Cannabis light Cassation | “It is a crime to sell cannabis light”

Senator M5s Matteo Mantero. Credit: ANSA/ANGELO CARCONI

The sale and transfer of these substances, according to the judges, would constitute a crime provided for by the Consolidated Law on Drugs dating back to 1990, and therefore the law passed in 2016 would not at all allow the sale or transfer of any kind of products "derived from the cultivation of cannabis" such as, for example, oil or inflorescences.

Senator Mantero, what do you think of this sentence? It is difficult at this time to declare anything concrete on the subject since the reasons for the sentence that would clarify the issue have not yet been released. In practice, according to what has been learned, anyone who sells cannabis derivatives, a sale that is not included in the scope of law 242 of 2016, commits the crime provided for by the consolidated text of 1990, essentially dealing. However, this crime provides for non-integration in the case in which these derivatives do not contain substances with narcotic effects. Therefore, it would practically save the inflorescences and derivatives that have a THC content of less than 0.5 percent.

Which are the ones sold by the so-called cannabis shops Exactly, they are the ones on sale, so in theory this ruling should not have any effect on those who comply with the requirements. At the same time, however, this ruling has created confusion among people who have legitimately invested a lot of money in this sector, there are about 3-4 thousand shops in Italy, and just as many consumers who have invested in production and right now these people don't even know if they will be able to keep their businesses and activities open because they don't know if tomorrow, when they open the shutters, they will find the Finance Police giving them a fine. It's quite a strange situation.

But if the sentence is rigorously applied, will the traders who find themselves closing down receive compensation?

You are the author of a bill to legalize cannabis. Would your bill fill this regulatory gap? Yes, my bill also clarifies this aspect and provides that inflorescences can be sold, also integrating controls to protect the consumer. At the moment, most producers are very careful to respect the legal requirements, but in fact, since they are not products for human consumption, it is clear that there could be some shortcomings. Therefore, it would be protective for consumers to have legislation that establishes what type of substances can be sold, with what THC content and the product's commercial indication, for herbal, ornamental use and so on. I hope we get there soon, we are trying to understand if we can transform this part into an amendment so that it is possible to fill this gap.

In your opinion, could the Salvini directive, combined with this ruling, favor the closure of cannabis shops? Allow me the term, but the directive issued by Salvini is quite nonsense in the sense that it establishes that checks could have been carried out on health authorizations and permits for activities and therefore go and verify that commercial establishments do not sell substances with THC higher than what is required by law. So I think nothing should change. Everything will then depend on the actions of the police but in theory, if the police refer to the 1990 law, the substance that has a THC lower than 0.5 should not be illegal, therefore the sale should be permitted. There should be no problems, but we will see in the coming weeks how the situation evolves and in any case once the reasons of the Court of Cassation are published