresistible urge (English: craving) to use drugs.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:substanzen.jpg?800&direct\|Overview: Problems of psychoactive substances according to different criteria}} \|
	+
	+	===== What about THC products? =====
	+
	+	The physical dependence potential of cannabis is very low. When the substance is discontinued, the withdrawal symptoms already mentioned may occur, but these disappear after a few days.
	+	A psychological dependence, on the other hand, cannot be ruled out in certain people with a corresponding personality structure. This is especially true for psychologically unstable people who create "artificial" feelings of happiness by consuming cannabis without making any other attempts to achieve happiness and satisfaction.
	+	On a physical level, there is evidence that cannabinoids increase dopamine concentrations in certain brain regions responsible for addictive behavior (dopaminergic transmitter system). However, it should be noted that the underlying effects for this in humans are not yet fully known.
	+
	+	Various factors may have an influence on whether or not someone develops an addiction. Twin studies indicate that if one twin has developed a dependence, the likelihood that the other will also develop a dependence is greatest in identical twins.
	+	In addition to these genetic factors, the age at which cannabis use began, as well as psychological lability and the personality trait "impulsivity" also play a role in the development of dependence. The table above shows the dangerousness of cannabis in comparison with other substances.
	+
	+	As can be seen from the table, cannabis is relatively harmless compared to other drugs, both illegal and legal. Both the physical and the psychological risk of dependence is comparatively low. Nerve damage could not be confirmed, contrary to certain populist studies from the USA. The overall toxicity is also quite low, except for the increased risk of cancer if cannabis is smoked.
	+
	+	===== Our experience from practice =====
	+
	+	In the last fifteen years that we have been working on the topic of THC use, we have not encountered anyone who has had major social or health problems because of hash and weed use. This is because all the people who have realized that THC use is not good for them (anymore) have simply stopped using it. Negative effects occur because people do not have time (anymore) to enjoy THC - for example, because they start a family and are fully committed there. Or they want to make a career and now give higher priority to striving at work than to enjoying hash and weed. Some also realize that the formerly pleasant effects of THC are no longer important to them - they now have other sources of pleasure. All of these people, predominantly between the ages of 30 and 40, have stopped using THC. Just like that. Without withdrawal cures and without medical help. Many even from one day to the next.
	+
	+	Others find that the positive effects aren't so great anymore - they've developed a tolerance to THC, so the euphoric, elated feelings are much less strong than they were in the beginning. These people now take regular breaks from using so that the desired, nice effects can be fully achieved again.
	+	Smoking is only a problem for those users who smoke a lot of joints. This is also the worst effect of THC consumption: the lungs are obviously damaged by the smoke. For such users it is strongly recommended to switch from smoking to eating or vaporizing. Because the lung tissue is only capable of regeneration to a limited extent.
	+
	+	All those people who consume THC and who obviously have other problems, have these problems regardless of THC consumption. Those who do not look after their body, who do not make an effort at work, who do not take care of their social network, naturally have problems in life. But these problems are not caused by THC use, they are caused by this inability to cope with life and its challenges. With such people, even THC abstinence does not help - the problems remain. And vice versa: If such people tackle their problems and find solutions for them, they can continue to enjoy THC products.

The figures remain at a very high level

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li370202.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The figures remain at a very high level ======
	+
	+	**Another year of repression has been recorded by official statistics: in 2005, the figures remained largely constant, albeit at a very high level. Hash is becoming more important again, the significance of weed is decreasing - but more slowly than we suspected.
	+	**
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verf2005.jpg}} \|

How stable is the Volcano vaporizer?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== How stable is the Volcano vaporizer? ======
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li281113volcano.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	The University of Leiden in Holland conducted a vaporizer study. It is the second major study on the Volcano, which we also consider to be the most sophisticated vaporizer machine at the moment. We summarize the results in our article.
	+
	+	===== Initial question of the study =====
	+
	+	THC and other cannabinoids can be extremely helpful for many diseases. What is lacking, however, is a fast, reliable way to deliver THC to patients - and without smoke.
	+	Eating, i.e. oral intake, is possible, but the effects are difficult to assess. After all, THC is fat-soluble and is absorbed faster or slower depending on other stomach contents. This leads to unreliable absorption. Through the lungs, however, absorption is much more predictable, the effects occur more quickly, and thus the amount of active substance can be well controlled by the patients themselves.
	+	Smoking, however, is not an option for health purposes - too many toxins are produced and enter the body.
	+	Vaporization is the order of the day here, and the Leiden University study examined the Volcano from the Storz&Bickel company in Tuttlingen, Germany.
	+	We have reported several times on vaporization technology and also on the Volcano (see Legalize it! issues 27, 28, 30, 31, 36). There you will also find information about the exact functioning of the Volcano. These facilitate the understanding of this article!
	+	The aim of the study was to find out whether the Volcano is a reliable tool for the delivery of THC. The study did not primarily use hash or weed, but predominantly used a standardized, pure THC solution to be sure that the source material would not influence the study results.
	+
	+	===== The research topics at a glance =====
	+
	+	However, all sorts of other things were changed: The Volcano was tested at different heat settings and with different balloon sizes. Furthermore, it was seen how much THC condensed on parts of the device (and thus could not be collected by the balloon), how long the THC vapors remained consumable in the balloon. They also looked to see if four different Volcano devices differed from each other, or if individual devices produced the same results in different trials. Finally, the researchers were interested in how much THC was exhaled after ingestion. All trials were conducted three times.
	+	Dutch medicinal female hemp flowers with a THC acid content of 12% were used to produce 98% pure THC or pure THC acid.
	+
	+	===== Temperature accuracy =====
	+
	+	The settings 1 (130°), 3 (154°), 5 (178°), 7 (202°) and 9 (226°) on the Volcano were tested. It was found that after about 30 to 40 seconds of air supply (green switch on the Volcano), the temperature in the filling chamber reached close to the set temperature as indicated above. Then it dropped again by a few degrees and then rose to the set temperature. In summary, the Volcano is very stable at temperature (+/- 4 degrees around the target temperature), but only after the heating lamp has gone out and warm air has then been supplied for about half a minute.
	+
	+	===== Differences between different volcanos =====
	+
	+	Four Volcanos were compared with each other. The researchers found that three devices were fairly close to the predicted temperature range, but one remained a few degrees above the target range even after 90 seconds. To summarize: A Volcano stays very true to itself - one temperature setting will produce the same results over and over again.
	+	But there are somewhat larger differences between Volcanos, which means that you can't simply make a setting on one unit (for example, 7.5) produce exactly the same temperature on a second unit. There can be deviations of up to seven degrees (which, however, does not have a great impact on the result when vaporizing). For this reason, the Volcano is not labeled with absolute temperature values, but with numbers from one to nine. However, the exact temperature in the filling chamber can be measured very precisely with a thermometer with temperature sensor (cost: about 100 francs) (in the Legalize it!-office we have such a device - who is interested in it, please feel free to contact us).
	+
	+	===== Conversion of THC acid to THC =====
	+
	+	Especially in fresh plant material there is no (psychoactive) THC, but THC acid is present (which is not psychoactive). With heat or during storage of weed this acid part is then split off and THC acid becomes THC. The researchers vaporized pure THC acid in Volcano, with a 33% yield at step nine. The evaporation heat split off a large portion of the acid, but some THC acid remained.
	+	The researchers then tried fresh female hemp flowers and again achieved a yield of around 29%. In addition, the meters found many other cannabinoids in vapor, as well as other plant material (for example, essential oils).
	+	When using pure THC, the yield then increased to about 53%, whereby the vapor in this case consisted exclusively of THC - not a single other substance was found, not even a degradation product of THC (such as cannabinol or delta-8-THC).
	+
	+	===== On the efficiency of the Volcano =====
	+
	+	Practically all of the original solution filled in was vaporized - so the question arises as to where the missing percent THC went? Since only small amounts (around two percent in normal use) of condensed THC could be found in the balloon as well, the THC seems to condense on the way between the filling chamber and the balloon.
	+	This is also noticeable when cleaning the Volcano (which makes sense about every half year): A sticky hash layer of condensed THC forms on these parts (which can of course be reused if one wishes). The researchers found here a condensation of almost 25% of the filled THC.
	+
	+	===== The best setting of the Volcano =====
	+
	+	Again about the temperatures: No matter if THC acid, THC or female hemp flowers: The best yield could be measured at the highest temperature setting (nine). For the plant material, the yield was as follows:
	+	* Temperature 9: About 30%
	+	* Temperature 7: About 10%
	+	* Temperature 5: About 3%
	+	* Temperature 3: Around 0%
	+	* Temperature 1: Around 0%
	+
	+
	+
	+	This shows that THC vaporizes efficiently only at temperatures above 200 degrees - however, one can also see that at setting seven or eight, quite a bit of THC-vapor is already produced.
	+	Care must be taken to fill the balloon for at least 45 seconds (or preheat the filling chamber for half a minute), and after 120 seconds practically all THC seems to have evaporated (this can of course be divided into several balloons).
	+
	+	===== The efficiency with pure THC =====
	+
	+	So at level nine, you can detect a little over 50% of the filled THC in the vapor.
	+	If about half of the filled THC enters the balloon and about a quarter condenses on the way there, then about a quarter remains, of which it is not known exactly where it is lost (an unknown part escapes through cracks between the individual components). The study does not provide any more detailed information on this.
	+
	+	===== The data on the balloon =====
	+
	+	Once the THC is in the balloon - how long does it stay in the vapor phase before it condenses on the balloon? The tests show that it remains vaporous for a surprisingly long time: After half an hour, 75% of the original THC is still in the balloon; after an hour, just under 60%; and after three hours, 10%. (From practical experience, however, it must be added that the vapor deteriorates much faster in taste and a balloon should be emptied after just a few minutes).
	+
	+	===== How much THC can the lungs absorb? =====
	+
	+	Then the researchers investigated how much THC the lungs could absorb from the vapor. 20mg of THC was vaporized for each subject, of which around 10.8mg entered the balloon in vapor form and was inhaled. When exhaled, between 2.5 and 4.4mg was exhaled again. Thus, 30 to 40% of the ingested THC was blown out again. (This was while holding the breath for 10 seconds after inhalation.) In summary, a charge of the Volcano with 20mg of THC resulted in an effective uptake of 6 to 8mg for each subject. According to the study, this is a similar level to that achieved by smoking.
	+
	+	===== Conclusions of the study and of us =====
	+
	+	The researchers found some variability in evaporation because the Volcano does not keep the temperature exact, but stable within a range of about 8 degrees - this variability probably explains the up to 15% differences between individual evaporation events.
	+	So, clinically, the Volcano is not perfect, but the stability is still very great.
	+	The highest temperature setting seems to be the most efficient, then over 50% of the filled pure THC is transported into the balloon. THC acid does not do as well, pure THC vaporizes better than plant material.
	+	At weed, many plant compounds can be found in vapor, so from a clinical perspective, researchers prefer to work with pure THC (or perhaps in later studies, mixtures of pure cannabinoids) where only THC and nothing else is found in the balloon.
	+	However, besides THC and THC relatives, these plant substances seem to be mainly the essential oils, which are terpenoids. These are harmless, only a slight irritation of the throat and lungs are caused by these substances (as with many other essential oils).
	+	In comparison to smoking, the study states that in smoking studies about 34 to 69% percent of the THC present was carried into the lungs - with Volcano you are also in this range.
	+	Questions remain here: subjectively, all Volcano users report a massively higher yield of psychoactive effects when inhaling compared to smoking. This study cannot answer why this is so.
	+	On the other hand, it is very encouraging that there are already two large studies on the Volcano and that further institutes will probably deal with this device. Even if the Volcano still has a potential to become more accurate and "more and more similar", it is the device with which one can produce very similar results over and over again. And that is essential for scientific studies or a clinical use.
	+	All other vaporizers (we are not talking about the devices that don't work at all!) have a much wider range of results. With all devices, where the inhalation determines the heat flow, very different results are obtained depending on the type of drawing, because the temperatures do not vary by +/- 4 degrees, but in the range of +/- 50 degrees. This makes it very difficult to study such devices scientifically.
	+
	+	===== Smoking soon banned? =====
	+
	+	Smoking is blowing a corrosive social wind. And now, in 2008, what has already been implemented in Italy could become reality in Switzerland: smoke is to disappear from all buildings where people go to work. With parliamentary initiative 04.476, National Councilor Felix Gutzwiller demanded two years ago:
	+	"The population and the economy will be protected from the harmful and restrictive effects of passive smoking. (...) This will ensure protection from passive smoking, especially in educational and health institutions, in public administration, in workplaces and in rooms and means of transport intended for free access or use by the general public."
	+	In September 2006, the National Council's Commission for Social Security and Health sent the proposed amendment to the Labor Code for consultation. The new Article 6(2ter) would read, "Workplaces are smoke-free. The employer shall protect employees from passive smoking while carrying out their work activities. The Federal Council shall issue the implementing provisions."
	+	Smoking as a form of consumption no longer satisfies society's health demands, so bans and tax increases are used to try to dissuade people from consuming it. Another approach would not be to abstain, but to find an alternative form of consumption that allows for more harmless consumption. In the course of time, addictive and stimulant substances have never been eliminated by bans, but the forms of consumption have changed, in some cases extremely. We believe the future belongs to vaporize!

Cannabis use and psychoses (schizophrenia)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li370506.jpg}} \|

	+
	+
	+	====== Cannabis use and psychoses (schizophrenia) ======
	+
	+	**THC is a potent substance: it has an effect on the human psyche. Unpleasant effects can also occur, especially at high doses. The article would like to clarify some terms and show the probability of the possible problems.
	+	**
	+	In the media one reads again and again that cannabis can lead to permanent mental illness. Even occasional use is said to cause psychological damage in young people. These include toxic psychosis, panic attacks, flashbacks, hallucinations, delusions, personality changes, paranoia, and uncontrolled outbursts of aggression. This article will discuss the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis, specifically schizophrenic psychosis.
	+
	+	===== About the term psychosis =====
	+
	+	The term psychosis refers to a group of severe mental disorders that are accompanied by a temporary extensive loss of reference to reality. Psychoses can be divided into the subgroups organic psychoses, psychoses of the schizophrenic type and affective psychoses. In this article, only the psychoses of the schizophrenic type will be discussed.
	+	Hallucinogens such as LSD, psychedelic mushrooms, mescaline, and also cannabis can trigger psychoses, which is described as drug-induced psychosis.
	+	Psychoses that have already subsided can break out again through the use of such substances. Persons who are or have been psychotically ill should therefore avoid the use of psychedelic drugs.
	+
	+	Annotation:
	+	In the ICD-10 and DSM-IV classification systems, the term psychosis has been virtually eliminated. In the official nomenclature of these systems, only the adjective psychotic occurs; instead of psychosis, it is now called psychotic disorder.
	+
	+	===== About the term schizophrenia =====
	+
	+	Definition and frequency:
	+	The term goes back to E. Bleuler. It characterizes the psychopathological peculiarity of schizophrenia as a "splitting of the most diverse mental functions". The average risk of the disease (lifetime prevalence) in the general population is about one percent, independent of culture, social status and gender. Two main groups are distinguished, endogenous and functional psychoses. Differentiation from affective psychosis (depression, manic-depressive syndrome) is difficult. A continuum hypothesis is now suggested, with schizoaffective psychoses as a possible link.
	+
	+	Psychopathological picture:
	+	So-called positive and negative symptoms are basically distinguished from each other. Positive symptomatology includes concentration and attention, content and formal thinking, ego functions, and perception. Negative symptomatology includes intentionality as well as affectivity and psychomotor functions. Another possible classification of symptoms is that of first-order symptoms and second-order symptoms (according to K. Schneider). These overlap for the most part with the following symptoms.
	+
	+	Psychopathological symptoms:
	+	Delusions, hallucinations (usually auditory hallucinations in the form of voices talking to each other, giving orders, or commenting on the actions of the sufferer), less frequently bodily hallucinations (which are also called bodily or coenesthetic hallucinations), or taste and/or smell hallucinations (olfactory hallucinations). Ego disorders refer to a group of symptoms associated with a loss of ego boundaries. For example, the ill person is convinced that his own thoughts can become loud and be heard by others, or he holds the idea that he can read other people's thoughts. Often random events, for example meaningless gestures of randomly met persons or normal radio messages are given a meaning for the own person. In these gestures and messages, for example, coded messages are seen (for example, from secret services), through which something is to be communicated to one. They are called delusions. The delusion itself is characterized by an objective falsity, subjective certainty and immutability. That is, the sick person is not accessible to any arguments and will under no circumstances depart from his world of imagination, no matter how obviously wrong it may be when viewed from the outside (crazy view of the world).
	+
	+	===== Relationship between psychosis and schizophrenia =====
	+
	+	The term psychosis is often incorrectly equated with schizophrenia. As little as the cause of these disorders is known to this day, there has been a heated debate in the past as to whether it is an organically triggered illness, for example genetically caused, or whether it is a disorder that can be traced back to problems whose roots can be found in early childhood. Currently, it is usually assumed that psychodynamic stress factors (family or other interpersonal problems, separations, loss) can lead to the onset of the disease if there is an existing vulnerability. This "vulnerability-stress model" is also only a working hypothesis, but it appears to be useful given the current state of knowledge. A special group is formed by drug-induced psychoses, which persist beyond the cessation of the original triggering drugs and are more similar in appearance to schizophrenic psychoses than to organic psychoses.
	+
	+	===== Psychotic disorders caused by cannabis use =====
	+
	+	A distinction is made between so-called transient (temporary), longer-lasting psychotic episodes (toxic psychosis) and substance-induced psychoses (e.g. schizophrenia).
	+
	+	Transient psychotic episodes (intoxication psychosis):
	+	Under acute cannabis effects, short-lasting psychotic symptoms may occur. However, these usually do not reach the extent of a clinically relevant psychotic disorder. According to ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases), these are psychotic symptoms that do not last longer than 48 hours. The clinical symptomatology covers a broad clinical spectrum, which may also include hypomanic accentuation and state symptoms.
	+	At the time of sampling in a prospective epidemiologic study in Australia, psychotic symptoms were found to be present in approximately 1.2 percent of persons studied with chronic cannabis use. The rate was even higher among individuals who were concurrently using alcohol at an increased rate.
	+	These results suggest that a continuum of psychotic trait expression can be assumed. This ranges from short-term psychotic symptoms, as can occur with acute intoxication, to longer-lasting transient psychotic phenomena, to longer-lasting psychotic episodes after acute or chronic cannabis use.
	+
	+	Prolonged associated psychotic episodes (cannabis psychosis):
	+	Prolonged (longer than 48 hours) psychotic episodes may occur after acute high-dose as well as chronic higher-dose cannabis use. Symptomatology occurs immediately during or within two weeks of cannabis use.
	+	A differentiation from schizophrenia forms or schizophrenic psychoses based on the symptomatology is not possible according to current knowledge. The symptoms can take on very unpleasant dimensions under certain circumstances and are even sometimes misdiagnosed by clinical professionals as psychosis not due to drug use.
	+	According to the vulnerability-stress model, it is now assumed that acute or chronic cannabis use in vulnerable (susceptible) individuals should be understood in terms of a stressor. This means that there must be a genetic and/or learned disposition, which together with a stressor (cannabis use) can lead to a prolonged psychotic episode.
	+	However, when consuming cannabis in very high doses, presumably anyone can develop psychotic symptoms. Most commonly, reports of toxic psychosis come from cultures where edible preparations of hashish or potent cannabis beverages are common. In the United States and Europe, where cannabis is predominantly smoked, toxic psychosis is relatively rare.
	+
	+	Schizophrenia:
	+	The prevalence of cannabis use is about five times higher in schizophrenics compared to an age-controlled normal population. Conversely, the risk of developing schizophrenia is up to six times higher with increased cannabis use. This means that in the normal population about 99% do not show any symptoms, among cannabis users about 94% do not show any symptoms.
	+	However, a causal relationship is still very controversial (the main question is whether schizophrenics use cannabis more often, quasi as self-medication, or whether cannabis use leads to more schizophrenia). Currently, it is assumed that higher frequency and/or higher dose cannabis use is a stressor in the sense of the vulnerability-stress model of schizophrenia. In a recently published long-term study in New Zealand, even after controlling for confounding factors, a significantly increased incidence of psychotic symptoms was found in cannabis addicts.
	+	More consensus is found when it comes to whether cannabis use adversely affects the course of schizophrenic psychosis, which it does. However, recent research indicates that differential influence occurs. Positive symptomatology is said to worsen, while negative symptomatology is said to improve.
	+	Acute psychotic exacerbations (onset or worsening) in schizophrenic psychoses can also be observed again and again in connection with acute cannabis use.
	+
	+	Vocabulary We know that this article is difficult - many foreign words and an unfamiliar topic. Nevertheless, we feel it is important to address these issues.
	+
	+	\| Epidemiology \| Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and causes of health-related conditions and events in populations (population segments). \|
	+	\| Flash Back \| A flashback is generally a re-experiencing of past emotional states and can be brought on by key stimuli. \|
	+	\| Intoxication \| Poisoning is a pathophysiological condition that occurs as a result of the introduction of toxins (poisons) into the body. \|
	+	\| Confounding factors \| Confounding effect is the term social scientists use to describe the fact that an observable phenomenon is influenced by two or more conditions simultaneously. \|
	+	\| Manic-depressive syndrome \| This bipolar disorder is an affective disorder in which sufferers suffer from volitionally uncontrollable and extreme swings in their drive, activity, and mood that fluctuate far outside normal levels toward depression or mania. \|
	+	\| Olfactory \| Regarding the sense of smell. \|
	+	\| Prevalence \| The prevalence or the basic proportion is a key figure in epidemiology and tells how many individuals in a certain population are affected by a certain disease. \|
	+	\| Schizoaffective psychosis \| Link between schizophrenic and affective psychosis, i.e. a schizophrenic psychosis in which mood is also impaired in the sense of depression. \|
	+	\| Transient \| Temporary \|
	+	\| Vulnerability \| Conditions that make vulnerable and are commonly found in patients' histories (for example, abuse, alcoholism). \|
	+
	+	<wrap lo>The author of this text is an aspiring neuropsychologist (Fall 2006).</wrap>

A change without real improvements

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:li380203.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li380203.jpg}} \|
		+

	====== A change without real improvements ======		====== A change without real improvements ======

-	A new proposal to amend the Narcotics Act BetmG is on the table. Much may still change in the course of the parliamentary deliberations. We compare the current law with the concrete** new proposal now under discussion.	+	A new proposal to amend the Narcotics Act NarcA is on the table. Much may still change in the course of parliamentary deliberations. We compare the current law with the specific** new proposal now under discussion.
	**		**

-	===== What is at issue? =====	+	===== What is it about? =====

-	This partial revision was started because the revision of the BetmG was scuttled by the National Council in summer 2004.	+	This partial revision was started because the revision of NarcA was scuttled by the National Council in summer 2004.
-	The Committee for Social Security and Health of the National Council drew up the bill discussed here after its sister committee from the Council of States had given its approval.	+	The National Council's Commission for Social Security and Health drafted the bill discussed here after its sister commission from the Council of States had given its approval.
-	Heroin distribution is to be anchored. This is particularly important to the politicians - because at the end of 2009 the temporary heroin distribution will expire and all heroin users would be back on the streets - untenable conditions would be inevitable.	+	Heroin distribution is to be anchored. This is particularly important to the politicians, because the temporary heroin distribution will expire at the end of 2009 and all heroin users would be back on the street - untenable conditions would be inevitable.
-	It was always emphasized that the cannabis issue was to be left aside - only this had led to the failure of the overall revision. But if one takes a closer look at the present text, then it becomes clear: it is very much about cannabis. However, it is not about decriminalisation, not even of consumption. On the contrary: the goal of abstinence is to be anchored in the BetmG for the first time, and in the very first article.	+	It was always emphasized that the cannabis issue was to be left aside - this was the only reason for the failure of the overall revision. But if you take a closer look at the present text, it becomes clear that it is also about cannabis. However, it is not about decriminalization, not even of consumption. On the contrary, the goal of abstinence is to be anchored for the first time in NarcA and in the very first article.
-	The bad thing about this partial revision is that the term "hemp herb for the production of narcotics" has been dropped and that hemp plants are now generally considered illegal narcotics. This closes the last loophole in the law. On the positive side, THC products will be allowed as medicinal products, but only in a very restrictive way with special licenses.	+	Bad with this partial revision is that the term "hemp herb for narcotic production" is omitted and new hemp plants are generally considered illegal narcotics. This closes the last loophole in the law. On the positive side, THC products will be allowed as medicinal products, but only in a very restrictive way with special permits.
-	An overview of the most interesting points can be found in the chart on the next page.	+	An overview of the most interesting points can be found in the graphic on the next page.

	===== What's next? =====		===== What's next? =====

	The committee of the National Council has completed its preliminary work and consultations.		The committee of the National Council has completed its preliminary work and consultations.
-	On 14 December, the bill will be submitted to the National Council. The first question there is whether or not the National Council wants to accept this partial revision at all (the last revision failed precisely because the National Council no longer wanted to know anything about the project). If it does agree, it will have to fight its way through all the paragraphs and also deal with various minority motions. These mostly call for a further tightening of the law or the deletion of the four-pillar policy or the heroin levy. We can look forward to these discussions with great interest, as they could not even take place in 2004.	+	On December 14, the bill will go to the National Council. The first question there is whether or not the National Council wants to accept this partial revision at all (the last revision failed precisely because the National Council no longer wanted to know anything about the project). If it does agree, it will have to fight its way through all the paragraphs and also deal with various minority motions. These mostly call for a further tightening of the law or the deletion of the four-pillar policy or the heroin levy. We can look forward to these discussions with great anticipation, since they could not even take place in 2004.
	The bill then goes to the committee of the Council of States.		The bill then goes to the committee of the Council of States.
-	This is followed by the Council of States - here, too, a decision must be taken to accept the bill and amendments can be made to the current text.	+	This is followed by the Council of States - here, too, a decision must be made to accept the bill and amendments can be made to the current text.
	If the National Council and the Council of States agree (possibly after several rounds of amendments) and the final vote is passed, the definitive text of the law is available.		If the National Council and the Council of States agree (possibly after several rounds of amendments) and the final vote is passed, the definitive text of the law is available.
-	The referendum period now begins - if someone takes out a referendum and collects 50,000 signatures within 100 days, a referendum will be held. If the text is approved by the voters, it will be put into force and the administration can draft the clarifying regulations and put them into force.	+	Now the referendum period begins - if someone takes the referendum and collects 50,000 signatures within 100 days, there will be a referendum. If the text is approved by the voters, it will be put into force and the administration can draft the clarifying regulations and put them into force.
	The procedure will therefore take a few more years.		The procedure will therefore take a few more years.

	===== And where are our concerns? =====		===== And where are our concerns? =====

-	Of course, this law is not satisfactory. Satisfactory, on the other hand, would be the popular initiative "Pro Jugendschutz gegen Drogenkriminalität" - if its provisions were adopted, a reasonable legal handling of THC products could take place. But an adoption will not happen under the given political circumstances. The fears of the population are too great and the power of the hemp movement is simply too small.	+	Of course, this law is not satisfactory. Satisfactory, on the other hand, would be the popular initiative "Pro Jugendschutz gegen Drogenkriminalität" - if its provisions were adopted, a reasonable legal handling of THC products could take place. However, it will not come to an adoption under the given political circumstances. The fears of the population are too great and the clout of the hemp movement is simply too small.

	===== The fears and reservations are huge =====		===== The fears and reservations are huge =====

-	But perhaps a counter-proposal to the initiative can be drafted. Although the Federal Council has refused to take such a step, the commissions could draft such a text when they discuss the popular initiative (which will probably take place in 2007).	+	But perhaps a counter-proposal to the initiative can be drafted. The Federal Council has refused to take such a step, but the commissions could draft such a text when they discuss the popular initiative (which will probably take place in 2007).
-	But what, if anything, could be suitable for a majority? Such a bill would have to take the fears and aversions of the population seriously: The fear of stoned youth, the fear of THC tourism from abroad, the disapproval of consumption in public, the contempt for people who make a living from THC trafficking.	+	But what, if anything, could be suitable for a majority? Such a bill would have to take seriously the fears and aversions of the population: The fear of a stoned youth, the fear of THC tourism from abroad, the disapproval of consumption in public, the contempt towards people who earn their living with THC trade.
	Despite all these big reservations, it seems to me that there is a majority that just really considers the private consumption of THC products to be a personal, legal matter.		Despite all these big reservations, it seems to me that there is a majority that just really considers the private consumption of THC products to be a personal, legal matter.

Ligne 38:		Ligne 40:


-	A bill that could be passed by a majority could look as follows: In principle, the handling of THC products remains prohibited, unless it occurs...	+	A proposal with majority support could look as follows: In principle, the handling of THC products remains prohibited, unless it happens...

	- in private (consumption and possession at home)		- in private (consumption and possession at home)

-	- by persons of full age who are resident in Switzerland	+	- by persons of legal age who are resident in Switzerland

-	- without minors present	+	- without the presence of minors

	- with self-produced weed and hash (no support of the black market)		- with self-produced weed and hash (no support of the black market)
Ligne 52:		Ligne 54:
	- by well-integrated consumers who are not dependent on social welfare and do not cause problems		- by well-integrated consumers who are not dependent on social welfare and do not cause problems

-	- without distribution to other persons, except for commonseeds consumption free of charge (with adult persons resident in Switzerland without special problems, etc.).	+	- without distribution to other persons, except for joint consumption free of charge (with adult persons residing in Switzerland without special problems, etc.).


-	Of course, this is only a very small "solution". But such a proposal would be the maximum that I consider to be capable of gaining a majority in view of the prevailing conditions.	+	Of course, this is only a very small "solution". But such a proposal would be the maximum that I consider to be possible for a majority in view of the prevailing conditions.
-	Now to the concrete overview of the now present revision of the law, which does not even contain such a mini-solution!	+	Now to the concrete overview of the now presented law revision, which does not even contain such a mini-solution!

	===== From old to new =====		===== From old to new =====

-	All in all, this partial revision comprises well over 100 pages of text. Almost the entire law is being amended: Total revision would be more precise here. But this word probably arouses too much fear.	+	All in all, this partial revision comprises well over 100 pages of text. Almost the entire law is changed: Total revision would be more precise here. But this word probably arouses too much fear.
-	In the overview below, we limit ourselves to the articles on THC products and the penal provisions (which apply to all narcotics). The topics that interest us are highlighted in blue, the current provisions are highlighted in yellow, and the proposed amendments are highlighted in red.	+	We limit ourselves in the overview below to the articles on THC products and the penal provisions (which apply to all narcotics). The topics we are interested in are highlighted in blue, the current regulations are highlighted in yellow, and the proposed changes are highlighted in red.
-	The deliberations in parliament can change a lot. With a fast internet connection you can visit www.parlament.ch you can follow the ongoing discussions live. And in the next Legalize it! we will summarize the current developments again. Members are welcome to call or email our secretary with questions about the political process. All documents can be viewed in the office.	+	The deliberations in the parliament can change a lot. With a fast internet connection you can follow the ongoing discussions live on www.parlament.ch. And in the next Legalize it! we will summarize the current developments again. Members are welcome to call or email our secretary with questions about the political process. **All documents can be viewed in the office.
		+	**
		+
		+	^ From old to new ^
		+	^ Topic ^ The provisions in the current law (in the Narcotics Law NarcA, unless otherwise noted). ^ The proposed changes in the partial revision ^
		+	\| Prohibited by law are ... \| ... Hashish, hemp herb for the production of narcotics. Hashish is always prohibited, but hemp flowers only if they are to be used as a betm. \| ... Narcotics of the effect type cannabis. This relieves the police - they no longer have to prove the intention of obtaining betm in the case of hemp plants or hemp flowers. The criminal prosecution is thus simplified. \|
		+	\| Who ultimately defines the list of narcotics? \| The concrete list of all narcotics is compiled by the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products Swissmedic. \| The concrete list of all narcotics is prepared by the Federal Department of Home Affairs. \|
		+	\| Consumption and acts of preparation for personal use are punishable by ... \| ... imprisonment or fine (most often today a fine of 100 to 500 francs is pronounced). \| ... Imprisonment or fine (remains the same) \|
		+	\| The gratuitous transfer of a negligible quantity for joint, simultaneous consumption is... \| ... generally unpunished (in fact, however, only to over 16-year-olds, because in the Criminal Code the distribution of substances hazardous to health to under 16-year-olds is punishable by imprisonment or monetary penalty ). \| ... unpunished if given to over 18 year olds. If given to under 18s, there is a custodial sentence and monetary penalty with up to 20 years in prison. \|
		+	\| Production, transfer, sale, storage, etc. (not for personal use) is considered... \| ... misdemeanor (and is punishable by up to three years in prison) \| ... felony (and is punishable by up to 20 years in prison) \|
		+	\| Production, transfer, sale, storage, etc., if gang-related or commercial, is considered ... \| ... serious case (and is punishable by at least one year in prison). \| ... serious case (and is punishable by at least one year in prison, so remains the same). \|
		+	\| When sales are made in or around a training facility, it is considered ... \| ... misdemeanor (no special penalty aggravation) \| ... serious case (at least one year in prison) \|
		+	\| Cannabis as medicine is (consumption and dispensing) ... \| ... prohibited (except for approved research projects) \| ... restrictively allowed (special exception permits are possible) \|
		+	\| The goal of the law is ... \| (no specific target definition) \|... the abstinence \|
		+	\| The four-pillar policy will ... \| ... not mentioned at all (strictly speaking, the four-pillar policy already practiced today is thus illegal). \| ... comprehensively anchored (prevention, therapy and reintegration, harm reduction and survival assistance, control and repression). \|
		+	\| Heroin prescription is ... \|... possible until 2009 \| ... unlimited enshrined in law \|

-	^ From old to new ^^^
-	^ Subject ^ The provisions in current law (in the Narcotics Act BetmG, unless otherwise stated) ^ The proposed amendments in the partial revision ^
-	\| Prohibited by law are ... \| ... Hashish, hemp herb for the production of narcotics. Hashish is always prohibited, but hemp flowers only if they are to be used as a betm. \| ... Narcotics of the cannabis effect type. This relieves the police - in the case of hemp plants or hemp flowers, they no longer have to prove the intention of obtaining narcotics. The punishmentprosecution is thus simplified. \|
-	\| Who ultimately defines the list of narcotics? \| The specific list of all narcotics is drawn up by the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products, Swissmedic. \| The concrete list of all narcotics is drawn up by the Federal Department of Home Affairs. \|
-	\| Consumption and acts of preparation for personal use are punishable by ... \| ... Imprisonment or fine (most often today a fine of 100 to 500 francs is imposed). \| ... Imprisonment or fine (remains the same) \|
-	\| The transfer free of charge of a small quantity for commonseeds consumption at the same time shall be considered as... \| ... generally unpunished (in fact, however, only to over-16s, because the Criminal Code makes the supply of substances hazardous to health to under-16s punishable by imprisonment or a fine). \| ... with impunity if supplied to over 18s. If given to under 18s, there is a custodial sentence and fine with up to 20 years in prison. \|
-	\| Production, transfer, sale, storage, etc. (not for own use) is considered to be... \| ... Misdemeanor (and punishable by up to three years in prison). \| ... Felony (and punishable by up to 20 years in prison). \|
-	\| Production, transfer, sale, storage, etc., if carried out by a gang or on a commercial basis, shall be deemed to be ... \| ... serious case (and is punishable by at least one year in prison) \| ... serious case (and is punishable by at least one year in prison, so it remains the same) \|
-	\| If sales are made in or around a training facility, this is considered to be ... \| ... Misdemeanor (no specific penalty enhancement) \| ... serious case (at least one year in prison) \|
-	\| Cannabis as medicine is (consumption and dispensing) ... \| ... prohibited (except for approved research projects) \| ... Restrictively permitted (special exemption permits are possible) \|
-	\| The aim of the law is ... \| (no specific target definition) \|... abstinence \|
-	\| The four-pillar policy will ... \| ... not even mentioned (strictly speaking, therefore, the four-pillar policy already practiced today is illegal). \| ... comprehensively anchored (prevention, therapy and reintegration, harm reduction and survival assistance, control and repression) \|
-	\| The heroin prescription is ... \|... possible until 2009 \| ... open-ended \|

THC (bio)chemistry: Why is it driving us nuts?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li380405.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== THC (bio)chemistry: Why is it driving us nuts? ======
	+
	+	That drugs have an effect on us humans is obvious. But how exactly these substances affect our brain and can bring about the various states is only slowly becoming clear. THC seems to play a very special role in this.
	+
	+	===== From religion to natural science =====
	+
	+	Drugs have been used by people for thousands of years, especially poppy and hemp, but also many other drugs were (and are) appreciated from time immemorial. Whether as medicine (for example, as a painkiller), or as a means used in religious rituals (for example, the alcohol in wine, which is still used ritually in Christianity).
	+	There was very often the idea that drugs work because they are a divine gift, perhaps even a god himself.
	+	The natural sciences see it a little more prosaically. They do not want to explain the effect by divine powers, but materialistically. But for a long time the sciences were able to describe the effect of drugs, but how exactly it works, that drugs give us a change in our psyche, our perception, our consciousness - that remained unclear for a long time.
	+
	+	===== What works in the drugs? =====
	+
	+	The first thing that was scientifically established was that herbal drugs such as wine, hashish or opium consist of very many substances. There are flavors, partly also vitamins, sometimes sugar and with the time the scientists could name more and more exactly the substances which were responsible for the psychic effect: The alcohol, the THC, the morphine.
	+	Alcohol has been known for a long time, morphine has also been known for some time, THC on the other hand was only discovered in the sixties. With this knowledge, the active substances could now be specifically enriched (for example in morphine), and these substances could also be chemically modified in many cases so that they became even more potent (a classic example of this is heroin, a simple "further development" of the plant morphine).
	+
	+	===== Why is it retracting? =====
	+
	+	But the mechanism of action was still not clear. It was only when special docking sites, the receptors, were found on the nerve cells that it began to be understood that the active ingredients of the drugs dock onto certain of these receptors and trigger an effect there. This research is far from complete - the receptor for THC, for example, was not discovered until the 1980s.
	+	But immediately after this discovery, the question arose: Why do humans (and all animals) have receptors to which plant drugs can dock? Why do we have locks inside us that can be opened with the help of drugs, like keys?
	+
	+	===== Exogenous (foreign to the body) and endogenous (body's own) drugs =====
	+
	+	The answer to this is that all herbal active substances that enter have, so to speak, as twins, substances that are endogenous to the body, for which these receptors are intended. The human (and also the animal) body is a huge pharmacy, which produces all incoming substances itself and controls with these a large part of our being, our sensations/feelings and also our thinking. The fact that there are herbal substances that can also dock to these receptors is, in this view, merely a coincidence - albeit a coincidence that can bring us humans very nice feelings and relief from many kinds of pain.
	+	However, and this is the unfortunate thing, by taking herbal drugs, which are exogenous drugs (supplied from outside), we can upset our body's own (endogenous) drug system. This is because the amounts of exogenous drugs we can ingest with alcoholics, THC products, or opiates are much higher than the amounts of endogenous (body's own) drugs. This is the risk that can manifest as dependence, habituation or addiction. Dependence can then be understood as the body stopping the production of the corresponding endogenous drugs as a result of taking large quantities of exogenous drugs, since there are always enough of them. If one then stops the supply of exogenous drugs, suddenly there are almost no such substances left - and this then shows in withdrawal, which is only ended when new exogenous drugs are supplied or the body starts the production of the endogenous drugs again. With heroin, this may well take a few days - days that are very painful!
	+
	+	===== Image(s) of man - what is man? =====
	+	The model we are discussing here is the modern scientific model. It is a model (and not "the" reality) because it simplifies many things and currently has to be further refined almost daily because new findings about the functioning of our body's drug system force an ever increasing complexity.
	+	But I think that this natural scientific model has some advantages over the old religious models. However, natural science also shows that certain ancient ideas about human beings are quite useful descriptions of our being. For example, the idea of yin and yang: that there are different forces within us that control and influence each other, and that we are then the whole of such forces - this idea is well confirmed in the model of the body's own drugs.
	+
	+	===== Drug evaluation =====
	+
	+	In today's discussion on drug policy, too, one notices time and again that the demonization of cannabis is ultimately justified by many on the grounds that it is an evil drug, the incarnation of evil, the devil, so to speak. A substance alien to our culture, which undermines the foundations of our Christian occidental society and ultimately causes it to collapse. This is of course accompanied by a positive evaluation of wine as the blood of Christ, to which homage may and should be paid at the Lord's Supper. Here, too, an old, religious valuation of drugs still comes into play.
	+
	+	===== Molecular representation of thoughts and feelings =====
	+
	+	I think the idea that our thoughts and feelings, maybe even our whole personality can be understood to a very large extent as a complex interaction of 25 billion nerve cells (and 100 to 200 billion auxiliary cells) with hundreds or even thousands of connections (dendrites) among each other, which communicate and influence each other with the help of hundreds of endogenous drugs (neurotransmitters, hormones) and, above all, change and develop permanently from conception to death, represents a very good model and can explain many things plausibly.
	+
	+	===== How good is this model? =====
	+
	+	However, everything cannot be explained with it (yet?). For example, nobody can say until today that a certain thought was stored in such and such 12 million brain cells and was formed with the help of such and such 120 neurotransmitters with the help of such and such 300 million nerve cells - the scientific model is still far from being that concrete. But it is probably the best model that exists at present.
	+
	+	===== Introduction brain and nerve cells =====
	+
	+	The brain is a very complex organ. It consumes a lot of energy. So a lot of things happen there. Anyone who has suffered a brain injury can very often no longer do certain things - from such injuries we know a lot about the different parts of the brain and what tasks they perform. Also from many, sometimes cruel, experiments with animals and humans, both by cutting out parts of the brain and by chemical manipulation, a lot of knowledge has been gained about the function of our brain.
	+	Every movement we make, our nerve cells have to learn (for example, walking). If we want to perform a certain movement, many nerve cells and different parts of our brain have to work together: Optical stimuli from the eye have to be transferred to the brain, a "picture" has to be created there, this has to be compared with old, already stored pictures, conclusions have to be drawn from this (for example, you see a deep puddle on the ground, associate this with wet shoes and want to avoid this) and think about how to proceed now (i.e. avoid the puddle). In this process, millions of nerve cells work together and this cooperation is mediated by neurotransmitters (the body's own drugs) and electrical signals. The whole thing is a highly complex system - and just walking has to be practiced intensively by young children (and avoiding a puddle also needs a lot of organization: estimating the size of the puddle, seeing the dry path, coordinating the muscles when avoiding, providing the energy needed for this).
	+	This practice can be understood as the formation of brain structures. Language also needs such learning processes, which can be understood as brain structure formation.
	+
	+	===== Functions of nerve cells, effect of endogenous drugs. =====
	+
	+	There are countless endogenous drugs (transmitters) that establish communication between the individual nerve cells. There are inhibiting and activating substances; substances that act only for a very short time or also for a very long time; there are substances that are formed in the brain, others that are formed in other organs. The following overview (from Zehentbauer's book) gives an idea of the effects of the various substances (THC does not appear here yet, because research was not yet so far advanced):
	+	"In humans, one can distinguish about ten 'basic emotions' (moods), all of which are carried by a (different in each case) interaction of several transmitters. The following messengers (neurotransmitters and hormones) are involved in this interplay, whereby the first ones mentioned are particularly important:
	+	- joyful, happy to euphoric, feeling erotic, helpful, loving (dopamine, noradrenaline, endorphins, acetylcholine, oxytocin, female sex hormones)
	+
	+	- anxious, brooding, inwardly restless, feeling lonely (hopeless) (melatonin, serotonin, acetylcholine, kinins; excessive release of norepinephrine can also produce anxiety)
	+
	+	- combative, envious, angry, aggressive to destructive (adrenaline, noradrenaline, dopamine, thyroid hormones, STH, male sex hormones, histamines)
	+
	+	- sad, melancholic, morose, weak, tired of life (melatonin, serotonin, GABA)
	+
	+	- disgusting, hateful, socially skeptical to hostile (increased adrenaline, decreased oxytocin)
	+
	+	- hopeful, longing, dissatisfied-seeking (serotonin, endovalium, endorphins, endogenous psychedelics)
	+
	+	- trusting-believing, submissive, grateful, compassionate (endovalium, endorphins, GABA)
	+
	+	- lust-oriented, libidinous, greedy, sensual, seeking social closeness (oxytocin, dopamine, norepinephrine)
	+
	+	- carefree, naive-self-centered, unworldly, dreamy (endorphins, endovalium, serotonin, endogenous psychedelics)
	+
	+	- active-restless, performance-oriented, hyper-attentive, willing to learn, cool-distant (norepinephrine, dopamine, thyroid hormones, STH, acetylcholine)"
	+
	+	Here you can see that very often several substances work together and likewise that different substances influence, inhibit or strengthen each other.
	+
	+	===== Methods for mobilization of endogenous drugs =====
	+
	+	We can now intervene in these different moods with the known exogenous drugs. But there are also other ways to change the current composition of our endogenous drugs: We can stimulate the release of our endogenous drugs ourselves! Active imagining, yoga/breathing techniques/meditation, acting out, autogenic training, physical activity/movement, massage, sensory overload and deprivation, dancing and sexuality can be used for this.
	+
	+	===== More information =====
	+
	+	1) Visuals/Movies
	+
	+	At www.jellinek.nl/brain/index.html you can see a very nice visualization of the mode of action of endogenous and exogenous drugs. There is also an introduction to the way our brain and nerve cells work.
	+
	+	2) In the book "Körpereigene Drogen" by Josef Zehentbauer, ISBN 3-7608-1935-4, you can find very good explanations and interesting overviews. In addition, there are instructions on how to stimulate the body's own drugs in the desired direction without the use of drugs. This book can also be found in our library.
	+
	+	3) In the Arte film: "Cannabis - The science in front of 100 questions" from 2005 there is an overview of the state of endocannabinoid research (i.e. research on the body's own substances that act like THC). This film is unfortunately not available for order, but we have a copy in our library.
	+
	+	Feel free to make an appointment as a member to view this information in the office.

Politics does not want legalization - the dealers are happy!

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li390203.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Politics does not want legalization - the dealers are happy! ======
	+
	+
	+	In 2007, politicians will be debating our stimulant again and again: The partial revision of NarcA is becoming more concrete, and the hemp initiative is beginning its hurdle race. What are the hopes? What is our attitude to the political efforts?
	+
	+	===== The treatment of the partial revision in the National Council =====
	+
	+	On December 13, 14 and 20, 2006, the National Council dealt with the partial revision of NarcA. It was a dull discussion for long stretches: A whole bunch of motions from the far right (especially from Waber, EDU and Ruey, LP) wanted to tighten up the commission's proposal - their mantra was "complete drug renunciation" and "more repression". But they didn't stand a chance. At first they wanted to postpone the whole business, but the National Council did not go for it.
	+	In the introductory debate, the parties presented their familiar opinions. Jacqueline Fehr (SP) now wants to finally bring the "undisputed" elements of the old revision under roof - cannabis is to be left out. This topic is to be dealt with in the context of the hemp initiative. The CVP welcomes the partial revision, but makes it clear that it is still in favor of the punishability of drug use. And also for the punishability of cannabis use. Christian Waber (EDU) still thinks "the best prescription is: hands off drugs". But he can agree with the medical use of THC products: "I believe that the side effects can't be much worse than those of other pharmaceutical drugs." After all! Franziska Teuscher (Greens) wants the four-pillar policy, but thinks that repression takes up too much resources. The Greens are also the only ones in the debate who clearly believe that the "consumption of narcotics must be exempt from punishment." Silvia Schenker (SP) represents the modern attitude of addiction experts, who see less the substances (whether legal or illegal) as the main problem, but would like to address the type of consumption and the individual danger: There is pleasurable use of all psychoactive substances, and there is also problematic use. Felix Gutzwiller (FDP) now finally wants to pass this bill.
	+	In the detailed deliberations, all the proposals put forward by the right-wing minority were defeated by around 90 to 110 votes to 50 to 70 in each case.
	+
	+	===== The penalty ranges are normalized =====
	+
	+	However, the Federal Council was able to assert itself a few times. In its statement, it had pointed out various massive increases in penalties and was now able to reduce these penalties back to today's "normal" level. The range of punishment for production, distribution and sale is now up to three years in prison again, instead of the original twenty years (in the case of a serious case, however, these twenty years are still possible, as before). Also, in the case of transfer to a person under the age of 18, the penalty range has been set at three years, instead of the twenty years previously proposed. This prevented a massive tightening of the law.
	+
	+	===== The only really viable proposal is shot down =====
	+
	+	There was one small ray of hope: The Green Daniel Vischer proposed that the consumption of all narcotics should be exempt from punishment. This would have meant that preparatory acts would still be punishable, but it would have been a start towards decriminalization. But the result of the vote was devastating: only 36 members of the National Council supported Vischer, 122 voted against. Thus, it was not only a small ray of hope, but also a very short one.
	+	In the final vote, the National Council passed the deal by a relatively comfortable 108 votes to 65 (with 16 abstentions). Subsequently, Waber announced a referendum if the Council of States should also approve this bill.
	+
	+	===== Now the bill goes to the Council of States =====
	+
	+	The commission of the Council of States wanted to debate this bill on February 15, 2007, but could not finish the discussions yet. Thus, the Council of States cannot deal with the partial revision of NarcA in the spring session.
	+
	+	===== Our position on the partial revision =====
	+
	+	Should we now be for or against this law? It does not bring any big changes for THC users: THC consumption remains punishable, weed and hash remain illegal narcotics.
	+	A positive aspect is certainly the possibility of using THC products as medication for illnesses. However, this new possibility is to be handled very restrictively, so that only a few people are likely to benefit from it.
	+	Negative is the complete illegalization of hemp cultivation. However, since this has already been made impossible in the vast majority of cases (because very few indications are sufficient for the detection of "hemp weed for the production of narcotics" and allow a seizure and conviction), not much will change for us.
	+	So it simply doesn't really matter. I probably would have voted blank on the final vote, as two representatives of the Green Party did.
	+
	+	===== On the situation of the hemp initiative =====
	+
	+	The Federal Council's message has been available since mid-December 2006. It gives a good overview of the state of official opinion on the subject of THC and politics and can be downloaded in full at www.bag.admin.ch/themen/drogen/00042/index.html?lang=de on the page at the very bottom right (Downloads).
	+	"Although the hemp initiative contains demands that correspond in essential parts to the previous position of the Federal Council on the cannabis issue, the Federal Council recommends the rejection of the initiative." This is the central sentence of the message - somehow completely absurd, but also a precise summary of the political situation regarding THC consumption in Switzerland today.
	+	On February 22, 2007, the commission of the National Council agreed with the opinion of the Federal Council: No to the initiative and no willingness to work out a counter-proposal with a mini-variant. This has greatly increased the likelihood that the committee of the Council of States will not consider a minimal improvement either. Thus, it becomes apparent that a mini-decriminalization will only be possible in the long run, in five to ten years. Because the hemp initiative would be a theoretical possibility to change the situation, but an adoption is unimaginable under today's conditions. But it is very important that the initiative achieves as good a result as possible, that is, many yes votes. Everyone must give this concrete consideration.
	+
	+	===== On the political situation =====
	+
	+	From a technical point of view, it is clear that the ban is untenable and that a change towards legalization is needed. But politically, there is no majority for such a change. The topic is so emotionally charged that no movement can develop. It is true that many people realize that it is not fair to prohibit THC consumption through criminal law. But no one, especially no politician, wants to be seen as a "drug promoter". Because you don't win elections with a positive attitude towards legalization, and this is especially true for the CVP. This party should move, but it has nothing to gain from doing so (and that's what it's all about, not about factually correct policies). At the same time, such circles consciously accept to promote illegal drug trafficking and to enable mafia structures to make profits, as well as to unjustly prosecute THC users with the criminal law. This behavior is the scandal, not the THC consumption.
	+
	+	===== Why can't a majority be found for decriminalization? =====
	+
	+	The biggest problem is that there are no relevant political forces that see THC use as something positive. From left to right, this behavior is seen as something negative. The left and liberal commoners see consumption primarily as self-harming behavior and generally do not want to criminalize such behavior. The center perceives THC use as indecent, immoral. The penalties do not have to be high, but there needs to be a signal for these people that consumption is undesirable. For example, fines for consumption. The right despises THC users (at best) or hates them (at worst). In these circles, compulsory treatment also seems to be within the realm of the imaginable.
	+
	+	===== The perception of the positive sides is missing =====
	+
	+	We see the positive sides of THC use, but we are not a relevant political force. For us, there is the healthy, beautiful, life-enriching, enjoyable, individual-advancing THC use. It is an exceedingly positive part of the lifestyle of many people for whom THC products are miraculous and blissful agents. Or creativity-enhancing agents, sleep aids, antidepressants, emotional enhancers, or sedatives. The spectrum of the effects is very large and also contradictory; it depends with the THC effect strongly on the person, its condition and mood, as well as the consumption kind. But neither politics nor the population perceive this positive part.
	+
	+	===== A comparison with sexuality =====
	+
	+	Let's compare the topic of THC with another emotionally highly charged topic: sexuality. There are undeniably even more terrible consequences than with THC use: unwanted pregnancies, abortions, STDs, violent assaults - a whole bunch of horrible things that no one considers "good. But to ban sexuality as a whole would be absurd for the vast majority of people. For very many people have the concrete experience that sexuality is primarily simply something beautiful. The vast majority of THC users have such a positive experience, but not the majority of the population. They only see the alcoholized and stoned youths; the doctors and authorities only see people with many problems who also consume THC. And everything is then somehow thrown into the stoner pot - the beautiful, unproblematic THC enjoyment remains invisible.
	+
	+	===== The image is miserable - there is a need for action here =====
	+
	+	THC consumption thus has a miserable image. This is the main problem: THC consumption is always viewed by the media and politicians only from the negative, problematic aspects. And on the other hand, there are hardly any people who stand up in public and explain why THC consumption is a great enrichment of their lives. A change in image is only conceivable if a large number of serious THC users stand up for their substance in public and can paint a positive picture of themselves and their hobby. This raises the question: How can we build such a movement?
	+
	+
	+	The left is in favor, the right is against, the FDP is split and the CVP remains in the no position. This means that there is currently no majority even for a small solution. This was also shown by the discussion in the committee of the National Council: With 11 votes against 10 and three abstentions, it rejected a counter-proposal by the narrowest of margins - which means that even a mini-solution is a long way off.
	+
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li390203a.jpg?340x730}} \|
	+
	+	===== The steps around the hemp initiative =====
	+
	+
	+	- Initiative submitted 01/06
	+
	+	- Federal Council rejects initiative, no counterproposal 12/06
	+
	+	- Commission of the National Council rejects initiative, no counter-proposal is prepared 02/06
	+
	+	- National Council discussion pending
	+
	+	- Commission of the Council of States discussing, possible counter-proposal? open
	+
	+	- Council of States discusses open
	+
	+	- Final vote open
	+
	+	- Referendum on initiative (and possible counter-proposal?) open
	+
	+	- Initiative will certainly be rejected, but with what proportion of votes?
	+
	+	===== The steps of the NarcA-partial revision =====
	+
	+
	+	- Commission of the National Council launches commission initiative 02/05
	+
	+	- Commission of the Council of States gives green light 05/05
	+
	+	- National Council adopts commission initiative with amendments 12/06
	+
	+	- Commission of the Council of States discusses the matter pending
	+
	+	- Council of States openly discusses
	+
	+	- Differences NR/SR open
	+
	+	- Final vote open
	+
	+	(This makes the text of the law final).
	+
	+	- Referendum is likely
	+
	+	- Referendum open
	+
	+	- Entry into force open

THC in road traffic - with zero tolerance

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:19+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li390405_a.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== THC in road traffic - with zero tolerance ======
	+
	+	**Since 2005, the so-called zero tolerance to THC in road traffic is now in force. What exactly is prohibited? When is the driver's license in danger? We give an overview of the handling at the road traffic offices and the forensic medicine.
	+	**
	+
	+	===== The zero tolerance =====
	+
	+	Previously, the driving ability of a person was determined by three pillars: first, by the police report, second, by the general medical examination, third, by the blood test. As of January 1, 2005, the old system was changed under the title of "zero tolerance". Now, the assessment of driving ability is no longer based on the three pillars, but as soon as THC is detectable in the blood, it is assumed that driving incapacity exists.
	+
	+	===== Fitness and ability to drive =====
	+
	+	These two terms mean two very different things. Fitness to drive refers to the general ability to drive a car, i.e. whether someone should be issued a driver's license at all. Driving ability, on the other hand, refers to the specific ability to drive a car at a given time. Someone who has been denied the ability to drive (for example, because of dependence on narcotics) can therefore never be capable of driving. However, if someone is incapable of driving at a particular moment (for example, due to being under the influence of narcotics), that person may well have a general fitness to drive.
	+
	+	The public prosecutor is responsible for the punishment of an inability to drive, but the STVA or its Office for Administrative Measures (AMA) is responsible for the clarification of the fitness to drive.
	+
	+	===== What is measured? =====
	+
	+	THC use can be detected in the human body in several ways. On the one hand, there are (cheaper) tests for urine that can only detect a breakdown product of THC. On the other hand, the (more expensive) blood test can measure both the psychoactive THC and the degradation product in a legally binding way.
	+
	+	===== The fixed limit for THC in blood =====
	+
	+	THC, more precisely ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main active ingredient in hash and weed. It mainly causes the "drive-in". Actually, zero tolerance has been in effect for this substance for two years. But in practice, it turned out that it is not at all easy to reliably detect traces of THC in the blood. Therefore, after some back and forth, a limit value of 1.5 µg/liter of blood was set, albeit extremely low. "µ" means microgram, or one millionth of a gram. Sometimes the measured value is also given in ng/milliliter, which then means one billionth of a gram per thousandth of a liter (the actual number before micro- or nanogram is the same).
	+	However, since measuring devices always have a certain inaccuracy, a confidence range of +/-30% is calculated from the measured value. The lower value is important here - if this is below the 1.5 µg/liter, the person being tested is still in the green zone. This leads to an effective limit value of 2.14 µg/liter.
	+
	+	This value is very low, it can still be exceeded hours after the last consumption, with regular consumers even after days. It has nothing to do with the actual effect. Nevertheless, anyone with a THC level above the limit is considered unfit to drive. Anyone who drives a car with such a value is legally committing a misdemeanor and can be punished with up to three years in prison. In addition, the driving license will be confiscated for at least three months.
	+
	+	===== Relative limit for THC-COOH =====
	+
	+	In addition to THC, THC-COOH (or more precisely, tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid) is also measured. This is also measured in the simpler urine tests and is a non-psychoactive breakdown product of THC. Although the value determined in the blood is not relevant to driving ability by law, a practice seems to have formed among the examining institutes of forensic medicine IRM that if the THC-COOH value is 40 µg/liter or more, there is an urgent suspicion that driving ability in general must be questioned. On the recommendation of the IRM, the STVA can then have the fitness to drive clarified.
	+
	+	===== Medical evaluation process: assessment and conditions =====
	+
	+	A medical assessment of fitness to drive by a public health officer can be initiated in several ways (see graphic on next page). The medical officer (often an employee of an IRM) conducts the examination. The costs must be paid in full by the person examined, and an advance payment must even be made. The driver's license can either be withdrawn before the examination (if there are indications of addiction), or it can be retained until the examination is completed.
	+
	+	Occasional THC use is considered by IRM to be compatible with the PW driver's license (but the higher license categories for cabs or trucks are generally revoked). Ultimately, however, the STVA must decide on the withdrawal. There are differences between the various cantonal STVA. In the case of a clean reputation and no other conspicuous circumstances (psychological, other drug use, previous files, indications from the police report), the PW driver's license is retained for occasional use. "Occasional" here means a range from "one joint a week" to "three or four joints at the weekend". Daily use, on the other hand, is considered a problem by all STVAs interviewed - in this case, the STVAs would have the fitness to drive clarified by a doctor.
	+
	+	**Anyone who consumes THC and drives a car is therefore almost always committing a misdemeanor, even if driving and consumption are separated. Unless you only consume a little on Friday evening, don't drive a car on the weekend and don't consume anything, and don't drive a car again until Monday.
	+	**
	+
	+	An overview of the procedure can be found in this PDF:
	+	{{:thc_recht:li390405.pdf\|Procedure driver's license}}
	+
	+	===== A few examples =====
	+
	+	==== Example 1 ====
	+
	+	Someone smokes a joint outside without driving, the police checks him, finds hash or weed and he admits to regular consumption during questioning. The police then report this person for narcotics consumption and, if he or she has a driver's license, report the person to the Road Traffic Authority (STVA) because there is a suspicion that the person being checked could pose a danger in road traffic.
	+
	+	==== Example 2 ====
	+
	+	Someone is checked while driving, the urine sample is positive and THC is detected in the blood by a doctor, but below the limit value. Then a report is issued for drug use (as in the first example), but not yet a report for driving under the influence of drugs. The police report then also goes to the STVA because it seems possible that a drug addiction exists.
	+
	+	==== Example 3 ====
	+
	+	Someone is checked while driving, the urine sample is positive and THC above the limit is detected in the blood by a doctor. Then a report because of narcotics consumption (as in the first example), in addition also a report because of driving under the influence of narcotics. The police report is then also sent to the STVA, because there is an urgent suspicion of drug addiction.
	+
	+	===== Criminal consequences =====
	+
	+	The district attorney (or prosecutor) combines all illegal acts into one sentence.
	+
	+	==== Example 1 ====
	+
	+	For the admitted consumption and the amount of hash or weed found, there is usually a fine, as this is only a contravention.
	+
	+	==== Example 2 ====
	+
	+	Driving with THC in the blood below the limit is not relevant in terms of criminal law. There is therefore no punishment for this. However, proven or admitted use/possession is punishable by a fine.
	+
	+	==== Example 3 ====
	+
	+	If driving with THC above the limit is added to this, the penalty becomes massively higher as this is a misdemeanor. Here, penalties ranging from 500 francs fine to a few thawing francs fine to a few days in jail are pronounced.
	+
	+	Attention: If further illegal actions are added (such as defects on the car, further traffic rule violations or even an accident caused, but also other violations such as illegal possession of weapons, insulting officials, passing on THC products, etc.), these offenses are also combined in one sentence. Therefore, most verdicts are not directly comparable and the range is accordingly large.
	+
	+	===== Measures of the road traffic office =====
	+
	+	The Road Traffic Office is responsible for any driver's license withdrawal and clarification of fitness to drive.
	+
	+	==== Example 1 ====
	+
	+	In this case, there is not always any reason to fear that the driver will be disqualified from driving - after all, no traffic regulations have been broken. However, if regular, high consumption is admitted in the police report, the STVA can initiate a clarification of fitness to drive. However, this seems to happen rather rarely, especially when "psychological conspicuousness" is reported. The police and the STVA have a great deal of discretion here.
	+
	+	==== Example 2 ====
	+
	+	Here, too, there are no violations of traffic regulations, so the STVA would actually have no reason to do anything. However, in addition to THC (which is below the limit in this case), THC-COOH is also measured. Some STVA then want to clarify the fitness to drive if the value of THC-COOH is above 40 µg/liter of blood. In forensic medicine, it is often assumed that such a value is associated with regular, higher consumption. Therefore, one must then assume a dependence. This, however, is always the basis for withdrawing the driving license or at least having the fitness to drive medically clarified.
	+
	+	==== Example 3 ====
	+
	+	Here THC is detectable above the limit. Therefore, the license will be withdrawn by the STVA for at least three months, possibly longer (this depends on the previous files and criminal record). Further, the traffic office would not have to do anything (if the reputation is clean and no other violations have occurred). However, in this case, most STVAs will order a medical examination to determine fitness to drive. This is very likely to happen if the THC-COOH level is high.
	+
	+	===== Official medical examination =====
	+
	+	What comes out of the official medical examination depends very much on the corresponding doctor and the behavior of the subject during the examinations. But once these mills are running, it is very difficult to avert measures of the STVA. If the driver's license is retained, conditions are often imposed such as controlled THC abstinence (urine checks every two weeks for a year at the expense of the subject).
	+
	+	===== Orders of the STVA =====
	+
	+	Appeals are possible against all decisions of the STVA. However, you usually have to pay an advance on costs, which you only get back if you win the administrative court case. But this is unlikely. And even if you win (there are individual examples of this), the lawyer's fees are around 5,000 and the IRM investigation costs around 3,000 francs. In the end you might get 2'000 francs compensation...
	+
	+	===== Insurance measures =====
	+
	+	Anyone who has caused an accident can be held personally liable for the costs of the accident if THC has been detected in the blood
	+
	+	Recourse: In the event of an accident resulting in damage, the insurance company must pay for the damage (e.g. medical costs of the injured person and/or costs of a possible disability pension). However, it can take recourse against the person who caused the accident if he or she acted with gross negligence. Anyone who was driving under the influence of THC (example 3, possibly also example 2) must expect such a decision.
	+
	+	Costs: If someone has a serious accident and is no longer able to work, the costs are quickly in the range of 1 to 1.5 million francs. 20% of this is then 200,000 to 300,000 francs! If you are not very wealthy, you will probably have to pay off such an amount in monthly installments over your entire life.
	+
	+
	+	//
	+	Attention: The extremely low limit value of 1.5/2.14 µg/liter for driving a car can of course also be used by the IRM for other actions with accident consequences (e.g. operating heavy machinery). Thus, recourse for gross negligence could be possible in these cases as well. However, we have not yet seen any cases in this regard.//

Cannabis as medicine: dronabinol and marinol

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

Repression concrete - A police control in 2007

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li400202.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Repression concrete - A police control in 2007 ======
	+
	+	**The number of arrests for 2006 will follow soon, but statistics give only a weak impression of the severity of the repression, of the undignified searches, of the police harassment. Here is a concrete example of repression - even without THC consumption!
	+	**
	+	"We, four young adults, are sitting in a park talking to each other. We are not loud nor are we rioting. We see two policemen coming our way with a dog. But because we have done nothing forbidden we wait and remain seated. First the police checks our identity cards. With the male person a longer conversation follows, because he cannot identify himself.
	+
	+	===== The control =====
	+
	+	Then they start checking the bags. We have to take everything out of the bags and put it on the bench. The cell phones are checked to see if they have been reported stolen. There is an empty Minigrip in my pocket. I am asked when I last consumed. But I explain to the policeman that I don't want to give any information on that.
	+	He threatens me that I should think it over again, because otherwise I will have to go to the police station. In my time to think it over, the bags of the others are searched. When the search of the others is over, he turns to me again. But I still don't want to give any information.
	+
	+	===== On the post =====
	+
	+	My colleague accompanies me. We have to walk all over the city with the policemen. I didn't feel so good. Somehow I was very nervous and my stomach was doing capers. When we arrived at the post, we could first wait. I was then fetched and was allowed/had to go into an office with the policeman. There was another policeman with us. But he said nothing. The first one started to question me. "When did you consume the last time?" Again and again this question came at me. And each time I said that I didn't want to say anything about it.
	+
	+	===== The void as "evidence =====
	+
	+	He said it was a minigrip with cannabis residue. If you were to chemically examine the grip, you might already find some residue. But by eye it is an empty grip. He went on to ask when I had last consumed. But I was still stubborn. I was shaking a lot and was afraid I would go black or vomit. At least I was given a glass of water. The policeman accused me of being under hard drugs because I was very pale and shaking. I explained to him that it was just the excitement. He explained to me that if I didn't tell him the last time I smoked pot, they would register me. I asked him what would happen if I gave him the information he wanted to hear now. I would be registered and get a report. This only strengthened my resolve to refuse to testify.
	+
	+	===== The refusal to testify =====
	+
	+	Finally he realized that I would not give him any information. On the protocol he wrote: "I make no statement to this!" I demanded that the exclamation mark be changed to a period. Because, after all, I didn't shout. "Now I have waited long enough, if you don't sign it, my colleague will sign it for you." For better or worse, I then signed.
	+	But that was not the end of it. In the meantime, several more policemen had arrived, including one who was now taking charge.
	+
	+	===== The search =====
	+
	+	I had to go into another room with a woman and had to undress upstairs. When she had looked under my arms and into my bra, I could get dressed again. But I had to take off my shoes, pants, socks and underwear to do so. I had to bend down and lift my feet. When I got dressed again she started talking to me. That I was probably not doing so well, that I must have problems and so on. Yes of course I have problems when I am at the police station on Saturday evening! She also started talking about other drugs again.
	+	I heard my colleague being heckled outside.
	+	When I was finally able to get out of that room, the matter was not yet over. My colleague, who only accompanied me voluntarily, also had to undress in front of the woman.
	+
	+	===== The drug test =====
	+
	+	I was taken into another room. There was a policeman inside and three other policemen were standing outside the door. He wanted me to take a drug test (Drugwipe-5). But I did not want to. He threatened me that they would take me to the hospital and take blood and urine samples. "So, now we're going to do the test..." I kept denying. Then at some point I couldn't take it anymore and agreed. With this test was rubbed on my tongue and then I had to wait a few minutes. The test came back negative. The matter then went very quickly. My colleague and I could leave the post and were free people again.
	+
	+	===== In conclusion =====
	+
	+	In general, they were not very professional. When we were in the park, I didn't have to empty my pockets, they just forgot. And my cigarette pouch was not checked by anyone. They just messed that up. I don't think there will be any repercussions for me. I guess it's not worth it to go to even more trouble because of an empty grip? After all, the effort was already considerable: the drug test alone costs the state 100 francs. If it had been positive, I would have had to pay for it. And then there are all those policemen who spent half an eternity dealing with us, they probably don't have a small hourly wage either. And not to mention the dog..."

About the nonsense and the cost of repression

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li400405.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== About the nonsense and the cost of repression ======
	+
	+	Trying to enforce a ban costs money. Two studies attempt to quantify the expense. We compare the two approaches. And we ask ourselves: Is it worth the effort? Or is it simply throwing money out the window? One thing is clear: a lot of money is at stake.
	+
	+	According to the Narcotics Act, handling THC products is completely prohibited for almost everyone. The police and the judiciary rely on this, and produce around 40,000 convictions in this area every year. The prosecution of the handlers and the consumers should not be an end in itself. The purpose of this effort is to increase the cost of dealing or consuming in such a way that neither dealing nor consuming is worthwhile. Thus, there should be less (or preferably no) THC products on the market, and THC users should be deterred from consumption by repression.
	+	However, comparisons between countries with different levels of repression show that the strength of prosecution has practically no influence on how many people have ever used THC products. This lifetime prevalence is, for example, much lower in Holland (where consumption and trade are largely tolerated) than in Switzerland.
	+
	+	===== The benefit of consumption =====
	+
	+	In other words, people use THC because it makes them feel very good. The consumption of THC therefore brings the users an improvement in their life situation. Consumption is not irrational, but reasonable and brings an increase in the enjoyment of life. Therefore, the users are quite insensitive to the persecution measures. "Legal, illegal, who gives a shit" is still the motto for many.
	+
	+	===== The nonsense of repression =====
	+
	+	Studies show that a doubling of repressive measures leads to a reduction in consumption of around 16%, and a doubling of fines leads to a reduction in consumption of only 0.8%.
	+	Although the number of convictions for THC use has been increasing for years, the number of people who have already used is also increasing. Thus, repression does not result in fewer people coming into contact with THC products. It seems to be the case that the more people are reported, the more people consume... Or vice versa, the more people use, the more people are reported. One can understand the numbers in both ways. But for both views it is true: Repression is simply pointless, because it clearly misses its goal (to reduce supply and demand). However, it does not come for free, but costs money. Money that taxpayers have to pay. Money that is lacking in other places and could do something useful there.
	+
	+	===== The first study =====
	+
	+	According to the 1st study, the costs for the prosecution of THC use can be estimated as follows for the year 2003.
	+	In 2003, the police forces of the various cantons and municipalities (excluding traffic police) spent about 3.4 billion francs. With this money, the police forces processed about 380,000 criminal cases. Of these, 37,000 are THC-related offenses, or about 10%. This corresponds to at least 340 million francs. However, since there are no victims of THC use and trafficking who have an interest in reporting (as with most other crimes) and alerting the police to the crimes, the police must actively seek out the offenders. The effort for this proactive approach is estimated in the first study to be 2.5 times in relation to another report (where, after all, a report by an aggrieved party often triggers the prosecution ). Thus, the various police forces spend as much as about 821 million francs each year on the prosecution of THC use.
	+	In addition to the cantonal police forces, the federal government also spends around 300 million francs on repression. Of this, one fifth is spent on drug repression, of which about 80% is spent on THC repression. This adds up to a further cost of around 47 million francs.
	+	The expenses for the judiciary are added to this, the total for the whole of Switzerland amounts to 1.3 billion. Criminal justice, which is relevant for us here, consumes about 30% of this, of which about 25% is for THC repression. This results in about 97 million francs for THC repression.
	+	The penal system (both the actual sentences to be served and pre-trial detention, prisoner transport, etc.) needs about 771 million per year. Even though unconditional sentences in the THC area are not very frequent, it is assumed that about 75 million are spent on our area (about 10%).
	+	According to the first study, the total amount spent on THC repression in Switzerland in 2003 was over one billion francs.
	+
	+	===== The second study =====
	+
	+	The Federal Council's message on the initiative also mentions the costs of repression. It says: "The costs of repressive measures in 2003 amounted to an estimated 74.8 to 106.5 million francs." So how does the administration come up with these much lower figures? To find out, we organized and read the second study that calculated these amounts. Although it mostly assumes the same basic figures, it arrives at much lower amounts because of other assumptions.
	+	In general, this study excludes from the outset all referrals that are not exclusively about THC use or trafficking, but also other illegal offenses (theft, for example). In addition, it is assumed here that a report for THC consumption only accounts for one fifth of the time of a report for hard drugs.
	+	This puts the value for police spending at only about 60 million francs. A second estimate of the study (simply 20 percent of the total costs for the prosecution of illegal narcotics) comes to the slightly higher value of about 90 million francs.
	+	To this must be added the costs of the non-cantonal police forces: Border police, other security services and federal police agencies. This adds up to another three to five million francs.
	+	The second study puts the court costs at just under seven million francs. But here, too, court cases involving other criminal acts are simply omitted altogether.
	+	In the penal system, even only one percent of the total drug costs are included, which does not add up to four million francs.
	+	The costs of miscellaneous items (prisoner transport, etc.) are also estimated at one percent, which adds up to another million.
	+	Intotal, the second study arrives at 74.8 to 106.5 million francs, which are spent annually on THC repression. This is a good ten times less than in the first study.
	+
	+	===== What is true now? =====
	+
	+	The second study certainly underestimates the costs. Just by excluding all court cases and referrals that have to do with other than THC, it obviously underestimates a part of the costs. Because even if the other offenses have to be prosecuted under legal THC conditions, each report, each individual offense needs its processing time. And thus it causes costs. This study, however, has a special approach: It wants to quantify the potential savings that could result from legalization and virtually adds up the "net costs".
	+	The first study, on the other hand, tries to calculate the total costs as full costs, quasi as "gross costs". In doing so, it seems to me to take a much more well-founded approach than the second. The police costs are perhaps somewhat overestimated here, the factor 2.5 could be too high.
	+	Our calculations (in the box on page 4) indicate an amount between the two studies.
	+	What is very certain, however, is that our state spends hundreds of millions francs annually on THC repression! And: In any case, a lot of money is spent on repression without any socially useful results.
	+
	+	===== Who benefits from the current situation, who from legalization? =====
	+
	+	The THC illegality benefits a part of the repressive organs (only thanks to the prohibition they receive their wages) and the dealers (only thanks to the illegality they are in business). So both groups have a common economic interest in today's illegality.
	+	THC users and society, on the other hand, have a great common interest in legalization. For the users: The quality would be better; there would be no more prosecution. For society: The costs of consumption would be paid by the users themselves and no longer by the general public; less tax money would be needed for the police; there would be less crime.
	+
	+	===== Taxation instead of repression! =====
	+
	+	It would therefore be much more advantageous for society if THC products were legalized and taxed at the level of the actual costs:
	+	This would eliminate the costs of state repression (the costs of control would be passed on to the legalized trade), and the social costs of consumption would be recovered through the taxation of stimulants. In addition, one takes away the basis of the whole criminal energy, which is connected with the THC-trade today. This would make it impossible for criminal gangs to get rich from the trade and invest the money in further crime (terrorism, mafia structures). Today, on the other hand, the senseless and ineffective repression makes these money flows possible in the first place and is complicit in them.
	+	**The whole society, not only the consumers, would be better off with a legalization.
	+	**
	+
	+
	+	\| Study 1 \| Baumann, Sheron. Economic analysis of the Swiss cannabis market. Licentiate thesis at the University of Bern, 2006. \|
	+	\| Study 2 \| Jeanrenaud, Claude. Initiative populaire fédérale "Pour une politique raisonnable en matière de chanvre protégeant efficacement la jeuneusse," Analyse de l'impact économique. Institut de recherches économique, Université de Neuchâtel, 2006. \|
	+
	+
	+	===== Our own account =====
	+
	+	We try to make our own estimate of the costs from practical experience.
	+	Each report for THC use must be detected (assumption: this takes an average of one hour patrol by two officers), then the person must be stopped, checked, questioned and made to sign the protocol. Occasionally, a ride-along to the post and a strip search must also be arranged. In addition, a report must be prepared, the confiscated items must be filed and later destroyed, the business check must be done (assumption: on average two hours of work for two officers). Then a summary penalty order has to be formulated and drawn up, sent out and the collection supervised and occasionally debt collection and the like organized (assumption: one hour's work).
	+	In total, this adds up to seven hours, multiplied by 35,735 reprimands (year 2005), multiplied by 150 francs (estimated total cost of one police working hour) thus adds up to 37.5 million francs.
	+	(The cost of training, meetings, work materials, documentation, vacations, and the like are included in the full cost assumptions above).
	+	For the 3,322 referrals for THC trafficking, we estimate 415 hours per case (general/dossier management 20, personal and telephone monitoring 70, translations 10, subpoenas 5, interviews of defendants and witnesses 40, house searches and raids 80, pre-trial detention 20, arraignment 20, court sessions of all instances incl. preparation 100, execution 50). Thus, 415 x 150 x 3,322 = about 207 million francs.
	+	Thus, we estimate the total cost to be at least 250 million francs per year, which is between the two studies cited.
	+
	+	===== The nonsense of the THC ban =====
	+
	+	In other words, a market that generates around one billion francs per year (for this estimate, see Legalize it! issue 38, page 6) is being fought with hundreds of millions of tax francs per year. This should then be a good example of proportional nonsense.
	+	The amount of the social costs of THC consumption is about 189 million francs per year, if one assumes that per consumed joint costs are similar to the costs for the consumption of a cigarette. However, the black market does not cover these costs at all. Society has to pay these costs in addition to the repression costs.
	+	This makes the repression against THC finally absurd:
	+
	+	- First, it does not reduce the contact with THC products.
	+
	+	- Secondly, it costs hundreds of millions francs per year.
	+
	+	- Third, the social costs of consumption are lower than the repression costs.
	+
	+	**Thus, more money is spent to fight the "evil" than it actually costs. And in doing so, one does not even achieve a reduction of this "problem", which the people concerned themselves experience as something highly pleasant.
	+	**

Cannabis as medicine: interactions

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li400606.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Cannabis as medicine: interactions ======
	+	**
	+	The active substances in hemp have a variety of effects. We listed the medical possibilities in the last issue. If other active ingredients are consumed in addition to cannabinoids, interactions may occur**.
	+
	+	Cannabis and THC can either increase or decrease the effects of other medications. Conversely, other medications can also modulate cannabis effects. Interactions often happen because the drugs and cannabis target the same receptors. The degradation process of the substances also plays an important role. The most important interactions with other medications known today are listed below.
	+
	+	===== Antidepressants =====
	+
	+	The sedative effect of tricyclic antidepressants may be enhanced. The antidepressant effect may also be enhanced.
	+
	+	===== Benzodiazepines =====
	+
	+	The antiepileptic effect of benzodiazepines may be enhanced.
	+
	+	===== Beta blocker =====
	+
	+	The increase in heart rate caused by cannabis can be reduced by beta blockers.
	+
	+	===== Anti-nausea agents =====
	+
	+	The antiemetic properties of cannabis and phenothiazines may reinforce each other. In the case of serotonin antagonists, which are frequently used in cancer chemotherapy, the same applies.
	+
	+	===== Glaucoma medication =====
	+
	+	The intraocular pressure-lowering effects of cannabis and corresponding medications reinforce each other.
	+
	+	===== Insulin =====
	+
	+	In humans, no relevant influences of cannabis on sugar metabolism are shown.
	+
	+	===== Neuroleptics =====
	+
	+	The antipsychotic effect of neuroleptics can be reduced. Conversely, cannabis can contribute to the reduction of movement disorders triggered by neuroleptics.
	+
	+	===== Opiates =====
	+
	+	The pain-relieving effects of the two substances can reinforce each other. In addition, cannabis counteracts the nausea that opiates sometimes cause.
	+
	+	===== Sleeping pills =====
	+
	+	The sedative and sleep-inducing effects can be enhanced by cannabis.
	+
	+	===== Theophylline =====
	+
	+	This is a substance used to treat asthma. Cannabis accelerates the breakdown of theophylline, which can lead to an increase in the dose of the same.
	+
	+	===== Alcohol =====
	+
	+	Cannabis and alcohol mutually reinforce each other's effects. Caution is advised when driving a vehicle or handling heavy machinery (reactivity, concentration).
	+
	+	===== Heart rate increasing substances =====
	+
	+	The heart rate increasing property of cannabis can be enhanced by such substances (e.g. amphetamine, cocaine, atropine). Caution with higher doses. Serious complications may occur with existing heart disease.
	+
	+	===== Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs =====
	+
	+	These include aspirin, for example. These inhibit the psychological effects, heart rate acceleration, lowering of intraocular pressure and probably many other positive properties of THC. However, a combination is not harmful.
	+
	+	===== Contraindications and precautions =====
	+
	+	Absolute contraindication means that drugs must not be taken under any circumstances; relative contraindication means that they may only be used under certain conditions.
	+
	+	===== Absolute contraindication =====
	+
	+	There are people who are allergic to THC or other cannabis components. Under these circumstances, consumption should be refrained from.
	+
	+	===== Relative contraindications =====
	+
	+	Relative contraindications include severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia. Conversely, however, cannabis can also have a positive effect on individual people with psychiatric disorders.
	+
	+	Pregnancy and nursing mothers should also be cautious because of possible transmission to the (unborn) child.
	+
	+	In heart diseases (coronary sclerosis, time after myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, cardiac insufficiency) overdoses should be avoided.
	+
	+	Older people in principle react differently to drugs than younger people. In their case, cannabis may cause unpleasant psychological side effects.
	+
	+	Caution is also advised when using heavy machinery or driving a vehicle, as the ability to concentrate and psychomotor skills may be affected.
	+
	+	Patients suffering from Huntington's disease may experience a temporary worsening of symptoms.
	+
	+	===== Cannabis is well tolerated =====
	+
	+	Cannabis products are very well tolerated and also well proven for thousands of years. The side effects are low and there are few interactions. Nevertheless, the use of THC is still completely prohibited!
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li400606.jpg?800x400}} \|

The prosecution stagnates at a very high level

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/11/29 16:16		Version actuelle
Ligne 19:		Ligne 19:
	Penalties for violations are not entered in the criminal register, but only stored in the local police databases (and can also only be accessed by the respective police authority). However, efforts and attempts are underway to link all these databases, so that a police officer in Aargau will also be able to see whether someone in Graubünden has already received a fine for THC consumption. But this system is only in development.		Penalties for violations are not entered in the criminal register, but only stored in the local police databases (and can also only be accessed by the respective police authority). However, efforts and attempts are underway to link all these databases, so that a police officer in Aargau will also be able to see whether someone in Graubünden has already received a fine for THC consumption. But this system is only in development.

-	===== ... and misdemeanor =====	+	===== ... and misdemeanors =====

	However, anyone who gives away, brokers or even sells hash or weed is now no longer committing a contravention, but a misdemeanor. And this is already the case if you give someone a gram of hash for their birthday: This is passing on, and this is not only punished with a fine, but mostly also with a (often conditional) monetary penalty in the amount of a few daily sentences.		However, anyone who gives away, brokers or even sells hash or weed is now no longer committing a contravention, but a misdemeanor. And this is already the case if you give someone a gram of hash for their birthday: This is passing on, and this is not only punished with a fine, but mostly also with a (often conditional) monetary penalty in the amount of a few daily sentences.

Practice of the current THC regulation in traffic.

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li410606.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Practice of the current THC regulation in traffic. ======
	+
	+	**Convictions for driving under the influence of THC are on the rise, and driver's license suspensions for THC use are increasing and increasing. One affected person describes his experiences with the "zero tolerance" practice in road traffic.
	+	**
	+
	+	Since January 1, 2005, the new traffic regulations law has been in force, which sets a THC limit. As with the alcohol limit, this is intended to increase road safety and reduce the number of accidents. In theory, this sounds very reasonable, but what does it look like in everyday practice?
	+
	+	===== Very long "THC positive =====
	+
	+	Since THC is detectable for much longer (hours to days in the psychoactive form, weeks to months as a breakdown product - depending on the consumption habit) than it develops its effect (a few hours), it is very difficult to set a limit that keeps intoxicated road users off the roads and leaves responsible ones unmolested. A regular smoker will still have a blood level that is too high even after several days of abstinence, although he has long been sober! With the current limit value, all regular consumers are severely punished and classified as "unfit to drive".
	+
	+	===== A concrete example =====
	+
	+	I will give my case as an example: On a Wednesday evening in the summer of 2005, I was 18 years young, my brother visits me at my home, where we enjoy some joints after dinner. After a restful night, I ride a motorcycle to school, home for lunch, and then back to school. After that I drive directly to the training club where I have been training since I was twelve years old. After three hours of competition preparation, it's 10 p.m., I'm looking forward to dinner, to my girlfriend and of course to my evening hemp pleasure. It's been almost exactly 24 hours since I last took a drag on a joint.
	+
	+	On my way home, right by the National Museum in Zurich, I'm stopped by a group of police officers who want to test me for drugs after the ticket check - a routine check, as they say. Since I'm sober and not yet very well informed about our new traffic rules, I'm not worried at all. But the quick test on the spot is positive and the policemen take away my keys and ID cards to take urine, blood and saliva from me at a police station and hold me for hours.
	+
	+	I was treated like a "druggie", although I stressed several times that I came directly from training and had not consumed anything throughout the day. At some point, a policeman told me that it didn't matter whether I was driving stoned or not, only the blood value counted. That's why all the coordination, reaction and balance tests, which I passed without any problems, hardly mattered. From then on, I am considered "unfit to drive" and am undesirable in road traffic.
	+
	+	I am now 20 years young, work as a security guard in an administrative office, and since the driver's license revocation, I have twice become a champion in a full-contact martial art and have subsequently also been nominated for international competitions. When I was drafted, I was assigned to the top athlete RS. I have no problems with my hemp consumption and am physically and mentally in top shape, which is also confirmed by all medical reports within the framework of this procedure. Nevertheless, if I wanted my ID card back, I would have to have blood and urine taken every two weeks for several thousand francs for years and not smoke a single joint! All this after being checked completely sober... Unbelievable, but it happens every day!
	+
	+	===== An unjust law =====
	+
	+	So we see, this law serves at most marginally the traffic safety, rather responsible hemp consumers are discriminated with it every day and even downright insulted as "unfit to drive". Everybody understands this problem and since this does not only affect the half a million Swiss hemp users, but also their families, business partners and finally our whole society, it is even more important that we take action. And not only when we ourselves or our children or life partners are affected!
	+
	+	===== What can we do? =====
	+
	+	For example, we can support the association Legalize it! with a donation. Or with a membership at Legalize it!, the association for THC culture and the complete hemp legalization, which also offers free (!) legal consultations, promote its activities.
	+
	+	But you can also make all the people in your personal environment aware of this problem and explain the situation to them.
	+
	+	I hope that this report has made clear the uselessness and the need for change of the current THC repression in road traffic.

The policy after the elections

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:li420606.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li420606.jpg}} \|

-	====== Politics after the elections ======


-	Parliament has been reappointed and another four-year term has begun. There are drug policy decisions to be made, but unfortunately there is very little hope that anything good will come out of it. An overview of the state of politics.	+	====== The policy after the elections ======
		+
		+
		+	Parliament has been reappointed and another four-year legislature has begun. There are drug policy decisions to be made, but unfortunately there is very little hope that anything good will come out of it. An overview of the state of politics.

	===== The elections are over =====		===== The elections are over =====

-	In the big picture not much has changed in this year's elections: The losses of the one civic party are the gains of the other, and also Red-Green has a few seats **exchanged**. The parliament will continue to be clearly bourgeois and FDP and CVP are still not on the legalization course in the THC issue. A majority for the legalization of THC is thus still not in sight.	+	In the big picture, not much has changed in this year's elections: The losses of the one civic party are the gains of the other, and Red-Green has also **swapped a few seats**. The parliament will continue to be clearly bourgeois and FDP and CVP are still not on the legalization course in the THC issue. A majority for the legalization of THC is thus still not in sight.

	===== The opinion of the elected =====		===== The opinion of the elected =====

-	Smartvote.ch asked all the candidates about various political issues in the run-up to the elections. There was also a question on the subject of cannabis: "Should the possession and consumption of cannabis be legalized?" 187 of the now elected National Councillors answered the question and we ordered the data from Smartvote.ch and analysed it. 60 elected answered the question with "Yes", another 18 with "Rather Yes". "Rather No" said 15 elected, another 94 (!) "No." (13 did not answer the question.) This means that the ratio between the favourable and unfavourable camps is around 40:60. So a clear majority does not want to know anything about legalization - not even if it is only about consumption and possession! Only the Green Liberals, the representative of the Party of Labour and the one Christian Social are united in favour of legalisation in the National Council. The majority of the Greens and the Social Democrats are in favour. The Free Democrats are divided. The majority of CVP members are against and the SVP even knows only one dissenter from the No-parole. The "Liberals", the Lega, the EVP and the EDU are united against a legalization of THC consumption. (By the way: The detailed list with all those elected and their answers is available to members free of charge).	+	Smartvote.ch asked all candidates about various political topics in the run-up to the elections. There was also a question on the topic of cannabis: "Should the possession and consumption of cannabis be legalized?" 187 of the now elected National Councilors answered the question and we ordered the data from Smartvote.ch and analyzed it. 60 elected answered the question with "Yes", another 18 with "Rather Yes". "Rather No" said 15 elected, another 94 (!) "No". (13 did not answer the question.) Thus the ratio between the favoring and the opposing camp is about 40:60. So a clear majority does not want to know anything about legalization - not even if it is only about consumption and possession! In the National Council, only the Green Liberals, the representative of the Party of Labor and the one Christian Social are united in favor of legalization. The majority of the Greens and the Social Democrats are in favor. The Free Democrats are divided. The majority of the CVP members are against it, and the SVP even knows only one dissenter from the No-parole. The "Liberals", the Lega, the EVP and the EDU are united against a legalization of THC consumption. (By the way: Members are welcome to order the detailed list with all those elected and their answers free of charge).
-	Even if the Council of States were to draft a mini-variant as a counter-proposal to the (chance-less) hemp initiative, one can hardly imagine hardly imagine, how such a proposal could find a majority in the National Council.	+	Even if the Council of States were to draft a mini-variant as a counter-proposal to the (chance-less) hemp initiative, one can hardly imagine how such a proposal could find a majority in the National Council.

	===== No partial revision for hemp =====		===== No partial revision for hemp =====

-	The Committee for Social Security and Health of the National Council SGK-NR discussed the cannabis issue and other drug policy proposals on 8/9 November. Instead of making decisions, the committee postponed these issues: further discussions will only take place after the vote on the hemp initiative. This means that for the foreseeable future there will be no second partial revision of the BetmG, i.e. no legalisation of THC consumption.	+	The Committee for Social Security and Health of the National Council SGK-NR discussed the cannabis issue and other drug policy proposals on November 8/9. Instead of making decisions, the commission postponed these topics: further discussions will only take place after the vote on the hemp initiative. This means that there will be no second partial revision of NarcA in the foreseeable future, i.e. no legalization of THC consumption.

-	===== Step by step in the partial revision of the Narcotics Act (05.470) =====	+	===== Step by step at NarcA-partial-revision (05.470) =====

-	- Commission of the National Council launches Commission Initiative 02/05	+	- Commission of the National Council launches commission initiative 02/05

	- Commission of the Council of States gives green light 05/05		- Commission of the Council of States gives green light 05/05

-	- National Council adopts Commission initiative with amendments 12/06	+	- National Council adopts commission initiative with amendments 12/06

	- Commission of the Council of States approves the project 10/07		- Commission of the Council of States approves the project 10/07

-	- Council of States discusses 18.12.07	+	- Council of States discusses 18/12/07

	- Differences NR/SR open		- Differences NR/SR open
Ligne 35:		Ligne 37:
	- Final vote open		- Final vote open

-	(This makes the text of the law definitive).	+	(This makes the text of the law final).

	- Referendum is likely		- Referendum is likely

-	- referendum open	+	- Referendum open

	- Entry into force open		- Entry into force open
Ligne 47:		Ligne 49:
	- Initiative submitted 01/06		- Initiative submitted 01/06

-	- Federal Council rejects initiative, no counter-proposal 12/06	+	- Federal Council rejects initiative, no counterproposal 12/06

-	- Commission of the National Council rejects initiative; no counter-proposal (being prepared 02/07)	+	- Commission of the National Council rejects initiative; no counter-proposal (to be prepared 02/07)

-	- National Council discusses 4./5.12.07	+	- National Council discusses **12/4/5/07**

-	- Commission of the Council of States discussed, possible counter-proposal? open	+	- Commission of the Council of States discusses, possible counter-proposal? open

-	- Council of States discusses openly	+	- Council of States discussed open

	- Final vote open		- Final vote open
Ligne 61:		Ligne 63:
	- Referendum on initiative (and possible counter-proposal?) open		- Referendum on initiative (and possible counter-proposal?) open

-	- Initiative is defeated, but by what proportion of votes?	+	- Initiative rejected, but with what proportion of votes?

The hemp initiative without a chance?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li430505.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The hemp initiative without a chance? ======
	+
	+	The National Council does not want to know anything about the hemp initiative. The right blames THC consumption for a large part of suicides, car accidents, acts of violence and dissolved apprenticeship contracts, while it continues to regard alcohol trafficking as a respectable business.
	+
	+	The National Council discussed the hemp initiative in December 2007. As expected, it does not want to support this petition for a referendum - and made this very clear in the vote with 106 votes against 70 and three abstentions.
	+
	+	===== CVP =====
	+
	+	The CVP repeated the false argument that the THC content of today's cannabis is much higher than in the 70s. Sure, if you compare today's weed with back then, the content has increased a lot. But in the 70s there was almost no weed. Everybody smoked hash - and much better hash than can be found on the black market today. So if anything, one would have to compare today's weed with hash back then. But that seems to be too much for our politics. And: Just if it would be legal, the policy could fix a THC maximum or a differentiated taxation according to THC content.
	+
	+	===== The Greens =====
	+
	+	The Greens pointed out the high costs of senseless consumer prosecution. They do want to enable legal consumption, but not as a free pass, but with clear rules and also sanctions. Above all, they want to transform the black market into a legal, controlled market.
	+
	+	===== SVP =====
	+
	+	The SVP saw cannabis as a great evil - there is no need for legalization, but: "The ban on hashish must be consistently enforced".
	+
	+	===== SP =====
	+
	+	The SP pointed out the contradiction that the same parliament is focusing on personal responsibility in the case of alcohol, because it is sacred to many and recognized as an economic good. The most persistent opposition to cannabis is found among the anti-68ers, who are still fighting against the social upheaval of the 1970s and think that cannabis is a suitable target.
	+	In fact, it is absurd to see that almost only the parliamentary left is in favor of legalization, while among today's consumers (besides a majority of apolitical consumers who never vote), there are probably as many bourgeois as left-wing THC users. Anyway, we have all of them in our association: The left-wing social worker, the liberal banker, the apolitical IV pensioner, the bourgeois young entrepreneur, the individualistic old hippie, the cramping craftsman, the hedonistic accountant - from left-green to bourgeois or even apolitical. THC enjoyment runs through the whole of society.
	+
	+	===== FDP =====
	+
	+	The "liberal" members of the FDP, on the other hand, were only in favor of this cause in a small, albeit committed, minority. The majority, on the other hand, showed no sign of being liberal or even liberal-minded.
	+
	+	===== The handling decides =====
	+
	+	Furthermore, the SP, like all addiction experts, points out that it is not the substance (i.e. alcohol or cannabis) that is the problem, but how it is used: A little, a lot, in a moderate way or mixed with many other drugs. That is where the problems lie.
	+	One can agree with that. Even if we consider THC to be a low-risk substance compared to alcohol, we still see people overdoing it with cannabis. The main problem with smoking pot is still smoking - but the smokers themselves know that best. And: We also have non-smoking THC-users as members. But this is already beyond the horizon of our politics...
	+
	+	===== Opportunity principle =====
	+
	+	The CVP would be in favor of an opportunity principle, but it wants to retain the fundamental punishability of consumption. In other words, punishment is a must, but it doesn't have to be an exorbitant penalty. Like in St. Gallen, where one with less than 5 grams in the bag "only" pays a fine of 50 francs (if one is an adult).
	+
	+	===== A liberal project =====
	+
	+	Josef Lang from the Green Group summed it up best: The initiative is not a left-wing project, but a liberal one. Self-damaging actions must not be punished and to the hemp advocates: "All the arguments you have brought forward for a hemp ban also speak for an alcohol ban. But they have legalized absinthe...

We bring clarity into the confusion

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 12:		Ligne 12:
	We have had a stalemate for years: The Council of States is in favor of decriminalizing THC use, while the National Council bucks and repeatedly refuses to even discuss such a project. Ultimately, however, a double majority is needed to change the existing law. And that is currently not in sight.		We have had a stalemate for years: The Council of States is in favor of decriminalizing THC use, while the National Council bucks and repeatedly refuses to even discuss such a project. Ultimately, however, a double majority is needed to change the existing law. And that is currently not in sight.
	After the commission of the National Council voted for the second time (with 10 to 8 votes) against a consumption decriminalization (counter-proposal to the hemp initiative) in mid-February 2008, the proposal of the commission of the Council of States has now failed - this commission does not want to work on it either.		After the commission of the National Council voted for the second time (with 10 to 8 votes) against a consumption decriminalization (counter-proposal to the hemp initiative) in mid-February 2008, the proposal of the commission of the Council of States has now failed - this commission does not want to work on it either.
-	This leaves as a possible innovation for the next few years only the **administrative fine model**, as it has known St. Gallen for years: The consumers are punished in petty cases (maximum five grams) slightly lower (fine of 50 francs instead of a fine of 150 francs upwards). This approach is also cheaper for the state (much less paperwork, fast processing). Perhaps other cantons will follow this model?	+	This leaves as a possible innovation for the next few years only the **fixed penalty model**, as it has known St. Gallen for years: The consumers are punished in petty cases (maximum five grams) slightly lower (fine of 50 francs instead of a fine of 150 francs upwards). This approach is also cheaper for the state (much less paperwork, fast processing). Perhaps other cantons will follow this model?

	===== The contents of NarcA-partial-revision (05.470) =====		===== The contents of NarcA-partial-revision (05.470) =====
Ligne 107:		Ligne 107:
	- Commission of the Council of States discusses the No of the Commission of the National Council and gives up 02/08		- Commission of the Council of States discusses the No of the Commission of the National Council and gives up 02/08

-	This means that this project has failed. The regulatory fine model remains open.	+	This means that this project has failed. The fixed penalty model remains open.

Summer 2008: Parliament has passed - now it's the people's turn

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:bundeshausmitjoint.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Summer 2008: Parliament has passed - now it's the people's turn ======
	+
	+	In March, things suddenly moved forward quickly: Both the NarcA partial revision and the hemp initiative have been finalized by parliament. It is quite certain that both bills will have to be assessed together by the voters.
	+
	+	===== Hemp Initiative =====
	+
	+	In the end, the Council of States was somewhat annoyed about the abrupt no of the National Council's commission to the counter-proposal. The Council of States had initiated and supported such a counter-proposal in order to oppose the hemp initiative with a less far-reaching proposal (which would have had greater chances of realization).
	+	While the Council of States had narrowly rejected the initiative on March 11 with 18 to 16 votes, the Council of States voted even more narrowly against the initiative in the final vote on March 20, with 19 to 18 votes. Unfortunately, the anger of the Council of States was not enough for more - in the end, both chambers of our parliament rejected the initiative.
	+	So, once again, the parliament failed. A total ban on THC is not tenable under the rule of law, it contradicts our federal constitution and human rights and must therefore be changed.
	+	By the way, this is also the opinion of the official expert commission: In January, the Federal Commission on Narcotic Drugs EKDF confirmed its opinion on the handling of THC in an update of its major cannabis report from 1999. It calls for a strictly regulated market and a fundamental lifting of the ban on consumption, which could, however, continue to be enforced in certain places or situations. This would be a reasonable and constitutional way of dealing with THC. Our politicians should also be guided by this. But: They have failed.
	+	The voting date is fixed: On November 30, 2008, the people will have their say. But there is probably no hope that a majority of the voters will vote for us, for a minority with a special preference. Pleasure and intoxication - these ancient companions and comforters of mankind are currently under a lot of pressure. The zeitgeist is not at all in line with this, as the referendum campaign will show.
	+
	+	===== NarcA-partial-revision =====
	+
	+	In March, the National Council and the Council of States went back and forth a few more times: the last differences between the two councils had to be resolved. On March 20, both councils voted in favor of this partial revision, the Council of States even without a dissenting vote.
	+	On the far right, the EDU has launched a referendum against the law. It is supported by the SVP. They have to collect 50,000 valid signatures by July 10. This will allow them to force a referendum on this law. This would then also take place on November 30, 2008.
	+	This means that there will be two votes on drug policy before the end of the year. There will be heated discussions all around - and then two decisions that will determine Swiss drug policy for many years to come.
	+
	+	===== The contents of the hemp initiative (06.106) =====
	+
	+	* THC use, as well as all acts necessary for it (purchase, cultivation, possession) are immediately exempt from punishment
	+
	+	* The federal government is to issue regulations for the trade in THC products (this means that implementation laws are needed here; the authorities have a great deal of leeway in this regard)
	+
	+	* The protection of minors must be respected
	+
	+	* No advertising for THC products
	+
	+	* No advertising for THC use
	+
	+	===== The schedule at the hemp initiative (06.106) =====
	+
	+	* Initiative submitted 01/06
	+
	+	* Federal Council rejects initiative; no counterproposal 12/06
	+
	+	* Commission of the National Council rejects initiative; no counter-proposal is prepared 02/07
	+
	+	* National Council rejects 12/07
	+
	+	* Commission of the Council of States also rejects initiative 01/08
	+
	+	* Council of States rejects 03/08
	+
	+	* Final vote 03/08
	+
	+	* Federal Council sets voting date 05/08
	+
	+	* Voting campaign from 07/08
	+
	+	* Referendum 30.11.08
	+
	+	* Rejection with what percentage yes?
	+
	+	===== The contents of NarcA-partial-revision (05.470) =====
	+
	+	* Anchoring of the 4-pillar policy (prevention, therapy, harm reduction, repression)
	+
	+	* Possibly allow THC as a remedy (the exact conditions for this are still unclear), but THC use remains fundamentally punishable by law
	+
	+	* Definitive legalization of heroin prescription (beyond the year 2009).
	+
	+	* Replacing the term "hemp herb for narcotic production" with cannabis products (simplification of hemp plant-prosecution)
	+
	+
	+	===== The schedule at NarcA-partial-revision (05.470). =====
	+
	+	* Commission of the National Council launches commission initiative 02/05
	+
	+	* Commission of the Council of States gives green light 05/05
	+
	+	* National Council adopts commission initiative with amendments 12/06
	+
	+	* Commission of the Council of States approves the project 10/07
	+
	+	* Council of States also agrees 12/07
	+
	+	* Revision of differences NR/SR 03/08
	+
	+	* Final vote 03/08 (This makes the text of the law final).
	+
	+	* Referendum runs until... 10.07.08 Probably successful, then...
	+
	+	* Referendum 30.11.08
	+
	+	* Entry into force open

Autumn 2008: A lot will be decided on 30.11.2009

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

Autumn 2008: Arguments for the hemp initiative

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:pflanzenhaufen.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Autumn 2008: Arguments for the hemp initiative ======
	+
	+	Now you can still convince relatives, write letters to the editor, work with neighbors, change the minds of colleagues or even start a discussion with people on the street. A few arguments for that. After November 30, it is then run
	+
	+	The two core messages, the central messages for the hemp initiative, are:
	+
	+	- The hemp initiative creates order, puts an end to arbitrary law, sets clear guard rails and enables preventive action and early intervention.
	+	- The hemp initiative abolishes a superfluous ban that achieves nothing, costs a lot and pumps a billion into the illegal market every year - and deprives the state of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money.
	+
	+	Now follow active arguments, then answers to some of the most common questions about THC use.
	+
	+	===== The cannabis problem is (still) big and urgent! =====
	+
	+	Even if public visibility has decreased in recent years and the latest statistics suggest a stabilization of the consumption rate at a high level: Cannabis is and remains the most widely used illicit drug in Switzerland. 28 percent of the Swiss population aged 15 to 39 have smoked pot at some time. Almost every second young person between 16 and 20 in Vaud or Zurich smokes pot at least once a month.
	+
	+	===== Today's prohibition policies are failing! =====
	+
	+	We have a law that prohibits cannabis in general, but that...
	+	* cannot be implemented
	+	* is handled differently from canton to canton
	+	* creates a great deal of legal uncertainty
	+	* undermines the credibility of the rule of law
	+	* Tying up resources in repressive rather than preventive measures
	+	* and quite obviously cannot effectively curb the spread of cannabis!
	+	In any other area, such an obviously ineffectual policy would be changed. Ideological blinkers prevent this in the area of cannabis policy. Switzerland continues to invest in the most expensive and ineffective measures.
	+
	+	===== Today's cannabis policies are harmful! =====
	+
	+	Cannabis prohibition harms users more than cannabis itself:
	+	* The prohibition of cannabis makes it impossible to control the products consumed. Consumers are completely unprotected. They lack information about what they consume.
	+	* The THC content is not controllable.
	+	* Toxic pesticides are inhaled as well.
	+	* Admixtures such as glass splinters and lead pellets are a hazard to consumers.
	+	* The markets for cannabis, cocaine and heroin are mixing (and while cannabis prices are rising, cocaine prices are falling...).
	+
	+	===== The biggest interest in cannabis prohibition is the mafia! =====
	+
	+	* Cannabis prohibition makes cannabis trafficking a lucrative field of activity for drug dealers.
	+	* The black market is flourishing and developing in a completely undesirable direction: instead of local producers and dealers, international criminal networks increasingly dominate the cannabis market.
	+	* Cannabis prohibition pumps a thousand million francs into the underworld every year - and deprives the state of hundreds of millions in tax revenue francs.
	+
	+	===== Cannabis prohibition hinders prevention and youth protection! =====
	+
	+	* Prohibition policies prevent adolescents or adult problem users from talking openly about problems without fear of sanctions
	+	* The prohibition policy leads to cannabis use being hidden. This prevents early detection and increases the risk of chronic use.
	+
	+	===== A sober cannabis policy achieves its goals! =====
	+
	+	* It enables control.
	+	* It leads to later first use (18 years and older).
	+	* It reduces the harmfulness of the products consumed.
	+	* It identifies young people at risk at an early stage and intervenes in a manner appropriate to the target group.
	+
	+	===== A sober cannabis policy invests in prevention and youth protection! =====
	+
	+	More than 30,000 cannabis-related convictions per year cause an enormous administrative burden and produce unnecessary costs in the millions. This money is missing for prevention and counseling.
	+
	+	A sober cannabis policy relies on personal responsibility!
	+	The state must not dictate to adults what they should and should not consume. But it must inform them about the risks and have a regulating effect. Therefore, cannabis consumption by adults must be exempt from punishment, as long as third parties are not harmed by it (protection of passive smokers).
	+
	+	===== A sober cannabis policy sets limits! =====
	+
	+	* Young people need close support that sets limits and strengthens resources. And they need prospects (professional development, recognition).
	+	* A cannabis policy with a sense of proportion sends a clear normative signal: we don't want minors to smoke pot. Anyone who crosses this line must seek help.
	+	* The professional community has developed demonstrably effective programs and services for cannabis-using youth (and adults) in recent years.
	+
	+	===== A sober cannabis policy creates order! =====
	+
	+	* There needs to be a clearly regulated market for cannabis trade. The black market is everywhere, but the controlled cannabis trade is only where you want it!
	+	* A clearly regulated market allows control of trade and product quality.
	+	* The black market privatizes the profits and passes the costs on to the general public. Only a regulated market allows clear taxation, which pays for prevention, counseling and social follow-up costs.
	+
	+	===== Stoners cause accidents? =====
	+
	+	If you smoke pot, you don't drive! A law on this is in place: "Driving under drugs" is a misdemeanor, the limit is practically zero.
	+
	+	===== Smoking pot makes you lethargic, reduces performance, causes school problems? =====
	+
	+	Psychosocial problems are more often responsible for cannabis use than vice versa. Many studies have explored the question of whether cannabis use affects adolescent performance and motivation.
	+	A new Swiss study shows that adolescents who use only cannabis function better socially than those who also smoke cigarettes. Compared with abstainers, they do not have psychosocial problems more often.
	+
	+	===== Mental health problems triggered by cannabis use? =====
	+
	+	Cannabis use may accelerate the development of mental illness and adversely affect its cure. However, whether cannabis is causally responsible for mental illness remains unclear.
	+
	+	===== Cannabis use triggers schizophrenia? =====
	+
	+	Medically proven, approximately 1.5% of the population is born with schizophrenia. Although smoking pot has increased, the number of mental illnesses in the area of schizophrenia has remained the same. There is no proven causality between illness as well as disease progression and smoking pot.
	+	Many patients also report that THC helps them, so they use it as a medicine.
	+
	+	===== The control of cultivation and trade costs excessive? =====
	+
	+	The costs caused by repression are reduced - the police can take care of real problem cases. Every report causes police officers and judges to be busy. Estimates put the cost of repression at up to one billion francs per year.
	+
	+	===== Smoking pot damages the respiratory organs? =====
	+
	+	It is not cannabis (THC) that is primarily responsible for this, but smoking itself. Frequent cannabis smoking can lead to a whole host of lung damage such as chronic bronchitis and airway inflammation. Vaporizing and eating are good alternatives here.
	+
	+	===== Smoking pot irreversibly damages the brain? =====
	+
	+	Being stoned impairs the brain's performance. However, smoking pot does not irreversibly damage the brain. Smoking pot affects brain performance in the short term, but no permanent damage can be detected. THC causes perceptual changes at the time of use. It impairs reaction time and short-term memory. It is clear that people under the influence of THC should not drive a vehicle.
	+	However, the age of onset seems relevant. Long-term users who started using cannabis before the age of 17 performed worse in the test results than those who started later.
	+
	+	===== Too high THC content promotes addiction? =====
	+
	+	The relationship between THC and danger is not proportional - unlike with alcohol. There are contradictory studies and statements on the effects of an increased THC content. With the initiative, the control of the THC content is possible through clear product declaration.
	+
	+	===== Cannabis legalization leads to drug tourism? =====
	+
	+	A clever dispensary model (a kind of credit card) makes it possible for the purchase of cannabis free of punishment to be linked to certain conditions (for example, residence in Switzerland). There is no laisser-faire policy.
	+
	+	===== Smoking pot is addictive? =====
	+
	+	Smoking pot can become an indispensable habit. There is therefore the possibility of a certain psychological dependence. However, the use of cannabis can be stopped at any time without physical withdrawal symptoms.
	+
	+	===== Smoking pot is a gateway drug? =====
	+
	+	Most alcoholics have drunk mother's milk, so mother's milk is the cause of alcoholism. Most drug addicts have smoked hemp, so hemp is the cause of their addiction.... Of course, it's the other way around: very few breast milk drinkers become alcoholics, a very small proportion of cannabis users also use hard drugs.
	+
	+	===== Since there has been a consistent crackdown, consumption is declining? =====
	+
	+	Cannabis prohibition does not reduce the rate of use. There are no new findings to show that cannabis prohibition is able to reduce the prevalence of use. International comparison shows no correlation between strict legal regulations and low consumption rates.
	+
	+	===== In conclusion: Yes for freedom! =====
	+
	+	Ultimately, no one disputes that THC use, especially in the smoked form, causes harm and can be generally risky. However, this should not be a reason for making it illegal. Rather, in an enlightened society based on the rule of law, it is a fundamental right of every human being to live, enjoy or harm his or her life in his or her own way as far as possible. A society may not interfere with this very own area of personal freedom by means of criminal law.
	+	On the other hand, it may issue regulations on consumption (i.e. it may define that people are generally not allowed to consume on school grounds or in non-smoking areas). It may also protect other people from smoke. It may also issue regulations regarding THC consumption during dangerous activities. And it is allowed to charge THC users with the costs of THC consumption, e.g. by taxation.
	+	In short: The freedom of all of us is one of the most important goods of all. It must be protected as far as possible and may only be limited where it impairs the freedom of others. This justifies certain regulatory interventions, but certainly not a total ban, such as that laid down in the current Narcotics Act. This law is illegal because it is unconstitutional, and it is imperative that it be changed. There is really no debate about that. Only about how.
	+
	+	===== Arguments for the hemp initiative =====
	+
	+	The core of this set of arguments was prepared by the "Pro Jugendschutz" coordination committee. Further information: www.projugendschutz.ch.
	+	We have put a shortened version on the wiki here, which we have edited and supplemented with the final chapter.
	+	The whole argumentation can also be found as a PDF file on our website www.hanflegal.ch.
	+	There are more arguments at www.hanfinitiative.ch.

THC and doping - its own variant of repression

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:skatedreh.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== THC and doping - its own variant of repression ======
	+
	+	//This text has not been revised for a long time. Who has current info about THC and doping, please report.//
	+
	+	THC consumption is the most common reason for a doping ban in Switzerland. Excuse me? Don't they always say that smoking pot makes you lax and passive? And yet THC is on the doping list. We summarize the topic of doping with THC in our article.
	+
	+	===== What does doping mean? =====
	+
	+	In 1952, the German Sports Physicians' Association attempted a definition of the term "doping": taking a drug with the intention of improving performance during a competition was considered doping. However, proving the intention was difficult.
	+	In the 1960s, the phenomenon of doping became widespread and the International Olympic Committee established a medical commission to intensify the fight against doping. An actual definition was bypassed, because one is also quite difficult to find. Instead, they made it simple and banned certain substances and methods. These were then "doping," whether or not they were performance-enhancing was ultimately irrelevant.
	+	The "List of Prohibited Substances and Methods (Doping List)" lists all prohibited substances and methods in a binding manner. It is up to the athletes to ensure that they do not commit any violations of this list.
	+
	+	===== Is it possible to dope with THC? =====
	+
	+	While a banned substance should medically have the potential to enhance performance, or the use of the substance should pose a health risk, or the substance should violate the "spirit of sport" in order to be added to the doping list. Of course, that's pretty vague...
	+	Especially with THC. So it says in the documents of www.dopinginfo.ch: "Cannabis is capable of indirectly enhancing performance by having a mild sedative effect in low doses. In a dangerous sport, the consumption of small amounts can cause a slight disinhibition, so that the willingness to take risks increases. In most sports, however, cannabis tends to have a performance-inhibiting effect, as it impairs coordination skills and can reduce responsiveness. Thus, it does not lead to direct physical performance enhancement." One can hardly express oneself more winding and more contradictory! In any case, one thing is clear: THC residues in urine during a competition are considered doping.
	+
	+	===== When is THC doping given? =====
	+
	+	For a doping case, simply a prohibited fact must be fulfilled: presence of a prohibited substance or degradation products thereof, refusal of a doping control, trafficking in prohibited substances, etc.
	+	In the case of THC consumption, a ban on all cannabinoids (i.e. not only THC) in all sports during competitions has been in force since 1.1.2004. For this, a limit value in urine of 15 nanograms per milliliter of blood (measured as carboxy-THC) applies. This limit is quite low, normal urine tests have a cut-off of 50 nanograms. This also puts the ban "only in competition" into perspective: Since THC degradation products can be detected in urine for a very long time after the last consumption (days in the case of very infrequent consumption, weeks in the case of occasional consumption, months in the case of regular consumption), you have to stop using THC some time before the competition if you don't want to be caught positive in a doping control.
	+
	+	===== How widespread is THC doping? =====
	+
	+	In a graph of the Federal Office of Sport one sees until 1999 still no violations because of cannabis. For 2000 to 2006 (i.e. seven years), around 36% of all doping cases are attributed to THC. This makes THC the most important reason for a positive doping test in Switzerland. Of a total of 111 positive doping cases in these seven years, this corresponds to 40 cases due to THC consumption. Stimulants and anabolic steroids then follow in second and third place, with 18% and 17% respectively. So together they have fewer cases than THC alone....
	+	Internationally, THC is not quite as important in doping - here anabolic steroids are still in first place, and by a large margin. But since 2003 THC "doping" is also punished and has risen in recent years from just under 400 to about 600 cases per year. In 2006, it is in third place (after anabolic steroids and beta-2 antagonists).
	+	Continued on page 6
	+
	+	===== How does a doping control work? =====
	+
	+	A Control Person shall inform the Athlete of the time and nature of the Control. A trusted person of the athlete may come along to the doping control. Both are identified at the doping control station with their ID cards. Then the control person explains the procedure. In the control room, the athlete to be tested chooses one of two urine cups. He then has to give at least 85 milliliters of urine under the eyes of the controller. An A and a B sample will then be prepared from this (orange and blue labels respectively). The athlete may also indicate the intake of any medication prescribed by a doctor that he has consumed in the last 48 hours. Then he must sign the protocol, as well as the person of trust and the controller. The sample is packaged and sent to the laboratory, where the A sample is then analyzed.
	+	At www.dopinginfo.ch, under the title "Control procedure", there is a very nicely drawn overview of the procedure for a urine control. In twelve steps, it shows exactly how a professional urine sample is taken. This is not only interesting for athletes, but generally for everyone who could be subjected to a urine control. By the way: Up to now, only urine tests have been carried out. But in the future, blood tests will probably also be carried out to a greater extent.
	+
	+	===== Effects of THC doping? =====
	+
	+	The Disciplinary Chamber for Doping Cases must decide on sanctions after a positive doping test. These sanctions can look like this:
	+
	+	* Removal from the ranking list and forfeiture of any titles, medals, points and prizes won.
	+
	+	* Suspension of six (or sometimes eight) months
	+
	+	(Actually, the first ban would be two years, the second violation the ban is for life. However, if one can prove that the substance was not taken to enhance performance, a warning with reprimand can be given the first time, possibly with a ban of up to one year, then on the second violation up to two years ban can be given, and on the third violation there is a life ban).
	+
	+	* Payment of positive A sample, 333.50 francs
	+
	+	* Payment of the costs of the proceedings, 200 francs
	+
	+	But that is only one part: very often, athletes who test positive for THC lose their employment contract with their sports club. This may end their career altogether.
	+
	+	===== A special absurd game of repression =====
	+
	+	It seems strange that such a fuss is made about THC consumption in sports. Beer brewers sponsor sports events and caffeine is allowed in sports - but THC is a doping agent. The general mood that smoking pot is something naughty is probably also having an effect on sports. After all, sports want to be pure. Only the will to perform and endurance are supposed to determine victory and defeat. In the process, other limits may well be crossed: Those who harm themselves with sport, through injuries and wear and tear, are not considered indecent or even illegal. Top-level sport in particular produces many athletes who have suffered serious injuries. An example from Donghua Li, former Swiss artistic gymnast and today employee of Swiss Olympics, from an article in the NZZ am Sonntag of 29.6.2008: "I suffered serious injuries three times in my career, each time almost forcing me to give up. At 16, I lost my left kidney in a sports accident, and my spleen was ruptured several times (...) When I was back at my sporting peak two years later, I tore both Achilles tendons in a new accident. (...) then I fell from the parallel bars, almost broke my neck and just wanted to die."
	+	Such behavior is seen as a role model for our youth - whoever possibly harms himself a little with THC consumption is considered a criminal. Such an evaluation is simply perverse.

Repression vintage 2007

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:haschgras2007.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Repression vintage 2007 ======
	+
	+	The summer joys are marred every year by a sad statistic: once again, a vintage of police repression against THC has been put into figures. The number of convictions for consumption decreased in 2007, but still reached more than 30,000 convictions.
	+
	+	===== Arrests for use of THC products in 2007 =====
	+
	+	In 2007, there were 24,645 convictions for consumption of weed, 5,505 convictions for hashish consumption, 624 for hemp plant consumption, and 44 for oil ingestion. Total: 30,818 convictions for consumption (34,138 convictions were counted in 2006).
	+	The two graphs show the development of hashish and weed consumption convictions over the last ten years. These two categories account for the lion's share of consumption convictions (oil and hemp plant consumption are marginal).
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:haschgras2007.jpg?750x}} \|
	+
	+	===== Arrests for trafficking in THC products in 2007 =====
	+
	+	In 2007, there were 1,892 convictions for trafficking in weed (instead of 1,987 in 2006), 652 convictions for trafficking in hashish (instead of 872 as in 2006), 224 for trafficking in hemp plants (192 in 2006) and 4 for trafficking in oil (8 in 2006).
	+	Total: 2,772 convictions for trafficking (3,059 in 2006).
	+
	+	===== Seizures of THC products in 2007 =====
	+
	+	3,530,610 grams of weed (over a ton more than 2006), 484,078 grams of hash (almost 100 kg more than 2006), 214 grams of oil (about one-seventh of 2006), and 132,712 hemp plants (almost the same as 2006) were seized in 2007.

Winter 2008/09: November 30, 2008 is a thing of the past

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

Winter 2008/09: The contents of the amended Narcotics Act

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

News from the world of mobile evaporators

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:phytolabtest.jpg?400x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== News from the world of mobile evaporators ======
	+
	+	It is still a niche phenomenon, but vaporizing is finding more and more followers. The advantages are obvious: efficient, emission-free, elegant. Here is a test report on a new device that was recently introduced to us.
	+
	+	We haven't had a new vaporizer to test for a while here, when we recently got a phone from French-speaking Switzerland and someone wanted to introduce us to a device. Of course, we are always a bit skeptical, because many devices do not work or do not work well. But, interested we are of course always, so we made an appointment.
	+
	+	===== Appearance =====
	+
	+	Phyto-Lab - this is the name of the vaporizer that was presented to us in September. At first glance, it reminds me of a tobacco pipe. However, a closer look reveals differences. For example, the mobile vaporizer is not held by the head, because it easily gets 150 degrees and hotter during operation, but - depending on the design - by a wrapped leather strap or heat-resistant rubber parts.
	+	The filling chamber almost looks a bit like a faucet filter. Fresh air is provided by three small holes leading to the center. To prevent the mixture from clogging the feed lines, several sieves are used - depending on the intended use. Finally, the filling chamber is screwed into the pipe bowl.
	+	(Pictures and videos of this device can be found at www.phyto-lab.ch. The texts are somewhat specially translated from French...). To generate the required heat, a jet lighter with a bluish flame is necessary.
	+	The device is completely made of aluminum. The head is even made of polished aluminum. The 13 centimeter small vaporizer fits easily into a shirt pocket - with about 60 grams it is also not heavy.
	+
	+	===== Measurement results =====
	+
	+	In order to be able to achieve the most accurate measurement results possible, I have mounted the probe directly in the filling chamber.
	+	The aluminum head is heated with a jet lighter. It must be heated for a relatively long time to bring the massive body up to temperature. This takes about 90 to 93 seconds and a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees is reached. With a double jet lighter the time could be reduced a bit - unfortunately I don't have one. When drawing, the value increases between 202 and 208 degrees. Now the part can be used like the good old pipe. During about 90 seconds you can vape with pleasure. This corresponds to five inhalations of 12 seconds each. After that, the temperature drops below 160 degrees, and it has to be heated again. Of course, it is also possible to heat higher - the upper limit is 230 degrees, how high depends on personal preference. Here it must be remembered that the dissolved vapor is correspondingly hot and damage to the respiratory organs can occur. And like all vaporizers that are heated with a jet lighter, it is possible to overdo it - so that combustion takes place and you are not vaporizing, but smoking. There is also no overheating protection with this device!
	+
	+	===== Conclusion =====
	+
	+	By the way, the mobile vaporizer works flawlessly. The workmanship is good and for cleaning (best with alcohol) the Phyto-Lab can be completely disassembled. A cleaning brush is included in the packaging.
	+	However, there is something to note: The metal body gets quite hot over time; even ten minutes after the last heating, I still measure well over 100 degrees Celsius on the head. This is generally a problem: Since the whole vaporizer is made of aluminum, it remains unusable for a relatively long time. That means it has to cool down for a quarter of an hour before it can be refilled.
	+	In addition, it has to be heated for too long to get up to temperature. I see this as the biggest drawback. My personal favorite is and remains the Vapman (see for example Legalize it! Issue 41, page 3)!
	+
	+	According to the manufacturers from Neuchâtel, the Phyto-Lab is produced in Switzerland and costs 99 francs (without jet lighter). You can find more info on the homepage of Phyto-Lab.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:phytolabtest.jpg?800x200}} \|

Spring 2009: A review of the hemp initiative

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 36:		Ligne 36:
	===== The prospects =====		===== The prospects =====

-	The Teachers' Association, Pro Juventute and the Swiss Working Group of Youth Associations are launching an administrative fine for adult smokers. At least this is an improvement of the current legal situation, but even here the resistance of the hardliners will be unbroken. So one can assume that until this still disproportionate legal status for adult smokers is enforced, a lot of water will flow down the Rhine.	+	The Teachers' Association, Pro Juventute and the Swiss Working Group of Youth Associations are launching an fixed penalties for adult smokers. At least this is an improvement of the current legal situation, but even here the resistance of the hardliners will be unbroken. So one can assume that until this still disproportionate legal status for adult smokers is enforced, a lot of water will flow down the Rhine.

	===== A conclusion =====		===== A conclusion =====

weed dealing - an easy job?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:grasgeld.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== weed dealing - an easy job? ======
	+
	+	The illegal business with hemp takes place in underworlds, but it functions according to the same economic laws as the legal economy. Whereby a realistic view often has to give way to clichéd prejudices.
	+
	+	In this article, I want to present the topic of security in the illegal indoor cannabis sector, to outline just one of the many challenges in the persecuted and complex cannabis business. This is followed by an insight into the risk analysis of professional hemp businesses.
	+
	+	===== Lucrative or stressful? =====
	+
	+	The illicit drug trade in general has a reputation for being a quick buck or even easy money, which, when looked at realistically, quickly turns out to be very short-sighted and naïve.
	+
	+	While in most legal industries you are taken care of all around with security (insurances, pensions, police protection, labor law, etc.), further education and more, in the so-called "underworld" you are left on your own - even more, you are actively persecuted! This means that you not only have to think about the actual business, you should also consider the area of security, which is a matter of course for everyone else, and in addition, you should adequately deal with the special risks for this business. The pressure and the workload, if one has the claim to work professionally, are higher than in most "normal" professions. This is almost always underestimated, which is not surprising, since it is not talked about completely openly (for security reasons) and not even most THC users know how their dealer works and under what kind of pressure he works.
	+
	+	This is for the simple reason that mere personal consumption is a contravention and distribution (whether one gram or 20 kilos) is a misdemeanor. In concrete terms, this means that any dealer, no matter how small, used to get at least a few months of conditional probation and today gets a conditional monetary penalty with, for example, 100 daily sentences of 100 francs, if caught, while a mere consumer has to pay a simple fine. So these two groups move in completely different worlds of security demands, which leads to the fact that even hemp consumers are often suspicious of professional suppliers.
	+
	+	When you read in newspapers about "drug dealers" whose "narcotics" have been seized from their "drug warehouse" and have now been arrested, you, as an unsuspecting person, hardly think that it could be a correct and professional dealer or producer of hemp products, who has always, with the best of his knowledge and conscience, made hundreds to thousands of THC consumers happy and accepts damage to his reputation and imprisonment for fair prices (apart from loss of earnings, lawyer's fees, court costs, etc.).
	+
	+	I hope I have succeeded in outlining the difficult topic and now move on to explain the security aspect from the point of view of professional hemp dealers.
	+
	+	===== Security in an uncertain business =====
	+
	+	What is safety anyway? Safety means that the risks that could potentially occur have been identified and are being dealt with in an appropriate manner so that they can be monitored and minimized. For this purpose, one uses the terms "probability" that a certain risk will occur and "impact" if the risk has occurred. On the basis of this one can meet the risk purposefully and not shoot with cannons on sparrows or on the other side, negligently opposite the environment (business partners, customers, etc.) and itself act.
	+
	+	In our field, for example, it would be like shooting a cannon at a sparrow if an occasional small-time dealer, who buys a quarter of a kilogram every few months in order to sell it to a select circle of stoner colleagues and earns a few hundred francs in the process, took measures to minimize the risk of being incriminated by telephone interceptions by the police drug investigation.
	+
	+	On the other hand, it is negligent towards one's own health, for example, if a dealer who makes two or three million in sales per year replaces a serious and sound risk analysis with excessive consumption of strong, sedative indoor weed. The abuse of hemp products is widespread in these circles and it is usually good manners to first smoke a few strong joints with your supplier before any deal.
	+
	+	Another example of negligent behavior is the frequent confusion of business and friendship, which takes place more in the area of small-time dealers. Trafficking in illegal drugs is not a round of billiards among colleagues! All the guys who think they should get away cheaper or otherwise claim benefits because they have been customers for a long time or because you once had a beer together or maybe even once had a conversation that goes beyond the business relationship are the last ones who would act according to the "friendship" they hold so high in case of emergency when the noose around their neck threatens to tighten just a little bit! As soon as they are under pressure, they see only their own disadvantages and, in the worst case, testify against their "friend".
	+
	+	This falseness, which is partly not at all maliciously and consciously practiced, is a rather big danger, because these people talk a lot and have no real business at all. Herewith it is warmly recommended to every concerned reader to distance himself decidedly from such characters, because the probability to get into even stranger and dangerous situations by strange entanglements on their part is high and the effects are negligible to catastrophic depending on the situation.
	+
	+	But now to the actual risk analysis of a rather larger-scale hemp enterprise (from about one million francs sales per year); what are the dangers, what is the "worst case", what are the consequences in case of emergency?
	+
	+	===== Averting the bad turn =====
	+
	+	The worst case is certainly the complete detection of the ever committed "crimes" by the police; a rather far-fetched case, which to my knowledge almost never occurs in the hemp sector. One would have to go to pretty great lengths or act in extreme style (perhaps starting at about 10 million francs in sales per year) to get any narcotics investigators to record, observe, and uncover the entire business. That is, the effects would be bad, the probability very small. So it's not a threat that should be overly prioritized. But it can be kept in mind and minimized to impossible by simple measures.
	+
	+	For example, you don't make phone calls - you can talk when you see each other! Also, you can use a meeting to arrange the next appointment, not forgetting to decide the quantity, price and so on already now. Of course, this requires a certain amount of planning and reliability, but these are indispensable anyway if you want to work professionally. Now, if from one meeting to the next it turns out that you actually want to order double, you can say so at that next meeting instead of calling and babbling some embarrassing stuff about CDs or footballs.
	+	Another safety rule of thumb: If I understand the codes, the potential listeners will understand it too. So there's no need for all those complicated phone codes. Apart from that, if in case of emergency, one can transmit a previously communicated and innocuous emergency message, for example a simple greeting, for the protection and information of business partners. One can have such a message stored in the drafts on the cell phone, so that in a situation that still allows to quickly send the SMS, the information of the most important business partners is guaranteed. They will then contact family, friends and other people who would like to know. Such a situation is given, for example, when "gstabige" narcotics officers, which any trained eye quickly recognizes, artfully ring the front doorbell and wait. Then you don't even have to press, you can still make one or two short phone calls. It is more difficult, for example, if someone is in the car, transporting a few kilograms of indoor and a few hundred cuttings, and is stopped and searched by the police. To be on the safe side, send the SMS as soon as possible, and in the best case scenario you can warn them again. In addition, it is advisable to destroy all sim cards carried on you immediately if possible.
	+
	+	Basically, the business with our favorite herb has nothing to do with cell phones and other modern technologies. It is an ancient business that has always existed - even without these things!
	+
	+	A better way to inform the necessary environment is to make an agreement with someone you are close to, someone you meet often. This looks then for example in such a way that the dealer (female dealers practically do not occur), who lives with his life partner, informed her about it, to whom she should report everything, so that as little as possible damage results for all. Most women have more trouble with such things than men, but they can be reassured by the fact that it is precisely for this reason that such safety rules are taken care of, because they also want to protect them.
	+
	+	What we see in reality in this regard are two prime examples: After a young dealer was released on parole from several months of pre-trial detention (his business had been at a standstill during this time), and two days later got into a police checkpoint with several dozen thousand francs and a kilogram of weed in his car (only thanks to the very calm behavior of the driver, too, nothing else happened), he thought that it might be better to come up with some contingency plans after all. As a safety measure in case of emergency, it was later agreed that the dealer's mother would contact a close associate in case he did not make the daily call one evening checking on her well-being. So one day he got a call from the helpful mother saying that she had not heard from her son in a long time and that he was not picking up the phone, which the colleague immediately understood and next dialed the number of his lawyer, who was also very helpful. Thus, the case was solved without any major losses for the family business.
	+
	+	The model of warning by close, if possible related, and otherwise completely legal helpers had worked flawlessly. Within a few hours all important business partners, the lawyers and so on had been informed, stocks had been moved and money had been hidden. And not by people who want to harm you, but by friends and partners who know how not to make a drama out of it (it is something different when a mother calls her son's personnel manager and tells him that her son has been temporarily arrested for hemp, probably due to an investigative error, than when some jerk tells him tersely that narcotics have been found and the delinquent has been arrested on suspicion of qualified trafficking in narcotics due to danger of collusion).
	+
	+	Another way to thwart observations by investigators is to keep your eyes and ears open, to be very attentive, to talk quietly, to constantly change the transfer locations or places - all without any communication other than personal conversation. Of course, one should not work stoned or otherwise distracted - a professional business attitude will help here as well.
	+
	+	As I said, the worst case and these simple answers to it should not be prevalent in the risk analysis, because otherwise other, more important risks will be neglected.
	+
	+	===== Clean work is central =====
	+
	+	Carelessness - the cliché of the imposed stoner, who doesn't think too much and is rather lazy, would find great confirmation here! Drug abuse is very widespread in the circles, which is not surprising, because just weed in high doses unfolds a dampening effect. Rest and relaxation - how often one wishes for these banal, simple and very strong remedies against addictions, stress, sleep disorders and many other disorders, not only in this area! There is already a lack of peace, quiet, relaxation and enjoyment in our highly work-oriented and productive society - imagine how it would be for you if you had to run an illegal SME in addition to your time-consuming job, your possibly even more stressful hobby and your family obligations!
	+	Of course, many reach for the bottle or the joint and overdo it massively. Because it is easier in the short term to always be stoned and calm than to afford yourself time and space for rest. The probability of occurrence is high, the effects can vary from harmless to bad. That means you have to face this risk with all your might! I am sure that this negligence is by far the most frequent reason for convictions, confiscations, etc. in the hemp business. This is especially confirmed by commercial growers - a daily smoker is much more likely to make careless and careless mistakes, as well as not working with the necessary care (ballasts for indoor lamps are poorly installed, resulting in fire; charcoal filters are not replaced for years, resulting in entire, wonderfully fragrant quarters; technical equipment is not maintained, which can lead to all kinds of problems, up to and including flooding at the neighbor's house; trucks are parked in front of the house in the middle of the night to unload a few tons of special soil; the air extractor is installed at head height directly on a walkway; room leases are stored in dealers' apartments, which are then searched and lead to the place of cultivation - the list could be extended indefinitely).
	+
	+	All this is not only in my opinion an outgrowth of lack of professionalism, which is in correlation with excessive consumption of this stimulant, which is produced there. At the same time, hemp is such a useful means to really relax, switch off and recharge - if you use it for that! Of course, this is the more uncomfortable part of the risk analysis, when you realize that all the complicated and elaborate security and communication ways are disproportionate and the realistic, fatal risks are much more banal. Realizing this should be a must for every dealer, because it's not just about small mistakes and maybe once a legal penalty - it's about health!
	+
	+	There you can see guys who made several millions of profit in about a decade with the indoor, drive luxury limousines and spend at least three months a year on luxury trips, but in the meantime are completely lonely and addicted to games and drugs. Some also had consumption problems - as soon as they saw something they liked, they had to buy it. Others ended up straight in the psychiatric ward! I have now described the worst case and the biggest risk factor; other of the many problems and difficulties in this context are to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
	+
	+	If the point of professionalism is given and you leave yourself enough time and space to recover and come to rest outside the business (even more often without smoking pot!), a lot is already done. You can ask yourself from time to time: Am I acting the way such a business requires? Am I even capable of meeting my own demands? Am I possibly rushing into something? Am I trying to force anything? Do I smoke pot every day?
	+
	+	With these questions as an impulse for reflection, I conclude this text and hope that it has not only informed, but also made fun.
	+
	+	With great respect and esteem for all those who put their freedom on the line for our joints!
	+
	+	===== Risk assessment =====
	+
	+	Many think that the black market is a goldmine. This can be the case for years: a good margin without having to perform well. But the stress, the (not necessarily unjustified) paranoia put a lot of strain on most people. You can't really trust anyone - and at some point, sooner or later, but one day you'll be caught, end up in custody, lose your apartment, be socially branded. When you factor that part into the calculation, dealing just isn't worth it.
	+
	+	===== Basics for this article =====
	+
	+	This text is based on many heard stories and personal assessments. There are no documents in this area that could be evaluated. Nevertheless, we think the text conveys the mood and the problems in the illegal hemp trade well. The considerations described here should be seen as food for thought - because thinking about the problems and consequences of the illegal black market seems to us to be a very important point. Both for the consumers and for the traffickers.

Summer 2009: fixed penalties for THC use - the state of the discussion

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

USA and cannabis - is the biggest runner-up toppling?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:planzemitblitz.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== USA and cannabis - is the biggest runner-up toppling? ======
	+
	+	In Switzerland, the debate about THC decriminalization is practically frozen. The situation is different in the motherland of hemp prosecution: In the USA, not only are discussions underway, but weed is also being sold semi-legally.
	+
	+	===== California =====
	+
	+	This spring, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, surprised the press by announcing that a legalization of cannabis should be debated. Of course, he didn't want to reactivate his old hobby, his statement was much more made under the aspect that a tax on reefer would relieve California's troubled budget by about a billion dollars a year.
	+
	+	===== Increase =====
	+
	+	"I inhaled, frequently," Mr. Obama said during his campaign trail. A step up from Clinton, who just pulled on it without inhaling. Also directional was his directive that the DEA (U.S. Federal Drug Enforcement Administration) no longer undertake prosecution of Medical Cannabis outlets. However, this is only in states that have already legalized Medical Cannabis. These include Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, California, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Islands, Vermont and Washington.
	+
	+	===== Two bills =====
	+
	+	Barney Frank, a member of the House of Representatives, has introduced two bills on cannabis in the House. The first would change federal law to allow states to experiment with medical cannabis without interference from the federal government. And the second would drastically reduce penalties for "personal possession." It remains to be seen how the House will take up this proposal.
	+
	+	===== War =====
	+
	+	Cannabis is a far more important issue than most people in the US realize. There is a war going on just outside the gates of the USA. The Mexican Drug War, which has already claimed 12,000 lives since 2006. The 1:50 (cocaine to cannabis) seizure ratio clearly indicates that cannabis is the primary business of the drug cartels. The main market is the U.S., a fact indirectly acknowledged by Hillary Clinton during her visit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Clinton acknowledged U.S. complicity in the drug cartels' violence.
	+
	+	===== Prison =====
	+
	+	At the same time, prisons in the USA are overcrowded. 750 people per 100,000 inhabitants are in prison in the USA. In Switzerland, the figure is only 83 people. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Justice suggest that around a quarter of prison inmates in the U.S. are serving time for drugs. FBI statistics indicate that over 800,000 U.S. citizens have served time for hemp since 2006.
	+
	+	===== Positive direction =====
	+
	+	After the drug policy aberrations of Bush Junior, something is happening again in the country. The direction is taking a more positive turn for THC users. Recent polls by CBS already showed a sizable 41% in favor of legalization. In an internet Q&A with President Barack Obama, the question of legalization has been chosen as the most important question of the participants.
	+
	+	===== Medical certificate =====
	+
	+	The developments regarding medical cannabis in California are extremely interesting. Already now, the barriers to legal purchase in the Sunshine State seem to be lowering. With a doctor's certificate, it is possible to legally obtain the coveted herb in special medical cannabis stores or to grow it yourself. The law, which has been in place since 1996, states that any use of cannabis that alleviates suffering is allowed. This is an open-ended formulation. It is clear that even "healthy" people, who like to smoke a joint from time to time, are sensible to visit the "recommended" doctors. The advantage of the legal and reputable reference is enormous. We stoners in Switzerland also like to remember the time of the hemp whirlpools. The good quality, the freedom from stress, the tolerated semi-legality.
	+
	+	===== Injustice =====
	+
	+	Yet, one does not need to invoke human rights to demonstrate that society and democracies in Western countries continue to culturally exclude and criminalize 99% of cannabis users. The U.S. is also far from transforming this plain injustice into a proportionate, fair and timely policy. The ideological opponents will soon enough use the usual arguments and continue to paint the picture of the pot-smoking loser, especially in the conservative sector.
	+
	+	===== Dominant USA =====
	+
	+	Nevertheless, shedding light on U.S. drug policy would undoubtedly call into question the ideologically obsessed work of the UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) on cannabis. The influence of the Americans is weighty, if not to say dominant. But until then, the UNODC will commission one scientific work after another to prove the extreme danger of cannabis.
	+
	+	===== Hope? =====
	+
	+	In this respect, the small hope remains for us discriminated stoners in this country that, starting from the USA, something will happen in the international area for decriminalization.

Psychoactives are everywhere. On dealing with drugs

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:haschflamme.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Psychoactives are everywhere. On dealing with drugs ======
	+
	+	Say no to drugs! So never again coffee, sweets and wine? A complete renunciation of psychoactive substances? That's not what we mean... A suggestion for a more conscious approach to our five favorite drugs.
	+
	+	===== Drugs and pleasure =====
	+
	+	What are the five favorite drugs of the Swiss? When asked this provocative question, most people probably don't think that sugar or caffeine, among other things, could be meant - why? "Drugs" - that's a word with a strong negative connotation. Taking drugs, after all, is punishable and bad, not a pleasure! But then what are "stimulants"? This strange distinction, which of course also manifests itself in the use of language, should be put into perspective and sobered up, which is also one of the aims of this article. I want to describe the most common forms of consumption and their effects in an understandable way, in order to encourage an unbiased view. In addition, I take the opportunity to clear away some persistent (because populist) prejudices.
	+
	+	===== Drugs for every taste =====
	+
	+	The five favorite drugs, if the criterion of frequency of consumption is defined as decisive, are sugar, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and THC of the hemp plant. These stimulants are consumed very often by a great many people. The vast majority regularly use at least one of these substances - whether for relaxation, performance enhancement or as a means of intoxication. Of course, many other drugs are consumed, from the illegal ones like cocaine, ecstasy or opium to countless legal and chemical sedatives and sleep or performance enhancers, everything is available. But the mentioned five are the most consumed substances related to pleasure, addiction and intoxication. They are mainly consumed in the form of soft drinks, sweets or many other products (sugar), coffee, tea or cacao (caffeine), tobacco (nicotine), drinks (alcohol) and joints (THC).
	+
	+
	+	===== Sugar - the underestimated drug =====
	+
	+	Sugar is the most consumed and trivialized drug we know. Sugar (carbohydrates) is essential for life, the body gets its energy from it (for the sake of simplicity I will write only about sugar and leave out the fact that there are different types of it). The supply with it is not a problem with a fairly normal diet, because many foods naturally contain sugar (for example, fructose in fruits). At the same time, however, they also contain the necessary vitamins and enzymes that the body needs to digest the sugar. Pure industrial sugar lacks these substances and we do not need it at all to live. It is purely a stimulant. The effect of low doses and infrequent use is an activating, stimulating one due to the rapid rise in blood sugar levels. A sweet dessert after a sumptuous meal can pleasantly dispel fatigue. But after increased doses, the level rises even higher, which causes it to fall again more quickly, even below the initial value. This creates a craving for even more sweets, with a typical addictive cycle in place. If you continue to overdo it and consume a lot of sugar every day, for example drinking two liters of cola or iced tea, you start to produce excessive amounts of peptides, which act in the brain as transmitters (messenger substances) on the same receptors as morphine or heroin. Then the sweet life is over, because sugar addiction can lead to migraines, disorders of consciousness and digestion, among other things, and most likely plays a role in the development of gout, rheumatism, liver and kidney diseases. It also increases blood cholesterol levels and promotes arteriosclerosis. When abruptly stopping the ups and downs of blood glucose levels and stimulating the receptors, sometimes severe withdrawal symptoms occur.
	+
	+	===== Coffee - the everyday drug =====
	+
	+	Moving on to caffeine, we see that in general consumption it is often consumed together with sugar, which is a mixed consumption. The fluctuations in blood sugar levels, the stimulation of receptors in the brain by the peptides, and the increased nerve activity (caffeine), as well as other mixed consumption variants, evoke a wide variety of complicated effects that interact and whose exploration is beyond the scope of this paper. Like cocaine or nicotine, caffeine is a stimulant, which in turn has a stimulating, slightly euphoric and talkative effect, similar to sugar, when consumed infrequently and in low doses. Therefore, it is also consumed mainly after meals or in the morning, as well as in company. It dispels fatigue and improves memory and concentration. Depending on the form of consumption, its effect is stronger and shorter (coffee) or longer and gentler (tea). With daily consumption of coffee, tolerance sets in relatively quickly (after about a week), as well as a cycle of too low and increased nervous activity. Effects of caffeine addiction can range from insomnia to anxiety to sweating, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and more. Socially, caffeine is downplayed like sugar, and drinking coffee is appropriate and normal. At my workplace, for example, there are so-called "coffee breaks" declared in writing! Imagine if someone came up with the crazy idea of calling a break during working hours a drug break... Only a few consumers are aware that their coffee contains a strong drug with a high addiction potential.
	+
	+	===== Tobacco - a drug under pressure =====
	+
	+	Now to nicotine; the most common form of consumption are probably the "cigis". The short-term performance enhancement makes them a "in-between drug", you quickly smoke one and get back to work or relieve boredom. The addiction potential is extremely high, it is compared with that of heroin! Nevertheless, nicotine was downplayed for a long time before educational campaigns and a rethinking in society took place. Just as today with caffeine and sugar, one would have been laughed at in the past if one had spoken of nicotine as a drug... The tobacco plant belongs to the nightshade family and actually contains strong psychoactive substances. However, cigarette manufacturers use low-grade tobacco enriched with all kinds of chemical additives with the aim of promoting addiction; for example, one additive causes nicotine to enter the bloodstream more quickly. I believe that among these substances, the "cigi" is the greatest addictive substance; when it is used as a stimulant, the pleasure is merely to satisfy the addiction. There is even a huge market for smokers who want to quit, with all sorts of products from therapy to nicotine patches and tablets. Since most relapse anyway, both from smoking and therapy, this remains a lucrative business. Anyone interested in the extensive consequences of consumption should go to the nearest kiosk and study some of the notices on cigarette packages. In addition, there is of course better tobacco, which can be smoked very well in pipes, cigars or joints because of its stimulating and performance-enhancing effect.
	+
	+	===== Beer, wine and schnapps - our cultural drugs =====
	+
	+	Alcohol is by far the "hardest" legal drug. Not only can you poison yourself to the point of killing yourself with it and lose control over your own actions at an early age, but it also contains a great potential for psychological and physical addiction. Alcoholic beverages, especially beer, wine and schnapps, are an integral part of our culture, have a long history and please many people every day. Alcohol is also usually perceived as a drug and not downplayed, because the effects are known to be bad. The effects vary greatly depending on the type of drink and the dosage. For example, white wine is considered "liquid cocaine," while beer and red wine have a more sedative effect. Basically, however, alcohol has a disinhibiting and relaxing effect, which is why it is suitable for social evenings and parties, for example. At higher doses, depending on the type, one becomes enterprising and loud to aggressive or tired. With regular consumption, a tolerance quickly develops, which is why the "after-work beer" can soon become an after-work hardass. In the case of regular abuse with high dosages, a strong dependence sets in, which shows itself in users through social withdrawal, health damage of all kinds and ultimately in the holistic "crash" of the sick person. Those who then want to or have to go through severe withdrawal experience an extreme period paved with hallucinations, delusions and anxiety, during which cardiac arrhythmias and other complications can also occur, the so-called "Delirium Tremens". However, many addicts die from alcohol before this happens.
	+
	+	===== Hash and weed - the forbidden drug =====
	+
	+	The THC of the hemp plant is in many respects a special stimulant. Firstly, the smoke hemp is by far the most consumed among the illegal drugs and secondly, the social and also direct effects on humans are not only influenced by the substance, but indirectly also significantly by the prohibition. Since hemp can be produced and traded completely freely by anyone, anywhere, and there is a huge market (at least 500 million francs sales per year throughout Switzerland), the focus is not on health protection and information, but on the contrary on profit maximization and non-control. Since draconian penalties are threatening, the majority of marginalized people and criminals devote themselves to the hemp business. In Switzerland, the legislation is fortunately somewhat milder than in most other countries, where the drug problem rages correspondingly more fiercely, since the numbers of consumers remain completely independent of the laws, but from a certain degree of prosecution and threat of punishment, only absolutely unscrupulous criminal money-grubbers are willing to expose themselves to this risk.
	+
	+	===== Prohibition and prejudice go hand in hand =====
	+
	+	In addition, of course, wonderfully false information and prejudices can form, which are ridiculous to worrying. As an example of countless, I will show the famous and much quoted Kassensturz program on the subject of indoor hemp, which was broadcast years ago on Swiss television; there it was claimed in a rather populist way that "drug hemp" is much stronger nowadays than the "herb of the hippies" used to be. This is as wrong as if someone would claim that alcohol has become much stronger since distillation; even if we can drink schnapps since then - the beer and the wine has still not become ten times stronger! It is the same with the countless varieties, variations and ways of consumption with hemp. About twenty years ago, in Europe and the USA, also because of the laws, more and more attempts were made to grow plants "indoors", which produced many new, exquisite varieties, differentiated in taste and effect. Some, perhaps not the ones that should be enjoyed often and much, dominate the market (due to short growing seasons and large yields in a small space). These varieties are called "Power Plant", "Euphoria" or "Big Bud". They should be enjoyed as one enjoys schnapps, rarely and in very small quantities. The fact that uninformed young people drink "liquor from beer glasses" is not due to a mysterious evolution of the hemp plant, but to the suppression and prosecution of hemp culture. The traditional growing areas around the world still produce exactly the same hemp as their ancestors did hundreds and thousands of years ago! Unfortunately, again due to the laws, it has usually already been quite contaminated and stretched by the time it arrives in Europe on the final market... So the repression encourages developments that then want to be prevented with even more repression - a funny situation.
	+
	+	===== The real effects can be very helpful =====
	+
	+	Enough about the specifics of hemp and the effects of prohibition. Now we deal with the direct effects of THC on humans: Unlike caffeine, sugar or nicotine, hemp is a rather sedative drug, it lowers muscle tone, sensitizes the senses and increases appetite. In addition, it is a very old drug that is still prescribed today, especially in the United States (be amazed) to patients with sleep, muscle and eating disorders. With occasional consumption of high-quality hemp, neither tolerance nor addiction sets in, one can then wonderfully relax, enjoy music, movies or other nice things and have cheerful conversations, which also makes it a social drug. With daily consumption, a mild addiction can definitely set in; typically, the daily hemp consumer smokes one or two joints at home in the evening, after work is done, and relaxes so much that he sleeps really deeply and can be very active, almost driven, the whole next day. This type of consumer never stands out as a "stoner", can be found in any position and social class, and is usually careful that no one knows about his cannabis consumption, for fear of losing his job, driver's license or even social position. There are such consumers who do not even want to show their own children a healthy hemp consumption - it is illegal! The typical addiction cycle consists here probably of tension and over-relaxation. With even more frequent consumption, i.e. regularly throughout the day, a psychological dependence can quickly develop, which is accompanied by tolerance development and higher dosages. Cannabis addicts become forgetful, unkempt, dull over time. Correspondingly sensitive people can suffer from psychoses, anxiety states and even delusions. Just like alcohol addicts, they eventually become social or care cases. Again, one can see clear effects of the prohibition: While the large mass of healthy hemp consumers is not noticed at all, the small minority of addicts shapes the social image of the stoner...
	+
	+	===== Equal right for every pleasure =====
	+
	+	I hope I have given a good overview of all the stimulants we like to consume. In my opinion, there is not much difference between hemp and legal drugs; the biggest difference is that you can drink coffee anywhere in public, but you will be locked up and prosecuted if you use hemp. Well then, cheers!

Two new vaporizers in Legalize it! test

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:dragonvapgrafik.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Two new vaporizers in Legalize it! test ======
	+
	+	We are very pleased that the vaporizer technology is being further developed. Even if many "vaporizers" are not really vaporizers after all - there are definitely functioning, new devices on the market. We have put two vaporizers to the test.
	+
	+	===== The DragonVap =====
	+
	+	The technology was obviously copied from the Volcano (we reported about this device earlier). There are only a few differences: A button to turn on the heater (on the Volcano, this is connected to the power button) and the device "lies" while the Volcano stands. The DragonVap costs about half of the Volcano, but it doesn't look as sturdy either. The device is made in China, while the Volcano is made in Germany.
	+	Operation is very similar to the Volcano: let the device warm up, fill the filling chamber, put on the balloon, turn on the ventilation, fill the balloon with vapors, remove, put on the mouthpiece, inhale.
	+	In short: The device works. It can form good vapor. We set the digital display, which allows you to set the vaporization temperature, to 222° Celsius and measured it in two ways: First, the temperature of the air stream (graph 1); second, the temperature in the filled filling chamber (graph 2) while a balloon is being concretely filled.
	+	The temperature of the air stream is 195 to 200°, which is different from the 222° shown digitally, but the range in which the DragonVap can maintain the temperature is absolutely sufficient, as our graph 1 shows. The red line is the measurement series of the first sensor, the blue line is the measurement series of the second sensor. Both have been installed in the same place, but the measured temperatures differ from each other (even with measuring devices, you can never get absolutely the same measurement results).
	+	Even when measuring in the filled filling chamber in actual use, the DragonVap quickly arrives at a good temperature, as our graph 2 shows.
	+	We are still evaluating a longer test series to see whether the device also works well over a longer period of time.
	+
	+	===== The Iolite =====
	+
	+	The Iolite is a completely different device. Here the technology is really innovative. The Iolite is a small, portable, handy device that is easy to hold in one (!) hand. The heat is generated with normal lighter gas, but without combustion with flame, but with a catalytic reaction that releases the heat.
	+	At startup, the Iolite takes just under a minute to come up to operating temperature. Our graph 3 shows how the unit quickly heats up to over 200°. The blue readings at the bottom of the graph indicate when someone pulled the mouthpiece. That's because this device doesn't first create the vapor and store it in a balloon; instead, as someone inhales, the heated air is pulled through the mixture, where it releases the beloved active ingredient from the herb.
	+	Whenever someone draws, the temperature in the Iolite drops (so as the blue curve rises, the red one drops each time), but it manages quite reliably to keep heating and keep the temperature at about 180°. That seems a bit low, and you don't always notice anything when inhaling. However, individual puffs are quite effective every time you try.
	+	After switching off, the device "hisses" a little further and empties the intermediate storage for the gas. This may be a bit irritating at first, but you get used to the fact that it still needs some sort of "shutdown time".
	+	The unit gets quite warm, but we never noticed any burning of the hand. So far, it seems to be stable and suitable for everyday use.
	+	Even if the device is not yet fully convincing (a longer test series is still in progress - we will report again), it must be said: For the first time, it has been possible to get up to 200° in a very small device - and that with a reliable protection against too much heat. We never had to observe a burn.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:dragonvapgrafik.jpg}} \|

Cannabis with our northern neighbors

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:pflanzedunkel.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Cannabis with our northern neighbors ======
	+	**
	+	Germany and cannabis - after the ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 1994, there was some hope that at least the German constitutional state would protect THC users. But in reality, very little has happened.**
	+
	+	===== A landmark judgement =====
	+
	+	That anything could ever turn or turn in Germany in the direction of decriminalization of cannabis enjoyers seems unthinkable. The last big milestone in the cannabis history of Germany dates back to 1994. 15 years ago, also a fifth of human life, it took the judiciary as the last reasonable instance to intervene against the massless prosecution of cannabis users. The Federal Constitutional Court made a "small amount judgment" with the key statement:
	+	"However, it is precisely in these cases that the degree of endangerment of legal interests emanating from the individual act and of individual culpability may be low. This is especially true if cannabis products are acquired and possessed only in small quantities for occasional personal use."
	+
	+	===== Different implementation =====
	+
	+	The Federal Constitutional Court left the shaping of this principle to the federal states. This has resulted in very confusing disparities. In Baden-Württemberg, three units of consumption are enough to trigger criminal proceedings, whereas in Bremen, Hanover or Berlin, a case can still be dismissed if the quantity involved is ten grams. Of course, the goods are confiscated in all federal states.
	+
	+	===== A political review =====
	+
	+	Nothing has happened since then. Kohl was replaced in 1998. When Schröder took over the red-green government, it was hoped that the SPD's smaller partner, the Greens, would take up the issue, since they postulated liberalization. They waited in vain for seven years. The SPD did not budge an inch, and the Greens gave little weight to the issue. From 2005 to 2009, when the grand coalition of black and red governed under Merkel, any germ was nipped in the bud. With Sabine Bätzing (SPD) as drug commissioner, repression was pushed to new heights in this era. Particularly perfidious are the possible driver's license revocations for multiple users, regardless of whether or not they smoked beforehand. It is foreseeable that also the insurance protection in the motor traffic for stoners expires.
	+	This policy results in over 100,000 criminal cases annually. If one takes the estimated four million consumers, it takes statistically 40 years until one is chased through the floodgates of justice.
	+
	+	===== The current situation =====
	+
	+	In the run-up to the 2009 elections, the German Hemp Association launched a survey among the five major parties. The conclusion of this survey is briefly outlined as follows:
	+	* The Union is committed to a drug-free society, which can only be enforced through repression.
	+	* The FDP takes an ambiguously liberal position on drug issues.
	+	* The SPD only distinguishes itself from the CDU/CSU in nuances.
	+	* The ray of hope remains the Green Party, which advocates acceptance-oriented, prevention-based policies that put the (dependent) person at the center.
	+	* A new addition is "Die Linke", they demand an end to the "war on drugs" and want to legalize the use of cannabis.
	+	The election was won by the coalition of the CDU/CSU and the so-called liberals. It is foreseeable that the policy regarding cannabis will hardly change.
	+
	+	===== Dealing with hemp rests on four pillars =====
	+
	+	* Prevention
	+	* Consultation and treatment
	+	* Survival aids and damage reduction
	+	* Supply reduction and repressive measures
	+	While prevention is okay and counseling and treatment are justified for heavy users, survival assistance and harm reduction are hardly needed for cannabis use. Finally, illegality is not a solution, but the main reason for problems with THC use.

Overview of the political projects

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 19:		Ligne 19:
	Nevertheless, we recommend to look at this partial revision already now, because it will definitely come. Only the timing is still open.		Nevertheless, we recommend to look at this partial revision already now, because it will definitely come. Only the timing is still open.

-	===== Level 2: Order fine principle (04.439) =====	+	===== Level 2: Fixed penalty principle (04.439) =====

-	As a follow-up to the partial revision of NarcA (which largely excluded the THC issue), the second part of this partial revision bumbled along. Here, a solution for the cannabis problem was to be found. Still on the Sunday of the vote of 30.11.2008, the teachers' association, Pro Juventute and AG Jugendverbände launched an appeal to develop a nationwide model for fines. Such a model already exists in St. Gallen (normally 50 francs fine without police registration, for up to five grams of cannabis). The CVP had also brought such a model into play.	+	As a follow-up to the partial revision of NarcA (which largely excluded the THC issue), the second part of this partial revision bumbled along. Here, a solution for the cannabis problem was to be found. Still on the Sunday of the vote of 30.11.2008, the teachers' association, Pro Juventute and AG Jugendverbände launched an appeal to develop a nationwide model for fixed penalties. Such a model already exists in St. Gallen (normally 50 francs fine without police registration, for up to five grams of cannabis). The CVP had also brought such a model into play.
	In March 2009, the National Council commission joined these ideas, officially supported a corresponding parliamentary initiative and asked its sister commission from the Council of States for permission to think about this further.		In March 2009, the National Council commission joined these ideas, officially supported a corresponding parliamentary initiative and asked its sister commission from the Council of States for permission to think about this further.
	In November 2009, the commission of the Council of States could not yet bring itself to give such permission.		In November 2009, the commission of the Council of States could not yet bring itself to give such permission.
-	But in January 2010, the time had come: with the blessing of the Council of States Commission (eight votes in favor, two abstentions; i.e. a very clear result), the National Council Commission can now begin to work out the details of this bill. And now comes the crucial part: How high should the fine be? How many grams should be the maximum limit? Can cantons keep more liberal regulations (for example warning instead of fine)? These "details" will decide whether there will be a lightening of the workload only for the police forces, or whether THC-users can also benefit a little.	+	But in January 2010, the time had come: with the blessing of the Council of States Commission (eight votes in favor, two abstentions; i.e. a very clear result), the National Council Commission can now begin to work out the details of this bill. And now comes the crucial part: How high should the fixed penalty be? How many grams should be the maximum limit? Can cantons keep more liberal regulations (for example warning instead of a fixed penalty)? These "details" will decide whether there will be a lightening of the workload only for the police forces, or whether THC-users can also benefit a little.
	The date for further deliberations in the National Council Commission is still open. Possible dates would be 22.3., 26.4., 21.6., 30.8., 11.10. or 1.11.2010.		The date for further deliberations in the National Council Commission is still open. Possible dates would be 22.3., 26.4., 21.6., 30.8., 11.10. or 1.11.2010.

Ligne 37:		Ligne 37:
	Roughly speaking, this proposal contains the essential elements from the hemp initiative. However, this proposal would aim at a change in the law, whereas the hemp initiative, as popular initiative, would have meant a change in the constitution.		Roughly speaking, this proposal contains the essential elements from the hemp initiative. However, this proposal would aim at a change in the law, whereas the hemp initiative, as popular initiative, would have meant a change in the constitution.
	The signatories are mainly from the left-green camp, although there are a few bourgeois supporters. Thus, it is unlikely that this parliamentary initiative will be approved. Unless our parliament looks out into the world and is inspired by the USA, Mexico and the Czech Republic, where some steps towards legalization have been taken. But in the end, there will be no legalization or extensive decriminalization in Switzerland as long as the FDP is divided on this issue and the CVP is by a large majority in favor of keeping the punishment.		The signatories are mainly from the left-green camp, although there are a few bourgeois supporters. Thus, it is unlikely that this parliamentary initiative will be approved. Unless our parliament looks out into the world and is inspired by the USA, Mexico and the Czech Republic, where some steps towards legalization have been taken. But in the end, there will be no legalization or extensive decriminalization in Switzerland as long as the FDP is divided on this issue and the CVP is by a large majority in favor of keeping the punishment.
-	Thus, the regulatory fine model is the only proposal that has a real chance of realization.	+	Thus, the fixed penalty model is the only proposal that has a real chance of realization.

	===== And then: Swiss smoking ban from 1.5.2010 =====		===== And then: Swiss smoking ban from 1.5.2010 =====

2008: the 35th year of hemp repression is recorded

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verzeigungen74_08.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== 2008: the 35th year of hemp repression is recorded ======
	+
	+
	+	For many years now, we've been following the development of the number of convictions. Those who have been members for a long time have also seen how this has developed. Now the last year of the old counting method has been published and we are looking back over 35 years.
	+
	+	===== Statistics of convictions in 2008 =====
	+
	+	It came out half a year ago, but we have not yet got around to publishing it: The 2008 conviction statistics have been published. In this Legalize it! we print the two graphs on convictions for consumption and trafficking.
	+	In 2008, there were 29,398 convictions for consumption (below 30,000 for the first time in eight years) and 3,531 convictions for trafficking. The number of convictions for trafficking has increased massively, while a slight decrease in the number of convictions for consumption can be observed.
	+
	+	===== To the supplement =====
	+
	+	However, the fixed penalties, as known in St. Gallen, are not included in these statistics (because no report takes place here). Since 2001, it would be possible to add a few hundred fixed penalties to the number of consumption convictions.
	+
	+	===== A new section =====
	+
	+	This is the last year of the old counting method. The cantonal police forces have so far different views on how and what is counted. The statistics also have other weaknesses (weighed hemp plants are "converted" into a number of hemp plants; if someone is carrying hash and weed, that counts as two convictions, etc.). But the numbers give an approximate impression how strong the repression rages and also what is found with the controlled persons.
	+	Now the counting method is to be standardized. We look forward to the new statistics of police repression with interest: Will the statistics be better than the old ones? And: Will the police at least be ashamed of their actions in the field of hemp? But we will hardly be allowed to experience that.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:verzeigungen74_08.jpg}} \|

Overview of the international situation

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:pflanzehell.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Overview of the international situation ======
	+
	+
	+	**In Switzerland, only the fixed penalty model is currently under discussion - Switzerland has lost its international pioneering role. We take a look at hemp laws worldwide. Are California, the Czech Republic and Mexico the pioneers of global hemp legalization?
	+	**
	+	Hemp was freely available worldwide until the beginning of the 20th century; there were no international laws prohibiting its consumption, cultivation or trade. Of course, there were laws in individual areas throughout history that criminalized all sorts of things, including tea, alcohol, coffee, and even hemp. But in 1925, with the signing of the Third Opium Conference in Geneva, hemp was banned worldwide for the first time. By now it is common knowledge that many economic interests of some powerful men in the USA (cotton and pharmaceutical industry, secret service, etc.) brought about the ban.
	+
	+	This has driven the whole huge hemp market underground, making large illegal organizations equally powerful. Somehow the whole thing seemed to work to some extent, also there were always "tolerance zones" and partial legalizations in different countries; in Holland, for example, today you can buy and consume smokable hemp products in the so-called coffee shops. Rather than the word partial legalization, I prefer to use the term pseudo-legalization, because this Holland model promotes many more abuses than it prevents. Illegal criminal structures are fed by the fact that only consumption and purchase for consumption are allowed, while cultivation and wholesale for these very places of sale remain prohibited. This means that a huge market exists because pot tourists come from all over, paying incredible prices for sometimes poor quality, high-tech weed that is produced illegally. These international mafias export large quantities from the huge production facilities in Holland to Germany, England, Switzerland, France, etc. There, more and more sophisticated techniques are also being developed to maximize profits, for example by using special lead powder that is added to the plants during the flowering phase and is hardly detectable. There have already been several deaths in Germany due to lead poisoning. These criminal groups also finance themselves through drug trafficking, extortion, robbery tours through the rich countries of Europe and all sorts of other things. So you see, prices and abuses remain very high - even higher than in Switzerland, because there is a huge demand.
	+
	+	The association Legalize it! advocates full legalization, which will pull the rug out from under the feet of all criminal organizations. Full legalization means that - except for possible advertising bans and age restrictions - it will be freely available everywhere, so the price will decrease very much and education and information will be made possible through an open hemp culture.
	+
	+	Exactly this full legalization is currently under advanced discussion in Mexico. Such powerful drug cartels have formed there that there is no longer a state monopoly on the use of force, more people are dying than in Iraq, and the entire country is being destabilized. The situation is degenerating. The legalization of drugs, especially hemp, seems to many politicians, including the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), to be the only way to stabilize the country again. In a first step, the consumption and possession of small quantities has already been legalized, but they are aware that this shot will backfire (as in a somewhat less tragic scale in Holland due to the smaller market) if cultivation, trafficking, etc. are not also regulated. A Mexican senator comments on the ongoing debates as follows:
	+
	+	"The initiative arose from the realization that the prohibitionist and criminalizing strategies to combat the illicit use and trafficking of psychoactive substances, which were widely applied, especially in the second half of the twentieth century, have failed comprehensively. On the other hand, it also results from the observation that drug trafficking must be considered, above all, as a large international business that generates huge fortunes (in the order of $30 billion in Mexico alone and $500 billion worldwide, according to guarded United Nations data) and has given criminal organizations great financial and political power and equipped them with firepower and logistical and operational capacities. Therefore, this initiative aims to start the path towards the construction and application of a new guiding pattern of the fight against drug trafficking, overhauling the prohibition concept and orienting it towards the goal of public health - as well as focusing on prevention, harm reduction, treatment and rehabilitation of addicts and the individual freedom of choice of the citizen."
	+
	+	The main motivation of a state is, of course, to increase security as well as finances, but there is definitely a reference to justice in terms of individual freedom of choice.
	+
	+	Motivated by money, California (Arnold Schwarzenegger) has also practically legalized hemp (theoretically only as "medical hemp"); anyone can get a doctor's certificate for a few dollars or open a retail outlet for "medical hemp" for a few dollars more. There is a hemp university in Oakland (Oaksterdam University) where cultivation, law, etc. related to hemp is taught. The "Cali-Weed" has always been famous for its quality, as the laws were also more liberal than in other states of the USA. However, the finances of one of the largest market economies in the world (California) were not rosy at all and now they have almost rehabilitated it by selling hemp legally. There is now less crime and more money. Will this model catch on?
	+
	+	The counterpart in Europe is the Czech Republic, which in 2009 legalized possession and purchase for personal use, as well as consumption.
	+
	+	There are now two options: Either it remains as it is - with some penalty-free consumption havens, which give the mafias even more thrust, or it is completely legalized in the sense of California, which allows education and information through an open hemp culture. But of course then these pseudo-doctor's certificates should be omitted.
	+
	+	Personally, I am convinced that at least hemp will be legalized worldwide, and that - just as with worldwide prohibition - America will lead the way. The unstable state of Mexico, controlled by drug cartels, is becoming an ever greater threat to the USA, by far the largest consumer of drugs. Legalization, i.e. the fundamental dismantling of all cartels, seems inevitable. The only question is where the immense criminal energy will shift to... But the USA will certainly enforce its interests once again with a lot of force and power. Maybe then some cartels will find their way into the legal drug trade? Or maybe the trade will be taken over by already existing large corporations? Or will hemp be crippled like tobacco to an everyday addictive substance? And will the traditional hemp growing countries (Morocco, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) become rich? All kinds of interesting questions and possibilities open up.
	+
	+	At our member event on May 28, 2010, we looked at and discussed these developments.

Repression 2009. The old prosecution recounted

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:mikro1.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:mikro1.jpg}} \|
		+

	====== Repression 2009. The old prosecution recounted ======		====== Repression 2009. The old prosecution recounted ======
Ligne 8:		Ligne 10:
	===== The madness continues =====		===== The madness continues =====

-	Even if decriminalisation of THC is being discussed or even implemented in various countries - in Switzerland, repression continues unwaveringly on its path. Also in the city of Zurich, which had accepted the hemp initiative at the end of 2008, today the penal orders for 258 francs (the very first time, mind you) are produced on a conveyor belt. Even a red-green government is of no use - even St. Gallen with a middle-class government is already several steps ahead with the administrative fines.	+	Even if decriminalizations for THC are being discussed or even implemented in various countries - in Switzerland, repression continues unwaveringly on its path. Even in the city of Zurich, which had accepted the hemp initiative at the end of 2008, the summary penalty orders over 258 francs (the very first time, mind you) is produced on a conveyor belt today. Even a red-green government is of no use here - even St. Gallen with its bourgeois government is already several steps ahead with the fixed penalties.

-	===== The 2009 vintage =====	+	===== The vintage 2009 =====

-	Well, let's stop whining and look at the new data from the Federal Statistical Office BfS. This should present the figures of repression previously issued by the Service for Analysis and Prevention in a statistically cleaner way. Well, they made an effort. But they didn't really succeed.	+	Well, let's stop complaining and look at the new data from the Federal Statistical Office BfS. This was supposed to present the figures of repression previously issued by the Service for Analysis and Prevention in a statistically cleaner way. Well, they made an effort. But they didn't really succeed.
-	Instead, there are a few things to laugh about: Now there are young plants, dried plants, fresh plants - but still no distinction between indoor and outdoor. Instead there is now a category cannabis - there nobody knows if it is weed or hash. Marijuana is still listed as a category, even though there is nothing about it in the BetmG.	+	Instead, there is a lot to laugh about: Now there are young plants, dried plants, fresh plants - but still no distinction between indoor and outdoor. Instead, there is now a cannabis category - where no one knows whether it is weed or hash. Marijuana is still listed as a category, even though there is nothing about it in NarcA.
	Well, they will probably need a few more years to further unravel the data salad supplied by the various police forces according to different criteria and finally install reasonable, uniform criteria.		Well, they will probably need a few more years to further unravel the data salad supplied by the various police forces according to different criteria and finally install reasonable, uniform criteria.

-	===== Transgressions and offences =====	+	===== Transgressions and misdemeanor =====

-	Praiseworthy, however, is the subdivision into infractions and misdemeanors (these again subdivided into minor and major offenses). This is what we have been trying to teach THC users for years: The fundamental difference between infractions and misdemeanors. Furthermore, the new statistics distinguish between criminal offences and the number of accused. Even if these numbers are similar, they still differ.	+	On the other hand, the subdivision according to violations and misdemeanor (this is again subdivided according to light and heavy misdemeanor) is praiseworthy. This is what we have been trying to teach THC users for years: The fundamental difference between contravention and misdemeanor. Furthermore, the new statistics distinguish between criminal acts and the number of defendants. Even if these numbers are similar, they differ.

-	===== Our handling of data =====	+	===== Our handling of the data =====

-	We have taken the trouble to extract the cannabis-specific figures from the large pile of data (in which the hemp question always threatens to disappear somewhat). What we had to leave out is the category "multiple substances". This category contains all cases that involve not only one but several substances. This category contains many cases and it can be assumed that there are also many pure hemp cases (e.g. hash and hemp plants or weed and oil). But of course also cases where THC products and other narcotics were found. We hope to be able to provide a detailed analysis later.	+	We have taken the trouble to extract the cannabis-specific figures from the large pile of data (in which the hemp question always threatens to disappear somewhat). What we had to leave out in each case is the category "Multiple substances". This category contains all cases that involve not only one but several substances. This category contains many cases and it can be assumed that there are also many pure hemp cases (e.g. hash and hemp plants or weed and oil). But of course also cases where THC products and other narcotics were found. We hope to be able to provide a detailed evaluation of this later.

	===== Comparison with the past is difficult =====		===== Comparison with the past is difficult =====

-	It is difficult to make comparisons with the earlier figures on convictions (an overview of the years 1974 to 2008 can be found in Legalize it! 51 on page 5). The BfS had to accept the different reporting forms of the various cantonal police forces (and there have been funny double forms). But no matter whether one looks at the adjusted data of the accused or the data of the offences: So far, one seems to have massively underestimated the size of the repression. In the case of transgressions, one could still argue that perhaps repression increased again in 2009. But with the offences the number is enormously much higher than everything that has been reported as "trafficking" so far:	+	Comparability with previous conviction figures (an overview of the years 1974 to 2008 can be found in Legalize it! 51 on page 5) is difficult. The BfS had to accept the different reporting forms of the various cantonal police forces (and there have been funny double forms). But no matter whether one looks at the adjusted data of the accused or the data of the crimes: So far, one seems to have massively underestimated the size of the repression. In the case of transgressions, one could still argue that perhaps repression increased again in 2009. But at misdemeanor, the number is much higher than anything that has been reported as "trafficking" so far:

-	* Whereas in 2008 there were 29,398 convictions for consumption, in 2009 there were 41,577 offences or 34,896 accused. If the figures were comparable, this would be a striking jump upwards, no matter whether one compares with acts or people.	+	* Whereas in 2008 there were 29,398 convictions for consumption, in 2009 there were 41,577 violations or 34,896 defendants. If the figures were comparable, this would be a striking jump upwards, regardless of whether one compares with acts or people.
-	* In 2008, there were just over 3,500 convictions for trafficking, whereas in 2009 there were 7,667 offences (minor and major) and 7,000 accused. That would be twice as much. But the data will never be directly comparable. But the level of the new, more reliable data is frightening.	+	* In 2008, there were slightly more than 3,500 convictions for trafficking; in 2009, there were 7,667 offenses counted at misdemeanor (light and heavy), and 7,000 defendants. That would be twice as much. But the data will never be directly comparable. But the level of the new, more reliable data is frightening.

	===== The penalty is very variable =====		===== The penalty is very variable =====

-	The level of punishment cannot be gleaned from these statistics, but can be summarized as follows:	+	The amount of punishment cannot be gleaned from these statistics, but can be summarized as follows:

-	* Violations are punished by a fine, plus various fees (total 100 to 1000 francs). Administrative fines are not included in these statistics, as no police reprimand is issued.	+	* Violations are punished with a fine, plus various fees (total 100 to 1000 francs). fines are not included in these statistics, as there is no police report.
-	* In the area of misdemeanours, there is a penalty of several daily sentences in a minor case (normal offence according to BetmG). In the case of a first-time punishment, such a penalty is approximately in the following range: fine of 100-1000 francs, three to ten conditional daily sentences of 100 francs (depending on the financial situation). In addition, there is an entry in the criminal record. In more serious cases or in the case of multiple offences, this can increase - for example to a fine of 1,000 francs and 75 unconditional daily sentences of 100 francs.	+	* In the area of misdemeanor, in a minor case (normal misdemeanor according to NarcA) there is a penalty of several daily sentences. In the case of first-time punishment, such a penalty is approximately in the following range: fine of 100-1000 francs, three to ten conditional daily sentences of 100 francs (depending on the financial situation). In addition, there is an entry in the criminal record. In more serious cases or in the case of multiple conspicuity, this can increase - for example to 1,000 francs fine and 75 unconditional daily sentences of 100 francs.
-	In a serious case, the minimum penalty is one year imprisonment (and this can then go up to 20 years). Fines can also be imposed here. What is more decisive, however, is that profit repayments are often demanded here, i.e. that the entire profit is skimmed off. Since most of the time all the money and the goods are confiscated, only the smartest dealers have the money on their side - the others have to pay off a non-existent profit in monthly installments for years.	+	In a serious case, the minimum penalty is one year imprisonment (and this can go up to 20 years). Fines can also be imposed here. What is more decisive, however, is that profit repayments are often demanded here, i.e. that the entire profit is skimmed off. Since most of the money and the goods are confiscated, only the most cunning dealers have the money on their side - the others have to pay off a non-existent profit in monthly installments for years.
	In addition, of course, there are always the fees, investigation costs and the costs of the court, which can grow to a five-digit amount in larger cases, even without lawyers' fees.		In addition, of course, there are always the fees, investigation costs and the costs of the court, which can grow to a five-digit amount in larger cases, even without lawyers' fees.

Ligne 48:		Ligne 50:


-	====== ENSURED! ======	+	====== SEIZED! ======

	==== Hemp seizures 2009 ====		==== Hemp seizures 2009 ====
Ligne 56:		Ligne 58:
	Cannabis		Cannabis

-	In 108 cases, 1.5kg, 12 joints, 194 plants, and 8 doses of "cannabis" were seized.	+	In 108 cases 1.5kg, 12 joints, 194 plants, as well as 8 doses of "cannabis" were seized.

	Hemp (young plant)		Hemp (young plant)

-	In 135 cases, 51kg, 1 joint, 25,590 plants, and 10 doses of "hemp (young plants)" were seized.	+	In 135 cases, 51kg, 1 joint, 25,590 plants, as well as 10 doses of "Hemp (seedling)" were seized.

-	Hemp (plant fresh)	+	**Hemp (plant fresh)
		+	**
		+	In 555 cases, 1'235kg, 37'260.8 plants, as well as 135 cans of "Hemp (plant fresh)" were seized.

-	In 555 cases, 1'235kg, 37'260.8 plants, as well as 135 doses of "hemp (plant fresh)" were seized.	+	**Hemp (plant dried)
		+	**
		+	In 363 cases, 1'396kg, 5 joints, 3'353 plants, as well as 66 cans of "hemp (plant dried)" were seized.

-	Hemp (plant dried)	+	**Hashish
-		+	**
-	In 363 cases, 1'396kg, 5 joints, 3'353 plants, as well as 66 doses of "hemp (plant dried)" were seized.	+	In 4,304 cases 228kg, 152 joints, as well as 11.6 doses of "hashish" were seized.
-		+
-	Hashish	+
-		+
-	In 4,304 cases, 228kg, 152 joints, and 11.6 doses of "hashish" were seized.	+
-		+
-	Hash oil	+

		+	**Hashish oil
		+	**
	In 22 cases, 3kg or 4l of "hashish oil" were seized.		In 22 cases, 3kg or 4l of "hashish oil" were seized.

Ligne 82:		Ligne 84:
	In 19,341 cases, 1,799kg, 2,565.65 joints, 2,956 plants and 60.2 doses of "marijuana" were seized.		In 19,341 cases, 1,799kg, 2,565.65 joints, 2,956 plants and 60.2 doses of "marijuana" were seized.

-	The differences between the marijuana plants and hemp plants would still need to be clarified. The joint from the young plant also seems special. The 0.65 marihuna joint gives one pause, as do the 0.2/0.6/0.8 doses. Yeah, well... The statistics have just been updated...	+	The differences between the marijuana plants and hemp plants would still need to be clarified. The joint from the young plant also seems special. The 0.65 marihuna joint gives one pause, as do the 0.2/0.6/0.8 doses. Oh well. The statistics have just been updated...

		+	//Source: Police Crime Statistics (PKS), Annual Report 2009, Federal Statistical Office. Details from the tables "Narcotics Act (NarcA): Offenses by substance and accused persons, 2009", and "Seized substances, 2009".
		+	//

-	//Source: Police Crime Statistics (PKS), Annual Report 2009, Federal Statistical Office. Details from the tables "Narcotics Act (BetmG): offences by substance and accused persons, 2009", and "Seized substances, 2009".//

The partial revision enters into force

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
		+
	====== The partial revision enters into force ======		====== The partial revision enters into force ======

	The partial revision ends the funny story of the worldwide unique term "hemp herb for the production of narcotics". Worse, however, are the provisions on the "protection of minors", which above all allow a massive tightening of prohibition.		The partial revision ends the funny story of the worldwide unique term "hemp herb for the production of narcotics". Worse, however, are the provisions on the "protection of minors", which above all allow a massive tightening of prohibition.

-	We have already reported on this. The partial revision of the Narcotics Act (BetmG) will come into force in 2011. We have summarized the most important points in Legalize it! 46. We strongly recommend everyone to read the corresponding article again:	+	We have already reported on this. In 2011, the partial revision of the Narcotics Law NarcA will come into force. We have summarized the most important points in Legalize it! 46. We strongly recommend everyone to read the corresponding article again:

-	[[en:thc_recht/li460204\|The contents of the amended Narcotics Act]]	+	[[en:thc_recht/li460204\|The contents of the amended NarcA
		+	]]

	===== Summary of changes =====		===== Summary of changes =====

-	Here again the essential changes to today's situation (as shown in Shit happens 6 and 7): "Hemp herb for the production of narcotics", this funny term, will soon be a thing of the past. Now it is called "narcotics of the effect type cannabis". This means that hemp plants become a narcotic in any case as soon as a certain THC value is exceeded. Now a value of 1.0% THC applies. If something contains more THC, it is a narcotic. At times, a value of 0.3% was also under discussion, but 1.0/0.3% does not play a role in everyday life, since hemp must contain at least 5, better 10 or 20 percent THC to be consumed sensibly.	+	Here again the essential changes to today's situation (as it is shown in Shit happens 6 and 7): "Hemp herb for the production of narcotics", this funny term, will soon be a thing of the past. Now it is called "narcotics of the effect type cannabis". This means that hemp plants become a narcotic in any case as soon as a certain THC value is exceeded. Now a value of 1.0% THC is valid. If something contains more THC, it is a narcotic. At times a value of 0.3% was also under discussion, but 1.0/0.3% does not play a role in everyday life either, since hemp must contain at least 5, better 10 or 20 percent THC to be consumed sensibly.

-	The most problematic, however, are the new provisions, which come under the somewhat confusing term "protection of minors". Even making THC products available to under-18s is now a misdemeanour (where house searches and pre-trial detention are potentially possible and punishment is followed by an entry in the criminal register). This means that all people who have something to smoke at home and where minors hang out should think very carefully about how they want to store hash and weed. Theoretically already a joint dump, if it is accessible for minors, fulfills the offence. Here we see big problems for parents.	+	The most problematic, however, are the new regulations, which go under the somewhat confusing term "protection of minors". Even making THC products available to those under 18 is now a misdemeanor (where potentially house search and pre-trial detention are possible and punishment is followed by an entry in the criminal record). With this, all people who have something to smoke at home and with whom minors socialize should think very carefully about how they want to store hash and weed. Theoretically, a joint butt, if it is accessible to minors, already fulfills the offence. Here we see big problems for parents.

-	Anyone who smokes pot with young people, even if it's just a joint, is also guilty of an offence. This applies not only to adults, but also to teenagers who pass a joint to other teenagers. If the police and the courts interpret this as it is written, then a massive wave of repression will follow in this area, which would definitely be of the severity and harshness as zero tolerance for THC while driving.	+	Anyone who smokes pot with young people, even if it's just a joint, is guilty of an offense. This applies not only to adults, but also to young people who pass a joint to other young people. If the police and the courts interpret this as it is written, then a massive wave of repression will follow in this area, which would definitely be of the severity and harshness of zero tolerance for THC while driving.

	The only potentially positive thing about the partial revision: there may be a legal reference for certain medical uses. The details are not yet clear (for which diseases, which THC products, who produces them and who distributes them).		The only potentially positive thing about the partial revision: there may be a legal reference for certain medical uses. The details are not yet clear (for which diseases, which THC products, who produces them and who distributes them).

The fixed penalties under discussion

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:

-	====== The fines under discussion ======	+	====== The fixed penalties under discussion ======

-	At a snail's pace, the fines are making progress. In principle, the commission of the National Council wants to introduce this instrument, but the quantity limit, the amount of the fine, as well as the age limit are still not clear even to the first commission. We report again; it may still take years.	+	At a snail's pace, the fixed penalties are making progress. In principle, the commission of the National Council wants to introduce this instrument, but the quantity limit, the amount of the fine, as well as the age limit are still not clear even to the first commission. We report again; it may still take years.

Legalization dreams in California remain dreams

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:medicalm.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Legalization dreams in California remain dreams ======
	+
	+	California Dreamin' - two years after the failure of the popular initiative "For a sensible hemp policy with effective protection of minors" (hemp initiative) in Switzerland, an initiative was also rejected in the US state of California on November 2, 2010.
	+
	+	The initiative in California called for the legalization of cannabis consumption, trade and cultivation. The so-called Proposition 19 would have brought about a legalization of hemp products for narcotic purposes, probably unique in the world, in addition to medical cannabis, which is already legal and heavily commercialized in California. The referendum campaign, which was characterized by fear-mongering and political gambits, ultimately ended with a majority of 53.8% of the voters rejecting the initiative.
	+
	+	The complete legalization of cannabis use for persons 21 years of age and older, limited legal home cultivation, and regulation and taxation of commercial cultivation and trade at the community level had been the main goals of the Californian counterpart to the Swiss hemp initiative. However, as in Switzerland, it has proven very difficult to change the status quo through a referendum. Of California's 58 counties, eleven have adopted the initiative. Since these included large population centers such as San Francisco and Oakland, and the initiative was only narrowly defeated in the largest county, Los Angeles, the initiators achieved a respectable success with 46.2% of the vote in favor.
	+
	+	===== Broad support for the initiative =====
	+
	+	For a long time, things looked good for the proponents of Proposition 19 in California. Numerous celebrities from the entertainment industry, former police chiefs, large sections of the Democratic Party, legal scholars, and even former Mexican President Vicente Fox advocated acceptance of the referendum. The initiative caused a sensation internationally and once again stimulated discussions in many places about unreasonable drug and prohibition policies. For many, the case was clear: legalization would have relieved the already overburdened judiciary and police (arrests for marijuana possession increased by 127% in California between 1990 and 2008), taken away part of the market from the Mexican drug cartels, which are said to generate up to 60% of their revenues from the cannabis trade, and last but not least, given people back a piece of freedom. For months, various polls predicted that the initiative would be approved. However, the prospect of defeat mobilized opponents and critics of the initiative once again shortly before the vote.
	+
	+	===== Political intrigues and fear-mongering =====
	+
	+	A month before the election, the Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed a law that made the possession of up to 28 grams of marijuana a misdemeanor. Suddenly, the punishment for marijuana possession was lowered to a maximum of US$100 at fine, which of course did not boost the urgency of the legalization effort and was probably also directed against a political success of the Democrats, who had a majority in favor of legalization.
	+
	+	Adding to the political gamesmanship, talk shows and media voting campaigns outlined horror scenarios. Stoned school bus drivers, nurses smoking a joint before surgery, the powerlessness of employers in the face of drug-addicted employees, and the like were all put forward as consequences of passing the initiative against Proposition 19. Conservatives also argued that legalizing drugs would send the "wrong signal." This argument was also heard from the opponents of the hemp initiative in Switzerland.
	+
	+	===== Too much power at the local level =====
	+
	+	The initiative sought to introduce the possibility of taxing cannabis trafficking. The counties would have been given the authority to do so. This could have led to a confusing legal situation, and local authorities would have had a great deal of power in setting tax incentives. This did not sit well with many politicians and officials, including Arnold Schwarzenegger. They feared legal and social chaos and would have preferred to see the state given the right to regulate and tax cannabis uniformly. Considering that cannabis sales in California were recently estimated to be as high as US$14 billion, the tax revenue that could be made at the state level would be a boon to heavily indebted California.
	+
	+	===== Too little support for growers =====
	+
	+	Another hurdle the initiative could not overcome was the lack of support from the legal providers of "medical marijuana," known as dispensaries, and the illegal growers in California. Both groups would have only suffered losses as a result of Proposition 19's passage. While many users of prescription medical hemp would have switched back to non-medical weed and hashish, those representing the illegal drug supply would also have been among the losers from legalization. Prohibition of cannabis guarantees higher prices for both sides. In addition, people who are otherwise pro-cannabis often criticized the text of the referendum bill and expressed fears of too much regulation and taxation. For example, the vote was lost in the traditional cannabis growing region of the Emerald Triangle.
	+
	+	===== No end to legalization efforts in California and the U.S. =====
	+
	+	The defeat of Proposition 19 does not mean the end of efforts to legalize cannabis. Those who lost the vote see a generational problem and are looking confidently to upcoming initiatives and bills. Initial analyses of the voting results have shown that younger voters in particular put a yes in the ballot box. This indicates that soon a generation that is no longer afraid of cannabis or unreflectively rejects it could represent the majority of the population.
	+
	+	Because of the Proposition 19 vote, other legalization efforts in California have gone quiet. For example, the so-called "Amianno Bill," a bill calling for legalization and taxation at the state level, remains in the consultation process.
	+
	+	The U.S. will continue to play an important pioneering role in the global push back against cannabis prohibition. Fifteen states have now introduced legislation for medical cannabis use and cultivation, and over a dozen states have decriminalized cannabis use. These are very encouraging signs from a corner of the world that has contributed significantly to de facto global cannabis prohibition. What once started as a series of racist laws in the U.S., and often imposed on most nations through international treaties at the global level, may be pushed back by trends in the United States in the foreseeable future. These developments will not go unnoticed in our country either and will influence many politicians and opinion makers in our favor.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:medicalm.jpg}} \|
	+	\| Label of a medical marijuana package in California \|
	+
	+	===== Proposition 19 =====
	+
	+	The California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, which was voted on November 2, 2010, sought to establish the following regulations for non-medical cannabis:
	+
	+	* Possession is legal up to one ounce (28.35 grams) for personal use for people 21 and older.
	+	* Cultivation for personal use is legal to a maximum of 2.32 square meters (indoors or outdoors) per household per lot for persons 21 years of age and older.
	+	* Cities and counties can regulate the cultivation, transportation, and sale of cannabis and impose taxes on these activities.

Spring 2011: fixed penalties

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== Spring 2011: fines ======	+	====== Spring 2011: fixed penalties ======

-	Finally, the SGK-NR (Committee for Social Security and Health of the National Council) was able to agree on the key points for a possible nationwide regulatory fine model regarding cannabis use:	+	Finally, the SGK-NR (Committee for Social Security and Health of the National Council) was able to agree on the key points for a possible nationwide fixed penalty model regarding cannabis use:

-	* Height of fine: 100 francs.	+	* Height of fixed penalty: 100 francs.
-	* Age limit for fines: 16 years.	+	* Age limit for fixed penalties: 16 years.
	* Small amount: 10 grams of hemp.		* Small amount: 10 grams of hemp.

-	Now the matter can be dealt with in the National Council - where it will become clear whether the minorities who advocate 200 francs fine or want to grant the police discretionary powers will be heard more than in the commission.	+	Now the matter can be dealt with in the National Council - where it will become clear whether the minorities who advocate 200 francs fixed penalty or want to grant the police discretionary powers will be heard more than in the commission.

The ordeal of BR (part 1)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:rappaz.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The ordeal of BR (part 1) ======
	+
	+	05.2.2010 AGM of the Swiss Hemp Coordination. BR is also there. He says that the invitation would come soon.... Commencement of imprisonment, 5 years 8 months. And that he will go on hunger strike.
	+
	+	16.3.2010 BR would have to go to prison today. I write to the LI. BR is not going to jail. He goes to Farinet Weinberg, along with the press. They then call the authorities. Why don't you go and get him? Answer: we do not play this game. BR gets a new invitation.
	+
	+	20.3.2010 BR is arrested at home. He starts the hunger strike.
	+
	+	23.3.2010 BR sends me a card.
	+
	+	16-18.4. hemp trade fair in Basel. Signatures are collected: Petition for the support of BR.
	+
	+	08.5.2010 I receive a letter from BR. He is now in Geneva, in the hospital, prison ward.
	+
	+	10.5.2010 After 48 days without food, BR is granted a 14 day break from prison.
	+
	+	21.5.2010 BR is picked up three days early at home, at 7 am. He had spoken to the press, which did not please the Valais authorities. BR no longer eats or drinks anything.
	+
	+	29.5.2010 Demo in front of the prison, 14 to 16 o'clock, I was there.
	+
	+	31.5.2010 A letter from BR reaches me.
	+
	+	01.6.2010 Phone from Maggie: BR is taking liquid again since 28.5.
	+
	+	01.6.2010 Letter from me to State Councillor Waeber-Kalbermatten. Mercy for hemp pioneer BR? Mail from President Leuthard. Replies to my letters of April and May (request for clemency).
	+
	+	07.6.2010 Letter from BR: Prisonnier Politique, à Sion.
	+
	+	13.6.2010 Phone from Maggie. BR is now back in Geneva University Hospital, prison ward. He is very weak.
	+
	+	16.6.2010 I write to Federal Councillor Calmy-Rey, State Councillor Waeber-Kalbermatten, to BR.
	+
	+	17.6.2010 Article in WOZ: Hemp Gandhi or criminal? The imprisoned hemp farmer is ready to die.
	+
	+	21.6.2010 Letters to Amnesty International, Cédric Wermuth (President Juso), National Councilor Geri Müller.
	+
	+	23.6.2010 Letter to LI: Please consider, BR is 36 days without food on 6/25/2010, and 48 days before.
	+
	+	24.6.2010 Aargauer Zeitung reports: Pardon of hemp farmer BR is rejected.
	+
	+	26.6.2010 Mail from BR.
	+
	+	29.6.2010 Letter to State Councillor Waeber-Kalbermatten and to BR.
	+
	+	01.7.2010 Card received from BR.
	+
	+	02.7.2010 View: Rappaz deliberately starves himself to death. Tagi: Hemp farmer rejects force-feeding.
	+
	+	05.7.2010 Response from Calmy-Rey.
	+
	+	07.7.2010 Letter to BR: Today we bring Waeber-Kalbermatten 892 signatures for the petition "Freedom for BR". She receives us in Sion. Maggie, Marion and I hand over the signature sheets, with accompanying letters. Many press people were there. Waeber-Kalbermatten delivers a media release.
	+
	+	08.7.2010 Phone call to Waeber-Kalbermatten: From today on protest and demonstration in front of the University Hospital of Geneva. Tagi mentions petition.
	+
	+	10.7.2010 Blick: No mercy for BR. Valais Cantonal Court has rejected the appeal against the arrest.
	+
	+	12.7.2010 BR since today in Inselspital Bern, prison ward.
	+
	+	14.7.2010 Demo in Geneva: Freedom for BR.
	+
	+	15.7.2010 Mail from BR from Inselspital, Maggie gets four-page letter from BR.
	+
	+	16.7.2010 NZZ: Hemp farmer remains behind bars (Federal Court).
	+
	+	18.7.2010 SonntagsZeitung: Rappaz must not starve. He is to be force-fed. This decision was made by Waeber-Kalbermatten on 16.7. Doctors refuse.
	+
	+	19.7.2010 Letter from me to BR and to Waeber-Kalbermatten.
	+
	+	20.7.2010 Luzerner Zeitung: BR's lawyer lodges a protest with the Valais Cantonal Court because of force-feeding. Letter from me to Ruth Dreifuss. In the evening Zischtigsclub: Hemp farmer on hunger strike.
	+
	+	21.7.2010 Response letter from Amnesty International. 110 days hunger strike. From today BR eats again. Maggie tel. me: BR is coming out! Mail from BR. Marion tel.: BR will stay in Inselspital for about 4 more days.
	+
	+	22.7.2010 House arrest until 28.8. Nine-page petition goes to all deputies in Wallis. Tagi: BR has broken off hunger strike. He is granted house arrest until a final decision is made on his request to be released.
	+
	+	30.7.2010 BR is at home in Saxon. Letter to BR and to Waeber-Kalbermatten. Blick am Abend: BR in the sights. The Valais public prosecutor charges him with offenses from 02-06. He is serving his current sentence for previous offenses.
	+
	+	July 2010 Letter to 76 deputies in the canton of Valais. Clarification on the BR case, from Marion.
	+
	+	14.8.2010 Phone to BR: On 26.8. Federal Court decides on prison break.
	+
	+	17.8.2010 Letter to Federal Court in Lausanne.
	+
	+	19.8.2010 Mail from Federal Court: Confirmation of receipt.
	+
	+	26.8.2010 Federal Court has ruled, BR remains in custody. Switzerland News: BR is back in prison, he was picked up at home at 1.30 pm. Hunger strikers must be force-fed. BR goes on hunger strike again.
	+
	+	09.9.2010 Mail from BR.
	+
	+	11.9.2010 Luzerner Zeitung: BR receives hefty bill for house arrest. 44'000 francs for guarding at home.
	+
	+	13.9.2010 Card from me to BR.
	+
	+	25.9.2010 Letter from Sandra.
	+
	+	1.10.2010 NZZ: Doctors in the fight against the Federal Court (force-feeding).
	+
	+	[[en:thc_recht/li560405\|Continued
	+	]]
	+
	+	====== Hemp does not kill. But die for the hemp? ======
	+
	+	Ruth and Sandra have been intensely involved in the Bernard Rappaz case. We publish Sandra's thoughts on the accusations against Bernard Rappaz (BR) and Ruth's chronology of his hunger strike and the activities surrounding this affair.
	+
	+	==== The general public must be protected from this criminal. ====
	+
	+	The reason for this is that BR has been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. I am convinced that BR is not a criminal and therefore does not pose a danger to the general public. His petition testifies that he has not traded on the black market, has not forged any documents, and has not hidden, laundered, or otherwise embezzled any money. Hence his protest.
	+
	+	==== Hemp and the dried hemp flowers are a narcotic drug. ====
	+
	+	This should no longer even be allowed to claim. Hemp is a versatile and valuable plant. Not a toy, but also, fortunately, not a dangerous drug.
	+
	+	==== Cannabis is a gateway drug for hard drugs. ====
	+
	+	This has also been scientifically disproved. It is the prohibition that leads to the fact that whoever is looking for dried cannabis flowers may only find them at the heroin dealer.
	+
	+	==== A break in incarceration for BR could jeopardize public health. ====
	+
	+	Such an accusation is not comprehensible for me. BR has so far at most endangered his own health, through his hunger strike. But I am not aware of any victims because of his activity as a hemp farmer.
	+
	+	==== BR poses a serious risk to the general public and their health. ====
	+
	+	BR is a hemp farmer and pacifist. Since the toxicity of the hemp plant has never been proven, one would have to see another danger he poses to the general public. I do not see any.
	+
	+	==== The public interest in the execution of the prison sentence shall prevail over the personal welfare of the detainee. ====
	+
	+	Even if he threatens to die from it? In my opinion, it would be in the public interest to examine this individual case and justify a pardon on the grounds that BR is not a serious criminal because he has neither lied nor cheated nor murdered.
	+
	+	==== BR must become aware of prohibition. ====
	+
	+	BR is very aware of prohibition. That's why he has run his business openly, always answering questions, and has been at the forefront of education and fairness regarding the hemp plant. He is a pioneer, not a drug dealer.
	+
	+	Half a century of repression has thoroughly missed the mark. It would be high time for new solutions in dealing with the hemp plant.
	+
	+	There is now so much evidence of the usefulness of the hemp plant and its active ingredients, and new ones are being added all the time.
	+	BR is tragically willing to risk his life to have his say that his case has been completely misjudged. All the polemics in the media and the loss of his house and farm have only strengthened him in this assessment. Understandably so, in my opinion.
	+
	+	It seems to me that if the Rappaz case were taking place in China right now, the Swiss press would be reading about a political prisoner or dissident. In his own country, however, people stubbornly cling to the label of criminal.

2010 conviction figures: increase at a high level

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:konsumverz2010.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== 2010 conviction figures: increase at a high level ======
	+
	+
	+	After two years with the new counting method, it is clear: The extent of repression against cannabis has been clearly underestimated so far. We dare a comparison to the former counting method and can compare two new years for the first time.
	+
	+	===== New statistics from the FSO =====
	+
	+	For two years now, the Federal Statistical Office has been publishing the figures on cannabis repression. The first 35 years were compiled by the Federal Office of Police. Unfortunately, the counting method is no longer the same, so that the comparability is only limited.
	+
	+	However, the new distinction between contravention and report makes more sense - the former is punished with a fine and fees (total of a few hundred francs), while the latter is additionally punished with monetary penalty/day sentences or imprisonment as well as an entry in the criminal record.
	+
	+	===== Problems of the new statistics =====
	+
	+	There are now very many categories (cannabis, hemp (young plant), hemp (plant dried), hemp (plant fresh), hashish, marijuana, hashish oil and hemp seeds). But most of them are practically "empty": that is, the two categories hashish and marijuana contain the lion's share. Therefore, we decided to append the other categories to these two. So weed means for us: cannabis, hemp (young plant), hemp (plant dried), hemp (plant fresh), marijuana and hemp seeds. Hash for us includes: hashish and hashish oil. (For details see Legalize it! 52.)
	+
	+	===== Open question =====
	+
	+	However, there is also a category "Multiple substances". Here are probably also various pure hemp cases recorded (for example, someone who was caught with hemp seeds and marijuana). Despite repeated inquiries, the FSO did not feel able to break down this category, which is quite well filled, for us. Therefore, it may well be that each bar in the violations would be a few thousand cases higher than we present it.
	+
	+	===== Fixed penalties =====
	+
	+	The fixed penalties, which play a role especially in St. Gallen and Neuchâtel, should also not be included in these figures and probably account for another few hundred cases per year.
	+
	+	===== Comparison with previous =====
	+
	+	In the past, referrals were counted, but now accused persons and criminal offenses are counted. In principle, there should be fewer defendants than referrals, while there should tend to be more offenses than referrals. We now compare the old 35 years with the two new ones.
	+
	+	In the case of the consumption referrals/transgressions (first chart), the new figures are still within the range of a somewhat comprehensible deviation, but in the case of the trade referrals/misdemeanor, enormously more cases are shown than before. The reason for this is not clear. But it is clear that the extent of repression has been significantly underestimated. In 2010, it affected over 35,000 people in the case of violations and over 7,000 people in the case of misdemeanor. In one year. That is enormous.
	+
	+	===== Comparison 2009 to 2010 =====
	+
	+	But even if we only compare the two new years (which are directly comparable), we see increases of 7-8% in the number of violations and of around 5% at misdemeanor. We can be curious to see how this will develop over the next few years. In any case, repression continues to rage with full force.
	+
	+	Perhaps the oh-so-overworked police - who in Zurich even staged a small bus strike to point out their precarious overload - should think about whether they shouldn't at least spare themselves the registration of the more than 40,000 crimes in the area of THC-contravention? These prosecutions are reprehensible anyway - there are no victims to protect - so less (repression) would clearly be more (decency).
	+
	+	{{:thc_recht:konsumverz2010.jpg}}
	+
	+	{{:thc_recht:handelverz2010.jpg}}

The ordeal of Bernard Rappaz (part 2)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:rappaz.jpg}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The ordeal of Bernard Rappaz (part 2) ======
	+
	+
	+	We bring you the second part of Ruth's chronology on the hunger strike of Bernard Rappaz (BR) and the activities surrounding this affair.
	+
	+	07.10.10 Card to BR.
	+
	+	10/14/10 Card from BR.
	+
	+	17.10.10 On the radio: BR back in hospital in Geneva. Sandra writes letters to the editor...
	+
	+	19.10.10 Letter to BR to the hospital.
	+
	+	26.10.10 NZZ: Federal Court publishes reasons for judgment in BR case.
	+
	+	01.11.10 Letters to BR and State Councillor Waeber-Kalbermatten.
	+
	+	04.11.10 Again letters to BR and State Councillor Waeber-Kalbermatten, with various newspaper reports.
	+
	+	05.11.10 Tagi: Geneva University Hospital stands by - BR will not be force-fed. He has now been on hunger strike again for 76 days.
	+
	+	07.11.10 Sonntagsblick: Judge threatens prison doctor. Canton Valais orders hemp farmer BR to be artificially fed.
	+
	+	I write to 75 deputies in Valais: Please be merciful to hemp farmer BR and read his petition.
	+
	+	08.11.10 Aargauer Zeitung: Valais authorities are powerless. Doctors refuse to force-feed BR.
	+	Phone from Maggie: In Welschland and Wallis many press reports.
	+
	+	Peter Bodenmann attacks State Councillor Waeber-Kalbermatten: This is the death penalty in Switzerland.
	+
	+	11.11.10 I receive a reply from a member of parliament in Valais.
	+
	+	12.11.10 The Valais Cantonal Court has rejected BR's appeal. No break in detention. Now BR has been on eating strike for 78 days!
	+
	+	12.11.10 10vor10: BR's farm was foreclosed for 350'000 francs.
	+
	+	13.11.10 Luzerner Zeitung: BR's ex-girlfriend breaks her silence: One wants to break him, he disturbs.
	+
	+	NZZ: Geneva University Hospital still refuses to force-feed. It takes the case to federal court.
	+
	+	15.11.10 Letters to BR, State Councilor Waeber-Kalbermatten, National Councilor Geri Müller, Federal Councilor Simonetta Sommaruga.
	+
	+	16.11.10 Infrarouge: discussion about BR on French TV.
	+
	+	17.11.10 Tagi: Federal Councillor Calmy-Rey at a loss in the BR case.
	+	Aargauer Zeitung: Federal Court decides that BR remains in custody. Request for a stay of imprisonment rejected again.
	+
	+	18.11.10 WOZ: Merciless Valais. Valais hemp farmer BR has been starving for 84 days. His life is in acute danger.
	+
	+	Blick am Abend: The hemp farmer drinks only water in prison. Today his fate will be decided. The parliament of Valais makes this afternoon the decision on his request for pardon.
	+
	+	Tagi: Federal Council cannot intervene in BR case. Responsibility lies with the cantons and courts.
	+	Tagesschau: No mercy for BR. The Valais parliament votes 113 to 14 against a pardon.
	+
	+	19.11.10 Luzerner Zeitung: Fronts remain hardened. "Everyone voted according to his conscience," says Parliament President Jean-François Copt.
	+
	+	20.11.10 Phone from Maggie: She is on her way to Geneva to visit BR.
	+
	+	NZZ: Valais hemp farmer challenges the rule of law with his hunger strike.
	+
	+	21.11.10 Sonntagszeitung: Rappaz wants a compromise.
	+
	+	22.11.10 Letter to State Councilor Waeber-Kalbermatten.
	+
	+	23.11.10 SF Aktuell: Doctors at the University Hospital have turned to the Federal Court: No force-feeding. Waeber-Kalbermatten wants forced feeding. Lawyer of BR Aba Neman has again turned to the Valais government and demands a break in detention.
	+
	+	25.11.10 Federal Council does not want to draw up rules for force-feeding.
	+
	+	29.11.10 Letter to BR, with various newspaper articles.
	+
	+	30.11.10 Tagi: The Valais District Court III has postponed the trial against BR. He was not fit to stand trial for health reasons.
	+
	+	Mail from National Councilor Geri Müller: He was able to give an interview on Valais TV and to work with people from Geneva. He has the feeling that it will be good.
	+
	+	01.12.10 Tagi: The hemp farmer has also been turned down by the Valais authorities with his latest request for a stay of execution.
	+
	+	03.12.10 Tagesschau: BR now turns to the Federal Court.
	+
	+	05.12.10 Sonntagszeitung: Jean Ziegler and Daniel Cohn-Bendit stand up for BR.
	+
	+	Sonntagsblick: Hemp farmer BR has been starving for 100 days, with photo: This is what he looks like now! Phone from Maggie: Visited BR yesterday. He was depressed. On 11.12. his yard must be cleared.
	+
	+	06.12.10 Luzerner Zeitung: In Paris an international committee consisting of Jean Ziegler, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and the French farmer activist José Bové demands the release of BR. Bové announces that he will deposit a corresponding appeal at the Swiss embassy today. Bové also wants to make representations to the Vatican.
	+	Letters from me to BR and the Federal Councillors.
	+
	+	09.12.10 NZZ: Federal Court defies BR's hunger strike. Third complaint is also rejected. No break in detention.
	+
	+	WOZ: Force-feeding means gagging, vomiting, trembling and the feeling of suffocating.
	+
	+	Letter to Dr. Hans Wolff, BR's doctor at Geneva University Hospital.
	+
	+	10.12.10 Phone from Sandra: BR turns to European Court of Human Rights. His lawyer says he is now taking vitamins, sugar and salt again.
	+
	+	11.12.10 NZZ: BR's lawyer is preparing an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This is the last instance which can still be appealed.
	+
	+	13.12.10 Letter to BR with many press reports.
	+
	+	14.12.10 Phone from Maggie: On Friday Jean Ziegler will come to Geneva and give a press conference.
	+
	+	17.12.10 Mail from BR.
	+
	+	Sandra: Open letter to Waeber-Kalbermatten.
	+
	+	Letter from me to BR, Roger Liggenstorfer (Nachtschattenverlag), Legalize it!, Boris and Maggie.
	+
	+	20.12.10 Letter to new Federal President Micheline Calmy-Rey. Please, please save BR's life. Today is his 117th hunger day.
	+
	+	Letter to Geri Müller, with Sandra's open letter.
	+
	+	21.12.10 Luzerner Zeitung: Rappaz rebuffed at the Court of Human Rights. The court asks Rappaz to break off his hunger strike. A judgement will be made only in two to three years.
	+
	+	23.12.10 Teletext: BR will eat again from 24.12! Waeber-Kalbermatten is relieved. Phu, and so are we!!!
	+	Phone from Maggie: Yes, it's true, she is relieved too. After 120 days of hunger strike, BR will eat again starting tomorrow. She is going to visit him tomorrow.
	+
	+	Waeber-Kalbermatten threatens Sandra with "legal consequences" if her open letter is published.
	+
	+	24.12.10 Luzerner Zeitung, Aargauer Zeitung, NZZ, Tagi, Blick: BR wants to eat again. In a communiqué, the imprisoned hemp farmer says he is following the advice of the European Court of Justice.
	+
	+	29.12.10 Tagi: The hunger strike costs BR's health insurance dearly. The hospital stay costs 35'000 francs.
	+
	+	31.12.10 Card from BR.
	+
	+	03.01.11 Sven from Legalize it! asks if I can write a report about BR.
	+
	+	04.01.11 Letter to BR, with various newspaper reports.
	+
	+	05.01.11 Letter to Legalize it!: I try to write a summary of BR's ordeal.
	+
	+	07.01.11 Mail from Sandra: Reply letter to Waeber-Kalbermatten: Seeking conversation, not war, but am not aware of any guilt.
	+
	+	10.01.11 Radio: BR is said to be no longer in the University Hospital of Geneva, but back in prison. Mail from BR.
	+
	+	[[en:thc_recht/li570202\|Continued
	+	]]
	+
	+	====== News from the jail ======
	+
	+	We are happy to inform you that our nationally known ex-hunger-striking prisoner is doing well again - according to the circumstances. He is working 100% in prison, he is doing sports regularly, and he is also working for his well-being and the well-being of his fellow inmates behind bars. Together with other prisoners, he is fighting for better, more humane prison conditions. He has put on a few kilos in the past four months, and his cholesterol levels are even better than before the hunger strike.
	+
	+	Yes, Bernard Rappaz is practicing top-class sports, which no one is recommended to imitate. But he seems to know his intentions and his limits very well. Most people couldn't do that because they would never have the discipline to do it; me included. But this also proves that he never wanted to die, as he has been accused of countless times in public. No, he "only" wanted to be listened to, taken seriously and treated like a human being. Not like an incarnated enemy image....
	+
	+	At a new trial, covering the period from 2002 to 2006, BR was sentenced on May 10, 2011 to an extension of his sentence by 12 months to 6 years and eight months. The sentence is not yet final, as BR's lawyer is challenging the verdict.
	+
	+
	+	====== Review ======
	+
	+	Not for the faint of heart: This is about the new Bröckers!
	+
	+	==== Mathias Bröckers: The Drug Lie - Why Drug Prohibitions Promote Terrorism and Harm Your Health. ====
	+
	+	ISBN 978-3-938060-51-3, 214 pages, Westend Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Piper Verlag GmbH, Munich, 2010.
	+
	+	Who knows that today's well-known drug prohibition and repression has its origins in the Opium Wars, which took place some 250 years ago? And that even then it was hardly a matter of protecting the health of the population?
	+
	+	If you want to know more about this, you should definitely read "The Drug Lie"! Mathias Bröckers has succeeded with this book a great hit: exciting like a thriller, carefully researched and well comprehensible compiled, the author leads us through a thicket of misappropriated information, political shenanigans and economic power struggles.
	+
	+	Let's clear up the widespread prejudices and clichés, confront ourselves with uncomfortable facts, and let the truth have its say for once.
	+
	+	Here's to good reading, everyone.
	+

Winter 2011/12: fixed penalties

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== Winter 2011/12: fines ======	+	====== Winter 2011/12: fixed penalties ======

-	Following the entry into force of the partial revision of NarcA, another partial revision is now pending: The second part of the revision of NarcA on the subject of cannabis is now definitely on the political way. The only thing that remains is the administrative fine model. On 11.11.11, the National Council Commission dealt with the Federal Council's response to its proposal, and the discussion in the National Council is scheduled for 2012 (number 04.439).	+	Following the entry into force of the partial revision of NarcA, another partial revision is now pending: The second part of the revision of NarcA on the subject of cannabis is now definitely on the political way. The only thing that remains is the fixed penalty model. On 11.11.11, the National Council Commission dealt with the Federal Council's response to its proposal, and the discussion in the National Council is scheduled for 2012 (number 04.439).

The ordeal of Bernard Rappaz (part 3)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:rappaz.jpg}}\|

	+
	+
	+	====== The ordeal of Bernard Rappaz (part 3) ======
	+
	+	We bring you the third part of Ruth's chronology on the hunger strike of Bernard Rappaz (BR) and the activities surrounding this affair. If you want to ask BR questions, feel free to write us - we will forward them.
	+
	+	11.1.11 All newspapers report! E.g. Tagi: Hemp farmer BR again in prison in Valais. On Christmas Eve he ended his hunger strike after not eating for 120 days.
	+
	+	12.1.11 Letter to Legalize it! Is the report about BR so okay ? Copy card written by BR on 1.1.11, received on 10.1.11.
	+
	+	Aargauerz.: Penal system. Humiliating treatment in Hindelbank, Granges, Brig. Prisoners have to bend naked against the wall.
	+
	+	NZZ: Commission examines prisons.
	+
	+	21.1.11 Letter from BR. He has already gained some weight. He thanks for the press reports.
	+
	+	25.1.11 BR gets a food package from Sandra and me.
	+
	+	01.2.11 Phone from Sandra. She has received mail from BR. He was very happy with the package. On 9.5. he has his next trial.
	+
	+	11.2.11 Blick am Abend: Outraged: SVP politician Oskar Freysinger from Valais sues because he was caricatured as an SS officer by a cartoonist.
	+
	+	14.2.11 Birthday letter (18.2.) to BR.
	+
	+	20.2.11 Sonntagsz.: BR has quickly found a new combat zone after his 124-day hunger strike. Switzerland's most famous prisoner put his signature under a petition with which the inmates of the Crêtelongue prison in Granges defend themselves against the bad food. This was revealed yesterday by the Valais newspaper "Le Nouvelliste".
	+
	+	23.2.11 Aargauerz.: Rappaz' force-feeding remains unresolved. The Federal Court leaves open whether BR's doctor at the Geneva University Hospital was allowed to be obliged by the Valais judiciary to force-feed the hemp farmer. According to the court, a clarification of the question is unnecessary after the breaking off of BR's hunger strike.
	+
	+	08.3.11 Package to BR. Hello Bernard, everything okay? Many greetings and bon appétit, Ruth.
	+
	+	09.3.11 Tel. to Sandra. She received mail from BR today. The French TV had been with him.
	+
	+	12.3.11 Card from BR. Many, many greetings and thank you very much for your package. Hmm, that is very good. Everything is ok here. I work 50%. Time goes fast...
	+
	+	17.3.11 NZZ: Cannabis consumption. The National Council wants the consumption of cannabis and the acquisition for personal use to remain punishable. With 103 to 51 votes it did not follow a parliamentary initiative by Katharina Prelicz-Huber. In the commission, the proposal had only narrowly failed.
	+
	+	DRS Aktuell TV 7 p.m.: Today, the Valais Grand Council negotiated about force-feeding. In the future, this should be regulated by law. SVP does not want force-feeding. Majority wants a regulation, Waeber-Kalbermatten is happy, but she would prefer a nationwide regulation.
	+
	+	13.4.11 Packet to BR.
	+
	+	28.4.11 Card from BR. Thank you for your package.
	+
	+	03.5.11 Card to BR. Wish you much strength and good luck for the trial on 9 & 10.5.
	+
	+	04.5.11 Sandra sends some books "Die Drogenlüge" by Mathias Bröckers to newspapers and draws attention to BR's next trial.
	+
	+	Letter to Legalize it! Would be good someone could go to BR's trial.
	+
	+	09.5.11 DRS Aktuell TV 7pm: Monday, shortly before 8am, BR leaves a police bus in handcuffs. He can talk to the press: I feel good. Light, light as hemp. The trial is about the years 2002 to 2006. I hope the judges show their human face. He is a political prisoner. prosecutor Jean-Pierre Gros demands 28 months in prison.
	+
	+	10.5.11 Aargauerz.: Hemp farmer Bernard Rappaz should be in prison even longer (photo).
	+
	+	DRS Aktuell, TV 7 p.m.: The verdict: 12 months unconditional.
	+
	+	11.5.11 Bernerz., NZZ, Neue Luzernerz., Aargauerz., Baslerz., St. Gallerz., Tages-Anzeiger, Der Bund (photo): Rappaz appeals against additional sentence.
	+
	+	13.5.11 Reussbote Mellingen: Rappaz appeals against sentence. He is currently serving a sentence of 5 years and 8 months.
	+
	+	15.5.11 NZZ am Sonntag: Hemp farmer Bernard Rappaz (photo) receives another prison sentence.
	+
	+	20.5.11 Tel. from Sandra. She has received mail from BR. He sends his regards. He is doing well.
	+
	+	27.5.11 Card from BR: We are making recours!
	+
	+	Mail from Sandra: Letter from Tagi journalist R. Diethelm.
	+
	+	07.6.11 Sandra's answer to R. Diethelm.
	+
	+	15.6.11 Send BR a food parcel.
	+
	+	16.6.11 Phone from Sandra. She received mail from BR today. The famous director Jean-Luc Godard wants to make a documentary about him.
	+
	+	[[en:thc_recht/li580202\|Continued]]

The ordeal of Bernard Rappaz, part 4

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:rappaz.jpg}}\|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The ordeal of Bernard Rappaz, part 4 ======
	+
	+	We bring you the fourth part of Ruth's chronology on the hunger strike of Bernard Rappaz (BR) and the activities surrounding this affair. If you have any questions for BR, please feel free to write to us.
	+	we will forward them.
	+
	+	06/26/11 Letter to Sandra: Go to Zurich tomorrow, members event Legalize it! Bring part 3, The ordeal of hemp farmer Barnard Rappaz.
	+
	+	26.06.11 Card with hemp plant from BR: Good day Ruth, thank you very much for your package. Do you know of any international petitions? In France they are talking a lot now about legalizing hemp. One day hemp will be free. That is clear. The question is: when?
	+
	+	11.07.11 Letter to BR: Yes, there is international protest. Inserts: Grow Magazine July/August 2011, Petition to End the Global Drug War. And, in the same issue: Global Marijuana March 2011. Hemp Journal June 2011: Hemp Day has run.
	+
	+	05.08.11 NZZ: Rappaz complaint approved. BR does not have to pay the costs for his house arrest himself. The cantonal court of Valais has approved his complaint against a bill for 44,000 francs, which had been issued by the cantonal government. Rappaz was under house arrest from July 21 to August 26, 2010. Security personnel had to be deployed to guard him, which among other things caused the high costs.
	+	Tages-Anzeiger: Affair Rappaz - Rappaz does not have to pay costs for house arrest.
	+	Aargauerzeitung: House arrest - No costs for Valais hemp farmer.
	+
	+	17.08.11 Luzernerz., NZZ, Aargauerz., Reussbote: Sion - Rappaz on hunger strike again.
	+	He is of the opinion that he is entitled to a vacation of 24 hours already now and not only in September, since he has served one third of his prison sentence. The point of contention is the 37 days of his house arrest during pre-trial detention in 2006, which the penal authorities do not want to recognize.
	+
	+	08/29/11 Tel. from BR to Sandra. There is:
	+	www.tapagoille.blogspot.com, mais c'est en français...
	+
	+	31.08.11 Tel. from Sandra, she has received mail from BR: On August 18, the National Council rejected force-feeding.
	+	12.09.11 Tel. from Sandra. Received letter from BR. Since September 8, the hunger strike is over. It lasted 26 days.
	+
	+	17.09.11 BR would have his first leave for 24 hours.
	+
	+	21.09.11 Tel. from Maggie: BR had no vacation. On 9/14 there was a urine test. He was THC positive. Instead of vacation he got five days "Cachot" - that is a cell in the basement.
	+
	+	29.09.11 Tel. to Sandra. She received a six-page letter from BR yesterday. He had drunk hemp tea from the Coop. He had stated in the urine test. The case is being investigated (see page three right).
	+
	+	03.10.11 Letter to BR: Today we have 60 years of hemp prohibition in Switzerland. That is crazy! And it is not over yet!
	+
	+	04.10.11 Card from BR. Salü Ruth, already 60 years!!! That is quite crazy!
	+
	+	20.10.11 Tel. from Sandra. She got mail from BR. He has a 24 hour vacation on 10/22.
	+
	+	11/11/11 Tel. to Sandra. Yes, BR had his vacation. Work was being done for the doc film. A book is also in the making.
	+
	+	07.12.11 Package and letter to BR: Salü Bernard, how are you? I work every day for the hemp policy! We want a change!
	+
	+	27.12.11 Tel. from Sandra. BR visited her over Christmas.
	+
	+	29.12.11 Letter from BR, written on 26.12. It goes well, thank you for your package, great! Your work for hemp politics is very wonderful. I also always work for hemp, with my book and a documentary film, 120 minutes. After 2013, I present the two projects. In 2012, in Valais, it is possible to have four hemp plants, from 18 years. Love greetings, Bernard.
	+
	+	//With this fourth part, we conclude our series.
	+	//
	+
	+	==== News from the jail ====
	+
	+	On the weekend of September 17/18, 2011, Bernard Rappaz would have had his first 24-hour outing after serving the first third of his sentence. Before that, however, there was a quick urine sample, which promptly turned out to be "positive.
	+
	+	The inmate claims to have complied with all the conditions and to be pot-free.
	+	The authorities are willing to have the hemp tea, which is legally sold and enjoyed, tested by Coop for traces of THC, but nevertheless order five days in the bunker instead of a "first exit".
	+
	+	I'm sure the THC content of said tea bags is not "excessive", but that's where the problem lies:
	+	The highly sensitive (THC-degradation-traces-in-the-urine) urine tests indicate a "positive" result far too quickly, which is very concerning given the drastic penalties that can follow a "positive" UP! Actual wrong judgments to the disadvantage of the suspects are so downright pre-programmed.
	+
	+	So if these UP tests run the risk of showing false results, whereby innocent people who have not smoked pot are exposed (and punished!) as "guilty" - and this probably happens more often than many think - our authorities should have the insight to do without urine tests for possible cannabis consumption in the future. I think so.
	+
	+	As for the "Rappaz case" in particular:
	+	Apart from the humiliation of a UP and the risk of a false result, I don't understand why this control was "necessary" at all with Bernard. He's been a hemp activist for around 40 years, he's approaching 60 lenze, so "youth protection" can't be the issue either. The authorities themselves know best what their prisoner has gone through in the last two years alone, and that he will never renounce hemp even because of five days in the bunker.
	+	So why all the harassment?
	+
	+	Bernard Rappaz is an exemplary inmate (except for possible hunger strikes for unfair decisions) who met all the special conditions for his first exit and was still punished for it. This is not only mean, it is absolutely counterproductive pedagogically! In an institution that is supposed to punish injustice, it must not happen that good will is punished!
	+
	+	How much longer can our society find such inhumane "educational measures" good?
	+
	+	In 60 years of hemp prohibition in Switzerland, repression has truly taken on bizarre features. Conclusion: Everything must become better again! The authorities don't want to talk about hemp? Good. Let's talk about (the sense and nonsense of) urine tests!
	+
	+

Current political developments in spring 2012

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Current political developments in spring 2012 ======
	+
	+	The "Concordat of Western Switzerland on the cultivation and trade of hemp" wants to regulate the legal hemp sector more strictly. Thus, there is a reporting obligation for hemp cultivation in the joined cantons - and this explicitly for hemp that is not smoked. Those who grow less than five (legal, narcotic-free) hemp plants are exempt from this obligation to register. The whole thing is therefore a tightening of the situation in the legal hemp sector. The prohibited hemp is not affected by this and remains - prohibited.
	+
	+	In the direction of more efficient prosecution (standard fines instead of costly report) goes the order fine model (04.439). The National Council will deal with this issue as the first council on March 7, 2012. Then it will also become clearer what the details of this proposal will look like. Because these are crucial: a fine of 100 francs is something different from one over 50 or 200 francs. Whether the maximum amount should be 5, 10 or 20 grams also makes a difference. Depending upon it can come so quite to a tightening of the today's, cantonally and even after district very different, prosecution (fines are worse than warnings, which are quite in some areas the rule). Flag (majority and minority motions for NR discussion) see:
	+
	+	[[http://www.parlament.ch/d/suche/seiten/ratsunterlagen.aspx?gesch_nr=20040439\|Documents from the Councils]]

The fixed penalties in parliamentary consultation

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== The fines in parliamentary consultation ======	+	====== The fixed penalties in parliamentary consultation ======

-	Summer 2012: The administrative fine bill is now entering the final parliamentary phase. In March 2012, the National Council discussed the administrative fine model and decided that the amount of the fine should be 200 francs. The National Council has now decided on the final stage of the bill. This has resulted in a high punishment. At the same time, the St. Gallen model with 50 francs has been working for more than ten years.... But just: It was a victory for the hardliners in the Council. Now the Council of States follows, which could still correct this decision. On June 4, the discussion will take place there. The commission of the Council of States has built up several differences to the National Council on May 21 and decided, among other things, for 100 francs. If the Council of States sticks with it, the National Council will deal with these differences on June 12.	+	Summer 2012: The fixed penalty bill is now entering the final parliamentary phase. In March 2012, the National Council discussed the fixed penalty model and decided that the amount of the fine should be 200 francs. The National Council has now decided on the final stage of the bill. This has resulted in a high punishment. At the same time, the St. Gallen model with 50 francs has been working for more than ten years.... But just: It was a victory for the hardliners in the Council. Now the Council of States follows, which could still correct this decision. On June 4, the discussion will take place there. The commission of the Council of States has built up several differences to the National Council on May 21 and decided, among other things, for 100 francs. If the Council of States sticks with it, the National Council will deal with these differences on June 12.

Help only as an exception: hemp-based medicines

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Help only as an exception: hemp-based medicines ======
	+
	+	**We present the situation in 2012 around hemp-based medicines, which have been allowed for almost a year, and highlight some of the new legal regulations. There will hardly be a broad prescription, but exceptions are possible in individual cases.
	+	**
	+	It's been a long time, but some may still remember the lost hemp initiative. On the same voting weekend, the revised narcotics law was approved. Since then, heroin addicts have been allowed to be treated with hard drugs under state supervision. As far as cannabis is concerned, the law has - apart from more repression for users - also created the possibility of authorizing hemp-based medicines.
	+
	+	//(The 8th edition of the legal aid brochure Shit happens covers the general new regulations and can be ordered from us. This article is now an extension/concretization of the previous small section on hemp as medicine).
	+	//
	+	When, on the occasion of the voting campaign on the revision of the Narcotics Law, it was a matter of presenting good reasons for an acceptance, the Federal Council explicitly wrote in its voting recommendations: "Today, the medical use of cannabis is prohibited. The amendment to the Narcotics Law creates the possibility of authorizing hemp-based medicines." So what has become of the promise and what is the situation of sick fellow human beings who want to use cannabis to alleviate their suffering?
	+
	+	===== The new legal regulation =====
	+
	+	Anyone who had thought at the time that they would soon be able to obtain cannabis flowers from pharmacies at the expense of their health insurance was soon disappointed. As the introduction of the new regulations approached, it became clear that medicine from hemp would remain the exception.
	+
	+	Since July 1, 2011, the revised law has been in effect, allowing three uses for cannabis:
	+
	+	- For research purposes, such as the development of a drug. This requires the approval of the responsible cantonal ethics committee as well as a release (notification) from Swissmedic and an exemption permit from the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH).
	+	- As a conventional drug, which is registered with Swissmedic.
	+	- As a limited medical use for the indications known today; which also requires an exceptional authorization from the FOPH.
	+
	+	The first two points state that, with the necessary permits, it is permissible to conduct research with cannabis and to register it as a medicine for certain medical conditions. It could then be prescribed by a doctor like other "normal" medicines and obtained, for example, on prescription.
	+
	+	It is possible that the pharmaceutical industry, which is always looking for new lucrative markets, will soon become more interested in hemp and develop drugs that can be prescribed like other medicines. However, since the most important market for pharmaceuticals, the U.S., already has "medical marijuana" laws in sixteen states and hemp is allowed for medical purposes without lengthy bureaucratic processes, this may seem too unprofitable to pharmaceutical manufacturers, who have a strong international focus and prefer monopolies. The large investments for research and approval procedures are only made if the pharmaceutical companies expect a corresponding return. At present, there is only one product on the international drug market containing THC that is not synthetic but is extracted from hemp. This drug, known as Sativex, is manufactured in the UK and is expected to be approved in Switzerland next year (2013). However, its use will be limited to neuropathic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.
	+
	+	In the third area of application, a drug is not approved in general, but is approved on an exceptional basis for a limited period of time for the treatment of a seriously ill patient (so-called magistral drug). This limited medical use is so far the only area of practical relevance in Switzerland and it is worth taking a closer look at the provision or its implementation.
	+
	+	===== The limited medical use =====
	+
	+	To come straight to the point, smoking pot will never be allowed in Switzerland for medical reasons under the regulations currently in force. Although synthetic THC may be administered as an inhalation solution under certain conditions and can be consumed with the help of a vaporizer, smoking is not a medically accepted form of application according to the FOPH. This also applies to the ingestion of THC via food. Furthermore, no one can decide for herself or himself that she or he wants to ingest THC for medical reasons. A physician must determine that a patient could be helped with THC therapy and submit a corresponding application to the FOPH.
	+
	+	Such applications were already made before the revision of the Narcotics Law, but not for drugs containing THC from hemp, but for those with synthetic THC. Most often the product dronabinol, also known as Marinol, is prescribed. It contains 2.5 % THC and could be obtained in Switzerland in two pharmacies so far.
	+
	+	With the revision of the law, it has become possible to obtain exceptional licenses for drugs containing natural THC. This spring, the pharmacist Manfred Fankhauser from Langnau i. E. succeeded in obtaining such a permit for a preparation with 5% THC. He has had experience with THC as a drug for several years and has already successfully treated several hundred patients with the synthetic version of the active ingredient. As soon as the first medical application for treatment with the natural hemp preparation of the Emmental pharmacist is approved by the FOPH, a patient may be helped with natural THC for the first time in more than 60 years.
	+
	+	===== The known indications =====
	+
	+	THC can help with many medical problems. What some stoners are aware of, however, has to be proven in expensive and elaborate studies for medical use. Often, anecdotal reports from stoners give researchers the impetus to investigate the efficacy of THC more closely. In the future, drugs containing natural THC will probably be used like those containing synthetic THC.
	+
	+	Dronabinol, for example, is used today in Switzerland for the following symptoms, among others:
	+
	+	* Nausea and vomiting
	+	* Loss of appetite and emaciation
	+	* Anorexia and weight loss
	+	* Spasticity, muscle cramps and hardening
	+	* Pain conditions
	+	* Asthma, glaucoma, epilepsy, sleep disorders and anxiety.
	+	* Movement disorders
	+
	+	Patients with these symptoms have, for example, multiple sclerosis, cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, hepatitis C, anorexia and other severe diseases. In Switzerland, almost half of the exceptional requests concern patients with multiple sclerosis.
	+
	+	Since the FOPH bases its granting of exemptions on published scientific evidence and is not bound to specific indications, THC could eventually be used in more than just symptom control. Its great potential will have an impact on many conventional forms of treatment as more research is conducted, which must also be recognized by more medically conservative circles. For example, the National Cancer Institute in the U.S. recently recognized that THC kills tumor cells and thus fights cancer without harmful side effects to healthy cells. Cannabis may also play a greater role in the treatment of AIDS in the future: Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York have found that cannabinoids inhibit the replication of HI viruses in late stages of AIDS.
	+
	+	===== The exemption permit =====
	+
	+	Since cannabis still seems to be a spectre for many politicians and the FOPH, the whole chain of activities leading to the final product "hemp-based medicine" and having something to do with its distribution to patients is subject to authorization. This includes the cultivation of hemp, the production of the medicine, the treatment of the patient as well as the trade with hemp medicine or its distribution.
	+
	+	If a treating physician submits an application to the FOPH for the treatment of his patient with THC based on his diagnosis, he must:
	+	* Confirm in writing that he accepts responsibility for the consequences of his prescription
	+	* Provide the patient's name, address, age, and written informed consent.
	+	* disclose the medications used so far
	+	* declare the intended dosage and intended duration of treatment
	+	* prepare an interim report on treatment every six months and a final report for the FOPH
	+	* Describe the logistics process for dispensing the drug; in this process, the physician himself, a pharmacy, or a hospital can only dispense the hemp-based drug directly to the patient
	+	* indicate how the therapy will be financed, since it is not necessarily covered by basic insurance.
	+
	+	If the drug is then to be dispensed by a pharmacy, it requires an operating license for controlled substances in accordance with Article 11 of the Narcotics Control Ordinance. This authorization is also required if a pharmacy itself wants to produce a medicine from the prohibited cannabis, such as a hemp tincture.
	+
	+	As mentioned, the cultivation of hemp intended for the production of medicines is also regulated by law. Basically, according to the Narcotics Control Ordinance, the "grower" needs the already mentioned operating license or must act on behalf of an authorized company. Furthermore, an application for a cultivation permit must be submitted by the hemp producer.
	+
	+	If the producer himself or herself does not have an operating license, an application must be submitted to the FOPH, in which:
	+	* sufficient protection against theft is demonstrated
	+	* a written contract with an approved establishment must be presented
	+	* precise information on the type and quantity of cultivation is provided
	+	* it is guaranteed that the entire cultivation quantity will be delivered to the client.
	+
	+	The bureaucratic effort will deter most potential producers of medicinal hemp to produce legally and there is unlikely to be a revival of hemp fields in Switzerland. Probably a few companies specializing in the cultivation of medicinal plants will decide the market among themselves.
	+
	+	===== Hemp medicine will not be cheap and will remain the exception =====
	+
	+	The costs incurred due to the various licensing requirements mean that a drug that has cleared all the hurdles to then be exceptionally approved for treatment will not be cheap. Currently, the cost of medication for treatment with synthetic THC ranges from 5 to 35 francs, depending on the daily dose. For hemp tincture produced in Switzerland, Manfred Fankhauser predicts typical daily costs of 10 to 15 francs.
	+
	+	If one considers that by the side effects and the abuse of commercial medicines, which can be bought often without prescription, hundreds of humans are killed in Switzerland each year and uncounted health damages, the described regulations seem grotesque. This is probably necessary, since exemption permits can also be issued for harder drugs. However, the question arises whether it makes sense to treat cannabis like heroin or LSD. The judiciary has learned to treat drugs differently with regard to narcotics consumption and trafficking. It is to be hoped that those involved in health care will also learn this in their field. However, as long as cannabis remains prohibited under the international narcotics conventions to which Switzerland is a signatory, no relaxation can be expected.
	+
	+	===== Illegal hemp based drugs =====
	+
	+	Since, for example, the production of a hemp tincture is technically relatively simple, the costs for treatment with hemp-based medications are not necessarily covered by health insurance companies and the bureaucratic hurdles for obtaining exemption permits are relatively high, it can be assumed that hemp medications are produced by patients themselves and that there is also a black market for them. Numerous recipes and experience reports can be found on the Internet. Good examples of production methods for hemp oils and tinctures can be found in English at http://phoenixtears.ca or in German at www.cannabis-med.org. However, anyone who has a serious illness and believes that cannabis could help should play it safe and first check with their doctor whether an exemption could be obtained.
	+

The Plenty: A new vaporizer

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== The Plenty: A new vaporizer ======

	+	Plenty is the name of the latest vaporizer from Storz & Bickel. Most people should be familiar with their long-running Volcano. I was able to test the Plenty for a week and report on my impressions below.
	+
	+	===== The device =====
	+
	+	Before the release, the hope for a mobile device was quite high. Therefore, I was initially a little disappointed when we had to unpack to find that the device is handy small, but just not really mobile: The Plenty remains (like the Volcano) dependent on the socket. But the Plenty is a handheld device - so the complete vaporizer is held in the hand and with an extension cord, the mobility can be easily extended.
	+
	+	The device, which is surrounded with heat-resistant plastic, consists of a main part with an integrated heating block that is only 15 cm long. Attached to this is a handle that allows the Plenty to be held comfortably in the hand. The filling chamber with the cooling coil and mouthpiece is attached on top. When not in use, the Plenty lies flat on the table, is 6 cm high, 33 cm long and just under 20 cm wide at the handle.
	+
	+	A special feature of the Plenty is the switch integrated into the handle. Other vaporizers (Volcano) start heating again when the temperature drops below a certain level. In this respect, the Plenty is really cleverly designed: Only when the switch on the handle is activated - i.e. the device is held in the hand - does the Plenty heat up to the selected temperature again. If it lies on the table for a longer period of time, it cools down completely without constantly heating up again. So it is not tragic if the device is forgotten overnight because fatigue was stronger...
	+
	+	===== The vaporize =====
	+
	+	Unlike the Volcano, the Plenty has a filling quantity that should not be undercut. Since the steam material is at a right angle both when the device is not in use and during the steaming process, the material would slide down if the filling quantity is too low, which could lead to a suboptimal steaming result. After a few passes, however, the correct filling quantity can be easily estimated.
	+
	+	The desired temperature can be selected via a rotary control. After switching on, the device heats up to the desired temperature and also indicates this via indicator lamp. Once the temperature is reached, the heating process is terminated and the lamp goes out. The actual vaporize is not too spectacular: The Plenty is taken in the hand and inhaled at the mouthpiece. The vapor is created only 18 cm from the mouth and is cooled surprisingly strong in the stainless steel coil, it tastes pleasantly fresh and is rich in flavor. The vapor is steamed off evenly and is only slightly browned even after numerous inhalations.
	+
	+	===== Plenty or Volcano? =====
	+
	+	As a long-time Volcano user, I was quite skeptical about the Plenty at first. However, as is often the case, this was more my reaction to something new and has less to do with the device itself. Indeed, when Plenty and Volcano are compared objectively, the differences are there, but the desired vapor experience is pretty much guaranteed with both.
	+
	+	The Volcano relies on a balloon to collect the vapor. While this has the advantage that the balloon is mobile, meaning it can either be easily passed around a table or taken to specific locations (bathtub, balcony, etc.). But the balloon also brings the disadvantage that the vapor in it does not retain its freshness for too long and, in addition, the balloon must be renewed regularly so as not to affect the taste. So if you mostly steam in a fixed place (e.g. at a table), the Plenty is good for one to two people. As soon as three or more people want to steam together or if the vapor should be completely mobile for a short time, the Volcano is probably the better choice.
	+
	+	Another difference is the noise: The Plenty is completely silent, whereas the Volcano hums when filling the balloon and the balloon itself crackles - there are said to be people who find this annoying.
	+
	+	Finally, when comparing prices, the Plenty is a whopping 150 euros cheaper than the Volcano at 250 euros, which means that most newcomers to vapor are more likely to choose the Plenty.

Lengthy discussions about a small innovation

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Lengthy discussions about a small innovation ======

	+	In June 2012, the Council of States discussed the fixed penalty model and decided that the fine amount should be 100 francs. In doing so, it created a difference to the National Council. At the end of June, the National Council Commission also supported 100 francs, but now on September 13, 2012, the National Council has stuck to 200 francs. The Council of States will decide on this again on September 18, 2012.

Three vintages prosecution in comparison

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Three vintages prosecution in comparison ======
	+
	+	Swiss hempprosecution is captured in statistics: The third year according to the new counting method is now available. We bring you the figures around the repression against THC consumption and trafficking: Rising consumption and falling trafficking convictions.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li6002.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li6003.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li6004.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li6005.jpg}} \|

The fixed penalties are decided

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== The fines are decided ======	+	====== The fixed penalties are decided ======

-	Following the Council of States' decision on September 18, 2012 to retain the fine of 100 francs, the National Council has now also abandoned the 200 francs and has followed the Council of States' line. In the final vote on September 28, 2012, the bill was passed by 128:57 (National Council) and 31:11 (Council of States) with only a few abstentions. The referendum period is currently still running (until January 17, 2013). It seems that no one has taken the referendum. This makes it very likely that the bill will be enacted by the Federal Council in the course of 2013. But we are still waiting for the end of the referendum period and will bring an article in the next issue with the details of this new partial revision of the partially revised Narcotics Law. We hope that by then the date of entry into force will also be known.	+	Following the Council of States' decision on September 18, 2012 to retain the fixed penalty of 100 francs, the National Council has now also abandoned the 200 francs and has followed the Council of States' line. In the final vote on September 28, 2012, the bill was passed by 128:57 (National Council) and 31:11 (Council of States) with only a few abstentions. The referendum period is currently still running (until January 17, 2013). It seems that no one has taken the referendum. This makes it very likely that the bill will be enacted by the Federal Council in the course of 2013. But we are still waiting for the end of the referendum period and will bring an article in the next issue with the details of this new partial revision of the partially revised Narcotics Law. We hope that by then the date of entry into force will also be known.

	It seems unclear to us whether all prosecuting authorities in all cantons will adhere to this new optional regulation, i.e. whether they will all interpret the new provisions in the same way. On verra!		It seems unclear to us whether all prosecuting authorities in all cantons will adhere to this new optional regulation, i.e. whether they will all interpret the new provisions in the same way. On verra!

The first partial revision of the partial revision of the NarcA

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

Cannabinoids in medicine - an option!

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:20+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Cannabinoids in medicine - an option! ======

	+	**The international conference "Cannabinoids in Medicine - An Option?" took place on January 22, 2013 at the Inselspital in Bern. We look back on this important event and thus continue our series on the topic of hemp-based medicines.
	+	**
	+	The conference brought together scientists, medical and nursing staff, patients, politicians, members of the authorities and the media, and its program provided an interesting overview of the current state of medical and legal developments in the field of medicinal cannabis.
	+
	+	===== There is hope =====
	+
	+	After Professor Brenneisen's closing words to the conference, which by the way is reproduced in the title of this article, it was clear: Cannabis will increasingly play a role again in modern medicine. The medical potential is simply too great and the currently still prevailing bureaucratic and legal barriers will not stop the so-called re-medicalization of cannabis products in Switzerland. The criminalization of patients who want to alleviate their suffering through cannabis was publicly criticized by the organizers of the event.
	+
	+	===== A top-class event =====
	+
	+	The meeting was organized by the Swiss Association for Cannabinoids in Medicine (SACM). Rudolf Brenneisen, head of the Laboratory of Phytopharmacology (science of the interaction between plant substances and living organisms) at the University of Bern, was the main organizer. He has long been perceived as one of the most important exponents of Swiss cannabis research and guided the participants confidently through the event. In order to achieve its goal, namely to provide the basis for an objective discussion by presenting the current scientific, health policy and legal facts, a broad program was offered. After the presentations on the medical fields of application during the morning, the legal and political situation in Switzerland was highlighted in the afternoon and the prescription models in different countries were presented before the speakers answered the questions of the participants. A reflection of the event's versatility was the list of sponsors. In addition to the Dutch producer of medicinal cannabis Bedrocan, for example, the Nachtschattenverlag, the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Society, the producer of Volcanos, which is well known to our members, and several pharmaceutical companies were among the supporters.
	+
	+	===== Multiple uses of cannabinoids =====
	+
	+	The more than 15 presentations given in English or German were all highly interesting. Trivial for experts, but enlightening for laymen and patients, was Professor Brenneisen's introductory presentation. Cannabis works because humans have their own system for cannabinoids - the best known of which is probably THC. Hemp contains over 60 other cannabinoids that affect the body's endocannabinoid system. Since this system is responsible for fine-tuning communication between cells, it controls, for example, sleep, pain, control of movement, appetite, relaxation, and forgetting. Last but not least, cannabinoids could also play a role in fighting cancer. This astonishing finding was presented by a Spanish researcher from the Complutense University in Madrid. In animal experiments, it was shown in rats that THC blocks the formation of metastases in tumors and triggers apoptosis, i.e. the cancer cells die on their own. Interestingly, cannabis is currently still being touted as a complementary medicine to conventional, extremely harmful chemotherapy; perhaps they don't want to make enemies of "Big Pharma" and the powerful conventional medicine. After further impressive presentations on medical applications in pain management for ALS patients, in psychiatry and in the fight against asthma, AIDS and glaucoma, it was then up to the representatives of the authorities to present their respective points of view.
	+
	+	===== Bureaucracy and impact =====
	+
	+	The participants got the impression that cannabis could definitely get a place in the Swiss healthcare system, but the hurdles are quite high. We have already reported in Legalize it! 59 about the bureaucracy and the fact that hemp-based medicines can only be used in exceptional cases. Thanks to the presentations of the representatives of the Federal Office of Public Health and the Federal Commission on Narcotic Drugs as well as Felix Gutzwiller, member of the Council of States Commission for Social Security and Health, it became clear that the bureaucracy is politically wanted. Questions from the audience then clarified once again what this means: For example, no advertising is allowed for the extemporaneous prescription, which is also dispensed by Manfred Fankhauser from Langnau i. E.. Furthermore, the prescribing physician must take responsibility for the treatment with cannabis, which he does not have to do with other medications, even if they have strong side effects, and thus represents a blatant case of distortion of competition.
	+
	+	===== Many prescription models, many restrictions =====
	+
	+	In the last block of events, prescription models for cannabis were presented by representatives from Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Canada and Switzerland. The spectrum of the different regulations is wide. While in the Netherlands severely ill patients can buy hemp flowers with standardized THC levels in pharmacies and even still have the choice between indica and sativa, the authorities in Germany are still struggling but meanwhile allow the prescription of dronabinol (synthetic THC) and in rare cases patients can obtain a special permit for the import of cannabis flowers through their pharmacy. Interestingly, synthetic THC is derived from the cannabidiol (CBD) of fiber hemp in a chemical process. In Austria, about 3,000 patients were treated with synthetic THC from fiber hemp in 2012. Health insurance companies even pay for the treatment if it is prescribed as "ultima ratio" - as a last resort. Since fall 2012, natural THC may also be prescribed in our eastern neighbor, but not in the obvious environmentally friendly and generally efficient form of home-grown cannabis, but as a drug known as "Sativex," which is manufactured by Bayer. In cooperation with the company Bionorica, the state-owned Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety GmbH (AGES) has also recently started producing cannabis. The natural THC is then extracted from this in Germany and imported to Austria in the form of capsules and drops. The Canadian prescription model previously allowed patients to grow their own cannabis or hire someone to do so. Currently, there are over 20,000 patients with legal access to their medicine. Unfortunately, there were excesses and part of the production was diverted for consumption purposes, in the interpretation of the authorities, for narcotic purposes. Although this is actually the consequence of the prohibition policy, nothing is changed in it, but now only a state-licensed oligopoly will be allowed to produce medical cannabis. This is to regain control over cannabis production in Canada. The last speaker was Manfred Fankhauser, who presented the Swiss model. We have already reported on his experience with extemporaneous prescription in previous issues.
	+
	+	In the meantime, treatment with natural native THC in the form of a tincture has begun. According to the Emmental pharmacist, treatment costs are about 40 percent lower compared with synthetic THC. However, the number of patients must still increase so that this cost reduction is also perceived in the health policy system. After all, 150 applications for an exemption permit for treatment with THC are submitted to the Federal Office of Public Health every six months.
	+
	+	===== Foreclosure of medical cannabis? =====
	+
	+	The meeting has given hope to the participants that in the future the restrictive regime around the medical use of cannabis will loosen. Unfortunately, there is also a tendency for stakeholders in the medical cannabis industry, be they researchers, producers or physicians, to strongly distance themselves from the use of cannabis as a stimulant. Medical cannabis should not be perceived as a vehicle for a general legalization. Unfortunately, they thus ignore the harmful consequences of prohibition, which include damage to health. The attitude is understandable, however, because researchers and practitioners in this field still face hostility. Recently, Prof. Brenneisen had to defend himself against accusations by Sabina Geissbühler-Strupler, an active hemp opponent and member of the Bernese SVP parliament. She suspected the researcher of misusing state funds for "questionable experiments in the field of drugs." As for hemp-based drugs, it is to be hoped that they will establish themselves not only as a profitable mainstay for pharmaceutical companies and medical practitioners. Apparently, the idea of treating sick people with cannabis is easiest to sell politically via business and special interests. Ideals like freedom or the right to self-medication are hard to lobby for.
	+
	+	===== More information =====
	+
	+	Anyone interested in the topic of "cannabinoids in medicine" should consider attending the two-day congress of the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines (IACM). It will take place in Cologne at the end of September and information about it can be found [[http://www.cannabis-med.org/index.php?lng=de\|here]].
	+
	+	The documents of the meeting held in Bern can be downloaded [[http://www.stcm.ch/sacm-tagung-2013.html\|here]].

Conviction figures 2012: the madness continues

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li63_5.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Conviction figures 2012: the madness continues ======
	+
	+	Four years of repression in the new counting method are now available. The figures were and are alarmingly high. With great effort, the consumption of THC is tracked and punished - and put into figures, which we have prepared graphically.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li63_4.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li63_5.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li63_6.jpg}} \|
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li63_7.jpg}} \|

The fixed penalties come

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== The fines come ======	+	====== The fixed penalties come ======

	The Federal Council decided at the end of May 2013 to put the Ordnungsbussenvorlage (the details can be found under [[en:thc_recht/li620203\|The first partial revision of the partial revision of NarcA]]) into force on October 1, 2013. However, the provisions will be implemented by the cantons, so we should clarify the procedures of all cantons. Perhaps they will all proceed in the same way. But experience shows that there are definitely relevant differences in the cantonal implementation of nationwide laws. In the new edition of the legal aid brochure, we would like to write about this in more detail. If you would like to help us survey the 26 cantons, please get in touch!		The Federal Council decided at the end of May 2013 to put the Ordnungsbussenvorlage (the details can be found under [[en:thc_recht/li620203\|The first partial revision of the partial revision of NarcA]]) into force on October 1, 2013. However, the provisions will be implemented by the cantons, so we should clarify the procedures of all cantons. Perhaps they will all proceed in the same way. But experience shows that there are definitely relevant differences in the cantonal implementation of nationwide laws. In the new edition of the legal aid brochure, we would like to write about this in more detail. If you would like to help us survey the 26 cantons, please get in touch!

The ninth edition of our Shit happens

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 9:		Ligne 9:
	===== The preparation =====		===== The preparation =====

-	The project had been in the works for some time: once again an edition of our Shit happens as a "proper" legal aid brochure, printed in the print shop, stapled and in a large print run. After all, we had published the updated editions 7 and 8 in our own print shop. Laws were constantly changing during this time, and a large print run would quickly have become obsolete. But then it became clear that the legal situation would be fixed for a long time in 2013 after the administrative fine bill came into force.	+	The project had been in the works for some time: once again an edition of our Shit happens as a "proper" legal aid brochure, printed in the print shop, stapled and in a large print run. After all, we had published the updated editions 7 and 8 in our own print shop. Laws were constantly changing during this time, and a large print run would quickly have become obsolete. But then it became clear that the legal situation would be fixed for a long time in 2013 after the Fixed Penalties Act came into force.

	So the approximate deadline was clear, we had been able to build up a few reserves over the last few years, but how were we going to raise the costs of the offset printing, an estimated 3-5,000 francs? Not to mention how we were going to pay for the necessary hours of work on the project....		So the approximate deadline was clear, we had been able to build up a few reserves over the last few years, but how were we going to raise the costs of the offset printing, an estimated 3-5,000 francs? Not to mention how we were going to pay for the necessary hours of work on the project....
Ligne 53:		Ligne 53:
	===== Call: Send docs/cases! =====		===== Call: Send docs/cases! =====

-	With the 9th edition of the legal aid brochure, we presented the legal basis. Now the new regulations have been in force since October 1, 2013. Now we would like to see as many cases as possible that have been handled by the police since then. Please send us documents (fines, penal orders, court decisions or even your experiences as text). We are very interested in as many concrete cases as possible. This repression everyday life is it, which we want to examine in the next years again particularly. This information is a basis for our legal consultations.	+	With the 9th edition of the legal aid brochure, we presented the legal basis. Now the new regulations have been in force since October 1, 2013. Now we would like to see as many cases as possible that have been handled by the police since then. Please send us documents (fines, summary penalty orders, court decisions or even your experiences as text). We are very interested in as many concrete cases as possible. This repression everyday life is it, which we want to examine in the next years again particularly. This information is a basis for our legal consultations.

The mobile evaporators are usable

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:arizer2.jpg?200}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The mobile evaporators are usable ======
	+
	+	After tabletop devices became suitable for everyday use more than ten years ago, mobile vaporizers have increasingly come onto the market in recent years. We now want to test these intensively. Here is the first test report about the Arizer Solo.
	+
	+	===== Arizer Solo: What does it look like? =====
	+
	+	The Arizer Solo basically consists of two elements. First, a cylinder (11 by 4.5cm), which contains the heating element and the control, and a glass tube (11.5 by 1 to 1.5cm), which contains the compartment for the herbs at one end and the mouthpiece at the other. On the cylinder it has a round recess, there the glass bulb is inserted, or rather inserted (usually it has some play). The cylinder fits well in the hand, it stands stable (even with glass tube on top) and it also lies stable (when charging it must lie, because the power supply happens from the bottom).
	+
	+	\| {{:arizer2.jpg\|\|}} \|
	+
	+	===== Let's go =====
	+
	+	The Arizer Solo is set by simultaneously pressing the two buttons on the block, which it announces with a beep. Then, the left button is used to set the temperature to the desired level. Seven LEDs indicate the heating levels (we very often worked with level five). With the right button you can reduce the temperature again. Then the heating starts, which is indicated by its own LED.
	+
	+	The Arizer Solo is quickly ready for use. At a realistic temperature setting of level five (which corresponds to a measured temperature of about 190 degrees on the bottom of the heating element), it is at the desired temperature within two minutes. But you can also draw before that, when level three or four is displayed (i.e. already after one minute), and will be able to inhale the first clouds of steam. So you do not have to wait long or can start inhaling immediately after filling and inserting the glass bulb.
	+
	+	Now you draw as you wish. When the temperature drops, the device automatically heats up again to the set level. The device can also be quickly put down when you just do not want more.
	+
	+	===== The result =====
	+
	+	Pressing the two buttons switches the device off or leaves it running until it switches itself off again 12 minutes after being switched on (which it also acknowledges with a beep). Then the steamed food is also "dure", it is then perfectly beige-brown-blackish, depending on the temperature and type of material. However, we never noticed ash, so there is actually no combustion.
	+
	+	===== Vulnerability 1 =====
	+
	+	The worst thing is that the filling chamber has only one "sieve" with four relatively large holes in the glass bulb. Thus, many and also larger plant parts fly up to the mouth, which is now really not good.
	+
	+	However, the remedy for this is simple: a good metal sieve, as available in any head store for various pipes, placed on the glass holes keeps these pieces back, depending on the sieve density even completely. Thus, the inhaled is really only vapor, without unwanted particles in the mouth.
	+
	+	The fact that the standard device is delivered without a sieve and that this weak point is not pointed out anywhere by the manufacturer, I consider to be more than a cosmetic flaw. Even if it can be fixed really easily. The other flaws are much more minor:
	+
	+	===== Vulnerability 2 =====
	+
	+	The second weak point in the Arizer is the transition between the cylinder, the heating block, and the glass tube. If the glass is too tight, it can break if you pull it out at an angle. If the glass sits too loosely, it wobbles around, which does take some getting used to. Screens can help with this as well: Additional, at best curved, screens can improve the stability of the glass bulb in the block. An additionally inserted O-ring can also be helpful (but the material must be able to withstand temperatures above 200 degrees).
	+
	+	===== Vulnerability 3 =====
	+
	+	Furthermore, the glass tube at the end where it is inserted into the heating block is hot after operation and remains so for quite some time after it has been removed from the block and the steam product has been shaken out. It is quite possible to burn your fingers. It has proven itself to simply let the vaporizer stand for a while after switching it off and only take out the old filling when it is next needed. Since there is no combustion, nothing stinks...
	+
	+	===== Accessories and extensions =====
	+
	+	For further improvements, but not as crucial as the sieves, there are many special supplements available from various suppliers: tubes made of wood and metal (which can hardly break), as mentioned various sieves and O-rings, special attachments for water filtration and so on.
	+
	+	===== Overall rating Arizer Solo =====
	+
	+	The test device now has many charging cycles behind it, was lugged around for weeks: on hikes, trips, to the office. It has always done its job, whether at the lake or at 1,500 meters above sea level.
	+
	+	Once I broke a piece of glass, but if you use glass, you have to expect it. A replacement glass costs around 15 francs.
	+	So the part works, even very stable. It never smelled like metal or plastic (as some portable vaporizers do). It produces dense, pure, fine vapor.
	+
	+	Both tobacco and hemp can be vaporized (if you use a separate glass tube for each, the respective flavor comes out clearly). Mixtures of tobacco and hemp also work. The glass bulbs can be cleaned very well with some rubbing alcohol and a pipe cleaner - that is the advantage of glass.
	+
	+	The only additional cost is the strainer. Without such it seems to me simply not to go.
	+
	+	The battery lasts a few vaporizations: Around six, seven vaporizations I could perform each time before the battery had to be charged again. That's enough for a good day.
	+
	+	So all in all, a very pleased device!
	+
	+	===== Price and availability =====
	+
	+	In the retail trade, the instrument is offered for 235 to 250 francs (e.g. at some of our company members, see last page). They also offer sieves, and replacement glass tubes are also available, usually within a few days. Thus, the instrument is well available in Switzerland.
	+
	+	===== Everyday suitability =====
	+
	+	At home, with friends or outside in a secluded place you use it with pleasure. But in a pub, on a busy square or at the train station, I had inhibitions about using it. The part is still too big for the public, the glass bulb reminds too much of a pipe or a bong.
	+
	+	But it is really transportable: The device and two glass bulbs incl. protective plastic have loose space in a flat Tupperware. If you have to take the charging cable with the plug, it needs a bit more space. But that is also feasible. Thus, it is a stable mobile device that works reliably and accompanies you everywhere. The weight is around 230 grams (incl. glass tube).
	+
	+	===== More tests to follow =====
	+
	+	We would now like to test other vaporizers. The only condition is that they are mobile and can safely produce no combustion (i.e. are easy to use, without tinkering). We are probably most interested in the smallest possible variants, with which one can steam most inconspicuously. In addition, the tested devices and any necessary spare parts should be readily available in Switzerland.
	+
	+	===== Your experience is also interesting =====
	+
	+	Test reports about vaporizer experiences are always welcome. Both reports about successful conversions from smoking to vaporize, but also about the phenomenon that only a few become pure weed vaporizers, some can partially incorporate it into their lives, but many still prefer the smoke.
	+
	+
	+

Evaporation in general

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 17:		Ligne 17:
	===== Test equipment in our office =====		===== Test equipment in our office =====

-	We have collected a few vaporizers (now also the Arizer Solo) over the years, which members are welcome to test. A test says more than a text: either spontaneously at a [[en:verein_li/agenda\|member meeting]] or with registration via [[li@hanflegal.ch]].	+	We have collected a few vaporizers (now also the Arizer Solo) over the years, which members are welcome to test. A test says more than a text: either spontaneously at a [[en:aktuelles:agenda\|member meeting]] or with registration via [[li@hanflegal.ch]].

	===== More about the evaporator =====		===== More about the evaporator =====

The reality also in 2013: repression, repression...

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:2013uebertretungen.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== The reality also in 2013: repression, repression... ======
	+
	+	In waves, there is always talk about decriminalization and legalization in Switzerland. But it always happened exactly the opposite: More repression, that was and is the reality! In 2013, for the first time, more than 50,000 consumption convictions were counted.
	+
	+	===== Referrals for acts of consumption (infractions) =====
	+
	+	{{:2013uebertretungen.jpg}}
	+
	+	===== Referrals for passing on actions (misdemeanor) =====
	+
	+
	+	{{:2013vergehen.jpg}}
	+
	+	===== One quarter fines OB =====
	+
	+	Since October 1, 2013, there is the possibility to punish cannabis use with an OB (for details see LI65). So now the first quarter fixed penalties is statistically recorded - from October to December 2013 2'198 were distributed. These are now added to the referrals, because no referrals are issued for OB, but the police can fine cannabis use directly with 100 francs. If you extrapolate this quarter of OB to a whole year, there should be around 9,000 OB in 2014. In this case, it seems that personal use referrals just keep rising, as they have for years. In that case, OB would simply be an additional variant of repression.
	+
	+	===== Source and remarks =====
	+
	+	Federal Statistical Office, Police Crime Statistics, Annual Reports 2009 to 2013. We bring the figures without the category "Multiple". This contains more pure multiple hemp cases, but the BfS shows itself unable to break down this category for us. Graphical representation by us.
	+
	+	The figures of fixed penalties up to and including 2012 in the (few) cantons where there were already fixed penalties for cannabis use (e.g., St. Gallen) are not included in the statistics, as there were no police report.
	+
	+	Now, since 2013, in addition to the conviction statistics, there are also statistics on the new, nationwide fixed penalties. These are now shown in dark gray (in the first graph on the right).

Seizures 2013: Tonnes seized

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 15:		Ligne 15:
	The majority of the seized joints are weed joints (3,711), hashish joints were seized only 111. This means that no three percent were filled with hashish.		The majority of the seized joints are weed joints (3,711), hashish joints were seized only 111. This means that no three percent were filled with hashish.

-	It remains unclear whether really all seized joints appear in these statistics, the counting method of the different cantons is different (which is generally a problem of the statistics and has not improved since the adoption of the figures by the Federal Statistical Office). One question would be whether joints that are punished in the administrative fine procedure also appear here.	+	It remains unclear whether really all seized joints appear in these statistics, the counting method of the different cantons is different (which is generally a problem of the statistics and has not improved since the adoption of the figures by the Federal Statistical Office). One question would be whether joints that are punished in the fixed penalties procedure also appear here.

	===== Hash seized, 2009 to 2013 =====		===== Hash seized, 2009 to 2013 =====

Referrals in 2013 by gender and age

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\|\|{{:thc_recht:befragungsprotokoll01aargauneu.jpg?200x150}}

	+
	+
	+	====== Referrals in 2013 by gender and age ======
	+
	+
	+	===== Persons reported for contravention by gender, 2013 =====
	+
	+	^ Gender ^ Men ^ Women ^ Total ^
	+	\| Quantity \| 38'416 \| 4'246 \| 42'662 \|
	+	\| Percent \| 90 % \| 10 % \| 100 % \|
	+
	+
	+	90% of the consumption convictions concern men. Even though there are probably more men than women who smoke pot, the ratio is hardly 1 : 9. We would rather estimate it at 1 : 2. This means that women are much less likely to be reported to the police than men.
	+
	+
	+	===== Persons reported for misdemeanor by gender, 2013 =====
	+
	+	^ Gender ^ Men ^ Women ^ Total ^
	+	\| Quantity \| 7'852 \| 709 \| 8'561 \|
	+	\| Percent \| 92 % \| 8 % \| 100 % \|
	+
	+	Males also dominate those reported for misdemeanor (transfer, trafficking) at 92%, even slightly more than for violation reports above.
	+
	+
	+	===== Persons arrested for contravention by age, 2013 =====
	+
	+	^ Age ^ under 20 ^ 20 to 29 ^ 30 to 39 ^ 40 to 49 ^ 50 to 59 ^ 60 +, unknown. ^ Total ^
	+	\| Quantity \| 14'199 \| 18'696 \| 6'493 \| 2'426 \| 762 \| 93 \| 42'669 \|
	+	\| Percent \| 33 % \| 44 % \| 15 % \| 6 % \| 2 % \| 0 % \| 100 % \|
	+
	+	The main burden of repression is clearly borne by the young. The under-30s receive 77% of the reprimands. Even though more people smoke pot at a younger age than at an older age, there are now also many retired people who smoke pot. But they are less likely to be out smoking joints and less likely to get caught in the mills of justice. But: It can also happen to the well-situated elderly! The small discrepancy between the two totals in the infraction tables is due to some unclear cases.
	+
	+
	+	===== Persons arrested for misdemeanor by age, 2013 =====
	+
	+	^ Age ^ under 20 ^ 20 to 29 ^ 30 to 39 ^ 40 to 49 ^ 50 to 59 ^ 60 +, unknown. ^ Total ^
	+	\| Quantity \| 2'230 \| 3'645 \| 1'649 \| 705 \| 279 \| 53 \| 8'561 \|
	+	\| Percent \| 26 % \| 43 % \| 19 % \| 8 % \| 3 % \| 1 % \| 100 % \|
	+
	+	It is interesting to note that the age distribution of the misdemeanor reprimands is very similar to that of the above-mentioned violations. Of course, the figures are less high, but the percentage distribution is quite similar: The main burden of repression is again borne by the under-30s, who account for 69% of all reprimands.
	+
	+
	+	===== Individuals arrested for contravention by weed/hash and age, 2013 =====
	+
	+	^ Age ^ under 20 ^ 20 to 29 ^ 30 to 39 ^ 40 to 49 ^ 50 to 59 ^ 60 +, unknown. ^ Total ^
	+	\| due to weed \| 13'563 \| 17'199 \| 5'723 \| 2'026 \| 627 \| 75 \| 39'213 \|
	+	\| Because of hash \| 636 \| 1'497 \| 770 \| 400 \| 135 \| 18 \| 3'456 \|
	+	\| Hash to weed \| 1 : 21 \| 1 : 11 \| 1 : 7 \| 1 : 5 \| 1 : 5 \| 1 : 4 \| 1 : 11 \|
	+
	+	Most of the referrals are made because of weed: 92% on average. This is true for all age groups. But for those under 20, weed accounts for almost 96%, and for those over 60, "only" 81%.

Teenagers smoke pot even if you don't want to

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:strafbefehljugend1.jpg?200x150}} \|
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Teenagers smoke pot even if you don't want to ======
	+
	+	**A difficult topic: young people smoking pot. Nobody wants that, reality they are nevertheless. Here is the account of an underage THC user about his
	+	experiences. Afterwards an example of a punishment for young people because of consumption.**
	+
	+	===== Field report of a teenager hemp user =====
	+
	+	//"Well, I started when I was 13. The first joint was terrible: I had a coughing fit and I felt sick to my stomach.//
	+
	+	//I had never even smoked a cigarette before that. My buddies said they actually only smoked the stuff with tobacco because it was so expensive. Despite the nausea, I found the high really great. I had gotten a taste for it.//
	+
	+	//I did a lot of research on the Internet. Especially how the whole thing works and how it is built. I was also very interested in the different varieties. I finally decided to get myself a bong so I could smoke the stuff without much effort.//
	+
	+	//Gettingweed was then the easy part. For 30 francs I got a gram of no-name weed (pretty expensive actually). When I asked what kind it was, my acquaintance didn't know the answer.//
	+
	+	//I had hidden my bong in the attic of our apartment building, where everyone has access. That's where I went to smoke.... A pet bottle with water and a normal lighter at the ready, so I then climbed into the attic. Unfortunately I didn't have a grinder, so I had to crumble the stuff, which wasn't exactly optimal.//
	+
	+	//After the first head I noticed quite quickly a dull barrel heavy high.... Not at all like I had imagined. (In retrospect, I must also say that it was probably also just very bad weed. In addition, it was stretched with some pea powder).//
	+
	+	//After the second head I was totally wide. (Mind you it was a small bong with just under half a liter capacity). The ash I emptied into a small empty box, which was just standing there.//
	+
	+	//But now I had a problem. I was totally high on the dark screed and heard my neighbor talking to someone. So now I couldn't leave the screed without being seen and no doubt I smelled pretty much like pot. I stayed there for about half an hour, sitting in a corner. The noise of the street did not help me to calm down a bit.//
	+
	+	//When I was finally able to leave the screed safely (according to my feeling), the rest was "a Piece of Cake". Quickly in the door, a curt greeting in the direction of my mother (as usual) and immediately into the shower.//
	+
	+	//Who now says that squatting in the attic and bong smoking is pathetic, is probably right. But the circumstances did not allow anything else. At that time, many of my buddies had gotten into it because they had smoked pot. I definitely didn't want to have that experience.//
	+
	+	//A year of bad, overpriced weed and two broken bongs followed. I used to go to the attic to smoke - alone and in the dark, plus it was cold as hell and loud. Not a good set at all.//
	+
	+	//I kept moving my weed somewhere else. It was always the same miserable quality. And no one could reliably tell me what kind it was. Finally, I met my dealer for the next two years in Bern.//
	+
	+	//He thought I was a bit young for it, and so we got talking. He finally gave me good weed and could always tell me truthfully what strain he was selling me (always checked). He didn't charge more than others, but always put a crumb on it. He shared my opinion that you don't get to other drugs directly through weed, but through bad dealers. In general, he did not like the term "dealer" at all.//
	+
	+	//So I called him my pharmacist in the beginning. He also always asked me how it was going and how the weed was from the last time. I especially liked Lemon Haze and Red Dragon. I'm sure he had other customers, not just me. I called him a pharmacist because weed is like medicine.//
	+
	+	//We live in a time where a lot of people take pills or remedies every day just to feel good. In doing so, we only get sicker and more stressed. Cannabis has always been a stimulant for me, like a glass of red wine is for others. I never understood why it was so demonized.//
	+
	+	//My performance at school improved and my interactions with my family improved as well. I also finally managed to find a girlfriend (I'm quite capable of daylight).//
	+
	+	//In the summer of 2012, I was no longer able to reach my pharmacist. Later he contacted me: He had been arrested for drug trafficking. He would no longer grow weed and would not sell anything for a while, he was sorry.//
	+
	+	//From then on, there was again low-quality weed at high prices. In early 2013, I contracted heavy metal poisoning. I had bought a baggy no-name weed from a buddy for a fufi and he assured me it was clean.//
	+
	+	//Since then I have almost completely stopped my consumption and when I buy something I check it with a microscope. So far, I don't think I'm addicted. Sure, it's a habit and I think it's good. It's like some people drink their glass of red wine. I don't need it to fall asleep and I don't get a crisis when I don't smoke for three to four weeks.//
	+
	+	//So far, I have abstained from using tobacco and my lungs are doing well. Only that I am still a criminal bothers me. I will be 18 years old in April.... I hope I can get through until then with no punishment.//
	+
	+	//I have no need for any other "drug" if cannabis can be called such. I was on Ritalin for a while for my ADD. And I have to say, Ritalin does make you more attentive but also just dull. I don't go to work stoned, nor do I go to school stoned. No one is harmed by it, on the contrary.//
	+
	+	//I have become more open and friendly in the last few years. And something like that is classified as criminal? I don't feel like smoking pot alone in the attic anymore. The world would be a better place if more people did it. My opinion."//
	+
	+
	+	===== Youth and legalization =====
	+
	+	Dealing with adolescent THC users is very emotionally charged. Everyone wants to protect the youth. But do young people also want to be protected? Is THC use so insanely dangerous that comprehensive abstinence is the only approach? Even though it simply doesn't work? Many young people smoke pot, and many adults started when they were young. It is true that the developing brain of adolescents can be sensitive to drugs. But it is also true that a great many adolescents, like most adults, can find a reasonable way to deal with THC.
	+
	+	In any case, it makes no sense to use criminal law to prohibit young people from smoking pot and then have them treated like young criminals by juvenile prosecutors. Just because someone smokes pot does not make him or her a criminal. The same applies to alcohol and tobacco: Consumption by young people is not a punishable offense. But giving alcohol and tobacco to young people can be punished.
	+
	+	The same should apply to hemp: If young people smoke pot, that is not a criminal offense. But if you make something available to young people, you can be punished. That would be one possibility. But where should young people get weed or hash from then? If they already start smoking pot, it would be good if experienced people could give them a few tips along the way. Nobody says THC use is completely harmless. It takes a certain amount of responsibility and knowledge to be able to deal with THC without problems.
	+
	+	Perhaps, in connection with legalization discussions, ideas should also be developed as to what useful youth protection could really look like: With specialized sales outlets that are only open to young people and where, in addition to obtaining weed and hash, they can also be shown information and alternatives?
	+
	+	Developing such a model is difficult, admittedly. But we should also develop a concept for young people. Because the topic "And the youth?" will come up anyway, it is the most emotional sub-topic in the already emotional topic of hemp. And it also needs ideas for solutions, because it is the young smokers who are most often affected by black market problems and repression. A total ban would probably cause more damage than the consumption of legal herb could ever do.
	+
	+	===== How are juveniles punished for smoking pot? =====
	+
	+	When minors are found smoking pot, the juvenile prosecutors come into play. But these are not lawyers for juveniles, they are part of the public prosecutor's office and therefore part of law enforcement agencies. The law also applies to juveniles anyway, only the criminal prosecution takes over another department.
	+
	+	The first time the punishment can look like this: The youth prosecutor's office issues a summary penalty order, with which the young stoner is punished with a "personal performance" over two half-days. For this purpose, he must attend classes in addiction prevention at a specialized center. The parents are invited to attend this course as well. In addition, there are procedural costs of over 50 francs.
	+
	+	The penalties can vary in different cantons. This example is from Bern.
	+
	+	[[en:thc_recht/strafe_jugend\|A facsimile of this summary penalty order can be found here.]]
	+
	+	There you can also find summary penalty orders against adults from the last years across Switzerland.
	+
	+	===== We are looking for documents =====
	+
	+	We are still interested in fixed penalties, summary penalty orders and documents of all kinds that show the happenings around the repression against hemp and THC. If you come across youngsters or adults with a fine, please ask him or her to send us a copy of it. Each case is interesting and clarifies the picture we are gathering about hempprosecution.
	+
	+

City of Bern: Media Info

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== City of Bern: Media Info ======

	+	At the beginning of November 2014, a media release was published on the occasion of the 5th Addiction Forum of the city of Bern. Discussions were also held there about a pilot trial for the distribution of cannabis. The municipal council (the government of the city of Bern) set up a working group under the leadership of municipal councilor Franziska Teuscher to write a concept for the pilot project.
	+
	+	The aim is to find answers to the following questions:
	+
	+	//What regulatory models exist and what experiences are available in other cities or countries? What is the legal basis for the different models? Who is the target group and how high should the number of participants be? Who operates the sales or distribution point and how is it designed? What products are sold and how and by whom are they produced? How can resale be prevented? How should prevention and protection of minors be implemented? Costs should also be clarified, as should cooperation with other cities, politics and the public.
	+	//
	+	The tone of the media release, the concrete questions and also the composition of the working group indicate that the city of Bern really wants to carry out a detailed clarification of such a trial operation. From Geneva, on the other hand, we have heard nothing more recently.
	+
	+	===== Canton of Bern: Vote =====
	+
	+	The SVP, meanwhile, is already fearing a major breach of the dam in drug policy: in the cantonal parliament of Bern, it pushed a motion to ban such efforts even before any experimental operation had been opened or even really considered. The vote was 74 to 68 in favor of the proposal. The fronts were the same as before: SVP, EVP, EDU and FDP were in favor of the proposal and SP, Greens, BDP and Green Liberals were against it.
	+
	+	The city of Bern continues anyway, it would be responsible anyway the federation, not the canton. The concept should be developed by perhaps the end of 2015. We think such clarifications are good, but we have to point it out: The repressive organs report more people for cannabis every year, no matter what concepts are written. In Zurich, the police have already raided over 100 indoor facilities before the end of 2014.... There is no insight at all among the repression organs.
	+
	+	===== USA: And yet it works =====
	+
	+	By comparison, in the U.S., Oregon, Alaska and Washington D.C. clearly approved legalization initiatives in early November. They're really just getting started now.

Three mobile vaporizers in test

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2022/03/26 16:23		Version actuelle
Ligne 9:		Ligne 9:
	I was allowed to test the two new vaporizers from Storz and Bickel, the Crafty and the Mighty, for a few weeks.		I was allowed to test the two new vaporizers from Storz and Bickel, the Crafty and the Mighty, for a few weeks.

-	Briefly about me, I've been using only vaporizers for about two years now after having some health issues. I own several portable and tabletop devices and I'm also active in a vaporizer community on the internet (www.hanflegal.ch/fc). Therefore, I hope to be able to give you a comprehensive picture of the devices and their features.	+	Briefly about me, I've been using only vaporizers for about two years now after having some health issues. I own several portable and tabletop devices and I'm also active in a vaporizer community on the internet [[http://hanflegal.ch/fc]\|FuckCombustion]]. Therefore, I hope to be able to give you a comprehensive picture of the devices and their features.

	In direct comparison, the performance of the two vaporizers is identically good, the larger cooling chamber of the Mighty cools the vapor a bit more, otherwise the difference between the two devices is really only in size, power supply and display or operation.		In direct comparison, the performance of the two vaporizers is identically good, the larger cooling chamber of the Mighty cools the vapor a bit more, otherwise the difference between the two devices is really only in size, power supply and display or operation.

The next big thing or repression as usual?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== The next big thing or repression as usual? ======

	+	The ever-growing legal cannabis market is often referred to as "the next big thing" in the USA. In other words, the business field that will experience a huge boom in the next few years. Does Switzerland want to be part of it or stand on the sidelines?
	+
	+	===== International development =====
	+
	+	Decriminalizations and legalizations are becoming more and more concrete across our planet. Now there is the possibility to observe different legalization approaches in vivo. For this purpose, there is a paper from SuchtSchweiz, in which the situations and developments in different parts of the world are compared in many details: "From Rio de la Plata to Lake Geneva, regulation of the cannabis market - new developments" is now already available in its second version; the two authors would like to publish further updates. For those interested in international developments, this [[http://www.suchtschweiz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/DocUpload/Zobel_Marthaler_Vom-Rio-De-La-Plata-bis-zum-Genfersee.pdf\|report]] is recommended.
	+
	+	===== Cannabis dispensary project studies =====
	+
	+	It seemed as if nothing was going to happen, but Geneva wants to further develop the delivery project in 2015. Former Federal Councillor Ruth Dreifuss is collaborating and contributing her knowledge of heroin distribution. Finally, a permit for this trial is to be obtained from the FOPH (Tagi, 31.12.14, WOZ, 8.1.15). Winterthur is afraid of the costs and does not want to undertake a pilot trial, but would like to participate in the cannabis group (among others the cities of Geneva, Basel and Zurich) (NZZ, 31.1.15).
	+
	+	Ultimately, the dispensary projects could probably look something like this: Geneva, for example, would sell to 30,000 THC users weed and hash in a trial project. This would run for three years and would be a scientific research project. The main questions could be: Can a levy dry up the illegal market? Does a levy lead to a better security situation for the population? Does a levy substantially reduce the burden on the police and the judiciary? Does a levy lead to an improvement in the situation of users? Can problematic users be better reached?
	+
	+	If everything goes well (planning, approval, political decisions, setting up the project), it could start in 2017 at the earliest. There will be a lot of discussions!
	+
	+	===== Trade and violence =====
	+
	+	Since the smashing of hemp stores after the turn of the millennium, we have said and written it again and again: More repression means that dealing is associated with more risk and thus socially relegated: Dealers from better off classes stop dealing and instead people with worse to precarious living conditions start dealing. (Because repression cannot eradicate the phenomenon.) Such a relegation is also associated with an increase in the propensity to violence.
	+
	+	Now we see what this repressive nonsense has led to. The shooting in Altstätten (NZZ, 17.2.15) with two seriously injured in the midst of thousands of hemp plants is only the tip of the violence, but an impressive one.
	+
	+	I ask myself again and again how irresponsible the police and public prosecutors are when I hear how they proceed in the field of narcotics. Do they not see the counterproductive results of their actions? They are so obvious that it hurts:
	+
	+	Since the smashing of the hemp stores, since the clearing of the hemp fields outside, since almost every balcony plant is persecuted, there was just less weed, hardly any cheap outdoor self-supply, the price and profit margin increased, high-tech and more expensive indoor became the only option, the professionalism and the money involved became higher, the plants bigger, bigger and more professional gangs formed and thus violent confrontations also increased.
	+
	+	It should be obvious to police and prosecutors that they are directly promoting crime instead of reducing it. They would have to admit for once that they are not getting anywhere with repression, that other, political changes are needed, and refuse to do this counterproductive job. But they go on as if they really don't get it. It's exasperating!
	+
	+	And then the Aargauer Zeitung comes along on 2/19/15 with an interview in which Olivier Guéniat, head of the Neuchâtel police, speaks plainly: "Since the early 2000s, indoor cannabis trafficking has become professionalized in Switzerland and violence has steadily increased ... Traditionally, many Swiss were involved in the cannabis business ... For a few years, more aggressive players came ... These new cannabis growers bring a different background, partly experienced war and cocaine-heroin trafficking ... Switzerland's prohibition policy is partly to blame for increasing crime in the cannabis trade. Moreover, it exposes users without protection to a criminal trade ... The police fight against the drug has long been lost." That's why he pleads for state rules in the cannabis market, as there are for alcohol.
	+
	+	Whew! So not all our police and prosecutors are irresponsible after all. I am somewhat relieved.
	+
	+	===== Yes to legalization =====
	+
	+	In 20Minuten there was a larger survey on the subject, which resulted in about 19,000 responses about 80% in favor of legalization (18.2.15). Of course, the survey is not representative, but it is impressive. How could this great potential best be exploited?

The hemp prosecution in 2014

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 3:		Ligne 3:
	====== The hemp prosecution in 2014 ======		====== The hemp prosecution in 2014 ======

-	Another year of repression in numbers: In 2014, hemp prosecution again affected tens of thousands. However, for the first time in a long time, the numbers are somewhat declining - and the new fines are implemented differently in the cantons.	+	Another year of repression in numbers: In 2014, hemp prosecution again affected tens of thousands. However, for the first time in a long time, the numbers are somewhat declining - and the new fixed penalties are implemented differently in the cantons.

-	===== The prosecution of transgressions =====	+	===== The prosecution of contraventions =====

	**Consumption of cannabis and all preparatory acts for own consumption (NarcA 19a)		**Consumption of cannabis and all preparatory acts for own consumption (NarcA 19a)
	**		**
-	The hemp prosecution in Switzerland concerns with the users since some years every year about 40'000 different people, who were accused of 50'000 criminal offenses (consumption, as well as possession of hash and weed, cultivation, storage, importation for own use). This has essentially been the case in 2014 as well. However, 2014 is now the first complete year in which a part of the transgressions recorded by the police can end not with a report (and a fine with fees between 200 and 1,000 francs), but with a fine (uniformly 100 francs).	+	The hemp prosecution in Switzerland concerns with the users since some years every year about 40'000 different people, who were accused of 50'000 criminal offenses (consumption, as well as possession of hash and weed, cultivation, storage, importation for own use). This has essentially been the case in 2014 as well. However, 2014 is now the first complete year in which a part of the contraventions recorded by the police can end not with a report (and a fine with fees between 200 and 1,000 francs), but with a fixed penalty (uniformly 100 francs).

-	The statistics show that about one third of the hemp violations punished by the police were now punished with fines (orange color in the graphs/tables). The other two thirds were still reported (in three different categories, which we have shown in green).	+	The statistics show that about one third of the hemp-contraventions punished by the police were now punished with fixed penalties (orange color in the graphs/tables). The other two thirds were still reported (in three different categories, which we have shown in green).

	{{:li7003.jpg}}		{{:li7003.jpg}}
Ligne 19:		Ligne 19:
	34,544 offenses related to consumption and preparatory acts were reported; this involved 28,777 defendants. These referrals are divided into three categories: 1) "Consumption", 2) "Cultivation/Preparation" and 3) "Possession/Securing". These are each broken down by number of defendants and by number of offenses (but unfortunately not by canton). Thus, we have presented two graphs on page 3: The first on the left for the development in the number of defendants, the second on the right for the development by number of offenses.		34,544 offenses related to consumption and preparatory acts were reported; this involved 28,777 defendants. These referrals are divided into three categories: 1) "Consumption", 2) "Cultivation/Preparation" and 3) "Possession/Securing". These are each broken down by number of defendants and by number of offenses (but unfortunately not by canton). Thus, we have presented two graphs on page 3: The first on the left for the development in the number of defendants, the second on the right for the development by number of offenses.

-	In both, we also show for the first time the three categories (in green shades), so that one can see the changes. We add the fines in orange to both graphs. Even though the figures cannot be compared exactly in this way, they do give an impression of the volume and the shifts from the three categories of convictions to the new fines.	+	In both, we also show for the first time the three categories (in green shades), so that one can see the changes. We add the fixed penalties in orange to both graphs. Even though the figures cannot be compared exactly in this way, they do give an impression of the volume and the shifts from the three categories of convictions to the new fixed penalties.

-	==== A third of repression: fines ====	+	==== A third of repression: fixed penalties ====

-	All cantons now issue fines (OB). However, the differences are enormous. First, let's look at the absolute numbers: Just under 15,000 OBs for cannabis use were counted throughout Switzerland in 2014. Table 1 shows the figures for the individual cantons. Zurich, Vaud and St. Gallen together already account for half of all OB.	+	All cantons now issue fixed penalties (OB). However, the differences are enormous. First, let's look at the absolute numbers: Just under 15,000 OBs for cannabis use were counted throughout Switzerland in 2014. Table 1 shows the figures for the individual cantons. Zurich, Vaud and St. Gallen together already account for half of all OB.

-	Now we put the numbers of OB in relation to the population size of the cantons, i.e.: How many OB are issued per 1,000 inhabitants? Table 2 shows the corresponding figures. Zug and Vaud can be regarded as the real fans of administrative fine provisions, while Bern and Basel-Landschaft issue practically no OB.	+	Now we put the numbers of OB in relation to the population size of the cantons, i.e.: How many OB are issued per 1,000 inhabitants? Table 2 shows the corresponding figures. Zug and Vaud can be regarded as the real fans of fixed penalty provisions, while Bern and Basel-Landschaft issue practically no OB.

	\| {{:li7004.jpg?400x}} \|		\| {{:li7004.jpg?400x}} \|
Ligne 36:		Ligne 36:
	//		//

-	==== Totaled reprimands and fines ====	+	==== Totaled reprimands and fixed penalties ====

	Every reported crime is a police intervention, an intrusion into a person's private life. In this sense, OB can well be added to the reported crimes.		Every reported crime is a police intervention, an intrusion into a person's private life. In this sense, OB can well be added to the reported crimes.
Ligne 69:		Ligne 69:
	==== The ratio of hash to weed ====		==== The ratio of hash to weed ====

-	//In the case of consumption acts, we cannot now make a breakdown by hash and weed because this information is not recorded at fines.	+	//In the case of consumption acts, we cannot now make a breakdown by hash and weed because this information is not recorded at fixed penalties.
	//		//
	However, this is still possible for misdemeanor. We see that there are many more referrals for weed (2014: 7,259 defendants) than for hash (2014: 620 defendants). Our category "Hash" includes the statistical categories hashish and hashish oil as well as the new category "Synthetic Cannabinoids". Our "weed" category includes cannabis, hemp (young plant), hemp (plant dried), hemp (plant fresh), marijuana, and hemp seeds.		However, this is still possible for misdemeanor. We see that there are many more referrals for weed (2014: 7,259 defendants) than for hash (2014: 620 defendants). Our category "Hash" includes the statistical categories hashish and hashish oil as well as the new category "Synthetic Cannabinoids". Our "weed" category includes cannabis, hemp (young plant), hemp (plant dried), hemp (plant fresh), marijuana, and hemp seeds.
Ligne 76:		Ligne 76:

	//Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Police Crime Statistics, Annual Reports 2009 to 2014: table of convictions by substance and table of fines (only for 2013 and 2014), and population figures from the 2013 statistics. Graphics and calculations by us.//		//Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Police Crime Statistics, Annual Reports 2009 to 2014: table of convictions by substance and table of fines (only for 2013 and 2014), and population figures from the 2013 statistics. Graphics and calculations by us.//
		+

Road traffic and THC: An impossible situation

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Road traffic and THC: An impossible situation ======
	+
	+	A THC limit value that has nothing to do with a concrete stoned state. Convictions for driving under the influence of drugs, although the medical examination does not reveal any abnormalities. Suspicion of drug addiction in the case of three consumption incidents per week. Couldn't be sicker?
	+
	+	===== Unacceptable experiences in road traffic =====
	+
	+	//"I don't know if you can relate to my following story, but I feel the experience as a great injustice and also quite on the border of the permissible. \\
	+	I live in the canton of Solothurn and was stopped on Saturday at 01:00 in the night by the police during a traffic control. I am almost 30, came from home, so was neither styled nor psyched and I was alone on the road to pick up my husband from work. The check was not preceded by any traffic violation on my part, but it was a standard traffic check, as the policeman had explained to me during the greeting. \\
	+	After briefly checking my papers, he immediately wanted to know from me whether I was taking narcotics. He was not interested in the condition of my vehicle, but started right away with this topic. I explained to him that I do not take narcotics. He asked about alcohol and I explained that I did not ingest alcohol either. He asked if I was sure and I then offered to take a breathalyzer test. \\
	+	He simply said he didn't want to know if I was sure about the alcohol, but about the narcotics. After I stressed three more times that I don't ingest drugs and I also had to look at the tip of his nose while he shined his flashlight in my eyes, he asked me to take a rapid drug test because, he said, he felt he smelled marijuana. \\
	+	Well understood, I do not ingest drugs and had told him that several times. I consented to the drug test. After a few minutes, the officer looked at the strip and asked two more times if I was sure I was not ingesting drugs. The test was negative, of course, he just wanted to try again to catch me in case I did take drugs. I dare to say that I did not give the impression of having taken drugs and I find it an impertinence that I have to justify myself in such a way without being believed and even after a negative result of the test I am still not believed. \\
	+	I know that a drug test can only be made on the basis of an urgent suspicion of a crime. This is of course a gray area, as the police officer did feel that he smelled something. I have noticed that some acquaintances in the canton of Solothurn have had to hand in their ID cards due to residual marijuana values during a police check in recent months. Also with me the interest was immediately on the drugs. The officer was not interested in the condition of the vehicle or ingestion of alcohol. \\
	+	I am not in favor of driving if you have consumed marijuana or are intoxicated. But here in the canton of Solothurn, the police seem to be testing every road user for drugs at the moment. Someone who has smoked marijuana has to refrain from driving for several days in order not to have to hand over his or her driving license in case of a control due to the residual value. With alcohol, one does not have to fear this due to the tolerated 0.5 per mille. On the one hand I wonder how permissible this is, on the other hand I would be interested to know if you have already heard of similar cases? And that the police put a big concentration on drug tests? (Oh yes, we have!) I felt like a felon and didn't feel like I could have defended myself in any way against these ridiculous charges. \\
	+	I hope you guys can relate to my experience report. Because even though I don't ingest marijuana, I find such treatment and accusations as I experienced unacceptable."\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ //
	+
	+	===== It borders on obsession =====
	+
	+	Yes, so the authorities still spoil everyone's driving. So the whole hemp hysteria in road traffic now also affects people who do not take anything at all. The officials are simply fixated on such suspicious cases. Because it also brings a big profit: Whoever is proven to be "driving under drugs" commits a misdemeanor, a nice point for the statistics! Instead of looking for and punishing concrete driving errors in traffic, many officers spend hours harassing people who have not made any driving errors. And also not under the concrete influence of THC. I guess the only thing left to hope for is self-driving cars?
	+
	+	===== It is really an impossible situation! What would be the main points to change? =====
	+
	+	⇒ If a THC limit value is to apply, then it must have something to do with the concrete impairment. If there is no such limit value (and this seems to be the state of scientific knowledge), then just any limit value must not be arbitrarily set - certainly not a limit value close to zero. Blood tests must be dispensed with; instead, the medical examination should (once again) apply: If no abnormalities can be detected, then there is no impairment of driving ability.
	+
	+	⇒ Today, the general fitness to drive is already called into question if someone consumes a few times a week. Even if there are no indications that this consumption would take place in temporal proximity to driving a motor vehicle. Here one must work on the fact that THC consumption is simply a normal behavior, like also alcohol consumption. The vast majority of users handle the substance responsibly and do not drive a motor vehicle under the specific influence of THC.
	+
	+	===== Normal people or drug addicts? =====
	+
	+	Today, the consensus in forensic medicine is that occasional use is one to two times a week. Consumption that is no longer occasional starts at three times a week - and this then gives rise to the suspicion that someone could be a drug addict. This shows the enormous reservations and prejudices against THC consumption in certain circles. The use of cannabis products can, as thousands of users prove every day, very well happen without signs of drug addiction. These people work, have relationships, hobbies, do sports, drive on the roads for 20 years without any accidents: It's just a normal leisure activity.
	+
	+	===== Unjustified prosecution =====
	+
	+	Nobody wants people to roll joints and smoke while driving or to get back behind the wheel immediately after consumption. Such behavior must not and should not be tolerated by society. But to punish drivers for just a whiff of substances - without a concretely detectable impairment - and to force them to abstain if they want to continue driving, is clearly going too far. misdemeanor. Mischa Hauswirth also calls this a modern form of witch hunt in his book (see box above right). Simply attributing negative characteristics to people simply because a measuring device spits out a number: modern quackery.
	+
	+	===== Changing it will be very, very difficult.... =====
	+
	+	This year, I have dealt with a few cases and I have to say: If something is to be changed for the better in this problem, a lot of money is needed. Money for studies. Money for public relations. Money for law firms. Money for actions. And people who really want to push this forward, have the necessary (paid!) time for it and can stay on it for years. Because it's about ending ten years of zero tolerance - a decade in which a whole system of THC intolerance has emerged, from which many live (well) and thus have large resources at their disposal.
	+
	+	===== ...because the money, that is scarce. =====
	+
	+	We only manage to finance our one (my) 60% position with the greatest of efforts: As I write these lines, I do not know whether I will be dismissed at the end of August or not. Our big fundraising is still going on, maybe it will be successful, I will try it in any case. Because I know that these 24 paid hours a week are extremely important for legal consultations, for collecting information, for maintaining the office, for updating the database, for media work, for researching and publishing. So that there is a basis on which to fight. But to win, we would need a completely different order of magnitude, we would not have to turn over 75,000 francs per year, but a six-figure amount. But achieving this is not (yet?) foreseeable.
	+
	+

Book recommendation

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Book recommendation ======
	+
	+	The new book by Mischa Hauswirth "Der Cannabis-Irrsinn - Warum uns das Verbot schadet" was published in summer 2015. Some may have already read it during the vacations. For the others, it is now warmly recommended.
	+
	+	The foreword by Dick Marty alone is a trouvaille. The fact that a former prosecutor describes the misery and absurdity of the total hemp ban so impressively does not happen every day.
	+
	+	In six parts, Hauswirth denounces the sobering balance after more than half a century of THC prohibition as well as the senseless burning of taxpayers' money, interviews hemp researcher Prof. Brenneisen on medical use, deals with the effective danger of cannabis and shows a way out of today's messy situation. For all parts there is a double page with a summary of the most important points.
	+
	+	This multi-layered and pleasantly fluently written book is recommended to all those who deal with the topic of cannabis (repression) or want to have a say in current and future discussions.
	+
	+	After the book launch in Basel, a panel on the current hemp debate took place on June 6, 2015, moderated by Mischa Hauswirth. Participants from Basel included an SVP councillor, an SP councillor, a representative of the health department and the criminal law professor Peter Albrecht. It was interesting that meanwhile also conservative politicians see the senselessness of hemp repression and want to do something against it, even if great reservations about home cultivation or THC values of over 15% came to light.
	+
	+	The insight was clearly felt that something has to be changed, but also a certain helplessness: How to get all this going in Switzerland? After all, the Basel parliament has now twice asked the Basel government to do something, but it just doesn't want to.... At least more people are thinking about it. The new book can make a contribution to this.

Hemp seizures in 2014

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 7:		Ligne 7:
	Here we summarize the following categories: Joints/cans from hemp (plants fresh), hemp (plants dried), marijuana, hashish and -oil.		Here we summarize the following categories: Joints/cans from hemp (plants fresh), hemp (plants dried), marijuana, hashish and -oil.
	The majority of the seized joints are weed joints (3,531), hashish joints were seized only 129. This means that only 3.5% percent were filled with hashish.		The majority of the seized joints are weed joints (3,531), hashish joints were seized only 129. This means that only 3.5% percent were filled with hashish.
-	It remains unclear whether all seized joints really appear in these statistics, the counting method of the different cantons is different (which is generally a problem of the statistics and has not improved since the adoption of the figures by the Federal Statistical Office). Above all, it is not clear whether joints that are punished in the administrative fine procedure (possible since October 2013) also appear here.	+	It remains unclear whether all seized joints really appear in these statistics, the counting method of the different cantons is different (which is generally a problem of the statistics and has not improved since the adoption of the figures by the Federal Statistical Office). Above all, it is not clear whether joints that are punished in the fixed penalties procedure (possible since October 2013) also appear here.

	===== Seized plants, 2009 to 2014 =====		===== Seized plants, 2009 to 2014 =====

The rocky road to legalization

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== The rocky road to legalization ======

	+	Autumn 2015: Medical cannabis is becoming more and more acceptable, whole countries have started legalizing it. But here in Germany, there is currently no progress at all. On the contrary: Customs takes a childish delight in fishing out hemp seeds.
	+
	+	===== Cannabis will be legal in Switzerland (again) =====
	+
	+	It is only a question of time. How many years or decades it will take is impossible to estimate. Who would have seen Colorado as a legalization pioneer just a few years ago? At the turn of the millennium, many thought Switzerland was the great international pioneer. But then, within a few years, all hemp stores were closed. No, no one knows when the majority of the population will see sense: Hemp repression does not achieve the goal of abstinence, but generates a huge amount of costs.
	+
	+	One could also ask the question: Why isn't it legal yet? Of course, there are as many answers as there are people. We've all heard a few of them, //"They don't want to do it up there for ... Reasons."// //"The pharmaceutical lobby ..." "The powerful, the rich, the politicians, Martians, etc. ..."// We can only speculate because we are unlikely to find out the real reason in the near future.
	+
	+	The only thing that is clear is that there is currently no majority in favor of legalizing hemp in Switzerland. In 2008, there was a vote in which legalization or regulation failed with the voters.
	+
	+	Cannabis - you can look at it as a drug, as a remedy, as a relaxant; it depends on how you look at it. Recently, hemp has been back in the media more often. It has also been proven time and time again that it is a cure or palliative for all sorts of illnesses and ailments. Nowadays, this can no longer be denied.
	+
	+	And yet you hear over and over again, //"It's a gateway drug"//, //"Hemp is addictive, sick, stupid, etc"//. Ridiculous propaganda, we don't want to deal with it anymore. But many people still believe in these empty words, which gives legitimacy to a big repressive apparatus for the prosecution of hemp.
	+
	+	===== And then again the question, "Why isn't it legal?" =====
	+
	+	All regular smokers or hemp supporters could ask themselves one question: //"What can I do to make it legal again?"//. All the hemp lovers, all the pain patients: You are a group that is directly affected by prohibition. For most of you, there is a lot of interest in seeing something change. The next question then becomes, //"What can I do, how can I make something change for the better?"// With today's repressive situation of the authorities, one can understand the //powerlessness: "They are too powerful, I can't do anything!"// So you don't want to attract attention, you want to stay hidden where possible, which is perfectly understandable.
	+
	+	But then no one should expect anything to change in the near future. Changes do not happen by themselves, they are caused by people, with pressure on the policy, signature collections, demos and other acts. At least there is some movement in politics. There is talk about pilot tests for cannabis distribution (with registration of the users?, maximum 15% THC?, without self-cultivation?), there is debate about the possible possibility of cannabis social clubs (without the possibility of consumption?) and so on. But without real action, unfortunately, it remains just talk. Many affected people have rightly lost confidence in politics and the parties.
	+
	+	Another way to look at the consumption of cannabis is in terms of personal freedom: I may consume what I want. To that end, everyone has their own personal choice of what they want to ingest or not. This freedom was present with regard to cannabis in Switzerland until 1952. From then on, the tide turned. A freedom, a right was taken from us, or rather stolen. Today, in 2015, 63 years later, there is still a fight to regain the stolen freedom for the use of the hemp plant.
	+
	+	Now privacy is in danger of being lost altogether - the last remnants where the state has not yet intervened because it could not: Electronic surveillance is conquering more and more areas of life. The right to privacy, and thus the possibility of living lifestyles that may be alien to the majority, is being given up step by step. The new surveillance laws show where the journey could lead. And it will be difficult to win back such freedoms.
	+
	+	===== The "security" displaces freedom more and more =====
	+
	+	But how good are these security apparatuses, police forces, public prosecutors' offices and courts? They can beat people up for importing ten hemp seeds. They are hardly interested in burglaries, but they take tens of thousands of people seriously when it comes to prosecuting and punishing them for smoking pot. These apparatuses don't need more rights and money, they need reform: they should question priorities and take personal freedoms seriously.

Project Shit happens, the 10th edition

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Project Shit happens, the 10th edition ======

	+	We would like to revise our legal info by fall 2016 and bring it out in an updated Shit happens 10. Here I show the necessary elements so that we can succeed in the new edition again.
	+
	+	===== Initial situation =====
	+
	+	**Where are we in December 2015?
	+	**
	+	It is not going to be legal soon. On the contrary, repression is rampant: This year's seed prosecution has shown that again. Now the canton of Fribourg has closed growshops.
	+
	+	The big announced urban dispensary projects for thousands of hemp users have shrunk to 300 to 900 participants (NZZ, 30.10.15). The applications for this are to be submitted to the FOPH by mid-2016. So nothing big will come of it - if at all. Nobody talks about Cannabis Social Clubs anymore.
	+
	+	The 9th edition of our Shit happens from the fall of 2013 will soon be out of the house: About 300 copies are still in the office; these will probably suffice until the summer of 2016.
	+
	+	We have already published three supplements to it (the first answers to the open questions, the repression overview in table form and the findings on the problems with a police interrogation).
	+
	+	Two years have passed since the 9th edition was printed: Many consultations, documents, findings and statistics have been added. We can add, clarify and complete some things.
	+
	+	It would also be good if we had an up-to-date edition ready for CannaTrade 2016.
	+
	+	So an update is worthwhile, the info is ready and according to our statutes a new edition is almost a must...
	+
	+	On our www.hanflegal.ch the three additions are attached to the text from the SH9 (in the blue boxes). Again, the old and the new should now be merged. The concept of summarizing the main topics in the printed brochure and then referring to the details in the wiki has proven successful and should be continued.
	+
	+	===== Schedule =====
	+
	+	**What all needs to be done?
	+	**
	+	(without name=Sven, italics//the parallel work for Legalize it!, especially issue 74//)
	+
	+	^ March^
	+	\| //The LI73 should be out in early March, so I could start the Shit happens 10 project from mid-March.//\|
	+	\| Week 12\| Existing reading (SH9, E123, Wiki)\|
	+	\| Week 13\| Make plan what to change and how\|
	+	^ April^
	+	\| Week 14\| Set number of topics/pages\|
	+	\| Week 15\| Quotation printing company and schedule definite\|
	+	\| Weeks 16+17\|Research, clarify, specify\|
	+	^ May^ //(incl. production LI74)//^
	+	\| Weeks 18-21\| Writing (for printed brochure, for wiki)\|
	+	^ June^ //(incl. shipping LI74)//^
	+	\| Weeks 22+23\| Layout and clean up texts\|
	+	\| Weeks 24+25\| Corrections rough, in two parts (Ruth, Sandra, Sh., Yves, Rebi).\|
	+	\| Week 26\| Corrections Details (Fabian)\|
	+	^ July^
	+	\| Weeks 27+28\|Optimize PDF for Print and Good to Print\|
	+	\| Weeks 29+30\|Printing (printing house)\|
	+	^ August^
	+	\| Week 31\| Shipping (all)\|
	+	\| Week 32\| (Dispatch to media, actions)\|
	+	\| Weeks 33+34 \| Process result\|
	+	^ September^
	+	\| Week 35\| Cannatrade 2016, 2. - 4.9.16\|
	+	\| //The LI75 will then not appear until December.//\|
	+
	+	That gives 24 weeks, about six months, until the CannaTrade appearance. So I have to be able to work for half a year without financial worries, so that this project can succeed. Some members have already agreed to help.
	+
	+	===== Open questions =====
	+
	+	What needs to be clarified?
	+
	+	What should be the scope? What exactly do we want to bring in the new edition: More like overviews and summaries, so just a rudimentary booklet with a few overviews and links? Or similar to the 9th edition? Or even a book, with a cover and a lot of info?
	+
	+	What must necessarily be in the brochure, what do we only put in the wiki? Do we do QR codes again or just links? How do we structure the old/new info in the wiki?
	+
	+	We certainly want to integrate the answers to the "open questions" and our extensions 1 to 3. Are there any new open questions? What can be usefully clarified, what needs to remain open?
	+
	+	How large should the circulation be (e.g. 1,000 books, 5,000 brochures or 20,000 overview brochures)?
	+
	+	===== Distribution =====
	+
	+	**Where do the brochures go?
	+	**
	+	The Shit happens 9 had a print run of 5,000 copies and they are now almost gone. So such a size makes sense. An approximate breakdown of such a print run could look like this:
	+
	+	* 1'000 copies are needed immediately (shipping members, orders members)
	+	* 1,000 copies could make up the prepaid copies for bulk orderers
	+	* 1'000 copies we need over the next two, three years (orders, new members)
	+	* 1'000 copies we could bring under the people at the CannaTrade
	+	* This means that 1,000 copies are still open, which is probably a good thing. Because a special opportunity for distribution or as an insert should come in the next few years.
	+
	+	However, depending on the situation, a different circulation and distribution system makes more sense (see open questions).
	+
	+	===== Budget =====
	+
	+	**What finances are needed?
	+	**
	+	At the moment our budget shows that I can continue working until the end of February 2016, in the meantime we were able to postpone the termination date until then - here again a big thank you to all the donors who made this possible with their big and small contributions!
	+
	+	Printing costs about 4,000 CHF (for 5,000 copies of 32 pages each, as for the 9th edition, or more or less, depending on pages and print run).
	+
	+	Added to this is my time, more precisely the part that cannot be covered by current income and has been compensated in recent years by the large-scale fundraising. This corresponds to about 14,000 CHF for half a year (March to August 2016).
	+
	+	The budget for Shit happens 10 therefore requires at least 18,000 CHF, 20,000 would be better. This sum must be collected (paid in or firmly pledged) by February 29, 2016 at the latest. We will draw a first interim balance at the association meeting at the end of January.
	+
	+	===== Acquisition =====
	+
	+	**How can this be financed?
	+	**
	+	With this article, I am now starting the search for money. At the beginning of 2016, I will follow up again with an updated project description and the status of the collection.
	+
	+	In parallel, I will contact members specifically interested in the topic, as well as various organizations and companies that might be interested in supporting or pre-financing a certain number of brochures.
	+
	+	There is too little time for crowdfunding. This needs about 150 days for processing - but only 80 days are available until the end of February.
	+
	+	If it succeeds, then I'll start according to plan in March. If it doesn't work out, and there is no other possibility, then it will be very tight for our/my secretarial position. We are already on very thin ice financially.
	+
	+	//Now I am curious whether we can manage it together!
	+	//
	+
	+	====== Your support? ======
	+
	+	A new edition of our Shit happens is always a big undertaking for our association. Before we can start with this project in March 2016, we need the necessary basics: a clear goal (new edition Shit happens and updated links to hanflegal.ch), the necessary funds (around 20'000 CHF) and a few people who want to and can do it. To work out these basics, I wrote this concept.
	+
	+	===== Do you want to collaborate? =====
	+
	+	Then please contact me soon. Think about what activities you can offer and how much time you can spend on it until August 2016. Clarifications, layout/ graphics, corrections and finding further sources of money are possible fields of activity.
	+
	+	===== Do you want to co-finance? =====
	+
	+	Donations and large donations are very important for this project. It would also be possible that you receive a number of Shit happens for your donation (probably around 4 CHF per copy; a donation of 1'000 CHF could therefore correspond to 250 copies) - this is probably more for companies or organizations to distribute to their customers/members.
	+
	+	===== Who is responsible for this project? =====
	+
	+	//Sven Schendekehl (Member of the Board, Secretary)//
	+
	+	[[sven@hanflegal.ch]], 079 581 90 44
	+
	+	====== 2016: 20 years Shit happens ======
	+
	+	In 1996 we were able to publish the first edition of a legal aid brochure around the prosecution of smoking pot. 20 years later, I am now really preparing the 10th edition.
	+
	+	Whether that will succeed is as open as it was for the first nine editions. All of them had their own mode of financing: contributions from independent street work, loans, large donations from private individuals, advance sales of brochures to various organizations, sometimes in-house printing in small editions when the money was almost completely lacking. But otherwise mostly 5'000 copies circulation. Total of all editions so far: 38,000 copies.
	+
	+	Now the attempt to do the 10th edition. I am glad to receive information about concrete cases of persecution, hints to further interested persons and promises for cooperation. So that the 10th edition succeeds!

Initiative proposal hemp legalization

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== Initiative proposal for the legalisation of hemp ======	+	====== Initiative proposal hemp legalization ======

-	You have to start somewhere. This proposal for an initiative text focuses on the legalisation of personal contact for adults and excludes young people and the area of trafficking.	+	You have to start somewhere. This proposal for an initiative text focuses on the legalization of personal contact for adults and excludes young people and the area of trafficking.

-	===== The text of the initiative =====	+	===== The initiative in wording =====

	//The Federal Constitution of 18 April 1999 is amended as follows (new Article 105a, 118c or 123d)://		//The Federal Constitution of 18 April 1999 is amended as follows (new Article 105a, 118c or 123d)://
Ligne 14:		Ligne 14:
	Introduction		Introduction

-	Cannabis as a stimulant and medicine has been an integral part of our society since time immemorial. The aim of the present initiative is to no longer legally prosecute adult consumers who use psychoactive substances of the cannabis plant responsibly.	+	Cannabis as a stimulant and medicine has been an integral part of our society since time immemorial. The aim of the present initiative is to no longer legally prosecute adult consumers who use psychoactive substances of the cannabis plant in a responsible manner.

-	The aim of allowing cultivation for personal use is that these consumers no longer have to help themselves from the black market. People who already grow for their own consumption and thus actively counteract the black market should be brought out of illegality.	+	The aim of allowing cultivation for personal use is that these consumers no longer have to help themselves from the black market. People who already cultivate for their own use and thus actively counteract the black market are to be brought out of illegality.

-	**Youth protection**	+	**Protection of minors**

-	The handling of cannabis is to be reserved for adults only. This does not further restrict the strategy of youth protection that the Confederation is currently pursuing. Adults who grant access to minors can still be punished.	+	The handling of cannabis is to be reserved for adults only. This will not further restrict the strategy of youth protection that the federal government is currently pursuing. Adults who grant access to minors can still be punished.

-	Cultivation for own use	+	Cultivation for personal use

	Cannabis is an ancient cultivated plant that is relatively frugal and can be grown on any balcony. Many users and patients do this for their own consumption, mostly for the pleasure of gardening and with the certainty of not consuming any extender.		Cannabis is an ancient cultivated plant that is relatively frugal and can be grown on any balcony. Many users and patients do this for their own consumption, mostly for the pleasure of gardening and with the certainty of not consuming any extender.

-	The aim is to bring people out of illegality who have a private responsible attitude and do not want to enter the illegality of the black market.	+	The aim is to bring people out of illegality who maintain a private responsible use and do not want to enter the illegality of the black market.

-	Those who produce cannabis for sale can be prosecuted as before. Thus, the authorities can focus on those who produce cannabis on a large scale and thus drive the black market.	+	Those who manufacture cannabis for sale can be prosecuted as before. Thus, the authorities can focus on those who produce cannabis on a large scale and thus drive the black market.

-	Trade and sale	+	**Trade and sale
		+	**
		+	The initiative intentionally excludes all regulation on trade and sale, as the regulation of this is to be left to the federal government. The goal of the initiative is to achieve a minimum level of decriminalization of cannabis use and to promote responsible consumption.

-	The initiative deliberately excludes all regulation of trafficking and sale, as the regulation of this is to be left to the federal government. The aim of the initiative is to achieve a minimum level of decriminalisation of cannabis use and to promote responsible consumption.	+	The demand has been formulated in such a way that the authorities can continue to perform their task in the field of prevention and protection of minors. In addition, it leaves them room to maneuver upwards. All over the world, different models of cannabis legalization are being tested, possibly one will also be applied in Switzerland with regard to trade and sale as soon as enough experience has been gained.
-		+
-	The requirement has been formulated in such a way that the authorities can continue to perform their task in the area of prevention and protection of minors. In addition, it leaves them room for manoeuvre upwards. All over the world, various models for the legalisation of cannabis are being tested, and possibly one will also be applied in Switzerland with regard to trade and sale as soon as enough experience has been gained.	+
-		+
-	Health and medicine	+

		+	**Health and medicine
		+	**
	Health risks associated with cannabis use are moderate, especially in forms of use that do not involve combustion processes. Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than occasional cannabis use.		Health risks associated with cannabis use are moderate, especially in forms of use that do not involve combustion processes. Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than occasional cannabis use.

-	Accordingly, the initiative serves to educate the public by highlighting the dangers of other substances and counteracting the stigmatisation of cannabis users.	+	Accordingly, the initiative serves to educate the public by highlighting the dangers of other substances and counteracting the stigmatization of cannabis users.

-	Unlike other already legal substances, cannabis also offers broad therapeutic possibilities. In many countries, cannabis as medicine is successfully part of public health care. In Switzerland, even self-medication is made a punishable offence - even for patients who demonstrably have no other option left. Whether and to what extent the market is opened by the authorities for medical purposes is left to the federal government.	+	In contrast to other already legal substances, cannabis also offers broad therapeutic possibilities. In many countries, cannabis as medicine is successfully part of public health care. In Switzerland, even self-medication is punishable - even for patients who demonstrably have no other option. Whether and to what extent the market is opened by the authorities for medical purposes is left to the federal government.

	===== Overview =====		===== Overview =====
Ligne 48:		Ligne 48:
	//Table 1: Current situation//		//Table 1: Current situation//

-	\| \| Consumption \| Possession \| Attachment \| Share \| Trade \|	+	\| \| Consumption \| Ownership \| Cultivation \| Disclosure \| Trade \|
	\| Adults \| - \| - \| - \| - \| - \|		\| Adults \| - \| - \| - \| - \| - \|
	\| Minors \| - \| - \| - \| - \| - \|		\| Minors \| - \| - \| - \| - \| - \|

-	//Table 2: Situation if the initiative is accepted (and the current Narcotics Law remains in force)//	+	//Table 2: Situation if the initiative is accepted (and today's NarcA remains in force)//

-	\| \| Consumption \| Possession \| Attachment \| Share \| Trade \|	+	\| \| Consumption \| Ownership \| Cultivation \| Disclosure \| Trade \|
	\| Adults \| + \| + \| + \| - \| - \|		\| Adults \| + \| + \| + \| - \| - \|
	\| Minors \| - \| - \| - \| - \| - \|		\| Minors \| - \| - \| - \| - \| - \|
Ligne 62:		Ligne 62:
	How many plants are then considered own use?		How many plants are then considered own use?

-	Those who consume responsibly can manage with a few plants. For sick people who self-medicate, more plants can be used. In general, however, the sale and trade should be punishable and not the suspicion.	+	Those who practice responsible consumption can manage with a few plants. For sick people who self-medicate, more plants may well be used. In general, however, it is the sale and trade that should be punished and not the suspected case.

-	**Isn't the release of private cultivation a free pass for its sale?**	+	Is the release of private cultivation not a free pass for its sale?

-	The cultivation itself is associated with personnel expenses, accordingly, the cultivation and distribution is profitable only from a certain volume. Those who remain in the subsistence sector cannot cover these costs, the risk does not pay off. All others would continue to be penalised as long as Parliament does not pass legislation on trade.	+	Cultivation itself involves personnel expenditure, and accordingly cultivation and sale is only profitable above a certain volume. Those who remain in the realm of personal consumption cannot cover these costs, the risk does not pay off. All others would continue to be penalized as long as parliament does not pass legislation on trade.

-	**At what point can we legally smoke pot?**	+	**When can we smoke pot legally?**

-	Anyone who has reached the age of 18 can cultivate and consume cannabis for their own use under this provision.	+	Anyone who has reached the age of 18 can grow and consume cannabis for personal use with this provision.

-	In the most restrictive form of implementation of this initiative, this is the only way to legally consume cannabis.	+	In the most restrictive form of the implementation of this initiative, this is the only way to legally consume cannabis.

-	Minors who grow, procure or somehow accept cannabis are still liable to prosecution. In any case, as long as the current BetmG is still in force. Parliament can, of course, introduce a different form of youth protection than complete criminalisation.	+	Minors who cultivate, procure or somehow accept cannabis are still liable to prosecution. At least as long as the current NarcA is still in effect. The parliament can of course introduce a different protection of minors than the complete criminalization.

-	Will enabling lead to more drug addiction?	+	Will legalization lead to more drug addiction?

-	The addictive potential of cannabis is lower than that of tobacco or alcohol. However, addiction in and of itself is usually not directly linked to a substance, but rather depends more on the circumstances. If the availability of a substance ceases, it is compensated for with another (addictive behaviour).	+	The addictive potential of cannabis is lower than that of tobacco or alcohol. However, addiction in and of itself is usually not directly linked to a substance, but rather depends more on circumstances. If the availability of a substance falls away, it is compensated for with another (addictive behavior).

	===== Discussion =====		===== Discussion =====

-	[[markus@hanflegal.ch\|Markus]] has proposed this initiative text and written the argumentation for it. Anyone who would like to discuss it with him or help with its implementation is welcome to exchange ideas with him.	+	[[markus@hanflegal.ch\|Markus]] has proposed this initiative text and written the argumentation for it. Whoever would like to discuss it with him or help with the implementation is welcome to exchange ideas with him.

-	At the last members' meetings, we discussed this topic and possible implementation options. Depending on the response, we can imagine to continue this in 2016.	+	At the last members' meetings, we have talked about this topic and possible implementation options. Depending on the response, we can imagine continuing this in 2016.

-	====== Legalisation strategies ======	+	====== Legalization Strategies ======

-	How could legalisation become a reality? Ultimately, this would require an amendment to the current Narcotics Act and the adoption of a new hemp law by parliament.	+	How could legalization become a reality? Ultimately, the current NarcA has to be changed and a new hemp law has to be passed by the parliament.

	===== Waiting =====		===== Waiting =====

-	The first option: wait until the mood of the population has changed, the politicians notice this and change the law. Advantage: You don't have to do anything, except wait. Disadvantage: It can still take a very long time.	+	The first option: wait until the mood of the population has changed, the politicians notice this and change the law. Advantage: You don't have to do anything except wait. Disadvantage: It can take a very long time.

	===== Initiative =====		===== Initiative =====

-	A popular initiative can force a constitutional amendment. But someone has to want to collect them, be able to certify them, and then still win a ballot fight. Advantage: If it works, you really get closer to legalization. Disadvantage: It means a lot of work for many people over many years, success remains uncertain.	+	A popular initiative can force a constitutional amendment. But someone has to want to collect them, be able to certify them, and then win a referendum campaign. Advantage: If it works, you really get closer to legalization. Disadvantage: It means a lot of work for many people over many years, success remains uncertain.

	===== Print =====		===== Print =====

-	Professional lobbying can lead to change: Editing parliament, media relations on all channels, campaigns with striking images, lively rallies, viral videos. That takes a lot of paid professionals swirling around in public. Advantage: that's how it usually works. Disadvantage: It takes huge amounts of money.	+	Professional lobbying can lead to change: Editing parliament, media relations on all channels, campaigns with striking images, lively rallies, viral videos. That takes a lot of paid professionals swirling around in public. Advantage: That's how it usually works. Disadvantage: It takes enormous amounts of money.

	===== Outing =====		===== Outing =====

-	Personal stories, told in public, can have a lot of impact. It is emotional, concrete, understandable. This approach lives from the fact that many do it, do it daily, on all channels. Advantage: It doesn't need money and can lead to changes very quickly, because the absurdity of the illegality becomes directly obvious. Disadvantage: It needs moral courage from many. The first ones who come out in this way have to reckon with being fully caught by the repression.	+	Personal stories, told in public, can have a great impact. It's emotional, concrete, understandable. This approach thrives on the fact that many do it, do it every day, on all channels. Advantage: It doesn't need money and can lead to changes very quickly, because the absurdity of the illegality becomes directly obvious. Disadvantage: It needs civil courage from many. The first ones to come out in this way must expect to be fully caught up in the repression.

-	====== Idea for the collection of the initiative ======	+	====== Initiative collection idea ======

-	Collecting signatures is a tough job that even large organizations can't always manage.	+	Collecting signatures is a tough job that even large organizations can't always manage.

-	Nino has thought about how this work could be done differently than before (stand actions, collecting on the street, distributing flyers). The idea: before collecting signatures in practice, try to record interested people in a database through an online form, so that you can write to them later as potential collectors and supporters. This would simplify the planning considerably, because one would know that a) the 100,000 signatures can really be reached within a useful period of time and b) the collectors would not have to search for the signatures on the off chance, but could specifically target the registered persons in the database. In addition, this collection campaign could provide an initial spark which, in the best case scenario, would send a majority, but realistically probably a motivated minority, into a collective frenzy of joy.	+	Nino has thought about how this work could be done differently than before (stand actions, collecting on the street, distributing flyers). The idea: Before collecting signatures in practice, try to record interested people in a database through an online form, so that you can write to them later as potential collectors and supporters. This would simplify the planning considerably, because one would know that a) the 100,000 signatures can really be reached within a useful period of time and b) the collectors would not have to search for the signatures on the off chance, but could target the registered persons in the database. In addition, this collection campaign could provide an initial spark which, in the best case, would send a majority, but realistically probably a motivated minority, into a collective frenzy of joy.

-	[[nino@hanflegal.ch\|Nino]] is working on developing this idea further and welcomes feedback.	+	[[nino@hanflegal.ch\|Nino]] is working on developing this idea further and is looking forward to feedback.

Switzerland discusses and lags behind

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Switzerland discusses and lags behind ======
	+
	+	While in our country maybe 2,000 people are allowed to participate in cannabis dispensaries, smoking pot is partially legal in the USA. Even if more and more are in favor of legalization: We should be careful that personal use becomes truly free.
	+
	+	===== Cannabis dispensing by lot? =====
	+
	+	The cities want to obtain a permit for the delivery trials in summer 2016 (NZZ of 5.2.2016, SRF of 12.2. 2016). However, the scale will now be significantly smaller than originally envisaged. Only 2,000 test subjects are to be gifted with cannabis. Thus, the main question of whether and how the black market could be dried up cannot really be answered.
	+
	+	Even if some people still talk about clubs, it now looks more like a participation in an ordinary scientific experiment, not like nice "Cannabis Social Clubs"...
	+
	+	The details are now being worked out. If the FOPH approves the trials, they might start in 2016/2017. The duration is planned to be four years. All other users will continue to be prosecuted. So these levies are at best a drop in the bucket.
	+
	+	Concrete legalizations are to be looked at: Some U.S. states have established functioning, large-scale cannabis production and distribution - whether clearly for recreational use, or for more strictly or loosely managed "medical marijuana." Ten more state ballots are due in 2016.
	+
	+	But perhaps in Switzerland it simply takes the smallest of steps for a movement to take place at all. But providing 2,000 people, perhaps chosen by lot, with cannabis for four years (and then the project is over) - that's not a solution.
	+
	+	===== "Key Aspects of Cannabis Regulation." =====
	+
	+	This is the title of a paper written by the "National Working Group on Addiction Policy" NAS together with the "Conference of Cantonal Commissioners for Addiction Issues" KKBS and the "Municipal Conference of Commissioners for Addiction Issues" (July 2015). Heavens, these names...
	+
	+	Right at the beginning, the text massively underestimates cannabisprosecution. So it says: //"...in Switzerland, the consumption of a minor amount of cannabis (max. 10 grams) by adult persons is punished with a fixed penalty of 100 Fr. Cannabis thus remains prohibited, but a criminal prosecution will not be included, except in exceptional cases//."
	+
	+	Unfortunately, this is more wish than reality. Even if 15,000 fixed penalties are now issued, 35,000 people per year are still reported for their cannabis use (so criminal proceedings after all - and not only in exceptional cases). In addition, there are cantonal differences in the (non-) application of fixed penalties. In addition, the hemp seed prosecutions has clearly shown: The repression is still massive. Otherwise, the statements are ok and comprehensible: The implementation of the repressive policy has not succeeded, the black market cannot be dried up by the police, most users have an unproblematic consumption and so on. Yes, we know that.
	+
	+	Then comes their desired goal - a graphic that summarizes their ideal. Cannabis legislation should be changed from total prohibition via harm reduction/decriminalization towards strict legal regulation, and at the same time alcohol and tobacco legislation should be adjusted from the status of today's relatively free commercial marketing via light market regulation also towards strict legal regulation. The theory behind this: Strict legal regulation should result in minimal harm to society (while an unregulated black market or a free legal market should each result in maximum harm).
	+
	+	But are these the only options? Strict regulation requires many regulations, which then have to be monitored and paid for again. Whether this makes sense and is proportionate seems doubtful. After all, a non-commercial association model for production and distribution of cannabis products is viewed positively.
	+
	+	But the legal possession of a few plants for one's own use - i.e. a self-responsible, libertarian variant - does not come up. We should always bring this aspect into the debate: Adults must be given the right to freely produce their own personal cannabis needs and thus be able to supply themselves.
	+
	+	The whole area of commerce can really be structured very differently, with less state paternalism and taxation or more. Therefore, the freedom of personal use should never be forgotten. It would be the only pledge of the THC-users - against a patronizing state ("to every stoner his social worker") as well as against a strictly regulated market (which could soon be in the hands of a few specialized companies).

The shift of the fixed penalties

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

The hemp tracking in 2015

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/11/26 17:34		Version actuelle
Ligne 20:		Ligne 20:
	These are each broken down by number of defendants and by number of offenses. Therefore, we have presented two graphs on the page before: The first one on the left for the evolution in the number of defendants and the second one on the right for the evolution by number of offenses.		These are each broken down by number of defendants and by number of offenses. Therefore, we have presented two graphs on the page before: The first one on the left for the evolution in the number of defendants and the second one on the right for the evolution by number of offenses.

-	==== A third of repression: fines ====	+	==== A third of repression: fixed penalties ====

-	All cantons now issue fines (OB). However, the differences are enormous. 18,319 OBs for cannabis use were issued throughout Switzerland in 2015.	+	All cantons now issue fixed penalties (OB). However, the differences are enormous. 18,319 OBs for cannabis use were issued throughout Switzerland in 2015.

	The OB are shown in orange in both graphs on page 3. Even if the figures cannot be compared exactly, they give an impression of the enormous number and the shifts from referrals to the new fines. However, even if the number of reprimands has decreased in recent years and one third of them have been replaced by OB, the number of reprimands in 2015 is almost as high as it was in 2009 - the growth of repression seems to be unstoppable.		The OB are shown in orange in both graphs on page 3. Even if the figures cannot be compared exactly, they give an impression of the enormous number and the shifts from referrals to the new fines. However, even if the number of reprimands has decreased in recent years and one third of them have been replaced by OB, the number of reprimands in 2015 is almost as high as it was in 2009 - the growth of repression seems to be unstoppable.
Ligne 47:		Ligne 47:
	misdemeanor are divided into two areas: "light case" (giving away and trading up to a few thousand francs) and "serious case" (turnover over 100,000 francs or profit of 10,000 francs, minimum 12 months imprisonment). Most misdemeanor prosecutions concern the "light case". Here, the number of defendants has increased to 10,316. In the "serious" cases, the number of persons prosecuted has fallen to 398.		misdemeanor are divided into two areas: "light case" (giving away and trading up to a few thousand francs) and "serious case" (turnover over 100,000 francs or profit of 10,000 francs, minimum 12 months imprisonment). Most misdemeanor prosecutions concern the "light case". Here, the number of defendants has increased to 10,316. In the "serious" cases, the number of persons prosecuted has fallen to 398.

-	//Here, however, one must see that these are referrals or referred persons of one year. The statistics do not tell us how many and what sentences result from them. They only record the police referrals. In the case of consumption cases, the number of reprimands should also correspond roughly to the number of fines actually issued. However, in the case of misdemeanor, especially in serious cases, it can take months or even years for a verdict to become legally binding. In addition, there are always cases where someone is reported for a misdemeanor, but then, because it is not provable, is "only" convicted for a contravention. This might have been the case with some hemp seed cases, even if we really have seen many penal orders for an offense for hemp seed orders.// Therefore: these numbers do not indicate the number of sentences, but the number of people affected by police repression in this area.	+	//Here, however, one must see that these are referrals or referred persons of one year. The statistics do not tell us how many and what sentences result from them. They only record the police referrals. In the case of consumption cases, the number of reprimands should also correspond roughly to the number of fines actually issued. However, in the case of misdemeanor, especially in serious cases, it can take months or even years for a verdict to become legally binding. In addition, there are always cases where someone is reported for a misdemeanor, but then, because it is not provable, is "only" convicted for a contravention. This might have been the case with some hemp seed cases, even if we really have seen many summary penalty orders for an offense for hemp seed orders.// Therefore: these numbers do not indicate the number of sentences, but the number of people affected by police repression in this area.

	==== The ratio of hash to weed ====		==== The ratio of hash to weed ====

CBD: Promising and embattled

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 43:		Ligne 43:
	===== Legal developments =====		===== Legal developments =====

-	This circumstance probably also contributes to the fact that in Switzerland the public consumption of legal CBD cannabis must expect the same repressions: as with normal, illegal hemp. In any case, this summer, after the launch of the "first legal weed in Switzerland", one could hear in the media that for CBD consumption fines will be distributed. And this although CBD consumption is not illegal in Switzerland. At least CBD does not fall under the narcotics law. However, anyone who wants to produce or sell it as a remedy or tobacco substitute must comply with numerous requirements. However, CBD flowers can currently still be sold for other unregulated uses. Certain retailers have become cautious, however, and there is a note in the legal notices for scented pads, for example, that CBD has "pharmacological properties."	+	This circumstance probably also contributes to the fact that in Switzerland the public consumption of legal CBD cannabis must expect the same repressions: as with normal, illegal hemp. In any case, this summer, after the launch of the "first legal weed in Switzerland", one could hear in the media that for CBD consumption fixed penalties will be distributed. And this although CBD consumption is not illegal in Switzerland. At least CBD does not fall under the narcotics law. However, anyone who wants to produce or sell it as a remedy or tobacco substitute must comply with numerous requirements. However, CBD flowers can currently still be sold for other unregulated uses. Certain retailers have become cautious, however, and there is a note in the legal notices for scented pads, for example, that CBD has "pharmacological properties."

	Last spring, the FDA, the food and drug agency in the U.S., made a draft regulation that would define CBD as a drug. Thus, it would no longer be allowed to be sold as a food additive, as it has often been done in the past. The same spectacle is currently happening in other countries. In the UK, CBD has fallen under the definition of a medicine since early October - producers and distributors of cannabidiol extracts have been ordered to stop selling and advertising it. At the same time, in Germany CBD has been declared prescription-only, meaning it can only be used as a medicine on prescription. Whether oils and other CBD products that are not offered as medicines are also affected by the regulation is currently unclear, but unfortunately cannot be ruled out.		Last spring, the FDA, the food and drug agency in the U.S., made a draft regulation that would define CBD as a drug. Thus, it would no longer be allowed to be sold as a food additive, as it has often been done in the past. The same spectacle is currently happening in other countries. In the UK, CBD has fallen under the definition of a medicine since early October - producers and distributors of cannabidiol extracts have been ordered to stop selling and advertising it. At the same time, in Germany CBD has been declared prescription-only, meaning it can only be used as a medicine on prescription. Whether oils and other CBD products that are not offered as medicines are also affected by the regulation is currently unclear, but unfortunately cannot be ruled out.
Ligne 69:		Ligne 69:
	==== Cantonal obligation to register hemp crops ====		==== Cantonal obligation to register hemp crops ====

-	Various cantons have a reporting obligation for hemp crops. The notification must usually be made to the agricultural office of the canton. However, we still lack an overview of all cantons.	+	The cantons of Graubünden, Ticino and St. Gallen know a notification obligation for hemp crops, in Baselland the introduction is discussed. The notification must usually be made to the cantonal agricultural office.

Report on the "Cannabinoids in Medicine" Conference

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Report on the "Cannabinoids in Medicine" Conference ======

	+	**The Swiss Working Group for Cannabinoids in Medicine (SACM) held a meeting on November 12, 2016. The topic was new trends in the medical use of active ingredients from the hemp plant.
	+	**
	+	The day started early in the morning and ended late in the evening, but the trip to Bern to the SACM meeting was definitely worth it. I had the opportunity to gain many new impressions and look behind the scenes of cannabis as medicine.
	+
	+	But there is one thing I want to anticipate now: Cannabis without the now necessary official egg dance will not exist in the future. Even if many people pretend to be, nobody - except the affected people themselves - is really interested in a broad application of cannabis in the Swiss health care system.
	+
	+	The Swiss Working Group on Cannabinoids in Medicine organized the event under the title "Cannabinoids in Medicine - New Trends". There were 17 short presentations of 20 minutes each to be heard. Speakers were scientists and representatives of authorities.
	+
	+	===== Nespresso capsule for cannabis patients =====
	+
	+	The first part consisted of contributions around basic research. Jürg Gertsch presented the endocannabinoid system as a therapeutic target and Arno Hazekamp reported how the company Bedrocan proceeds to obtain cannabis flowers that are as standardized as possible. Bedrocan is a Dutch company that produces cannabis flowers and also exports to other countries such as Germany. Accordingly, there is no interest on Bedrocan's part in home cultivation and the most diverse genetics possible. Nevertheless, to meet the demand, they plan to add "Amnesia Haze" as a strain to their catalog in the future.
	+
	+	Even more telling, however, is a project in which they are developing a vaporizer that works with a pre-dosed capsule - a Nespresso capsule for cannabis patients. As noble as the idea may sound, the patients are not expected to take any self-determination or responsibility.
	+
	+	===== The long arm of the pharmaceutical lobby? =====
	+
	+	The development of Sativex, a drug based on THC synthesized from lemon peel, was also reported on. The various stages of development up to release as a drug were presented.
	+
	+	Interesting was the information that a compound called Epidiolex was being worked on. Epidiolex is nothing more than a standardized concentrate of cannabidiol (CBD), as various smaller companies in Switzerland now offer. Since the cannabinoid CBD is not psychoactive, it is not (yet) illegal in Switzerland. The fact that a large pharmaceutical company is also developing a product in this area and wants to market it in the near future is not unusual in and of itself. However, one becomes suspicious when one considers that in the fall of 2016 CBD became available on prescription in Germany and the UK.
	+
	+	In the U.S., a study was also quickly waved through to investigate CBD in children suffering from epilepsy. CBD has a therapeutic benefit and the negative consequences of abuse are likely to be as minor as for other substances available over the counter in pharmacies. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the system.
	+
	+	===== Cure cancer? There is a lack of objective data! =====
	+
	+	If cannabis in cancer therapy is considered objectively from a scientific point of view, one should still distance oneself from the concept of a cure. Initial trials in the laboratory showed potential and the mechanisms are slowly being understood, but we are still a long way from a medicine, said Guillermo Velasco. Tumors are very diverse, he said. The findings on one type of tumor cannot be transferred one-to-one to the others. Nevertheless, individual cases were reported at this conference, in which success was achieved with cannabis in sometimes adventurous self-experiments. However, there is a lack of objective data to prove that these successes are really due to cannabis.
	+
	+	Thousands of cancer patients are currently additionally treating themselves with cannabis in some form. However, their data is neither systematically collected nor evaluated. And that's where the dog bites the tail - as long as access is not improved, nothing can change in this data situation.
	+
	+	===== The endocannabinoid system and the dear psychoses =====
	+
	+	It is repeatedly told that the use of cannabis significantly increases the risk of developing psychoses. This was also highlighted in a lecture on the role of the endo-cannabinoid system in psychoses.
	+
	+	However, it was also clearly communicated that this connection was strongly dependent on age. Scientifically, however, it was also important to understand the role of individual cannabinoids and their interaction. There are indications that CBD has an indirect protective effect, i.e. it protects against schizophrenia.
	+
	+	Here, too, the conclusion is a well-known but poor one: more data are needed.
	+
	+	===== All that glitters is not gold =====
	+
	+	When one thinks of a country that is a pioneer in the use of cannabis as medicine, Israel comes to mind. There, doctors can refer patients to state-licensed dispensaries, which then put together an optimal therapy for the patient. Cannabis is then grown and provided by the state. This works so far and there are officially 25,000 patients who benefit from such a therapy. Cannabis flowers are also used, which may be smoked, similar to what we already know from the USA and Germany. Even old people's homes and nursing homes are making active use of the offer.
	+
	+	Nevertheless, Dr. Ilya Reznik was not sparing with criticism. In his field, clinical neuropsychiatry, there are only a handful of diseases that are treated with cannabinoids. Many mental illnesses that would justify such treatment are not yet accepted.
	+
	+	He estimated that the potential number of patients who could benefit from cannabis is closer to 250,000. Acceptance by physicians is also still low, he said, and much more education needs to be done. But the system has another catch: many doctors lose sight of their patients after they have referred them to one of these pharmacies.
	+
	+	===== Will everything stay the same? =====
	+
	+	The final speaker was Dr. Mahmoud A. ElSohly. He reported on his 40 years of experience in cannabis research. Pictures showed him together with pharmacist Rudolf Brenneisen, who had organized the meeting. This ended amicably, as Dr. Mahmoud A. ElSohly was Brenneisen's mentor. Brenneisen undoubtedly carried the know-how of cannabis research to Switzerland and set milestones, the Tages-Anzeiger even spoke of the "Cannabis Pope". In my opinion, the event ended mainly in self-congratulation.
	+
	+	In the discussion that followed, an audience member expressed her displeasure to loud applause and demanded that something really be done now. The cardinal question, however, to what extent all these researchers and officials gathered in the room really intend to do justice to the patients and how the medieval conditions could be remedied, remained unanswered.
	+
	+	The conference was interesting and only strengthened my resolve to work towards full legalization. To really make a difference, you need the maximum demand.
	+
	+	More info about the conference can be found via www.hanflegal.ch/sacm2016.
	+
	+
	+	----
	+
	+
	+	Here's a quick look at the situation of medical cannabis in the Netherlands:
	+
	+	===== Medical application remains reserved for the health sector =====
	+
	+	Medical use is common in the Netherlands, patients get cannabis cheaper than in coffee shops and the quality is usually better. The company Bedrocan produces medical cannabis there and also exports it, for example to Germany. Nevertheless, the topic of cannabis as medicine does not seem to have arrived yet, at least in the coffee shops. According to internet sources, a coffee shop was opened that wanted to focus on medical use and even carried CBD products - however, this was closed again by the authorities after a few days. As with us in Switzerland, it is not seen with pleasure if the medical benefit is propagated outside the health sector or even products are offered.

Impressions of a trip to Amsterdam (2016)

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Impressions of a trip to Amsterdam (2016) ======
	+
	+	Five years ago, I was passing through Amsterdam and the first thing I saw was the red light district. This was really not my construction site and the hustle and bustle of the city overwhelmed me. So I moved on after half a day. Everything gets a second chance and so I visited the city again. Since I had meanwhile also found relatives and acquaintances from the Netherlands, I got quite apart from the cannabis tourism interesting insights into this topic.
	+
	+	===== Relaxed arrival by night train =====
	+
	+	For the sake of money and the environment, I traveled with my better half in the 6-passenger couchette car and so we arrived relaxed after a good 12 hours at Amsterdam Centraal station. This type of travel has its advantages. Thus, one saves an overnight stay, is relatively rested and does not have to deal with any overly cunning security checks. On the whole trip we didn't see a single customs officer, we were left to sleep contentedly. It should be mentioned, however, that even smuggling small amounts is severely punished. So it is strongly advised not to take any "souvenir" with you.
	+	We spent the first day visiting a few sights in Amsterdam and ended it, tired from all the impressions, with a dinner in the first organic snack bar in the Netherlands. Located at Jan van Galenstraat 78, Naturlijk Smullen offers a wide range of fast food, everything being organic and homemade. It's the ideal place to indulge in the munchies after a visit to the Cof- feeshop without a guilty conscience.
	+
	+	===== Venice miniature and beach walks =====
	+
	+	But I had to postpone the visit to the coffee shop to the last day. On the one hand, we had rented a car and so we drove around a bit - coffee shops and driving just don't go together. On the other hand, the coffeeshops in Haarlem, where we spent the night, were not very inviting. But more about that later. The next day in Giethoorn was much quieter. The picturesque little tourist village invites you to walk along the canals and dine well. The village with its canals, bridges and small souvenir stores reminds of Venice in a small format. If you feel like it, you can also explore the place with a small electric boat.
	+
	+	The next day, a visit to relatives in Rotterdam was on the agenda for the evening. Before that we stayed at the beach and enjoyed the stiff breeze of the ocean. The road traffic in the Netherlands and especially around Rotterdam and the Europort is a real challenge for the Swiss. Four-lane highways are standard, six lanes not uncommon. So keeping track and catching the exit in time was quite exhausting, especially since the place names are unpronounceable.
	+
	+	===== Cannabis is not an issue =====
	+
	+	Arriving in Amsterdam, I noticed pretty quickly that the city smells different. Again and again, even early in the morning, a sweet scent wafts around your nose. You might think cannabis is omnipresent, but that's probably only true for a radius of one kilometer within Amsterdam. In other areas, there are no coffee shops or you have to look for them explicitly. There are as few references to the specific legal situation in the media as there are on TV. It seems to be normal and nobody cares.
	+
	+	For the young people it is just as little an issue, alcohol seems to be still a lot more popular there. There is no hype about it, and a visit to a coffee shop is not an everyday occurrence for most of them, but rather a rare pleasure that is only talked about on the quiet - parents just don't like it. But the liberal attitude toward the consumption of stimulants has another facet. I was told that other drugs such as MDMA are also consumed at parties, but that there are fewer problems. Since it is not a taboo subject, consumers can learn to deal with it competently.
	+
	+	===== Not all coffee shops are the same =====
	+
	+	On the last day we visited Amsterdam again and made ourselves comfortable in a coffeeshop. Already on the first day it was clear that it is not useful to run into the first coffee shop, because not all of them are really inviting. It is obvious that the weed business is still tolerated rather than legalized. The semi-legal image is then often maintained and so you can find coffeeshops in all variations. There are some that look more like souvenir stores, others are styled like clubs with bouncers and metal detectors, while others are just special cafes. I must say, however, that I found very few of them really inviting. Often, especially the touristy coffee shops in the city center are out to sell tourists the most potent, fragrant weed possible - the flair of the small Swiss hemp store of the 90s is sought in vain.
	+
	+	===== The crux of quality =====
	+
	+	What many people don't realize is that the sale of cannabis in the Netherlands is more tolerated than actually legal. The coffeeshops have rather confusing framework conditions to which they must adhere. For example, a coffeeshop is not allowed to have more than 500 grams in stock. Often, supplies have to be brought in from outside several times a day. Commercial cultivation and possession of larger quantities is still illegal: the coffeeshops obtain what they sell from the black market. This so-called back-door problem also has huge disadvantages for consumers, because the weed still comes from a completely uncontrolled market. Coffeeshops sell whatever they can get on the black market, so there is no permanent supply of cannabis varieties. The menu, i.e. the selection of purchasable cannabis, changes daily and the quality is often also highly criticized. In the Cannabis College you can also test your weed - which of course very few people do. Although these quantities are no longer actively stretched, fertilizer residues or pesticides can still be found almost everywhere, and in almost every sample.
	+
	+	===== Many high potency varieties =====
	+
	+	The offer seems to be extremely broad, but what you miss pretty quickly is a clear declaration on the menu. Often, a distinction is just made between indica and sativa and a small remark is made about the effect. Information about potency is practically never found. Many tourists just take weed that hits the spot and has a fancy name. Friends we visited, who have been living in the Netherlands for a short time, did not have a good impression of the coffeeshops. They went with friends to a coffee shop that turned out to be not so reputable and consumed highly potent weed, which they were not used to. The result was a rather unpleasant first experience. It became clear to me pretty quickly why they were so keen to avoid the suggestion of visiting a coffee shop with us.
	+
	+	===== It also goes dignified =====
	+
	+	My research then brought us to a small coffee shop called Siberië - the only one that showed THC content and also CBD content. This is also interesting for patients, because they often find CBD-rich varieties there. The place also reminds more of a café, offers really good coffee and has a delicious selection of teas. Our friends' reservations quickly evaporated and I got myself an outdoor sativa called Purple. The vaporization of the herb was not particularly tasty, but the effect was not to be despised and made my trip home very bearable.
	+
	+	===== Difficult journey home =====
	+
	+	Actually, we had booked a double bed in the sleeping car to enjoy a nice trip back. At the station, however, it turned out that the train had broken down somewhere on the German border. So we had to take the regional train to Arnhem and from there by car across the German border to Oberhausen.
	+
	+	The Deutsche Bahn then additionally lived up to its reputation by handing over the orphaned train exactly as it had been left in the morning - including everything left behind. Thanks to the visit to the coffee shop before departure, I let the whole thing pass relaxed. With a delay of more than two hours, we reached Zurich again, reasonably well rested.
	+
	+	===== A model with potential for improvement =====
	+
	+	The original goal of the Dutch model, the separation of hard and soft drugs, seems to have been achieved very well. I didn't see any dealers anywhere, and there were no junkies wandering around. I learned that things were very different in the 70s. At every street corner you were asked if you wanted weed or other, harder drugs. These times are definitely over, but the consumer is still the weakest link in the chain. The cultivation is illegal - even if it is occasionally tolerated, there is a lack of quality standards and control possibilities. How much "organic" is really in the partially sold organic grass is left to the imagination. There is only one solution here: regulated cultivation and a transparent market where the customer has a choice.
	+
	+	===== Europe must follow suit =====
	+
	+	The somewhat disreputable image that can still be felt results from tourism combined with the half-hearted legislation. One sees and recognizes drug tourism, which brings inexperienced and often irresponsible consumers from all over the world to the city. The image also seems to be well maintained, one deliberately wants to give the impression that the limits are being crossed. Amsterdam stages itself, whether with the erotic district, the exhibition "Body Worlds" by Gunther von Hagens or just cannabis. But the latter in particular could change if cannabis were finally released throughout Europe. Amsterdam's coffeeshops would have to redefine themselves and, similar to the USA, a market could establish itself that would bring with it high quality and respectability as a trademark.
	+
	+	//But until then, we have to keep fighting. It would be nice to see Switzerland resume its pioneering role and become the Netherlands' role model with a well-regulated market//.

Hemp under 1% THC is not prohibited and fully booming

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== Hemp under 1 % THC is not prohibited and booming ======	+	====== Hemp under 1% THC is not prohibited and fully booming ======

	===== Not absolutely forbidden... =====		===== Not absolutely forbidden... =====

-	A product with a THC content of 1% or more is an illegal narcotic. What is below that is not covered by the BetmG. What does this area of non-prohibited hemp look like? Depending on what a product is marketed as, different laws apply.	+	A product with a THC content of 1% or more is an illegal narcotic. What is below that is not covered by NarcA. What does this area of non-prohibited hemp look like? Depending on what a product is marketed as, different laws apply.

-	Anything advertised as a medicinal product requires approval under the Therapeutic Products Act. If the products are intended for consumption, the Foodstuffs Act applies. Anyone wishing to market hemp seed must comply with the Ordinance on Plant Varieties or obtain a permit. There are also regulations for cosmetics, and there is also the Chemicals Act.	+	What is advertised as a medicine requires a license under the Therapeutic Products Act. If the products are intended for consumption, the Food Act applies. Anyone wishing to market hemp seeds must comply with the Variety Ordinance or obtain a permit. There are also regulations for cosmetics, and there is also the Chemicals Law.

-	Since 2016, hemp flowers with a very low THC content and a high CBD content have increasingly appeared on the market. Cannabidiol (CBD) is so far relatively unregulated, it is not covered by the BetmG, however, CBD as a pure substance is not a permissible active ingredient in the pharmaceutical sector.	+	Since 2016, hemp flowers with a very low THC content but a high CBD content have increasingly appeared on the market. Cannabidiol (CBD) is so far relatively unregulated, it is not covered by NarcA, however, CBD as a pure substance is not a permissible active ingredient in the pharmaceutical sector.

-	===== ...but there are some rules... =====	+	===== ...but there are some regulations... =====

-	At first, such flowers were sold as raw material, without any special intention of use. But then the customs administration came forward and declared such flowers as tobacco substitutes and demanded the tobacco tax due for them. Per kilogram this costs 38 francs plus 25 % of the retail price. So if 1 kg of flowers is sold for 6,000 francs, a tax burden of 1,538 francs follows.	+	At first, such blossoms were sold as raw materials, without any special intention of use. But then the customs administration came forward and declared such flowers as tobacco substitutes and demanded the tobacco tax due for them. Per kilogram, this costs 38 francs plus 25% of the retail price. Thus, if 1 kg of blossoms is sold for 6,000 francs, a tax burden of 1,538 francs follows.

-	Anyone wishing to sell such products must register with the Directorate General of Customs and declare their willingness to comply with the associated trade regulations (reverse obligation). These include, for example, the affixing of pictorial warnings such as those on cigarette packets. The products must be registered with the FOPH and various documents submitted.	+	Whoever wants to sell such products must register in a register of the Directorate General of Customs and agree to comply with the associated trade regulations (reverse obligation). These include, for example, the affixing of pictorial warnings as on cigarette packets. The products must be registered with the FOPH and various documents submitted.

-	Even though some hemp dealers want to challenge this classification, most seem to have resigned themselves to these requirements. Because it is clear what the products are sold as. So now millions francs flow into the tax coffers.	+	Even if some hemp dealers want to challenge this classification, most seem to have come to terms with these requirements. Because so it is clear as what the products are sold. So now millions francs flow into the tax coffers.

-	The attitude of the Directorate General of Customs can be found in the "Leaflet on the Tobacco Tax Liability of Cannabis Products with a THC Content of Less than 1%" dated 20.2.17.	+	The attitude of the Directorate General of Customs can be found in the "Leaflet on the tobacco tax liability of cannabis products with a THC content of less than 1%" of 20.2.17.

	Swissmedic and the Federal Offices of Public Health, Food Safety and Veterinary Affairs and Agriculture have jointly published a guide: "Products containing cannabidiol (CBD), overview and enforcement assistance" of 27.2.17.		Swissmedic and the Federal Offices of Public Health, Food Safety and Veterinary Affairs and Agriculture have jointly published a guide: "Products containing cannabidiol (CBD), overview and enforcement assistance" of 27.2.17.
Ligne 23:		Ligne 23:
	In February 2017, IG Hemp was founded (see list of companies) to represent hemp traders vis-à-vis the authorities.		In February 2017, IG Hemp was founded (see list of companies) to represent hemp traders vis-à-vis the authorities.

-	===== ...and all it takes is a suspicion =====	+	===== ...and a suspicion is enough =====
		+
		+	But if a police or public prosecutor suspects that a hemp product might contain 1% THC, they are still allowed to open criminal proceedings. Especially with CBD flowers: They look just like illegal hemp. Only a measurement in the laboratory can then provide clarity. Thus, there are also with the consumers again and again reprimands or fixed penalties because of taxed, legal weed - only after an appeal is remeasured and a penalty is waived.

-	But if a police or prosecutor suspects that a hemp product might contain 1% THC, they are still allowed to open a criminal case. Especially with CBD flowers: They look just like illegal hemp. Only a measurement in the laboratory can provide clarity. This is why users are often reported to the police or fined for using taxed, legal weed - only after an appeal is the measurement remeasured and a penalty waived.

Summer 2017: The cities in search of a better deal

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== Summer 2017: Cities in search of a better deal ======	+	====== Summer 2017: The cities in search of a better deal ======

	===== Urban hemp projects =====		===== Urban hemp projects =====

-	The discussions about urban hemp projects (cannabis clubs, controlled hemp dispensaries) are already old. Already in 2006, there were efforts for a controlled sale of cannabis in the city of Bern. Also in the city of Zurich there were considerations. But on 15.6.07 the Bund headlined: "No pilot project with cannabis". Because that's the way it is: The BetmG is a nationwide law, which cannot be changed by one city alone. Apart from the medical use with special permission, the BetmG only provides for the possibility of a scientific trial.	+	The discussions about urban hemp projects (cannabis clubs, controlled hemp dispensaries) are already old. Already in 2006 there were efforts for a controlled sale of cannabis in the city of Bern. There were also considerations in the city of Zurich. But on 15.6.07 the Bund headlined: "No pilot test with cannabis". Because that's just the way it is: The NarcA is a nationwide law, which cannot be changed by one city alone. Besides the medical use with special permission, there is only the possibility of a scientific trial in the NarcA.

-	In 2010, Zurich wanted to develop one, but didn't really make any headway. Then Geneva wanted to tackle the issue properly. On 19.2.14, the NZZ headlined: "Geneva gets serious with new cannabis regulation". But this project did not get off the ground either. At least the interested cities met regularly in a jointseeds working group: "Cities set on cannabis clubs" (NZZ, 5.2.16).	+	In 2010, Zurich wanted to develop one, but didn't really move forward. Then Geneva wanted to tackle the issue properly. On 2/19/14, the NZZ headlined, "Geneva gets serious with new cannabis regulation." But this project did not get off the ground either. At least the interested cities met regularly in a joint working group: "Cities focus on cannabis clubs" (NZZ, 5.2.16).

-	===== Research project order =====	+	===== Order for research project =====

-	Bern also wanted to undertake a hemp trial. And those responsible really stuck to it, despite all the problems and resistance. In March 2016, the municipal council of the city of Bern commissioned the Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Bern to draw up a detailed research project.	+	Bern also wanted to try hemp. And those responsible really stuck to it, despite all the problems and resistance. In March 2016, the city council of Bern commissioned the Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Bern to work out a detailed research project.

-	This is not about permanent cannabis social clubs or similar, but about researching scientific questions. The aim of the project is to test a regulated cannabis sale: Consumption and purchasing behaviour are to be researched, the participants' state of mind is recorded and they have to fill in online questionnaires several times. In addition, there are prevention measures and counselling offers. The duration is limited, mostly to three years, and probably a few hundred people will participate. The sale takes place in certain pharmacies. We are therefore a long way from cannabis social clubs or even a "stoner mecca Bern" (Blick, 15.3.16).	+	This is not about permanent cannabis social clubs or similar, but about researching scientific questions. The aim of the project is to test a regulated cannabis sale: Consumption and purchasing behavior are to be researched, the participants' state of mind is recorded and they have to fill out online questionnaires several times. In addition, there are prevention measures and counseling services. The duration is limited, usually to three years, and probably a few hundred people will participate. The sale takes place in certain pharmacies. We are therefore a long way from cannabis social clubs or even a "stoner mecca Bern" (Blick, 15.3.16).

-	As it is a human research project, the project requires approval from the cantonal ethics committee in Bern. In August 2016, the project was submitted there and in March 2017, those responsible (local councillor Franziska Teuscher and university professor Matthias Egger) were able to announce the commission's approval. The National Fund also supports the study.	+	As it is a human research project, the project requires approval from the cantonal ethics committee in Bern. In August 2016, the project was submitted there and in March 2017, those responsible (local councilor Franziska Teuscher and university professor Matthias Egger) were able to announce the approval of the commission. The National Fund also supports the study.

	===== Will the permit be granted? =====		===== Will the permit be granted? =====

-	Now comes the decisive step: the submission of the project to the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH). However, this would have had no chance without the years of step-by-step development of the necessary foundations - just like the earlier attempts. The FOPH decides on the exceptional approval for the handling of illegal hemp within the framework of this research project. An approval now seems possible - after all, it is clearly about scientific research. If the approval comes, similar research projects from the city of Zurich as well as the cantons of Basel-Stadt and Geneva could be submitted. First, however, Bern must submit its project to the FOPH.	+	Now comes the decisive step: the submission of the project to the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH). However, this would have been without a chance without the years-long, step-by-step development of the necessary basics - like the earlier attempts. The FOPH decides on the exceptional approval for the handling of illegal hemp in the context of this research project. An approval now seems possible - after all, it is clearly about scientific research. If the approval comes, similar research projects from the city of Zurich and the cantons of Basel-Stadt and Geneva could be submitted. First, however, Bern must submit its project to the FOPH.

Repression graphs: Hemp-prosecution 2009 to 2016

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2022/09/02 13:27		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
	====== Repression graphs: Hemp-prosecution 2009 to 2016 ======		====== Repression graphs: Hemp-prosecution 2009 to 2016 ======

-	Eight years of Swiss hemp repression are now available in the new counting method. Nowadays, the police punish one third of the contraventions with regulatory fines. But the reprimands still make up the majority. The prosecution of hemp products and hemp consumers continues unchecked. More than 45'000 people are prosecuted for hemp consumption, in addition there are about 7'000 proceedings for passing on - every year.	+	Eight years of Swiss hemp repression are now available in the new counting method. Nowadays, the police punish one third of the contraventions with fixed penalties. But the reprimands still make up the majority. The prosecution of hemp products and hemp consumers continues unchecked. More than 45'000 people are prosecuted for hemp consumption, in addition there are about 7'000 proceedings for passing on - every year.

-	===== Reprimands and regulatory fines due to contraventions =====	+	===== Reprimands and fixed penalties due to contraventions =====

	\| {{:li7708def.jpg}} \|		\| {{:li7708def.jpg}} \|
Ligne 11:		Ligne 11:
	\| {{:li781010.jpg}} \|		\| {{:li781010.jpg}} \|

-	===== Regulatory fines are reality =====	+	===== Fixed penalties are reality =====

-	The regulatory fines (OB) introduced since October 2013 have thus become established, as we have seen on the two graphs above. The Parliament had anchored them in the Narcotics Law (NarcA), in the articles 28b to 28l.	+	The fixed penalties (OB) introduced since October 2013 have thus become established, as we have seen on the two graphs above. The Parliament had anchored them in the Narcotics Law (NarcA), in the articles 28b to 28l.

-	===== New Regulatory Fines Act =====	+	===== New Fixed Penalties Act =====

-	Soon, these provisions will be repealed and transferred to the completely revised Regulatory Fines Act (OBG) and the associated Ordinance on Administrative Fines (OBV). Parliament passed the OBG in March 2016. It combines OB provisions from 17 different laws (primarily the Road Traffic Act). The Narcotics Act is listed under item 10.	+	Soon, these provisions will be repealed and transferred to the completely revised Fixed Penalties Act (OBG) and the associated Fixed Penalties Ordinance (OBV). Parliament passed the OBG in March 2016. It combines OB provisions from 17 different laws (primarily the Road Traffic Act). The Narcotics Act is listed under item 10.
	The OBG states that the cantons must continue to determine the authorities that may issue OB. In general, the minimum age for an OB is 15 years, for NarcA it is set at 18 years. Anyone younger than this who comes to the attention of the police will always be reported to the police. The OBG also specifies how OBs are issued and what the forms should look like, as well as the fact that accused persons can choose the ordinary procedure.		The OBG states that the cantons must continue to determine the authorities that may issue OB. In general, the minimum age for an OB is 15 years, for NarcA it is set at 18 years. Anyone younger than this who comes to the attention of the police will always be reported to the police. The OBG also specifies how OBs are issued and what the forms should look like, as well as the fact that accused persons can choose the ordinary procedure.
-	In principle, only contraventions may be punished with regulatory fines. However, the specific illegal acts that can be punished with an OB are no longer listed in the law, but in the federal OBV.	+	In principle, only contraventions may be punished with fixed penalties. However, the specific illegal acts that can be punished with an OB are no longer listed in the law, but in the federal OBV.

	===== Consultation OB Ordinance =====		===== Consultation OB Ordinance =====

-	In April 2017, the draft of the OBV of the Federal Council was sent for consultation. Chapter X, Narcotics Act, now defines, as the first and so far only item for this law, the new version of hemp-regulatory fines:	+	In April 2017, the draft of the OBV of the Federal Council was sent for consultation. Chapter X, Narcotics Act, now defines, as the first and so far only item for this law, the new version of hemp-fixed penalties:
	"Unauthorized, intentional consumption of narcotics of the effect type cannabis (Art. 19a item 1 NarcA)". The fine amount for this is 100 francs.		"Unauthorized, intentional consumption of narcotics of the effect type cannabis (Art. 19a item 1 NarcA)". The fine amount for this is 100 francs.
	The consultation process will continue until mid-August 2017. If no further major changes are made, the Federal Council intends to bring the totally revised OBG into force together with the new OBV on 1 January 2018.		The consultation process will continue until mid-August 2017. If no further major changes are made, the Federal Council intends to bring the totally revised OBG into force together with the new OBV on 1 January 2018.

Is this really successful policing?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Is this really successful policing? ======
	+
	+	For many years we have been collecting media articles on the subject of hemp in what is now 48 folders. One of the subchapters deals with the repression against the trade.
	+
	+	Again and again, police and media suggest that the police work is crowned with success: "Aargauer Polizei glückt grosser Darknet-Schlag" (Aargau police succeed in a big Darknet strike) was the headline of the Tagi on 9.8.17. "Über 800 Hanfpflanzen sichergestellt" (Over 800 hemp plants seized) could be read in the Luzerner Zeitung on 19.7.17. On 7.7.17, the Tagi reported the discovery of 100 kg of marijuana.
	+
	+	Is this really successful police work? Of course not. The total market of cannabis in Switzerland is probably in the range of 50 tons per year, of which maybe 2 to 3 tons are seized. So hardly 10% of the goods are seized.
	+
	+	But the caught cultivators and consumers are very much affected: high penalties await them. And the officials are satisfied with their investigative activities. But the market as a whole? It continues to run without any problems. The arrested dealer is immediately replaced, and for every indoor grower busted, a new one moves in. Perhaps a consumer will have to search a little longer and pay a higher price. But otherwise? Business as usual.
	+
	+	The illegal market needs these "haircuts" by the police and public prosecutor. This is the only way to maintain the current trade structures: First, repression keeps prices high. Without prosecution the price would be much lower - if you were allowed to grow on your own balcony, it would be close to zero. Secondly, police work prevents expert sales outlets from offering controlled, clean goods. Instead, some people trade with some "qualities".
	+
	+	The hemp prosecution thus makes the illegal profits possible in the first place. Only a small minority of police and public prosecutor seems to have realized: Prohibition has failed. But the majority just carries on as before and finds the approach sensible. Thus the spokesman of public prosecutor Basel-Stadt in the BaZ of 21.7.17: He wants the sovereign to continue to reject all drug liberalizations, "because such experiments with uncertain outcomes are dangerous." He seems to like the experiment of hemp prohibition that has been going on for decades.
	+
	+	When I co-founded our association in the early 1990s, a meeting was held in a squat. After our meeting, a resident of the house joined us and we immediately asked him if he also wanted to become active for legalization. He thought a bit and then said something sobering:
	+
	+	"No, as a pot dealer, I have to say that if it became legal, I would be out of a job." He had already understood that then - I after that conversation. An insight that has remained hidden from the criminal authorities to this day.

The minor amount of hemp: Does unpunished mean unpunished?

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

Cannabis use and psychosis

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Cannabis use and psychosis ======
	+
	+	In the discussions about cannabis legalization, opponents often reflexively argue that cannabis use increases or even triggers psychoses. However, most studies on this are simply inadequate. However, there are also numerous reports of people who use cannabis specifically to cope better with their mental disorders.
	+
	+	The effect of cannabis is individual, and, as is well known, there is no such thing as "the" cannabis, but rather a huge range of varieties and cultivars. In addition, dosage, frequency and type of consumption play a major role when it comes to the effect of cannabis products.
	+
	+	In the right combination, cannabinoids can even have an antipsychotic effect. The division into legal and illegal substances once again makes no sense when even legal substances are suspected of being able to intensify or even trigger psychoses.
	+
	+	===== What are psychoses? =====
	+
	+	Psychoses are severe mental disorders that are accompanied by a temporary and extensive loss of reference to reality. Instinctively, one now thinks of the oddball who talks to himself and/or insults others in public for no reason. However, the term psychosis is merely an umbrella term and includes many other mental illnesses that are not nearly as spectacular.
	+
	+	In the context of cannabis (use), however, the term is usually equated with experiencing a schizophrenic episode. In such a state, those affected lose touch with reality, thus experiencing delusions.
	+
	+	===== The unbroken belief in dubious studies =====
	+
	+	When proponents and opponents of cannabis legalization meet, it usually doesn't take long for the opponents to start blasting each other with the results of various studies.
	+
	+	The fact is, however, that at least at present there is probably no study that can conclusively explain the question of the benefits and dangers of cannabis use. It is in the nature of things that these studies are almost without exception retrospective. Thus, the current condition of patients is considered and then retrospectively causes for the triggering of a psychosis are searched for.
	+
	+	Of course, this only works if the previous history can also be analyzed with measurable criteria - for example, with medical records or reports of concomitant diseases. With regard to cannabis use, however, researchers are mostly dependent on the subjects' self-assessment, i.e., not on criteria that can be precisely measured empirically, but on subjective perceptions.
	+
	+	This is problematic insofar as self-reports are often embellished afterwards. And even if the test persons are sincere, there is another problem: The cannabis consumed was often acquired on the black market, so no statement can be made retrospectively about its quality. The probability is quite high that the consumed cannabis was contaminated by residues or extenders, which in turn can falsify the result. The quality and the content of the active ingredient is usually not checked by the research, and since it is about cannabis products from the black market, the quality security is not given - nobody compares wheat beer with adulterated vodka...
	+
	+	The question whether foreign substances or cannabis are responsible for the current condition of the test person can therefore no longer be answered, because a joint contaminated with lead, for example, can also cause fatigue or even damage the brain.
	+
	+	===== Chicken or egg: the crux of causality =====
	+
	+	Affected people usually live with mental illness for a long time before they seek professional help or are persuaded to do so by their environment. The diagnosis then often only gives indications of the bad experiences and events of the past. As soon as cannabis use comes into play, it is often hastily identified as the cause, although in most cases this cannot be supported by hard facts (such as empirical data, see above).
	+
	+	After all, affected persons were often already exposed to psychological trauma or social stigmas before the first joint, but outsiders are usually not aware of this. There are also clear medical conditions where cannabis use can even alleviate symptoms. This is the case, for example, with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) or Tourette's syndrome - both illnesses for which those affected are even prescribed cannabis as medication in certain countries.
	+
	+	The use of cannabis can therefore also be considered under the aspect of self-medication, whereby the causality is reversed: Cannabis use is then a symptom and no longer the cause. For which clinical pictures and under which conditions this applies, however, still has to be studied in detail and - like many other things in the field of cannabis use - has to be considered as an individual matter.
	+
	+	===== Not all cannabis is created equal =====
	+
	+	Cannabis products (weed/marijuana and hashish) can have a wide range of effects depending on the variety and cultivation as well as the type and amount of active ingredients in the original plant. While highly potent products with a lot of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) have psychotic effects, varieties rich in CBD (cannabidiol) show antipsychotic effects. This is probably part of the reason why many cannabis lovers appreciate good Moroccan or Afghan hashish: The plants traditionally grown in these fields are - in addition to THC - also rich in CBD, and their effects are often perceived as more pleasant than other, less CBD-rich varieties.
	+
	+	===== Why always just cannabis? =====
	+
	+	The first thing we have to realize is that psychotropic substances can, by definition, alter consciousness. Consumers want to fall into different thought patterns, change their relationship to reality or even trigger hallucinations.
	+
	+	It does not matter whether it is LSD, cannabis or alcohol. This also raises the question of whether only cannabis is suspected of increasing the risk of psychosis. A look at the literature shows that there are also theories about alcohol-related psychoses - even the use of tobacco is suspected of increasing the risk of psychosis.
	+
	+	In the debates, however, this fact is suppressed, perhaps because alcohol and tobacco are legal, although this distinction rarely makes sense. Nearly 30% of the Swiss population aged 15 and older smoke tobacco and about 13% consume alcohol daily. It is likely that mentally ill people who are suspected of having a psychosis due to cannabis also smoke or drink alcohol daily.
	+
	+	Often it is a combination of several factors that can trigger an illness - to consider only one circumstance or one substance as the cause is oversimplified and simply untrustworthy. The human being and thus also the subject of health is so complex that numerous factors must always be taken into account for a holistic assessment - otherwise one runs the risk of prematurely blaming the wrong causes for illnesses and thus ultimately making a cure more difficult or even impossible.
	+
	+	===== Regulation is necessary =====
	+
	+	According to figures from the addiction monitoring, one third of all people living in Switzerland have already used cannabis. So despite the ban, hundreds of thousands of people consume cannabis without ever having a problem with it. Of course, every victim is one too many - but it is hypocritical to discriminate against and criminalize hundreds of thousands of cannabis users on the basis of an assumption that is scientifically shaky.
	+
	+	Addiction experts agree that prohibition has failed and that cannabis regulation is urgently needed.
	+
	+	===== The orders of magnitude in comparison =====
	+
	+	In the "National Strategy on Addiction 2017-2024", the Confederation has published on page 35 a compilation according to substance-related psychiatric diagnoses (intoxications, harmful use, dependence syndrome, withdrawal syndrome, psychotic disorder). Accordingly, in 2013, 15,519 such diagnoses were for alcohol, 1,807 for opioids, 1,702 for other drugs, 1,700 for multiple substance use, and 800 for cannabinoids (of which 135 were psychotic disorders).
	+

The political situation in autumn 2018

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2024-03-27T07:56:21+00:00

2025/11/25 09:29		Version actuelle
Ligne 4:		Ligne 4:

	2025: The subcommittee has completed its work. The text of the law and the explanatory report is available at the end of summer, and the consultation runs until the end of November.		2025: The subcommittee has completed its work. The text of the law and the explanatory report is available at the end of summer, and the consultation runs until the end of November.
-
-	2024: First results of the sub-commission on cannabis regulation are expected in the fall

	2022: The medical prescription of cannabis no longer requires an exceptional permit.		2022: The medical prescription of cannabis no longer requires an exceptional permit.

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 4:		Ligne 4:
	^ CHF ^ Position ^		^ CHF ^ Position ^
	\| 91\| Police Cost Report \|		\| 91\| Police Cost Report \|
-	\| 100 \| Buses \|	+	\| 100 \| Fine \|
	\| 10'800 \| monetary penalty \|		\| 10'800 \| monetary penalty \|
-	\| 1'600 \| Penalty order fee \|	+	\| 1'600 \| Summary penalty order fee \|
	\| 716 \| Disbursement stores to distribute \|		\| 716 \| Disbursement stores to distribute \|
	^ 13'307 ^ Total, payable within 30 days ^		^ 13'307 ^ Total, payable within 30 days ^

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:polizei_abnahme_fuehrerausweis.jpg?200x150}} \|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_abnahme_fuehrerausweis.jpg?200x150}}\|

-	====== Driving licence, case 1 ======

-	This is one of the first cases to be dealt with under the new zero tolerance after 1.1.2005. We can trace here the main stages from the police control to the court decision. Likewise, we publish here the documents originating from the Road Traffic Department. A facsimile with the results of the blood test is also available. The court decision formulates some clear statements regarding THC in the blood and driving a car.	+
-	What's particularly absurd is that the actual medical examination... "finds no abnormalities..." and yet a conviction is handed down. Merely because of THC traces in the blood, which are close to the detection limit. This means that not only those who are effectively impaired are taken out of circulation, but also people who are obviously capable of driving.	+	====== Driver's license, case 1 ======
		+
		+	This is one of the first cases handled under the new zero tolerance after Jan. 1, 2005. We can trace here the main stages from the police control to the court decision. Likewise, we publish here the documents coming from the Road Traffic Office. A facsimile with the results of the blood control is also available. The court decision formulates some clear statements regarding THC in blood and driving.
		+	Especially absurd is that the specific medical examination finds "no abnormalities" and yet a conviction is issued. Solely because of THC traces in the blood, which are close to the detection limit. This means that not only those who are effectively impaired are taken out of circulation, but also people who are obviously capable of driving.

	===== Acceptance of the driver's license / police =====		===== Acceptance of the driver's license / police =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_abnahme_fuehrerausweis.jpg\|}} \|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_abnahme_fuehrerausweis.jpg}} \|

	===== Driving while unfit to drive / police, hand report =====		===== Driving while unfit to drive / police, hand report =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz1.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz1.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz2.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz2.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz3.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz3.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz4.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_handprotokoll_finz4.jpg}}\|

-	===== Violation of BetmG, police, protocol =====	+	===== contravention NarcA , Police, Protocol =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:uebertretungsprotokoll.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:uebertretungsprotokoll.jpg}}\|

-	===== Driving while unfit to drive / police, protocol =====	+	===== Driving in non-driving condition / police, protocol =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz1.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz1.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz2.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz2.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz3.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz3.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz4.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz4.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz5.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizei_protokoll_finz5.jpg}}\|

	===== Medical examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, protocol =====		===== Medical examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, protocol =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_arzt1.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_arzt1.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_arzt2.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_arzt2.jpg}}\|

	===== Chemical-toxicological examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, report =====		===== Chemical-toxicological examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, report =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox1.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox1.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox2.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox2.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox3.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox3.jpg}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox4.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:irm_chemtox4.jpg}}\|

-	===== Opening of criminal investigation / public prosecutor's office, order =====	+	===== Opening of the criminal investigation / public prosecutor, order =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_eroeffnungsverf.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_eroeffnungsverf.jpg}}\|

	===== Initiation of administrative proceedings / Road Traffic Office, legal hearing =====		===== Initiation of administrative proceedings / Road Traffic Office, legal hearing =====

-	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_einleitungadministrativverfahren.jpg\|}}\|	+	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_einleitungadministrativverfahren.jpg}}\|
		+
		+	===== Provisional revocation of driver's license / Road Traffic Office, order =====

-	===== Provisional withdrawal of driving licence / Road Traffic Office, order =====	+	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis1.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis2.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis3.jpg}}\|

-	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis1.jpg\|}}\|	+	===== interrogation / public prosecutor, Protocol =====
-	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis2.jpg\|}}\|	+
-	\|{{:thc_recht:abtadmin_vorsorglicherentzugfuehrerausweis3.jpg\|}}\|	+

-	===== Interrogation / Public Prosecutor's Office, Protocol =====	+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll1.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll2.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll3.jpg}}\|

-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll1.jpg\|}}\|	+	===== Arraignment / public prosecutor, Indictment =====
-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll2.jpg\|}}\|	+
-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_protokoll3.jpg\|}}\|	+

-	===== Arraignment / Prosecution, Indictment =====	+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_anklageschr1.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_anklageschr2.jpg}}\|

-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_anklageschr1.jpg\|}}\|	+	===== Conviction / District court, judgment =====
-	\|{{:thc_recht:staatsanw_anklageschr2.jpg\|}}\|	+

-	===== Conviction / District Court, Judgment =====	+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil1.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil2.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil3.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil4.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil5.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil6.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil7.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil8.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil9.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil10.jpg}}\|
		+	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil11.jpg}}\|

-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil1.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil2.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil3.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil4.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil5.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil6.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil7.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil8.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil9.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil10.jpg\|}}\|
-	\|{{:thc_recht:bezirksgericht_urteil11.jpg\|}}\|

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	\|\|{{:thc_recht:vorlaeufige_abnahe_des_fuehrerausweises_.jpg?200x150}}
	+
	+
	+
	+	====== Driver's license, case 2 ======
	+
	+	Another case in which no concrete impairments were found - and yet there was a conviction. Again, we can present central stations of the repression. Withdrawal of the driver's license, forensic examinations, protocols and the verdict. Once again, it becomes clear that the punishment is severe and the costs are very high. And all this without any concrete problem being apparent. Traces of THC in the blood are enough according to the law and the users commit a misdemeanor, if they drive a car. Even without concrete impairment, even long after the last joint.
	+
	+	===== Suspicion of narcotics use / police, protocol =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizeiprotokoll_bei_verdacht_auf_betaeubungsmittelkonsum_seite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizeiprotokoll_bei_verdacht_auf_betaeubungsmittelkonsum_seite2.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs / Police, interrogation =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:einvernahmeprotokoll_seite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:einvernahmeprotokoll_seite2.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:einvernahmeprotokoll_seite3.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:einvernahmeprotokoll_seite4.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Temporary acceptance of the driver's license / police =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:vorlaeufige_abnahe_des_fuehrerausweises_.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Blood Collection / Institute of Forensic Medicine, Protocol =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:protokoll_der_blutentnahme.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Forensic toxicological examination / Institute of Forensic Medicine, report =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:forensisch-toxikologische_untersuchung_provisorisch.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:forensisch-toxikologische_untersuchung_definitiv.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Report to road traffic office / police =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizeibericht_an_stva_seite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:polizeibericht_an_stva_seite2.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Provisional revocation of driver's license / Road Traffic Office, order =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:verfuegung_seite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:verfuegung_seite2.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:verfuegung_seite3.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Completion of the investigation / district office, inspection of files =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:akteneinsicht.jpg}}\|
	+
	+	===== Sentencing/District Office, summary penalty order =====
	+
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:strafbefehlseite1.jpg}}\|
	+	\|{{:thc_recht:strafbefehlseite2.jpg}}\|

2026/10/14 04:17	Version actuelle
Ligne 1:	Ligne 1:
	+	====== Driver's license, case 3 ======
	+
	+	A special case: consumption occurred after driving. Thus, FuD cannot be proven.
	+
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalla.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallb.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallc.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalld.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalle.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallg.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallh.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallf.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalli.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallj.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallk.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalll.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallm.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalln.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallo.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallp.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallq.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallr.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafalls.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallt.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallu.jpg}} \|
	+	\| {{:thc_recht:fafallv.jpg}} \|
	+

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:nastab.jpg?200x150}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:nastab.jpg?200x150}} \|
		+

	====== On the hemp situation: ideas, papers and terms, summer 2014 ======		====== On the hemp situation: ideas, papers and terms, summer 2014 ======

-	The cities in particular, led by Geneva, have stimulated the discussion with their ideas for a dispensary trial. Addiction experts have also spoken out and proposed a regulated market. It remains to be seen how these ideas can be turned into real projects.	+	The cities in particular, led by Geneva, have stimulated the discussion with their ideas for a dispensing trial. Addiction experts have also spoken out and proposed a regulated market. It remains to be seen how these ideas can be turned into real projects.

	===== Old and new ideas =====		===== Old and new ideas =====

-	In the last six months, I've felt like I've been transported back to the 90s. Suddenly many are talking about decriminalizing and legalizing again - just like back then.... As we know, not much has come of those discussions. Hemp shops did have their boom around the turn of the millennium, but eventually repression destroyed them again. In 2005 came zero tolerance to THC in road traffic and regulatory fines seem to have simply become another, additional variant of repression instead of bringing down the number of convictions (see [[en:thc_recht/li660506\|Repression statistics 2013]]).	+	In the last six months, I felt transported back to the 90s. Suddenly, many are talking about decriminalization and legalization again - just like back then.... As we know, not much has come of these discussions. Hemp stores had their boom around the turn of the millennium, but eventually repression destroyed them again. In 2005 came the zero tolerance to THC in road traffic and the fixed penalties just seem to become another, additional variant of repression instead of bringing down the conviction numbers (see [[en:thc_recht/li660506\|repression statistics 2013]]).

	==== New realities ====		==== New realities ====

-	What is really new, however, is the international development. While in the late 90s and early 00s Switzerland was at the forefront worldwide and Swiss hemp shops were a big exception (if you ignore Holland), now there are no more hemp shops in Switzerland, but Uruguay is starting legal weedproduction this year and the US has become more and more open about medical marijuana. And now Colorado has gone to partial state legalization: There are hemp shops of sorts there, and the pictures are striking. Large cannabis social club projects are also underway in Spain. And in Switzerland?	+	What is really new, however, is the international development. While Switzerland was at the forefront worldwide in the late 90s and early 00s, and Swiss hemp stores were a big exception (if you ignore Holland), now there are no hemp stores in Switzerland, but Uruguay is starting legal weed production this year, and the US has become more and more open about medical marijuana. And now partial state legalization has occurred in Colorado: There are hemp stores of sorts there, and the images are striking. Large cannabis social club projects are also underway in Spain. And in Switzerland?

	===== Mountain Hemp Farmers =====		===== Mountain Hemp Farmers =====
Ligne 18:		Ligne 20:
	From Neuchâtel, a representative of the police, Olivier Guéniat, came forward with a proposal: legalize cannabis in private, but continue to prohibit it in public.		From Neuchâtel, a representative of the police, Olivier Guéniat, came forward with a proposal: legalize cannabis in private, but continue to prohibit it in public.

-	===== State regulation =====	+	===== Government regulation =====

-	At the beginning of April, the National Working Group on Addiction Policy (NAS) presented its ideas for a state-regulated THC market. The NAS brings together various organisations that deal with addiction issues. With their paper ([[http://www.nas-cpa.ch\|NAS homepage]]) they want to find a way between prohibition and release and have published a useful table showing the meaning of the different terms used. We print these here in a somewhat simplified form:	+	In early April, the National Addiction Policy Working Group (NAS) presented its ideas for a state-regulated THC market. The NAS brings together various organizations that deal with addiction issues. With their paper[[http://www.nas-cpa.ch\|(NAS homepage]]) they want to find a way between prohibition and release and have published a useful table showing the meaning of the different terms used. We print these here in a somewhat simplified form:

-	\| {{:thc_recht:nastab.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:nastab.jpg}} \|

	===== Cities as pioneers =====		===== Cities as pioneers =====

-	For almost 10 years, there have been discussions in some cities about a cannabis dispensary trial. After it had become quiet around these ideas, because no city wanted to mess with the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), there is now movement in the matter again: The parliaments of Zurich, Winterthur, Basel, Geneva and Bern are now in favour of such a trial and are holding exchange meetings.	+	For almost 10 years, there have been discussions in some cities about a cannabis dispensary trial. After it had become quiet around these ideas, because no city wanted to mess with the Federal Office of Public Health FOPH, now movement has come again into the matter: In the meantime, the parliaments of Zurich, Winterthur, Basel, Geneva and Bern are in favor of such a trial and are holding exchange meetings.

-	In Geneva, the discussions are probably the most advanced, there a large part of the political spectrum is interested in new solutions. However, the motivation is not to acknowledge the injustice of the prohibition, but mainly to drive the predominantly black street dealers out of the public. Accordingly, the Geneva idea of cannabis social clubs is also rather paternalistic: an entrance interview is to be necessary, which can also result in "measures"....	+	Discussions have probably progressed furthest in Geneva, where a large part of the political spectrum is interested in new solutions. However, the motivation is not to recognize the injustice of prohibition, but mainly to drive the predominantly black street dealers out of the public eye. Accordingly, the Geneva conception of cannabis social clubs is also rather paternalistic: An entrance interview is supposed to be necessary, which can also result in "measures"...

-	Even though it was said from time to time in Geneva that a project could be envisaged even without the approval of the FOPH, Geneva now wants to ask for such a special permit. However, the decisive decision as to whether this should be done is pending before the Geneva government council at the end of May 2014.	+	Even if it was temporarily said from Geneva that they could imagine a project without the approval of the FOPH, Geneva now wants to ask for such a special permit. The decisive decision as to whether this should be done is, however, pending before the Geneva government council at the end of May 2014.

	===== And the relevance? =====		===== And the relevance? =====

-	As interesting as these proposals may be, they lack any clout. Because as long as no majority can be formed to change the BetmG accordingly, things will remain as they are. Ultimately, the public prosecutor's offices and police forces would have to give the green light for tests under the current Narcotics Law. They would have to consider a more liberal interpretation of the BetmG (which would be entirely possible). But they want to continue to follow how the [[en:thc_recht/statistik\|statistics]] show.	+	As interesting as these proposals may be, they lack any clout. For as long as no majority can be formed to amend NarcA accordingly, things will remain as they are. For trials under the current NarcA, the public prosecutors and police forces would ultimately have to give the green light. They would have to consider a more liberal interpretation of NarcA (which would be entirely possible). But they still want to prosecute, as the [[en:thc_recht/statistik\|statistics]] show.

	====== The options: Initiative, PR, CSC? ======		====== The options: Initiative, PR, CSC? ======
Ligne 41:		Ligne 43:
	Collecting signatures, doing public relations and/or founding Cannabis Social Clubs.		Collecting signatures, doing public relations and/or founding Cannabis Social Clubs.

-	===== The fear =====	+	===== The apprehension =====

-	If the city projects come to nothing because they don't dare to violate the BetmG and the other proposals remain ideas, then nothing real will come of it. Therefore, it seems important to us that we also create pressure.	+	If the urban projects come to nothing because they don't dare to violate NarcA and the other proposals remain ideas, then nothing real will come of it. That's why it seems important to us that we also create pressure.

	===== Initiative idea and petitions =====		===== Initiative idea and petitions =====

-	In LI 65 we have conducted a survey about a possible new hemp initiative. Many are interested in such an initiative, some think it is still too early for a new edition. As far as the content is concerned, one can say: in the end, many people don't care. The main thing is that finally something positive happens in the direction of legalization, even if it would only be a partial decriminalization. Unfortunately, we have not found the necessary foundations, neither on the personnel nor on the financial level. But we have thought through some things and see quite concretely how it could happen. But that's just it: We would need more helpers and more money. That's why we can't start the project Hemp-Initiative now. Maybe it will succeed in another attempt in the next years.	+	In LI 65 we have conducted a survey about a possible new hemp initiative. Many are interested in such an initiative, some think it is still too early for a new edition. As far as the content is concerned, we can say that many people don't care. The main thing is that finally something positive happens in the direction of legalization, even if it would then only be a partial decriminalization. Unfortunately, we have not found the necessary foundations, neither on the personnel nor on the financial level. But we have thought through some things and see quite concretely how it could happen. But just: We would need more helpers and more money. That's why we can't start the hemp initiative project now. Perhaps it will succeed in another attempt in the next few years.

-	Smaller versions, petitions, are underway in Zug and Biel. Even if these are not legally binding, they can create some pressure. After Zug saw a massive increase in repression, the Young Alternative of Zug launched a petition so that Zug should also participate in the cities' dispensary projects: [[http://www.jungegruene.ch/zg/hanf-petition\|Hemp petition]]. Something similar is going on in Biel, organized by the Juso: [[http://www.cannabispetition.ch\|Cannabis petition]]. This petition was submitted to the city of Biel on 19 May 2014.	+	Smaller versions, petitions, are running in Zug and Biel. Even if these are not legally binding, they can create some pressure. After Zug experienced a massive increase in repression, the Young Alternative of Zug launched a petition so that Zug should also participate in the cities' dispensary projects: [[http://www.jungegruene.ch/zg/hanf-petition\|Hemp Petition]]. In Biel, something similar is underway, organized by the Juso: [[http://www.cannabispetition.ch\|Cannabis Petition]]. This petition was submitted to the city of Biel on May 19, 2014.

-	===== PR for hemp =====	+	===== PR for the hemp =====

-	Of course, you can always do media work and we do what we can. But the journalists are not per se on our side and their knowledge is mostly frighteningly small. In addition, THC users can't really get involved in discussions - consumption is also illegal, and anyone who admits to it is committing a criminal offence. This makes PR work difficult.	+	Of course, you can always do media work, and we do what we can. But the journalists are not per se on our side and their knowledge is mostly frighteningly small. In addition, THC users can't really get involved in the discussions - consumption is also illegal, and anyone who admits to it is admitting to criminal acts. This makes PR work difficult.

	===== Cannabis Social Clubs CSC =====		===== Cannabis Social Clubs CSC =====

-	One could also simply start trying out models in reality without waiting for the FOPH or the cities. People are already smoking, producing and selling hemp anyway. One idea is for consumers to join together in associations to grow hemp together. But there is a big problem: The distribution (and therefore also the sale) of THC-containing material is an offence, here comprehensive repressive measures and high penalties are possible (pre-trial detention, house search etc.). In such a project, the leading persons (e.g. the board of the association) risk quite a lot. What could a CSC look like in which no offences are committed?	+	One could also simply start trying out models in reality without waiting for the FOPH or the cities. People are already smoking, producing and selling hemp anyway. One idea is for consumers to join together in associations to grow hemp together. But there is a big problem: The distribution (and therefore also the sale) of THC-containing material is a misdemeanor, here comprehensive repression measures and high penalties are possible (pre-trial detention, house search etc.). In such a project, the leading persons (e.g. the association board) risk quite a lot. What could a CSC look like in which no misdemeanor is** committed?
-		+	**
-	If everyone plants and dries their own hemp plants and thus each plant can be assigned to a specific consumer, there is actually no passing on. Whoever waters the plants and looks at them is aiding and abetting another person's transgression, that would be exempt from punishment.... The cultivation (and consumption) of the members can be punished as a misdemeanour, but this is a lot less illegal than the passing on and as a punishment there is no fine and no entry in the criminal register, but a fine. Furthermore, there is no profit that the state could then confiscate again.	+	If everyone plants and dries their hemp plants themselves, and thus each plant can be assigned to a specific consumer, no passing on actually happens. Who waters the plants and looks to them, operates assistance to one contravention of another person, that would be punishment-free... The cultivation (and consumption) of the members can be punished as contravention, but this is a lot less illegal than the passing on and gives as punishment no monetary penalty and no criminal record entry, but a fine. In addition, there is also no profit that the state could then recover.

-	The person who looks after the plants and keeps the club in good shape would best be compensated by the membership fees. These would also have to cover the cost of materials and electricity (if grown inside) and rent.	+	The person who looks after the plants and keeps the club in good shape would best be compensated by the membership fees. These would also have to cover the cost of materials and electricity (if grown inside) as well as rent.

-	Such a model could be tolerated by the criminal authorities. After all, it is only transgressions that are committed, there is no enrichment, indeed no trade at all. Further conditions would be that only adults resident in Switzerland participate in the project, that no advertising is carried out and that the size of the club is limited.	+	Such a model could be tolerated by the penal authorities. After all, it is only contraventions that are committed, there is no enrichment, indeed no trade at all. Further conditions for this would be that only adult persons resident in Switzerland participate in the project, no advertising is carried out and the club size is limited.

-	But maybe there will be a raid anyway and the criminalprosecutionauthorities will open proceedings. In that case, the statements made by the users in writing from the beginning would come into play: that they grow hemp for their own use. This would then have to be punished with a fine. However, the police will also report their findings to the road traffic authorities - people with a driving licence would then have to fear for their licence. So there are definitely risks involved in setting up and operating such a CSC. But the risks would be reasonably manageable and even: He could most likely to be tolerated by the authorities.	+	But maybe there will be a raid anyway and the law enforcement agencies will open proceedings. Then the written statements of the users would come into play: that they grow hemp for their own use. This would then have to be punished with a fine. However, the police will also report their findings to the road traffic authorities - people with a driver's license would then have to fear for it. So there are risks involved in setting up and operating such a CSC. But the risks would be somewhat manageable and even: It could most likely be tolerated by the authorities.

-	But you have to see: What the cities say about it or addiction experts is only relevant to a certain extent. Ultimately, it depends on whether the public prosecutors can develop a certain tolerance and allow such projects to run as long as there are no profits, no minors are involved, the neighborhood and the public are not disturbed and the members do not cause any special problems. It is also clear that the more such clubs there are, the greater the pressure would be to achieve such decriminalization. decriminalization decriminalization.	+	At the same time, one has to see: What the cities say about it or addiction experts is only relevant to a limited extent. Ultimately, it depends on whether the public prosecutors can develop a certain tolerance and let such projects run as long as there are no profits, no minors are involved, the neighborhood and the public are not disturbed and the members do not cause any special problems. It is also clear that the more such clubs there were, the greater the pressure would be to allow such decriminalization.

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 3:		Ligne 3:


-	====== fines for THC use ======	+	====== Fixed penalty for THC use ======

-	St. Gallen is not exactly considered a progressive canton, especially against the hemp stores it has cracked down. But in simple cases of THC consumption, one can hope for a relatively mild punishment. This is because the administrative fine regime is applied here.	+	St. Gallen is not exactly considered a progressive canton, especially against the hemp stores it has cracked down. But in simple cases of THC consumption, one can hope for a relatively mild punishment. This is because the fixed penalty regime is applied here.

	===== Transgressions, handled differently =====		===== Transgressions, handled differently =====
Ligne 13:		Ligne 13:
	===== The CVP idea =====		===== The CVP idea =====

-	After the failed NarcA revision, the CVP suggested that THC users should be punished simply and quickly by fine. This is the same as parking tickets. So the same as a parking offender. Since both (smoking pot and parking the wrong way) are on the same level of illegality (they are both contravention), this should be feasible. But it needs a special entry in the list of fines. This cannot be done on a nationwide basis, but must be done by canton, and in some cases even by municipality (if they have their own police force). Thus, the CVP's proposal was also a bit of a boondoggle - because there is definitely no authority in Switzerland that could force all the responsible bodies onto a common course.	+	After the failed NarcA revision, the CVP suggested that THC users should be punished simply and quickly by fixed penalty. This is the same as parking tickets. So the same as a parking offender. Since both (smoking pot and parking the wrong way) are on the same level of illegality (they are both contravention), this should be feasible. But it needs a special entry in the list of fixed penalties. This cannot be done on a nationwide basis, but must be done by canton, and in some cases even by municipality (if they have their own police force). Thus, the CVP's proposal was also a bit of a boondoggle - because there is definitely no authority in Switzerland that could force all the responsible bodies onto a common course.

	===== St. Gallen begins =====		===== St. Gallen begins =====
Ligne 25:		Ligne 25:
	===== Fining on the spot =====		===== Fining on the spot =====

-	And indeed: In the St. Gallen Code of Criminal Procedure, position 7 is listed in the appendix under the heading "Imposing a fine on the spot". This reads: "Consumption or possession of narcotics for own consumption in simple cases (Art. 19a para. 1) 50.-" To be found for example at: [[http://www.gallex.ch/gallex/9/962.11.html\|http://www.gallex.ch/gallex/9/962.11.html]]	+	And indeed: In the St. Gallen Code of Criminal Procedure, position 7 is listed in the appendix under the heading "Imposing a fine on the spot". This reads: "Consumption or possession of narcotics for own consumption in simple cases (Art. 19a para. 1) 50.-" To be found for example at: [[https://web.archive.org/web/20060601021454/http://www.gallex.ch/gallex/9/962.11.html\|https://web.archive.org/web/20060601021454/http://www.gallex.ch/gallex/9/962.11.html]]
	With this, the police officer can fine a caught THC user on the spot, whereby no further fees are incurred and no further authorities are involved. This makes the punishment relatively cheap.		With this, the police officer can fine a caught THC user on the spot, whereby no further fees are incurred and no further authorities are involved. This makes the punishment relatively cheap.
	(Of course, we still find it completely disproportionate to fine someone for possession and consumption of THC products. But it is already a progress, if one considers that otherwise for the same "contravention" 100, 200 or also 300 francs penalty are imposed).		(Of course, we still find it completely disproportionate to fine someone for possession and consumption of THC products. But it is already a progress, if one considers that otherwise for the same "contravention" 100, 200 or also 300 francs penalty are imposed).
Ligne 32:		Ligne 32:

	It remains unclear exactly what the "simple case" means. Ultimately, the police officer can decide on the spot - maybe the four grams mentioned still go through, but ten grams would be too much. Or if it concerns a few people who have passed on the joint, of course, the "own consumption" is no longer valid and it is simply a matter of passing on or even selling. In such "no longer simple cases" the police officer must, as usual, report the person concerned and an office then decides on the amount of the fine (and of course also on the amount of the fees).		It remains unclear exactly what the "simple case" means. Ultimately, the police officer can decide on the spot - maybe the four grams mentioned still go through, but ten grams would be too much. Or if it concerns a few people who have passed on the joint, of course, the "own consumption" is no longer valid and it is simply a matter of passing on or even selling. In such "no longer simple cases" the police officer must, as usual, report the person concerned and an office then decides on the amount of the fine (and of course also on the amount of the fees).
-	By the way, the fine can also be issued if other illegal narcotics than cannabis products are found. The only condition is that it is a simple case.	+	By the way, the fixed penalty can also be issued if other illegal narcotics than cannabis products are found. The only condition is that it is a simple case.
	Unfortunately, at the moment we do not have time to check all 26 cantons for such regulations. Therefore here is an appeal: If you have received such fines, or know of someone who has been fined in this way, we would be very happy to hear from you!		Unfortunately, at the moment we do not have time to check all 26 cantons for such regulations. Therefore here is an appeal: If you have received such fines, or know of someone who has been fined in this way, we would be very happy to hear from you!

	\| {{:thc_recht:li340404.jpg?500x}} \|		\| {{:thc_recht:li340404.jpg?500x}} \|

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:li390607.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:li390607.jpg}} \|

-	====== Cannabis as medicine: Dronabinol and Marinol ======

-	Most people know cannabis as a stimulant. But for centuries, hemp has also been used for medicinal purposes. Currently, some countries are loosening the law regarding the medical use of cannabis products.

-	Also in the partial revision of the BetmG in Switzerland, which will be implemented in 2011, an improvement of the legal situation regarding the medical use of THC is foreseen. Therefore, this article will provide an overview of possible medical uses as well as the necessary background knowledge.	+	====== Cannabis as medicine: dronabinol and marinol ======
		+
		+	**Most people know cannabis as a stimulant. But for centuries, hemp has also been used for medicinal purposes. Currently, some countries are loosening the law regarding the medical use of cannabis products.
		+	**
		+	Also in the partial revision of NarcA in Switzerland, which will be implemented in 2011, an improvement of the legal situation regarding the medical use of THC is foreseen. Therefore, this article aims to provide an overview of medical uses as well as the necessary background knowledge.

	===== Effective ingredients =====		===== Effective ingredients =====

-	Around 500 ingredients of the cannabis plant have been discovered so far. Many of them are also found in other plants and even in animals. However, they usually have little or no pharmacological effect. Cannabinoids make up a part of these constituents. Almost 70 of them have been detected in the hemp plant. They can be divided into ten groups according to their chemical structure. Two important ones are the cannabinoids of the delta-9-THC type and the cannabidiol type. The delta-9-THC group includes a total of nine cannabinoids.	+	Around 500 ingredients of the cannabis plant have been discovered so far. Many of them are also found in other plants and even in animals. However, they usually have little or no pharmacological effect. A part of these ingredients are the cannabinoids. Almost 70 of them have been identified in the hemp plant to date. They can be divided into ten groups according to their chemical structure. Two important ones are the cannabinoids of the delta-9-THC type and the cannabidiol type. The delta-9-THC group includes a total of nine cannabinoids.

-	Often, only three to four cannabinoids are found in relevant concentrations in a plant. In cannabis, which is processed into marijuana or hashish, mainly delta-9-THC is found in high concentrations (approx. 1 to 25%). In fibre hemp, on the other hand, the cannabidiol predominates.	+	Often, only three to four cannabinoids are found in relevant concentrations in a plant. In cannabis that is processed into marijuana or hashish, it is mainly the delta-9-THC that occurs in high concentrations (approx. 1 to 25%). In fiber hemp, on the other hand, the cannabidiol predominates.

-	Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is responsible for the known psychological but also many medicinal effects. It has mood-lifting, muscle-relaxing, anti-epileptic, anti-nausea, appetite-increasing, antibiotic, fever-reducing, intraocular pressure-lowering, bronchodilator, sedative and pain-relieving effects.	+	Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is responsible for the known psychic but also many medicinal effects. It has mood-lifting, muscle-relaxing, anti-epileptic, anti-nausea, appetite-increasing, antibiotic, fever-reducing, intraocular pressure-lowering, bronchodilator, sedative and pain-relieving effects.

	Cannabidiol does not exhibit any psychic effects. On the contrary, in high enough doses it even counteracts the psychic effects of THC. It also has sedative, anti-inflammatory, anti-epileptic, anxiolytic (anti-anxiety), anti-psychotic effects and also lowers intraocular pressure.		Cannabidiol does not exhibit any psychic effects. On the contrary, in high enough doses it even counteracts the psychic effects of THC. It also has sedative, anti-inflammatory, anti-epileptic, anxiolytic (anti-anxiety), anti-psychotic effects and also lowers intraocular pressure.

-	Delta-9-THC and cannabidiol are two of the most pharmacologically important ingredients of the cannabis plant. However, there are also other substances that can be used medicinally, including certain essential oils and some flavonoids.	+	Delta-9-THC and cannabidiol are two of the most important pharmacological constituents of the cannabis plant. However, there are also other substances that can be used medicinally, including certain essential oils and some flavonoids.

	===== Effect of cannabinoids in the body =====		===== Effect of cannabinoids in the body =====

-	The cannabis active substances produced by the body itself, so-called endocannabinoids, act in the human body in a similar way to the ingredients of cannabis, although the effect time is shorter. In 1992, the first endogenous cannabinoid was discovered, called anandamide. It is derived from the Sanskrit word ananda, meaning bliss, and amide, which describes its chemical structure. The endocannabinoids, together with the cannabinoid receptors, form the body's cannabinoid system. This is responsible for a number of functions such as the regulation of appetite, the perception of sensory impressions and pain or the coordination of movement.	+	The cannabis active substances produced by the body itself, so-called endocannabinoids, act in the human body in a similar way to the ingredients of cannabis, although the time of action is shorter. In 1992, the first endogenous cannabinoid was discovered, called anandamide. It is derived from the Sanskrit word ananda, meaning bliss, and amide, which describes its chemical structure. The endocannabinoids, together with the cannabinoid receptors, form the body's cannabinoid system. This is responsible for a number of functions such as the regulation of appetite, the perception of sensory impressions and pain or the coordination of movement.

	Cannabinoid receptors are found not only in the brain and spinal cord, but also on many other cells such as cells of the heart, intestines, lungs, urinary tract, uterus, testes, internal glands, spleen, blood vessels and white blood cells.		Cannabinoid receptors are found not only in the brain and spinal cord, but also on many other cells such as cells of the heart, intestines, lungs, urinary tract, uterus, testes, internal glands, spleen, blood vessels and white blood cells.

-	Endocannabinoids are among the most important inhibitory messenger substances. They also influence a variety of other neurotransmitters - among them are GABA, glutamate, glycine, noradrenaline, serotonin, dopamine, acetylcholine and neuropeptides (enkephalins, endorphins). Many of the medicinal effects of cannabis are due to interactions with these neurotransmitters.	+	Endocannabinoids are among the most important inhibitory messenger substances. They also affect a variety of other neurotransmitters - including GABA, glutamate, glycine, norepinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, acetylcholine, and neuropeptides (enkephalins, endorphins). Many of the medicinal effects of cannabis are due to interactions with these neurotransmitters.

-	The endocannabinoid system is not a fixed quantity. It changes in some physical diseases. This can affect both the amount of cannabinoids and the receptors. For example, in pain disorders, the amount of anandamide increases in some areas of the brain to relieve pain. So the cannabinoid system adjusts when there are pathological changes to rebalance the disorder.	+	The endocannabinoid system is not a fixed quantity. It changes in some physical diseases. This can affect both the amount of cannabinoids and the receptors. For example, in pain disorders, the amount of anandamide increases in some brain regions to relieve pain. Thus, the cannabinoid system adjusts in response to pathological changes to rebalance the disorder.

-	Besides the cannabinoid receptor effects, there are other mechanisms through which cannabinoids can unfold their effects. It is known that cannabinoids, like vitamins C and E, can trap free radicals and thus prevent cell damage. Some degradation products also exhibit healing properties. For example, the THC-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH). This is the substance that is detected in urine when cannabis use is suspected. It has similar properties to aspirin, i.e. it has an anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving effect.	+	In addition to cannabinoid receptor effects, however, there are other mechanisms by which cannabinoids can exert their effects. It is known that cannabinoids, like vitamins C and E, can scavenge free radicals and thus prevent cell damage. Some degradation products also exhibit healing properties. For example, the THC-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH). This is the substance that is detected in urine when cannabis use is suspected. It has similar properties to aspirin, i.e. it has an anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving effect.

-	===== Areas of application =====	+	===== Fields of application =====

-	There is a whole range of possible medical disorders for which cannabis can be used (see green box). However, there are already proven medications for all of these disorders. However, these do not work for all patients or cause severe side effects in some. For example, opiates (morphine) can cause nausea or constipation. Therefore, cannabis preparations are often used together with other medications so that their dose can be reduced. In the case of the opiates mentioned, their pain-reducing effects are enhanced by dronabinol. In addition, dronabinol counteracts the nausea that can be triggered by morphine. However, not all drug combinations are useful (see article in the next Legalize it!). However, serious or even life-threatening interactions are not described for cannabis. Single doses of 2.5 to 15mg THC are often used. The effect lasts between 3 and 12 hours, which means that cannabis preparations have to be used 2 to 4 times a day.	+	There is a whole range of possible medical disorders for which cannabis can be used (see green box). However, there are already proven medications for all of these disorders. However, these do not work for all patients or cause severe side effects in some. For example, opiates (morphine) can cause nausea or constipation. Therefore, cannabis preparations are often used together with other medications so that its dose can be reduced. In the case of the above-mentioned opiates, their analgesic effects are enhanced by dronabinol. In addition, dronabinol counteracts the nausea that can be triggered by morphine. However, not all drug combinations are useful (see article in the next Legalize it!). However, serious or even life-threatening interactions are not described for cannabis. Single doses of 2.5 to 15mg THC are often used. The effect lasts between 3 to 12 hours, which means that cannabis preparations have to be used 2 to 4 times a day.

	===== Multiple effects =====		===== Multiple effects =====

-	In most cases, cannabis acts not only on a single symptom, but on several symptoms at the same time. For example, AIDS patients benefit from the anxiety, pain and nausea reducing effect as well as from the appetite increasing effect. Despite the large number of possible areas of application, only three indications have been accepted by the regulatory authorities worldwide to date. In the USA Marinol is used for the treatment of nausea and vomiting during cancer chemotherapy and against loss of appetite in AIDS patients. In Canada, Sativex (cannabis extract in spray form) is used to treat neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis.	+	In most cases, cannabis acts not only on a single symptom, but on several symptoms at the same time. For example, AIDS patients benefit from the anxiety, pain and nausea reducing effect as well as from the appetite increasing effect. Despite the large number of possible applications, only three indications have been accepted by regulatory authorities worldwide to date. In the U.S., Marinol is used to treat nausea and vomiting during cancer chemotherapy and to treat loss of appetite in AIDS patients. In Canada, Sativex (cannabis extract in spray form) is used to treat neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis.
-	In other countries, dronabinol/THC is not approved as a medicine for certain conditions, but may be prescribed by a doctor.	+	In other countries, dronabinol/THC is not approved as a medicine for specific conditions, but may be prescribed by a physician.

	===== Legal situation =====		===== Legal situation =====

-	Provided that a psychic effect can be excluded, the medicinal use of hemp/THC is permissible. The purely medicinal use of cannabis is often tolerated. Dronabinol may be used with a permit from the health authorities. In 2011 there will be a partial revision of the BetmG, in which the medical use of hemp products will also be newly regulated. However, the details are still open at the moment (2010).	+	Provided that a psychological effect can be excluded, the medicinal use of hemp/THC is permissible. The purely medicinal use of cannabis is often tolerated. Dronabinol may be used with a permit from the health authorities. In 2011, there will be a partial revision of the NarcA, in which the medical use of hemp products will also be newly regulated. However, the details are currently (2010) still open.

	===== Addresses and sources of supply =====		===== Addresses and sources of supply =====

-	ACM and IACM website: [[http://www.cannabis-med.org/\|www.cannabis-med.org]], e-mail: [[info@cannabis-med.org]]; Contact Switzerland: Dr. pharm. Manfred Fankhauser, [[http://www.panakeia.ch/kontakt.html\|Railway Station Pharmacy]], Dorfstrasse 2, 3550 Langnau, telephone 034 402 12 55	+	ACM and IACM website: [[http://www.cannabis-med.org/\|www.cannabis-med.org]], e-mail: [[info@cannabis-med.org]]; contact Switzerland: Dr. pharm. Manfred Fankhauser, [[https://web.archive.org/web/20180117210827/http://www.panakeia.ch/kontakt.html\|Bahnhof Apotheke]], Dorfstrasse 2, 3550 Langnau, phone 034 402 12 55

	===== Definitions and explanations =====		===== Definitions and explanations =====
Ligne 55:		Ligne 57:
	Cannabinoid receptor: These are specific binding sites in various body cells to which endocannabinoids or plant cannabinoids bind and exert their effects.		Cannabinoid receptor: These are specific binding sites in various body cells to which endocannabinoids or plant cannabinoids bind and exert their effects.

-	Delta-9-THC: The most pharmacologically important cannabinoid. It is responsible for most of the medicinal effects. THC stands for tetrahydrocannabinol. Another name for it is dronabinol.	+	Delta-9-THC: The pharmacologically most important cannabinoid. It is responsible for most of the medicinal effects. THC stands for tetrahydrocannabinol. Another name for it is dronabinol.

-	Dronabinol: Another name for the naturally occurring delta-9-THC. In Germany and Austria it may be prescribed on a narcotic prescription. In Switzerland, an authorisation is given by Swissmedic in special cases.	+	Dronabinol: Another name for the naturally occurring delta-9-THC. In Germany and Austria, it may be prescribed on a narcotic prescription. In Switzerland, an authorization is given by Swissmedic in special cases.

	Endocannabinoid: The cannabinoids produced by the body itself (endogenous). They act similarly to the exogenously supplied cannabinoids of the hemp plant.		Endocannabinoid: The cannabinoids produced by the body itself (endogenous). They act similarly to the exogenously supplied cannabinoids of the hemp plant.
Ligne 63:		Ligne 65:
	Marinol: A synthetically produced dronabinol preparation in capsule form. Marinol may be imported from the USA in Germany.		Marinol: A synthetically produced dronabinol preparation in capsule form. Marinol may be imported from the USA in Germany.

-	===== List of possible uses of cannabis/THC to date: =====	+	===== List previous potential uses of cannabis/THC: =====


-	^ Nausea and vomiting: \|cancer chemotherapy, HIV/Aids, hepatitis C, vomiting during pregnancy, nausea during migraine \|	+	^ Nausea and vomiting: \|Cancer chemotherapy, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, pregnancy vomiting, nausea in migraine. \|
-	^ Loss of appetite and emaciation: \|HIV/AIDS, cancer, hepatitis C \|	+	^ Loss of appetite and emaciation: \|HIV/AIDS, cancer, hepatitis C \|
-	^ Spasticity: \|Muscle cramps and stiffness, multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, spasticity after stroke, tension headaches, tension of the back muscles \|	+	^ Spasticity: \|Muscle spasms and stiffness, multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, spasticity after stroke, tension headaches, tension of the back muscles \|
-	^ Movement disorders: \|Tourette's syndrome, dystonia, certain dyskinesias associated with Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. \|	+	^ Movement disorders: \|Tourette's syndrome, dystonia, certain dyskinesias in Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. \|
-	^ Pain: \|Migraine, cluster headache, phantom pain, neuralgia (nerve pain), menstrual cramps, paresthesia (tingling, formication) in diabetes or AIDS, hyperalgesia, pain due to tense muscles or muscle spasms, osteoarthritis, arthritis, ulcerative colitis, restless legs syndrome, fibromyalgia \|	+	^ Pain: \|Migraine, cluster headache, phantom pain, neuralgia (nerve pain), menstrual cramps, paresthesias (tingling, formication) in diabetes or AIDS, hyperalgesia, pain due to tense muscles or muscle spasms, osteoarthritis, arthritis, ulcerative colitis, restless legs syndrome, fibromyalgia \|
-	^ Allergies: \| Asthma, house dust allergies, hay fever \|	+	^ Allergies: \| Asthma, dust allergies, hay fever \|
-	^ Itching: \|itching in liver disease, neurodermatitis \|	+	^ Itching: \|Itching in liver diseases, neurodermatitis \|
	^ Inflammation: \|Asthma, arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, neurodermatitis \|		^ Inflammation: \|Asthma, arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, neurodermatitis \|
	^ Mental illness: \|Depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, hyperactivity, ADHD, impotence, alcoholism, opiate addiction, sleeping pill addiction, insomnia, autism, confused behavior in Alzheimer's disease. \|		^ Mental illness: \|Depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, hyperactivity, ADHD, impotence, alcoholism, opiate addiction, sleeping pill addiction, insomnia, autism, confused behavior in Alzheimer's disease. \|
	^ Overproduction of gastric acid: \|Gastritis \|		^ Overproduction of gastric acid: \|Gastritis \|
-	^ Elevated intraocular pressure: \|Glaucoma (green star) \|	+	^ Increased intraocular pressure: \|Glaucoma (green star) \|
	^ Dilatation of the bronchi: \|Asthma, shortness of breath with other respiratory diseases \|		^ Dilatation of the bronchi: \|Asthma, shortness of breath with other respiratory diseases \|
-	^ Other diseases: \|Epilepsy, promotion of labor during childbirth, hiccups, high blood pressure, tinnitus (ringing in the ears). \|	+	^ Other diseases: \|Epilepsy, promotion of labor during childbirth, hiccups, hypertension, tinnitus (ringing in the ears). \|

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:repressionstoppen.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:repressionstoppen.jpg}} \|
		+

	====== Autumn 2008: A lot will be decided on 30.11.2009 ======		====== Autumn 2008: A lot will be decided on 30.11.2009 ======
Ligne 9:		Ligne 11:
	The demands of the hemp initiative are essentially also ours. We want to achieve a legal handling of THC - an acceptance of the hemp initiative would make this possible.		The demands of the hemp initiative are essentially also ours. We want to achieve a legal handling of THC - an acceptance of the hemp initiative would make this possible.

-	As a reminder, the text of the initiative, which is to be enshrined in the Swiss Federal Constitution as Article 105a:	+	As a reminder, the text of the initiative is to be anchored in the Swiss Federal Constitution as Article 105a:

-	- The consumption of psychoactive substances of the hemp plant as well as their possession and acquisition for personal use are exempt from punishment.	+	- The consumption of psychoactive substances of the hemp plant, as well as their possession and acquisition for personal use are exempt from punishment.
	- The cultivation of psychoactive hemp for personal use is exempt from punishment.		- The cultivation of psychoactive hemp for personal use is exempt from punishment.
-	- The Confederation shall issue regulations on the cultivation, production, import and export of and trade in psychoactive substances of the hemp plant.	+	- The federal government issues regulations on the cultivation, production, import and export of, and trade in, psychoactive substances of the hemp plant.
-	- The Confederation shall take appropriate measures to ensure that adequate account is taken of the protection of minors. Advertising for psychoactive substances of the hemp plant and advertising for the handling of these substances are prohibited.	+	- The Confederation shall take appropriate measures to ensure that adequate account is taken of the protection of minors. Advertising for psychoactive substances of the hemp plant as well as advertising for the handling of these substances are prohibited.

	The first two points are clear and perfect and could also enter into force immediately if adopted.		The first two points are clear and perfect and could also enter into force immediately if adopted.
-	The third point is more open, but also good, because you cannot formulate a detailed model for the trade in an initiative. The initiative has therefore left it up to Parliament to decide exactly how this trade in THC should be organised. Until these general provisions can come into force, a separate law would have to be discussed, adopted and possibly passed in another referendum.	+	The third point is more open, but also good, because you can not formulate a detailed model for the trade in an initiative. Therefore, the initiative has left it to the parliament how exactly this trafficking of THC should be organized. Until these general provisions can come into force, a separate law would have to be discussed, adopted and possibly passed in another referendum.
-	On the fourth point: youth protection measures are also included in our ideas. Advertising, on the other hand, we could certainly imagine, be it for certain products or for consumption. We would also be in favour of more far-reaching solutions. But this is not so important to us, so the advertising ban is not decisive for us (Peter Tosh - "Legalize it! ... and I will advertise it!" - would perhaps be a bit more critical....).	+	On the fourth point: Youth protection measures are also included in our ideas. Advertising, on the other hand, we could certainly imagine, be it for certain products or for consumption. We would also be in favor of more far-reaching solutions. But this is not so important to us, so the advertising ban is not decisive for us (Peter Tosh - "Legalize it! ... and I will advertise it!" - might be a bit more critical...).
	Therefore: YES VOTE. Absolutely. Every vote counts. Yours, that of your friends, love partners, relatives, acquaintances. Vote yes yourself, and get everyone else to do the same.		Therefore: YES VOTE. Absolutely. Every vote counts. Yours, that of your friends, love partners, relatives, acquaintances. Vote yes yourself, and get everyone else to do the same.
-	Of course, if the initiative is accepted, it would be the political sensation of the decade - and it will be rejected. (Which is a pity; but all issues have to take several attempts over decades before they get through). What is important, however, is the percentage of yes votes. If it is below 20%, it will be enormously difficult to proceed. If it is between 20 and 30%, it is a common defeat of an initiative. If it is above 30%, then one can speak of a positive signal. And anything above 40% would almost be a victory - then you would have to manage a legalization of consumption and the necessary preparatory actions in the next ten years (excluding the trade).	+	Of course, an acceptance of the initiative would be the political sensation of the decade - and it will be rejected. (Which is a pity, but all issues have to take several attempts over decades to get through). What is important, however, is the percentage of yes votes. If it is below 20%, then it will be enormously difficult to continue. If it is between 20 and 30%, it is a usual defeat of an initiative. If it is above 30%, then one can speak of a positive signal. And anything above 40% would be almost a victory - then you would have to manage a legalization of consumption and the necessary preparatory actions in the next ten years (excluding the trade).
	So it really is true: EVERY VOTE COUNTS.		So it really is true: EVERY VOTE COUNTS.

-	===== Our position on the partial revision of the BetmG =====	+	===== Our position on NarcA-partial revision =====

-	The amended articles of this bill fill more pages than this Legalize it! has. In summary, we can say: The bill does not bring any improvements for THC users. The possibility to use THC as a medicine remains very vague, but the passing on of joints to under 18-year-olds is criminalized and the hemp plantsprosecution are simplified - from a factual point of view, one should therefore reject this partial revision: It is just mainly about "abstinence" and "more repression".	+	The amended articles of this bill fill more pages than this Legalize it! has. In summary, we can say: The bill does not bring any improvements for THC users. The possibility to use THC as a medicine remains very vague, but the passing on of joints to under 18-year-olds is criminalized and the hemp plant prosecution is simplified - from this point of view, this partial revision should be rejected: It is just mainly about "abstinence" and "more repression".
-	But from a political point of view, a "No" would only help the fiercest opponents of a THC-legalization, namely the groups on the right fringe (EDU, SVP), who successfully took the referendum against the partial revision. For these people this revision goes too far, because they don't want any more heroin distribution, but finally repression and more repression and even more repression. And that against heroin users as well as against THC users. Politically speaking, one would have to vote yes.	+	But from a political point of view, a "No" would only help the fiercest opponents of a THC-legalization, namely the groups on the right fringe (EDU, SVP), which have successfully taken the referendum against the partial revision. For these people, this revision goes too far, because they don't want any more heroin distribution, but finally repression and more repression and even more repression. And that against heroin users just as against THC users. Politically, one would have to vote yes.
-	But this would mean the final liquidation of a funny peculiarity of Swiss law ("hemp herb for the production of narcotics"), which has annoyed the police and the judiciary time and again. We cannot bring ourselves to do that. That is why we are in favour of abstention on this issue.	+	But this would mean the final liquidation of a funny peculiarity of Swiss law ("hemp weed for narcotic production"), which has always annoyed the police and the judiciary very nicely. We can't bring ourselves to do that. Therefore, we are in favor of abstention on this issue.

	===== The contents of the hemp initiative (06.106) =====		===== The contents of the hemp initiative (06.106) =====

-	* THC consumption, as well as all acts necessary for it (purchase, cultivation, possession) are immediately exempt from punishment.	+	* THC use, as well as all acts necessary for it (purchase, cultivation, possession) are immediately exempt from punishment

-	* The federal government should issue regulations for the trade in THC products (this means that implementing laws are needed; the authorities have a great deal of leeway in this respect).	+	* The federal government is to issue regulations for the trade in THC products (this means that implementation laws are needed here; the authorities have a great deal of leeway in this regard)

	* The protection of minors must be respected		* The protection of minors must be respected
Ligne 39:		Ligne 41:
	* No advertising for THC products		* No advertising for THC products

-	* No advertising of THC use	+	* No advertising for THC use

-	===== The contents of the partial revision of the Narcotics Act (05.470) =====	+	===== The contents of NarcA-partial-revision (05.470) =====

	* Anchoring of the 4-pillar policy (prevention, therapy, harm reduction, repression)		* Anchoring of the 4-pillar policy (prevention, therapy, harm reduction, repression)
Ligne 47:		Ligne 49:
	* Possibly allow THC as a remedy (the exact conditions for this are still unclear), but THC use remains fundamentally punishable by law		* Possibly allow THC as a remedy (the exact conditions for this are still unclear), but THC use remains fundamentally punishable by law

-	* Definitive legalisation of heroin prescription (beyond 2009)	+	* Definitive legalization of heroin prescription (beyond the year 2009).
		+
		+	* Replacing the term "hemp herb for narcotic production" with cannabis products (simplification of hemp plant-prosecution)

-	* Replacing the term "hemp herb for the production of narcotics" by cannabis products (simplification of hemp plants-prosecution)	+	* Passing on a joint to a minor is now a misdemeanor

-	* Passing a joint to a minor is now a misdemeanor

2021/04/17 21:08		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	{{:thc_recht:jointinflammen.jpg\|}} \|	+	\| {{:thc_recht:jointinflammen.jpg}} \|
		+

	====== Winter 2008/09: November 30, 2008 is a thing of the past ======		====== Winter 2008/09: November 30, 2008 is a thing of the past ======

-	The partial revision of the Narcotics Law has been accepted, the hemp initiative rejected. This marks the end of another major cycle in drug policy. It is up to us whether we can finally anchor our ideas in the future.	+	The partial revision of NarcA has been accepted, the hemp initiative rejected. This concludes another major cycle in drug policy. It is up to us whether we can finally anchor our ideas in the future.

	===== The Hemp Initiative =====		===== The Hemp Initiative =====

-	Unfortunately, a large-scale referendum campaign was not possible. The financial and human resources of those in favour of the initiative were too weak, too selective. Only a few people made very active efforts to achieve a good result. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their efforts.	+	Unfortunately, a large-scale referendum campaign was not possible. The financial and human resources of the initiative supporters were too weak, too selective for that. Only a few people made very active efforts to achieve a good result. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their efforts.
-	But the fears of the population are too great, our answers to them are not capable of winning a majority, or simply: they are not (yet) being listened to.	+	But the fears of the population are too great, and our answers to them are not capable of gaining a majority, or simply: they are not (yet) being listened to.
-	The nationwide result of 37% in favour is a good result. We were pleased with the yes votes in the cities of Bern and Zurich and especially in the area where we have our office: 72% yes in the Zurich districts 4+5. This gives us hope of achieving improvements in the coming years.	+	The nationwide result of 37% in favor is a good result. We were pleased with the yes vote in the cities of Bern and Zurich and especially in the area where we have our office: 72% yes in the Zurich city districts 4+5. This gives us hope to achieve improvements in the coming years.

-	===== Is a statewide regulatory fine model for THC coming? =====	+	===== Is a statewide fixed penalty model for THC coming? =====

-	The Teachers' Association, Pro Juventute and the Working Group of Youth Associations have put forward a proposal to punish THC consumption with an administrative fine. This would mean less work for society and at best a lower fine for the user. The discussion on hemp policy will now be conducted at this level. Impunity is no longer an issue in the near future.	+	Teachers' association, Pro Juventute and the working group of youth associations have submitted a proposal to punish THC consumption with a fine on the eve of the vote. This would mean less work for society and at best a lower fine for the user. This is the level on which the hemp policy discussion will now be conducted. Impunity is no longer an issue in the near future.

-	===== The partial revision of the Narcotics Act =====	+	===== The NarcA-partial-revision =====

	The result is clear: The 68% yes is a clear confirmation of the previous official drug policy, especially the four-pillar policy and heroin distribution. We are really not enthusiastic about this "partially" revised law.		The result is clear: The 68% yes is a clear confirmation of the previous official drug policy, especially the four-pillar policy and heroin distribution. We are really not enthusiastic about this "partially" revised law.
-	We don't begrudge the long-time heroin users that they can now definitely get their heroin legally and don't have to look for it in the streets again.	+	We do not begrudge the long-time heroin users that they can now definitely get their heroin legally and do not have to look for it in the streets again.
-	And we hope that the new possibility of using THC as a medicine for the seriously ill will really come to fruition and alleviate suffering.	+	And we hope that the new possibility to use THC as a medicine for seriously ill people will really come to fruition and alleviate suffering.
-	On the other hand, more repression for non-medical THC users is to be feared. Be it in the misdefined protection of minors, be it in the simplification of hemp plantsprosecution. There is nothing to celebrate at all, it means to "dress warmly".	+	On the other hand, more repression for non-medical THC users is to be feared. Be it in the misdefined protection of minors, be it in the simplification of hemp plant prosecution. There is nothing to celebrate, there it is called to "warm up".

	===== We remain active =====		===== We remain active =====

-	The situation of THC users has certainly not become any easier with these voting results. All the more it needs clarification, especially in the legal field. Our article in this issue on the changes brought about by the partial revision of the BetmG is one step in this direction. Our THC& Recht-Wiki is a second, the new edition of our Shit happens the third.	+	The situation of THC users has certainly not become easier with these voting results. All the more it needs clarification, especially in the legal field. Our article in this issue on the changes brought about by the partial revision of NarcA is one step in this direction. Our THC& law wiki is a second, the new edition of our Shit happens the third.
-	There will be another initiative in the next years. Maybe just for consumption, maybe again for general release. That won't happen right away. It will take resources that have to be worked out first. But we will not give up the fight for a complete legalization of hemp in Switzerland so fast. We hope for your active (cooperation!) and/or passive (donations!) support.	+	There will be another initiative in the next years. Maybe only for consumption, maybe again for a general release. This will not happen immediately. It needs resources that have to be worked out first. But we will not give up the fight for a complete hemp legalization in Switzerland so fast. We hope for your active (cooperation!) and/or passive (donations!) support.

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 3:		Ligne 3:


-	====== Summer 2009: fines for THC use - the state of the discussion ======	+	====== Summer 2009: fixed penalties for THC use - the state of the discussion ======

-	St. Gallen has had fines for THC use for some time now, and it has proven its worth. Now there are efforts to anchor this model throughout Switzerland. Is this about an improvement for the users? Or is it a simplification of prosecution?	+	St. Gallen has had fixed penalties for THC use for some time now, and it has proven its worth. Now there are efforts to anchor this model throughout Switzerland. Is this about an improvement for the users? Or is it a simplification of prosecution?

	===== The second part of the partial revision =====		===== The second part of the partial revision =====

-	After the rejection of the hemp initiative, the legalization of THC-containing products has become a distant prospect. Nevertheless, the topic is not dead: Thousands of people are still consuming, importing, producing, selling... More hidden than before, but the scene is still active. And also the political authorities - because there is still the second, so far postponed part of the partial revision of the narcotics law. The first part was approved by the voters on November 30, 2008, after which the Commission for Social Security and Health of the National Council (SGK-NR) dealt with the second stage and decided at the end of March that it would like to launch a commission initiative. The content: fines for THC consumption.	+	After the rejection of the hemp initiative, the legalization of THC-containing products has become a distant prospect. Nevertheless, the topic is not dead: Thousands of people are still consuming, importing, producing, selling... More hidden than before, but the scene is still active. And also the political authorities - because there is still the second, so far postponed part of the partial revision of the narcotics law. The first part was approved by the voters on November 30, 2008, after which the Commission for Social Security and Health of the National Council (SGK-NR) dealt with the second stage and decided at the end of March that it would like to launch a commission initiative. The content: fixed penalties for THC consumption.

	===== What is it about? =====		===== What is it about? =====

-	We have already reported on the St. Gallen model. Instead of having to report every illegal drug use to the police, the police issue a fine if they find small amounts of illegal drugs. In concrete terms, this means for cannabis users in St. Gallen: Anyone caught with a small amount (probably less than five grams) will receive a fine of 50 francs and that is the end of the matter. There is no registration (and therefore no increase of the fine in case of a repeat). However, the narcotics found are confiscated and destroyed.	+	We have already reported on the St. Gallen model. Instead of having to report every illegal drug use to the police, the police issue a fixed penalty if they find small amounts of illegal drugs. In concrete terms, this means for cannabis users in St. Gallen: Anyone caught with a small amount (probably less than five grams) will receive a fixed penalty of 50 francs and that is the end of the matter. There is no registration (and therefore no increase of the fine in case of a repeat). However, the narcotics found are confiscated and destroyed.
	The central point here is that this regime only applies to adult smokers, young people are very well recorded, supervised, sent to courses - here one very well wants to show presence and "properly" intervene.		The central point here is that this regime only applies to adult smokers, young people are very well recorded, supervised, sent to courses - here one very well wants to show presence and "properly" intervene.
	Whether the new discussions are about exactly the same as in St. Gallen is still open. The SGK-NR has only made a decision in principle that it wants to do something. How exactly then the new regulations will look, we can be curious.		Whether the new discussions are about exactly the same as in St. Gallen is still open. The SGK-NR has only made a decision in principle that it wants to do something. How exactly then the new regulations will look, we can be curious.
Ligne 23:		Ligne 23:
	===== What is clear? =====		===== What is clear? =====

-	It is clear that young users will continue to be tackled more strongly than in the past. They will be reported to the police and, depending on the decision of the juvenile prosecutor's office, will have to pay a fine, do some work or attend an addiction prevention course. The latter would probably be the measure of choice when the young person first becomes conspicuous; the other measures would then come into play in the event of further conspicuousness, or if the young person does not attend the course. The teachers' association, Pro Juventute and the youth associations have thought about this issue, which can also be read in their text: "Trotz Prohibition handeln! fines for adults, early detection and counseling for adolescents".	+	It is clear that young users will continue to be tackled more strongly than in the past. They will be reported to the police and, depending on the decision of the juvenile prosecutor's office, will have to pay a fine, do some work or attend an addiction prevention course. The latter would probably be the measure of choice when the young person first becomes conspicuous; the other measures would then come into play in the event of further conspicuousness, or if the young person does not attend the course. The teachers' association, Pro Juventute and the youth associations have thought about this issue, which can also be read in their text: "Trotz Prohibition handeln! Fixed penalties for adults, early detection and counseling for adolescents".
	What are the open points?		What are the open points?
	However, the details for the procedure against adults are still unresolved. Open questions include:		However, the details for the procedure against adults are still unresolved. Open questions include:
-	When exactly should the fines for adults be applied? Only in the case of consumption of THC products? Also in the case of possession, purchase, cultivation of THC products for personal consumption? With a quantity limit of how many grams? Could balcony plants also fall under this regime? How high would such fines be (as in St. Gallen 50 francs)? Where would such an administrative fine model be legally anchored (in the Swiss Narcotics Law or in the cantonal codes of criminal procedure)? Could cantons also apply more liberal models (for example, warnings instead of fines)? There will have to be some more discussion on this, which we will of course follow closely.	+	When exactly should the fixed penalties for adults be applied? Only in the case of consumption of THC products? Also in the case of possession, purchase, cultivation of THC products for personal consumption? With a quantity limit of how many grams? Could balcony plants also fall under this regime? How high would such fixed penalties be (as in St. Gallen 50 francs)? Where would such an fixed penalty model be legally anchored (in the Swiss Narcotics Law or in the cantonal codes of criminal procedure)? Could cantons also apply more liberal models (for example, warnings instead of fines)? There will have to be some more discussion on this, which we will of course follow closely.

	===== What's the point? =====		===== What's the point? =====

-	Depending on the design and application of the administrative fine model, this is more a matter of tightening repression or partial decriminalization. The simplified fining reduces the effort of issuing a fine enormously - thus, with the same manpower, many more fines could be "worked out" than today. On the other hand, a "secured" fine amount of 50 francs for THC users in the vast majority of areas in Switzerland is a certain improvement compared to the current situation (where for example in Zurich the first fine, with fees, can be had for 258 francs ).	+	Depending on the design and application of the fixed penalty model, this is more a matter of tightening repression or partial decriminalization. The simplified fining reduces the effort of issuing a fine enormously - thus, with the same manpower, many more fines could be "worked out" than today. On the other hand, a "secured" fine amount of 50 francs for THC users in the vast majority of areas in Switzerland is a certain improvement compared to the current situation (where for example in Zurich the first fine, with fees, can be had for 258 francs ).
	This mixture of simplified repression and a somewhat nicer way of dealing with THC users could, as has already happened in St. Gallen, really be capable of gaining majority support and have a chance of realization.		This mixture of simplified repression and a somewhat nicer way of dealing with THC users could, as has already happened in St. Gallen, really be capable of gaining majority support and have a chance of realization.

	But of course such a proposal cannot replace legalization!		But of course such a proposal cannot replace legalization!

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
	\| {{:thc_recht:obv.jpg?200x150}} \|		\| {{:thc_recht:obv.jpg?200x150}} \|
-
-

	====== The first partial revision of the partial revision of the NarcA ======		====== The first partial revision of the partial revision of the NarcA ======

	**		**
-	The referendum deadline has expired: Regulatory fines for cannabis use are coming. The date of entry into force is still open, but the text of the law is definite. So let's take a closer look at it. Because everything is not clear yet...**	+	The referendum deadline has expired: Fixed penalties for cannabis use are coming. The date of entry into force is still open, but the text of the law is definite. So let's take a closer look at it. Because everything is not clear yet...**

	===== Changing emergence =====		===== Changing emergence =====

-	We have reported on this again and again in small chunks at Legalize it! The regulatory fine model has come through after many years of changeable deliberations. Again and again it looked like failure. On September 28, 2012, the final text was published in the Federal Gazette. The referendum period ran until January 17, 2013 and passed unused. Now it is over all hurdles and all that remains is for the Federal Council to enact it.	+	We have reported on this again and again in small chunks at Legalize it! The fixed penalty model has come through after many years of changeable deliberations. Again and again it looked like failure. On September 28, 2012, the final text was published in the Federal Gazette. The referendum period ran until January 17, 2013 and passed unused. Now it is over all hurdles and all that remains is for the Federal Council to enact it.

	What was reported in the media and what is really in this text are different worlds. In the media it sounded as if smoking pot would only be punished with 100 francs if you have less than 10 grams of hash or weed with you. But the reality is a bit more complicated...		What was reported in the media and what is really in this text are different worlds. In the media it sounded as if smoking pot would only be punished with 100 francs if you have less than 10 grams of hash or weed with you. But the reality is a bit more complicated...
Ligne 22:		Ligne 20:
	===== The penalty-free minor amount =====		===== The penalty-free minor amount =====

-	Now clarifications are added to the existing text. First of all, the minor amount for personal consumption, which is actually already exempt from punishment but not defined in terms of amount, will be defined by law for the first time: 10 grams of material with more than 1% THC is now considered a minor amount. This is already punishable today, so now up to 10 grams of hash or weed will soon be punishable. So there is also no fine for it. The piece of hash or the bag weed may also not be confiscated, which is certainly the funniest consequence of the bill! But this only applies if you are only in possession but not consuming, but preparing a future consumption with the possession of a maximum of 10 grams.	+	Now clarifications are added to the existing text. First of all, the minor amount for personal consumption, which is actually already exempt from punishment but not defined in terms of amount, will be defined by law for the first time: 10 grams of material with more than 1% THC is now considered a minor amount. This is already punishable today, so now up to 10 grams of hash or weed will soon be punishable. So there is also no fixed penalty for it. The piece of hash or the bag weed may also not be confiscated, which is certainly the funniest consequence of the bill! But this only applies if you are only in possession but not consuming, but preparing a future consumption with the possession of a maximum of 10 grams.

-	===== The fine for observed consumption =====	+	===== The fixed penalty for observed consumption =====

-	As soon as someone smokes a joint and possesses less than 10 grams and is observed by the police, this consumption can be punished with a fine of 100 francs (if it is the only offense and the person is over 18 years old).	+	As soon as someone smokes a joint and possesses less than 10 grams and is observed by the police, this consumption can be punished with a fixed penalty of 100 francs (if it is the only offense and the person is over 18 years old).

-	Only consumption directly observed by the police can be punished with fine. As soon as it is about unobserved consumption (in a interrogation or because of a THC test) or if one has more than 10 grams with him, the ordinary (previous) procedure must still be applied.	+	Only consumption directly observed by the police can be punished with fixed penalty. As soon as it is about unobserved consumption (in a interrogation or because of a THC test) or if one has more than 10 grams with him, the ordinary (previous) procedure must still be applied.

-	Thus, the fine is practically only relevant for smoking pot in public. But then it could make the punishment level predictable: It costs 100 francs, if one is caught by the police while smoking pot (and has less than 10 grams with him, which, by the way, are then confiscated after all). This is only possible if no other illegal act is committed in addition to the consumption. So you can't admit to any past consumption or major possession - otherwise the ordinary procedure has to be applied, which can end very differently at the moment: From a warning without costs to a fine with fees of about 1'000 francs everything is possible.	+	Thus, the fixed penalty is practically only relevant for smoking pot in public. But then it could make the punishment level predictable: It costs 100 francs, if one is caught by the police while smoking pot (and has less than 10 grams with him, which, by the way, are then confiscated after all). This is only possible if no other illegal act is committed in addition to the consumption. So you can't admit to any past consumption or major possession - otherwise the ordinary procedure has to be applied, which can end very differently at the moment: From a warning without costs to a fine with fees of about 1'000 francs everything is possible.

	===== When will the bill be enacted? =====		===== When will the bill be enacted? =====

-	The Federal Council is free to decide on the entry into force. At the moment, the administration is still waiting for the cantons' opinion: How much time do they need for implementation? So for the legal anchoring in their legal system (in a cantonal ordinance, if necessary even by means of an amendment to the law), as well as for the establishment of the appropriate structures for the administration of the fines, the control of the payments, the initiation of an ordinary procedure (if someone does not pay or prefers to choose the ordinary procedure after all) and finally the police forces still have to be trained. Currently (February 2013), the cantons are in the process of clarifying these issues.	+	The Federal Council is free to decide on the entry into force. At the moment, the administration is still waiting for the cantons' opinion: How much time do they need for implementation? So for the legal anchoring in their legal system (in a cantonal ordinance, if necessary even by means of an amendment to the law), as well as for the establishment of the appropriate structures for the administration of the fixed penalties, the control of the payments, the initiation of an ordinary procedure (if someone does not pay or prefers to choose the ordinary procedure after all) and finally the police forces still have to be trained. Currently (February 2013), the cantons are in the process of clarifying these issues.

-	Only the cantonal implementation regulations will provide further clarification as to whether the administrative fines will be implemented everywhere and in the same way.	+	Only the cantonal implementation regulations will provide further clarification as to whether the fixed penalties will be implemented everywhere and in the same way.

	\| {{:thc_recht:obv.jpg}} \|		\| {{:thc_recht:obv.jpg}} \|

2021/11/26 18:00		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
-	====== The shift of the regulatory fines ======	+	====== The shift of the fixed penalties ======

-	At the end of 2013, the provisions on regulatory fines for hemp consumption entered into force. At the time, these were anchored in NarcA. Now they are being transferred to the completely revised Regulatory Fines Act. However, the deciding factor will be the ordinance.	+	At the end of 2013, the provisions on fixed penalties for hemp consumption entered into force. At the time, these were anchored in NarcA. Now they are being transferred to the completely revised Fixed Penalties Act. However, the deciding factor will be the ordinance.

	===== The second part of the NarcA revision =====		===== The second part of the NarcA revision =====

-	After the long discussions on legalization, decriminalization and the opportunity principle, which the National Council ended in 2004, the four-pillar principle was transferred to the Narcotics Act (NarcA) and as a consolation, there was the fines à 100 francs for police-observed cannabis use, which was also anchored in the NarcA. From October 2013, the first affected persons received such fines (OB), which is nevertheless a somewhat milder punishment than a report with a fine and fees. In the meantime, all cantons apply OB, although there are very large cantonal differences.	+	After the long discussions on legalization, decriminalization and the opportunity principle, which the National Council ended in 2004, the four-pillar principle was transferred to the Narcotics Act (NarcA) and as a consolation, there was the fixed penalties à 100 francs for police-observed cannabis use, which was also anchored in the NarcA. From October 2013, the first affected persons received such fixed penalties (OB), which is nevertheless a somewhat milder punishment than a report with a fine and fees. In the meantime, all cantons apply OB, although there are very large cantonal differences.

-	===== The idea of a law for all fines =====	+	===== The idea of a law for all fixed penalties =====

-	For several years there have been discussions to extend fines from the area of road traffic to other laws and to combine it in a totally revised OB Law (OBG) (until now only OB of the Road Traffic Law are listed there).	+	For several years there have been discussions to extend fixed penalties from the area of road traffic to other laws and to combine it in a totally revised OB Law (OBG) (until now only OB of the Road Traffic Law are listed there).

	The new OBG will now include minor violations from the laws concerning foreigners, asylum, unfair competition, nature and homeland protection, weapons, alcohol, road traffic, national road tolls, inland navigation, environmental protection, foodstuffs, protection against passive smoking, narcotics, forestry, hunting, fishing, as well as the law on travelers' trade (but not those from administrative criminal law).		The new OBG will now include minor violations from the laws concerning foreigners, asylum, unfair competition, nature and homeland protection, weapons, alcohol, road traffic, national road tolls, inland navigation, environmental protection, foodstuffs, protection against passive smoking, narcotics, forestry, hunting, fishing, as well as the law on travelers' trade (but not those from administrative criminal law).
Ligne 17:		Ligne 17:
	===== What will be in the law? =====		===== What will be in the law? =====

-	Some provisions have been laid down in the law: The above list of laws, the contravention of which can be punished by OB. The fine is a maximum of 300 francs. The cantons must still designate the police bodies and authorities that may issue such OB. OB are only possible for offenders who are at least 15 years old. For the NarcA a minimum age of 18 years is required (the younger ones are still reported). The Federal Council lists in an ordinance those violations that are to be punished by OB and determines the amount of the fine. Only if an offense is included in this list, there can be an OB for it, otherwise it will be reported as before.	+	Some provisions have been laid down in the law: The above list of laws, the contravention of which can be punished by OB. The fixed penalty has a maximum of 300 francs. The cantons must still designate the police bodies and authorities that may issue such OB. OB are only possible for offenders who are at least 15 years old. For the NarcA a minimum age of 18 years is required (the younger ones are still reported). The Federal Council lists in an ordinance those contraventions that are to be punished by OB and determines the amount of the fine. Only if an offense is included in this list, there can be an OB for it, otherwise it will be reported as before.

-	===== A regulatory fine law for the abolition of OB? =====	+	===== A fixed penalty law for the abolition of OB? =====

	An anti hemp group from the National Council wanted to use the deliberations to abolish the OB for cannabis use already again. For this they had found an elegant way: They only opposed the basic possibility to punish transgressions of NarcA in the OBG with OB and demanded the deletion of the corresponding paragraph. However, the deletion of the OB provisions from the NarcA listed further down the line would have remained in the OBG.... However, this squeeze was defeated: The project failed with 123 votes against 51 and 6 abstentions - the councils had just decided on the OB for cannabis.		An anti hemp group from the National Council wanted to use the deliberations to abolish the OB for cannabis use already again. For this they had found an elegant way: They only opposed the basic possibility to punish transgressions of NarcA in the OBG with OB and demanded the deletion of the corresponding paragraph. However, the deletion of the OB provisions from the NarcA listed further down the line would have remained in the OBG.... However, this squeeze was defeated: The project failed with 123 votes against 51 and 6 abstentions - the councils had just decided on the OB for cannabis.
Ligne 27:		Ligne 27:
	The main change is that the OB for cannabis use are now specified not in a law (NarcA), but in an ordinance to the OBG. This means that the Federal Council (and no longer the Parliament) determines these "details": For which transgressions is there now OB? What is the amount of the fine for them? Ordinances can be changed more quickly than a law.		The main change is that the OB for cannabis use are now specified not in a law (NarcA), but in an ordinance to the OBG. This means that the Federal Council (and no longer the Parliament) determines these "details": For which transgressions is there now OB? What is the amount of the fine for them? Ordinances can be changed more quickly than a law.

-	The most likely variant is that the Federal Council will simply list the consumption of cannabis in the OB list and set an amount of 100 francs for it. At least, these are the intentions from the message on the OBG. But the Federal Council can fan this out further, for example also listing possession or cultivation of some plants. At present, however, it seems unlikely that the Federal Council will go further here. All violations that are not listed in the ordinance to the OBG can therefore still not be punished by the police with an OB, but must be reported.	+	The most likely variant is that the Federal Council will simply list the consumption of cannabis in the OB list and set an amount of 100 francs for it. At least, these are the intentions from the message on the OBG. But the Federal Council can fan this out further, for example also listing possession or cultivation of some plants. At present, however, it seems unlikely that the Federal Council will go further here. All contraventions that are not listed in the ordinance to the OBG can therefore still not be punished by the police with an OB, but must be reported.

	===== The federal decree is decisive =====		===== The federal decree is decisive =====

	Whether the cantons will follow the provisions of the revised OBG more precisely and similarly than they do today (where there are massive differences) remains to be seen - in any case, it seems to be a goal. But first, the referendum period must now expire and then the Federal Council will submit a proposed ordinance, i.e. the concrete OB list, to the cantons for consultation. Only in these discussions will it be decided how exactly to proceed with the OB for cannabis.		Whether the cantons will follow the provisions of the revised OBG more precisely and similarly than they do today (where there are massive differences) remains to be seen - in any case, it seems to be a goal. But first, the referendum period must now expire and then the Federal Council will submit a proposed ordinance, i.e. the concrete OB list, to the cantons for consultation. Only in these discussions will it be decided how exactly to proceed with the OB for cannabis.
		+

2021/10/18 17:19		Version actuelle
Ligne 1:		Ligne 1:
	====== The minor amount of hemp: Does unpunished mean unpunished? ======		====== The minor amount of hemp: Does unpunished mean unpunished? ======

-	10 grams of cannabis is considered a small amount and this is exempt from punishment. This is what the Narcotics Act says. Nevertheless, there was practically always a fine** or a fine when this was detected by the police.	+	10 grams of cannabis is considered a small amount and this is exempt from punishment. This is what the Narcotics Act says. Nevertheless, there was practically always a fixed penalty** or a fine when this was detected by the police.
	**		**
	In principle, everything above 1% THC is prohibited and handling it is punishable. "Narcotics of the effect type cannabis" - as hash and weed are called in the Narcotics Law (NarcA) - are prohibited narcotics according to Article 8 NarcA. The article 19a item 1 itself criminalizes the consumption. However, there are two provisions that limit or relativize this total prohibition:		In principle, everything above 1% THC is prohibited and handling it is punishable. "Narcotics of the effect type cannabis" - as hash and weed are called in the Narcotics Law (NarcA) - are prohibited narcotics according to Article 8 NarcA. The article 19a item 1 itself criminalizes the consumption. However, there are two provisions that limit or relativize this total prohibition:
Ligne 13:		Ligne 13:
	⇒ NarcA 19b para. 2: 10 grams of a narcotic drug of the cannabis effect type is considered a minor quantity.		⇒ NarcA 19b para. 2: 10 grams of a narcotic drug of the cannabis effect type is considered a minor quantity.

-	The specification of the number of grams has been in effect since October 1, 2013 (together with the introduction of the administrative fine provisions in Articles 28b-28l, which, however, only concern the consumption of cannabis).	+	The specification of the number of grams has been in effect since October 1, 2013 (together with the introduction of the egulatory fine provisions in Articles 28b-28l, which, however, only concern the consumption of cannabis).

	On this date we had published our 9th edition of the legal aid brochure Shit happens. In it we wrote that according to NarcA the possession of up to 10 grams of cannabis for one's own consumption or also handed over among adults for simultaneous and gratuitous consumption is quite clearly exempt from punishment. "Quasi-legal" we called this range of handling weed and hash. (However, the consumption is always prohibited).		On this date we had published our 9th edition of the legal aid brochure Shit happens. In it we wrote that according to NarcA the possession of up to 10 grams of cannabis for one's own consumption or also handed over among adults for simultaneous and gratuitous consumption is quite clearly exempt from punishment. "Quasi-legal" we called this range of handling weed and hash. (However, the consumption is always prohibited).
Ligne 21:		Ligne 21:
	But with the definition of the minor quantity in grams, this provision could not be further ignored? Well, the police and public prosecutors could very well and saw no reason at all to deviate from their practice.		But with the definition of the minor quantity in grams, this provision could not be further ignored? Well, the police and public prosecutors could very well and saw no reason at all to deviate from their practice.

-	Despite the rather clear initial situation, many of those concerned continued to receive a fine or a fine if the police found them with less than 10 grams. The Zurich cantonal police, for example, had explicitly stated in their service orders that such possession (which was not punishable by law) was to be punished with a fine (100 francs).	+	Despite the rather clear initial situation, many of those concerned continued to receive a fixed penalty or a fine if the police found them with less than 10 grams. The Zurich cantonal police, for example, had explicitly stated in their service orders that such possession (which was not punishable by law) was to be punished with a fixed penalty (100 francs).

-	What should penalized persons do now? Those who had received a fine for 100 francs for an unpunished possession were rightly annoyed - but how could those affected have got their rights? Only by not accepting the fine, choosing the ordinary procedure, then receiving a penal order with a fine and fees (at least 250 francs), contesting it and then having to wait for the first instance court session.	+	What should penalized persons do now? Those who had received a fixed penalty for 100 francs for an unpunished possession were rightly annoyed - but how could those affected have got their rights? Only by not accepting the fixed penalty, choosing the ordinary procedure, then receiving a summary penalty order with a fine and fees (at least 250 francs), contesting it and then having to wait for the first instance court session.

	A very big effort therefore - and in addition the risk that the costs could become higher than at the beginning. Because even if the fine would have been cancelled (which I would have thought very likely), the fees would have remained with the persons concerned (which I would also have thought very likely, because in such cases the authorities like to argue that it is a forbidden substance after all, that they should have initiated the criminal proceedings, etc.). Such costs can quickly amount to 500 francs in a district court, even without a fine.		A very big effort therefore - and in addition the risk that the costs could become higher than at the beginning. Because even if the fine would have been cancelled (which I would have thought very likely), the fees would have remained with the persons concerned (which I would also have thought very likely, because in such cases the authorities like to argue that it is a forbidden substance after all, that they should have initiated the criminal proceedings, etc.). Such costs can quickly amount to 500 francs in a district court, even without a fine.

-	Therefore, I could not recommend this as a standard procedure to all concerned. But there were some penalized people who just didn't want to take it and take the experiment upon themselves. So they did not pay the fine they had received. And waited. Some of them waited a long time.	+	Therefore, I could not recommend this as a standard procedure to all concerned. But there were some penalized people who just didn't want to take it and take the experiment upon themselves. So they did not pay the fixed penalty they had received. And waited. Some of them waited a long time.

	A stroke of luck was that Till Eigenheer, a Jus student, had also come to the conclusion, as we had, that this practice did not work at all. He then represented a person who had been fined before the Zurich District Court. As expected, the court acquitted the defendant (it was about the possession of 8 grams detected by the police in March 2015). The verdict dates from September 2015 - we see how long those affected have to wait (at least) in such cases. But the surprising thing was that not only was there an acquittal, but the defendant also did not have to pay any costs for the proceedings and his defense lawyer even received a well-deserved 200 francs compensation for the effort.		A stroke of luck was that Till Eigenheer, a Jus student, had also come to the conclusion, as we had, that this practice did not work at all. He then represented a person who had been fined before the Zurich District Court. As expected, the court acquitted the defendant (it was about the possession of 8 grams detected by the police in March 2015). The verdict dates from September 2015 - we see how long those affected have to wait (at least) in such cases. But the surprising thing was that not only was there an acquittal, but the defendant also did not have to pay any costs for the proceedings and his defense lawyer even received a well-deserved 200 francs compensation for the effort.
Ligne 53:		Ligne 53:
	The consumption, however, would not have to be punished. There would still be the light case, which can end with a discontinuation of the proceedings or a warning. But this provision is practically never applied. But the Federal Court mentions in its ruling in passing: //"According to the practice of the Federal Court, the consumption of small amounts of drugs falls under Art. 19a No. 2 NarcA"//. Therefore, a warning or simply the discontinuation of the proceedings would be the right thing to do. There should not be a fine for it at all. The law enforcement agencies should not like that either - if they take note of it at all.		The consumption, however, would not have to be punished. There would still be the light case, which can end with a discontinuation of the proceedings or a warning. But this provision is practically never applied. But the Federal Court mentions in its ruling in passing: //"According to the practice of the Federal Court, the consumption of small amounts of drugs falls under Art. 19a No. 2 NarcA"//. Therefore, a warning or simply the discontinuation of the proceedings would be the right thing to do. There should not be a fine for it at all. The law enforcement agencies should not like that either - if they take note of it at all.

-	In principle, the punishment of the consumption is simply a disregard of the freedom rights of our federal constitution, hardly proportionate and should be omitted. The fines are applicable to the consumption, but only the observed, so mostly in public. This could still be accepted if a society does not want to see such activity. But punishing private consumption is disproportionate. All those who participate should think about this. The Federal Court ruling shows the direction for this - based on the current legal situation. But whether this will ever find its way into the practice of police forces and public prosecutors' offices? Doubts are warranted.	+	In principle, the punishment of the consumption is simply a disregard of the freedom rights of our federal constitution, hardly proportionate and should be omitted. The fixed penalties are applicable to the consumption, but only the observed, so mostly in public. This could still be accepted if a society does not want to see such activity. But punishing private consumption is disproportionate. All those who participate should think about this. The Federal Court ruling shows the direction for this - based on the current legal situation. But whether this will ever find its way into the practice of police forces and public prosecutors' offices? Doubts are warranted.

	In any case, we will observe the further handling of the minor quantity and the minor case and are happy to receive any documentation on this.		In any case, we will observe the further handling of the minor quantity and the minor case and are happy to receive any documentation on this.
Ligne 80:		Ligne 80:
	**		**
	On Saturday, May 13, 2017, at 10:40 p.m., the defendant was controlled by the police in Aesch (...). (...) Thereby, about 5 gr. marijuana and about 2 gr. hashish, as well as a used joint and a hemp mill could be assigned to him. Due to the situation, the Basel-Landschaft police made a report and reported him to the public prosecutor Basel-Landschaft.		On Saturday, May 13, 2017, at 10:40 p.m., the defendant was controlled by the police in Aesch (...). (...) Thereby, about 5 gr. marijuana and about 2 gr. hashish, as well as a used joint and a hemp mill could be assigned to him. Due to the situation, the Basel-Landschaft police made a report and reported him to the public prosecutor Basel-Landschaft.
-	Based on the police report, the public prosecutor Basel-Landschaft issued a penal order against the defendant on July 18, 2017 for multiple violations of the Narcotics Act. The defendant filed an objection against this penal order in due time on July 31, 2017. On the occasion of the interrogation at the public prosecutor Basel-Landschaft on September 6, 2017, the defendant confirmed the possession of the seized narcotics, but not the consumption of them. He had the intention to consume narcotics, but did not get to do so, as he had previously been controlled by the police. The defendant's objections regarding consumption cannot be refuted. In this factual and evidentiary situation, the defendant cannot be proven to have consumed narcotics. Accordingly, the proceedings are to be discontinued for lack of evidence (...). The mere possession of less than 10 grams is not punishable. (...)	+	Based on the police report, the public prosecutor Basel-Landschaft issued a summary penalty order against the defendant on July 18, 2017 for multiple violations of the Narcotics Act. The defendant filed an objection against this summary penalty order in due time on July 31, 2017. On the occasion of the interrogation at the public prosecutor Basel-Landschaft on September 6, 2017, the defendant confirmed the possession of the seized narcotics, but not the consumption of them. He had the intention to consume narcotics, but did not get to do so, as he had previously been controlled by the police. The defendant's objections regarding consumption cannot be refuted. In this factual and evidentiary situation, the defendant cannot be proven to have consumed narcotics. Accordingly, the proceedings are to be discontinued for lack of evidence (...). The mere possession of less than 10 grams is not punishable. (...)