Czech Republic To Decriminalize Cannabis As Legalization Plan Stalls
The lower house of the Czech Republic has approved an amendment that would decriminalize cannabis for personal use at a time when the process of full legalization is stalled.
The Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic passed an amendment last week with an overwhelming majority of 142 out of 159 votes. The amendment would modify the Criminal Code to ease restrictions on cannabis possession and cultivation, and it is part of a broader series of changes aimed at introducing alternative punishments to reduce prison overcrowding.
Adults over 21 will be allowed to legally grow up to three cannabis plants per person, with growing four to five plants considered a misdemeanor and more than five plants treated as a felony. Home possession will allow up to 100 grams of cannabis flower legally, while possession of 101 to 200 grams is considered a misdemeanor, and more than 200 grams constitutes a felony offense. Public possession would be limited to up to 25 grams, with possession of 26 to 50 grams considered a misdemeanor and possession of more than 50 grams regarded as a criminal offense.
If approved by the Senate, the amendment is expected to be implemented next year. This would place the Czech Republic among the European countries that have regulated the possession and cultivation of cannabis for personal use. Germany, Luxembourg, and Malta have already done so through legalization rather than decriminalization.
The Czech Republic already decriminalized the possession and cultivation of small amounts of cannabis in 2010. This was based on Government Regulation No. 467/2009, which allowed individuals to possess up to 15 grams of dried cannabis or cultivate up to five plants for personal use without facing criminal charges.
However, in 2013, the Czech Constitutional Court annulled the 2010 government directive, ruling that only a law, not a government, could define criminal offenses. This led to legal ambiguity until the Czech Supreme Court established stricter guidelines regarding non-criminal amounts, reducing possession to 10 grams.
Therefore, if this amendment is approved, it would officially decriminalize cannabis by law.
The plan to formalize the decriminalization of cannabis for personal use is viewed as a more cautious approach compared to earlier attempts to regulate the substance in the Czech Republic.
In 2022, the Czech Republic announced its plan to legalize cannabis, following Germany's example, which legalized recreational cannabis for personal use without sales in April 2024.
However, while the Czech initiative initially aimed to create a legal market, by 2024, when it disclosed its plan for legalization, it became clear that there was no room to establish one, as it didn't include regulations for sales.
Despite this more cautious approach, the Czech plan, which is part of a broader strategy to modernize drug policies, reduce the illicit market, and generate tax revenue, now results in a legislative stalemate due to political divisions over full legalization.
Therefore, the amendment to decriminalize the possession and cultivation of cannabis appears to be a more conservative approach to regulating cannabis in the country, while leaving room for the full legalization process to unfold.
In the last few years, the Czech Republic has also taken steps to regulate substances beyond cannabis.
The Czech Republic Ministry of Agriculture has been planning since 2023 the restriction of the sale of products containing CBD and other hemp-based cannabinoids, saying that there is no scientific proof of their health result and pointing to the EU rules on novel foods. The plan, however, was never implemented. CBD products are legally available but have never been officially approved as food or medicine.
In 2024, the Parliament of the Czech Republic adopted a draft law regulating synthetic cannabinoids and emerging psychoactive substances such as HHC and kratom. Growing health concerns on this issue, including some involving minors, led to the temporary banning of HHC at the beginning of 2024 and the drafting of new laws establishing a framework to control psychoactive substances, including age restrictions, sales restrictions to specialized stores, banning sale through vending machines, and online sales without verification.
Instead of altogether banning kratom and HHC, the Czech Republic is, therefore, going to put them into a special regulatory category, neither food nor medicine, which indicates a shift toward regulated oversight and harm reduction measures.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia won't let Ukrainian forces rest until Putin's demands are met – Russian deputy foreign minister
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has stated that Moscow will not allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to "use any pause to rest and regroup" without "eliminating the root causes of the conflict". Source: Ryabkov in an interview with Kremlin-aligned Russian news agency TASS Details: Ryabkov emphasised that US President Donald Trump's return to the White House has become a "reason for cautious optimism" in Russia regarding the normalisation of relations with the United States. He said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin during phone conversations with Trump "confirmed the basic directive on the necessity to eliminate the root causes of the conflict within the framework of political and diplomatic efforts". Ryabkov noted that if the Kremlin's conditions are not met, Russia will act to prevent the Armed Forces of Ukraine from taking advantage of "any pause to rest and regroup". According to him, the Kremlin's position is well known to Washington and threats of sanctions will not change it. "It is strange that hotheads in the US Senate, who have lost their last remnants of common sense, are ignoring this reality. We will continue efforts to achieve the objectives of the special military operation [Russian propaganda term for the war in Ukraine – ed.]. Thus, the decision and the choice are up to Washington, up to Trump," Ryabkov concluded. Background: On 3 June, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council and former president of the Russian Federation, declared that the true purpose of the so-called peace talks with Ukraine in Istanbul is to ensure Russia's swift and complete victory. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Reform declares war on all gold-plated public sector pensions
A Reform UK government would radically overhaul gold-plated public sector pensions to stop them bankrupting Britain. Richard Tice told The Telegraph he would put everything on the table and end the taxpayer 'rip off' if his party won the next general election. Reform's deputy leader said the party would consider moving all public sector employees out of their 'Rolls-Royce' pension plans and into the defined contribution schemes almost all private sector workers have. Britain currently hands £54bn a year to public sector retirees and another £35bn in pension contributions to current state workers, with both groups entitled to guaranteed, inflation-linked payments for life. It comes after Reform pledged to axe defined benefit council pensions, which a recent Telegraph investigation revealed now costs some local authorities more than half of what they raise in council tax. Britain currently has more than three million public sector pensioners, the vast majority of whom are retired NHS workers, teachers, civil servants and members of the armed forces. Their schemes are all unfunded, meaning the contributions that come in from employers and employees are immediately used to pay current retirees, rather than being prudently invested to pay future pensions. However, contributions have fallen short of the amounts paid out, with taxpayers funding a £49bn shortfall over the past decade alone. Historically, they also haven't covered the cost of new pension rights built up by current workers. John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, calculated that the shortfall between contributions and future pensions was £208bn between 2013-23 – and it will be met by current and future taxpayers. The system, which would be illegal in the private sector, has built up pension liabilities running into the trillions. Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Tice said action was needed where successive governments had failed. He said: 'We've got to have these conversations over the next few years and wake people up as to why we're in such a financial mess. Public sector pay and benefits have soared and yet productivity has collapsed, and it's a catastrophe. 'I want to be honest with the country. I want to say, 'if we don't sort this out, this will be a major factor in the country going bankrupt'. It's that serious.' He also confirmed that Reform would consider moving every public sector worker into the type of defined contribution schemes that almost all private sector workers are members of. He added: 'Everything has got to be on the table. The old rule was that public pay was less than the private sector because they had a more generous pension scheme, but successive governments have lifted pay in the public sector and therefore the old deal is no longer valid. 'Bluntly, there's been a failure to be honest about this. The public sector has pulled the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer. We're going to talk about it for the next four years: that taxpayers are being ripped off and it can't go on.' Last week, Mr Tice said that Reform-controlled councils would stop offering the generous pension scheme to new employees and reduce pay rises for existing workers to balance out the cost of funding their retirements. The Local Government Pension Scheme, the largest funded scheme in the UK, already spends £15bn a year on paying pensions across Britain. A recent Telegraph investigation uncovered five local authorities that stuff more than half of their council tax into staff pension pots. Another 19 fork out more than a third, while 60 spend more than a fifth on funding the generous schemes. It came after a series of Telegraph revelations about the cost of public sector pensions. Last year, we calculated that Britain's current bill was £4.9 trillion, with each household on the hook for £173,000. In October, we reported that another £20bn would be added to taxpayer-funded pension payouts after they rose another 1.7pc following September's inflation figure. Last month, we showed how the latest public sector pay rise would cost another £1bn in pension contributions alone. We also revealed how taxpayers have been handed extra pension bills of £45bn for Royal Mail, £1.7bn for the Environment Agency and more than £300m for retired train drivers. Switching public sector workers to defined contribution pensions could send the taxpayer's annual bill plummeting to around £4.5bn, saving almost £28bn a year, calculations have shown. However, Barry McKay, of pensions firm Barnett Waddingham, warned it would be difficult to make the change. He said: 'If you move to defined contribution, those contributions paid by existing workers would go into a pot somewhere to be invested and grow for the benefit of each worker, but in doing so there would be no money coming in to pay existing pensions. 'The Treasury would have to find a huge amount of money to pay the existing pensioners from somewhere else, because they don't have the contribution income any more. That leaves a massive hole in the Treasury accounts.' He added: 'There is a problem that we're effectively stuck with defined benefit.' Neil Record, a pensions expert and former Bank of England economist, said: 'The only practical solution to public sector pensions' increasingly intolerable burden on taxpayers is for the Government to offer a cash alternative, as an option, to all public sector employees. 'My guess is that in return for an approximately 30pc pay rise, most public sector employees would choose to give up accruing new pension rights as long as their existing rights were fully honoured.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
an hour ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
