Chile Is Rethinking Cannabis Possession Laws—And It Might Backfire

in Culture

Chile is advancing a controversial reform that could impose harsher penalties for cannabis possession by shifting legal criteria from quantity to perceived “potential harm.” The move has sparked a constitutional challenge, raising concerns about legal ambiguity and the risk of criminalizing users, growers, and patients.

Last week, the Chilean Congress advanced an amendment to Law 20,000 that toughens penalties for possession and small-scale trafficking of drugs classified as capable of causing “serious toxic effects or considerable harm to health.” Does cannabis fall under this category? Apparently, yes.

This is not the first time the country has found itself caught between two opposing viewpoints: one that recognizes the plant’s therapeutic value and another that pushes for harsher penalties. But this time, the conflict is escalating—not only politically, but constitutionally as well.

In response to this decision by the authorities, 37 members of Congress—in an effort led by Representative Ana María Gazmuri—filed an appeal with Chile’s Constitutional Court to block this new regulation, raising questions about who can be considered a criminal and under what criteria. The main concern is that it does not only target large trafficking networks, but could also affect users, growers, and even patients who use cannabis for therapeutic purposes.

From Quantity to “Potential Harm”: The Shift Redefining Prosecution

For years, Chilean law operated with relatively clear criteria: the amount of substance seized helped distinguish between personal use and trafficking. That threshold, though imperfect, served as a benchmark under Article 4 of Law 20,000, which penalizes the possession of small quantities unless personal use or medical treatment is justified.

This reform changes that logic. The new approach allows for harsher penalties even in cases involving small quantities if the substance is deemed capable of causing “serious toxic effects or significant harm to health.” Legally speaking, this means …

Read More

Author: Camila Berriex / High Times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Latest from Culture

0 $0.00
Go to Top