Report on

criminalization of
Cannabis users
in Slovenia

July 2014

Editorial board and authors (A-Z):

Friki Samuel, Kohek Maja, Nolimal Duan *, Pravdi Zdravko, Radii Boidar.
Design (A-Z):
Poldauf Simon, gur Vita
For the content of this publication are responsible its authors.
Publisher:
ONEJ - Association of Prekmurje Initiative, Trg Zmage 4, Murska Sobota, Slovenia
Publication year:
2014
Electronic source.
Website: http://onej.info/

The views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for public health Slovenia (NIJZ).

Table of Content

Introduction

Ratio between criminal offences and misdemeanors

in individual police departments in Slovenia ...

Legislation perspectives

12

Some individual cases of criminalization of recreational drug

Users in Pomurje (NE of Slovenia) ...

17

The Cultivation and use of Cannabis as self-medication

in Slovenia ..

18

The recent response of decision makers and medical experts

in Slovenia ......

19

Conclusion .....

21

The following report is a product of ONEJ Association of Prekmurje Initiative in collaboration with
Cannabis users, patients, doctors, lawyers, judges and other experts from Slovenia.
It should be seen as an additional argument against enforcement of prohibitive laws, and it should
offer a short insight into different realities that we face in the field of drugs, especially Cannabis, in
the Republic of Slovenia.
All statistical data was collected in the last years from the police reports in individual police
departments.

The substance is always the cultural values invested in it,

and this applies whether the values be those of
the police, the pharmacologist or the user.
- M. McDonald, 1994

Introduction
We are concerned about the negative and counter-productive effects of Cannabis
prohibition, increased repression approaches and related harms to Cannabis users in Slovenia and
other EU countries. It is our opinion that the prohibition of Cannabis and many other drugs had
already gone beyond the bounds of reason and often incriminates individuals that are in reality not
criminals at all. There is the ever increasing number of new psychoactive substances in parallel with
increases in repression ("prohibition increased drug use"). The increased repression only encourages
more organized crime and overburdens police, courts and the penal system. The repression had
already encouraged many drug users and other young people to consider the drug laws as
unimportant, instead of something good and protecting. And finally, international research had
shown the value of medicinal Cannabis in relieving suffering associated with some severe conditions
in a manner less harmful than opiate. Yet, despite the scientific evidence, prohibition laws in Slovenia
still prohibit the use of the Cannabis plant. Such prohibition has done far more harm to far more
people than Cannabis use ever could.
In Slovenia there are today more than 200.000 Cannabis users and each year there are
around 2,000 recorded criminal offences involving Cannabis (Ministry for internal affairs, 1993-2012).
Most of them end with the verdict "guilty. On the other hand we have for example only 70 recorded
criminal offences per year involving corruption in case of which only few of them actually end with
the verdict guilty (Commission for the prevention of corruption, 2005-11). The number of seized
Cannabis plantations or laboratories has considerably risen in the last four years as well as the
amount of seized Cannabis (in kg). (Figure 1)

Figure 1 - Nolimal D., et al. (2014): Linking research in public health with policy and practice: The Cannabis Case,
National institute for public health. Introductory lecture at the seminar Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes
from the Demystifying Cannabis series in Ljubljana, Onej 29.03.2014. Source: Law enforcement statistics

Of those imprisoned, we have a constant of more than 20% in prison for drugs, most of whom are
Cannabis users. (Figure 2)

Figure 2 - Nolimal D., et al. (2014): Linking research in public health with policy and practice: The Cannabis Case,
National institute for public health. Introductory lecture at the seminar Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes
from the Demystifying Cannabis series in Ljubljana, Onej 29.03.2014. Source: Prison statistics

An estimated EUR 9,790,530.72 were spent on the solution of drug-related problems in

Slovenia only in the year 2012 (EMCDDA, 2013).
In the last 10 years we recorded more than 78,900 law violations in the field of drugs. In comparison
to the European average, a Slovenian Cannabis user experiences three times more repression. This is
the consequence of open but loosely defined laws and uniformed judges, police, prosecutors and
medical experts.
According to EMCDDA report we have one of the highest Cannabis seizure rates or recorded criminal
offences and misdemeanours amongst the European countries. These high rates are indications for
excessive penalization of drug users rather than for successfulness of law enforcement or high crime
rates. (Figure 3)

Figure 3 - Nolimal D., et al. (2014): Linking research in public health with policy and practice: The Cannabis Case,
National institute for public health. Introductory lecture at the seminar Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes
from the Demystifying Cannabis series in Ljubljana, Onej 29.03.2014. Source: EMCDDA 2007-2011.

Already in 1999 the Republic of Slovenia decriminalized total drug use, but some statistical data with
a deepened analysis and especially the reality of users tells us a different story. The harm that is
experienced by Cannabis users in Slovenia because of rigid, unjust and irrational structures is far
greater than the harm that could be done by using Cannabis.

Ratio between criminal offences and

misdemeanors in individual police
departments in Slovenia

According to the individual official police statistics more than 50% of all criminal
investigations are in the field of drugs (mostly Cannabis: at least 70%). The individual cases which
show a clear criminalization of drug users in Slovenia, especially Cannabis users, are alarming. Each
year there are more and more cases where drug users are convicted of trafficking. This is evident also
from the police statistics where a couple of police departments stand out with their inverted ratio.
While the average ratio between criminal offences and misdemeanours related to drugs in the EU
goes for 18% of criminal offences and 82% of misdemeanours (EMCDDA, 2013), in Slovenia the
average ratio is 30% criminal offences and 70% misdemeanours (Figure 4).

Figure 4 - Nolimal D., et al. (2014): Linking research in public health with policy and practice: The Cannabis Case,
National institute for public health. Introductory lecture at the seminar Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes
from the Demystifying Cannabis series in Ljubljana, Onej 29.03.2014. Source: Law enforcement statistics.

What is more, our attention was particularly attracted by the ratio which was recorded in
Police Administration Unit Murska Sobota (PAU MS). There is an average of 70% of criminal offences
(The Criminal Code KZ-1) and only 30% of misdemeanours (Production of and Trade in Illicit Drugs Act
ZPPPD). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia). (Figure 5 and 6)

Figure 5 Ratio between criminal offences (KZ-1) and misdemeanours (ZPPPD) according to police statistics in
Slovenia between 2003-2010. Source: Ministry for internal affairs, Police.

Figure 6 Average ratio of criminal offences (KZ-1) and misdemeanours (ZPPPD) in the field of drugs per 1,000
inhabitants 2003-2010. Source: Ministry for internal affairs, Police

Another worrying piece of information is that PAU MS has recorded the highest rates of
criminal offences in the field of drugs in Slovenia. The Slovenian average is 5 criminal offences (KZ-1)
and 9 misdemeanours (ZPPPD) per 1,000 inhabitants, but the average of PAU MS is alarming, 10
criminal offences and only 4 misdemeanours (ZPPPD) per 1,000 inhabitants. (Figures 7 and 8)

Figure 7 Average number of criminal offences and misdemeanours in the field of drugs per policeman
between 2003-2010. Source: Ministry for internal affairs, Police.

Figure 8 Number of criminal offences (KZ-1) and misdemeanours (ZPPPD) at PAU MS between 2002-2011.
Source: Ministry for internal affairs, Police.

Figure 8 tells us a rather meaningful story. Due to higher (meaning, artificially constructed)
amount of crimes related to drugs, PAU MS in 2010 even set up a special group in the CAP-PAU
Murska Sobota that was meant for fighting against drug trafficking and prosecuting Cannabis users in
particular. It is evident that in the year 2005 there was no record of misdemeanours in the field of
drugs, but on the other hand there was an outstanding increase of criminal offences.

10

From the analysis of the PAU MS performance in the field of drugs between the years 20022011 it is evident that PAU MS has the lowest percent of misdemeanours (ZPPPD) in Slovenia; that
PAU MS is the most ineffective in the field of production and trade of illicit drugs and that PAU MS is
artificially increasing their successfulness by treating cases as criminal offences, which in fact should
be treated as misdemeanours according to ZPPPD. The PAU MS is conscious of their incorrect and
illegal proceedings and acknowledges this in their report. This is a misuse of police authority that
leads to the detriment of individuals which possess small quantities of Cannabis or cultivate a small
number of Cannabis plants for self-supply and are because of that prosecuted for criminal offences
instead of misdemeanours. Even more concern raises the fact that the State Attorney's Office and
the courts support such practice uncritically. There is also no evidence for regulation of police
proceedings by the courts (not even the Supreme Court of Republic Slovenia) in a way that would
acquit individuals treated by PAU MS for small quantities of Cannabis and accused for criminal
offences when it is evident (even to the police) that they should be treated as misdemeanours.
The punitive policy in Slovenia (that is crucially shaped by the courts) can differ from region
to region even in a country as small as Slovenia. This fact is unacceptable and represents a violation
of the constitutional right for equal treatment and points to the state's failure to comply with the
law. This also means that the courts (at least in drug related cases) are not functioning as
professional and autonomous authorities because they are more or less uncritical of statements and
actions by prosecutors and police.

11

LEGISLATION PERSPECTIVES
The legal standing in the field of drugs is represented foremost by the Production of and
Trade in Illicit Drugs Act (ZPPPD, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia no. 108/99) and the
Criminal Code (KZ-1, Uradni list RS, t. 55/2008). On the basis of ZPPPD the government of Slovenia
adopted also the list of illicit drugs (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia no. 49/2000 and
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia no. 45/2014) that are classified in one of the three groups
with regard to the seriousness of the human health risks:
Group I: plants and substances which are very dangerous to human health due to the severe
consequences which can be caused by their abuse, and which are not used in medicine;
Group II: plants and substances which are very dangerous due to the severe consequences
which can be caused by their abuse, and which can be used in medicine;
Group III: plants and substances which are of medium danger due to the consequences
which can be caused by their abuse, and which can be used in medicine.
We want to point out the Article 33 of ZPPPD that says:
Individuals shall be liable to a monetary fine of between SIT 50,000 and SIT 150,000 or a
prison sentence of up to 30 days for committing the offence of possessing illicit drugs in
contravention of the provisions of this Act.
Individuals shall be liable to a monetary fine of between SIT 10,000 and SIT 50,000 or a prison
sentence of up to 5 days for committing the offence of possessing a smaller quantity of illicit
drugs for one-off personal use.
In accordance with the provisions of the Misdemeanours Act, persons who commit the
offence specified in the first paragraph of this article and who possess a smaller quantity of
illicit drugs for one-off personal use and persons who commit the offence specified in the
preceding paragraph may be subject to more lenient punishment if they voluntarily enter the
programme of treatment for illicit drug users or social security programmes approved by the
Health Council or Council for Drugs.
and Articles 186. Unlawful Manufacture and Trade of Narcotic Drugs, Illicit Substances in Sport and
Precursors to Manufacture Narcotic Drugs and 187. Rendering Opportunity for Consumption of
Narcotic Drugs or Illicit Substances in Sport of KZ-1 that say:
Article 186
(1) Whoever unlawfully manufactures, processes, sells or offers for sale plants or substances,
which are classified as narcotic drugs or illicit substances in sport, or whoever purchases,
keeps or transports such drugs or substances with a view to resell them, or the precursors,
12

which are used to manufacture narcotic drugs, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not
less than one and not more than ten years.
(2) Whoever sells, offers for sale or hands out free of charge narcotic drugs or precursors to
manufacture narcotic drugs to a minor, mentally disabled person, person with a temporary
mental disturbance, severe mental retardation or person who is in the rehabilitation, or if
the offence is committed in educational institutions or in immediate vicinity thereof, in
prisons, military units, public places or public events, or if the offence under paragraph 1 is
committed by a civil servant, priest, doctor, social worker, teacher or educator and thereby
exploits his position, or whoever in order to commit the mentioned offence uses minors shall
be sentenced to imprisonment between three and fifteen years.
(3) If an offence from paragraphs 1 or 2 was committed within a criminal organisation for the
committing of such criminal offences, or if the perpetrator of this offence organised a
network of resellers or agents, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to imprisonment between
five and fifteen years.
(4) Whoever without an authorisation manufactures, purchases, possesses or furnishes other
persons with the equipment, substances or precursors, which are to his knowledge intended
for the manufacture of narcotic drugs or illicit substances in sport, shall be sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than six months and not more than five year.
(5) Narcotic drugs or illicit substances in sport and the means of their manufacture and
means of transport with a specially adapted space for the transport and storage of drugs or
illicit substances in sport shall be seized.

Article 187
(1) Whoever solicits another person to use narcotic drugs or illegal doping substances or
provides a person with drugs to be used by him or by a third person, or whoever provides a
person with a place or other facility for the use of narcotic drugs or illicit substances in sport
shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months and not more than eight
years.
(2) Whoever commits the offence under paragraph 1 against several persons, a minor,
mentally disabled person, person with a temporary mental disturbance, severe mental
retardation or person who is in the rehabilitation, or if the offence is committed in
educational institutions or in immediate vicinity thereof, in prisons, military units, public
places or public events, or if the offence under paragraph 1 is committed by a civil servant,
priest, doctor, social worker, teacher or educator, and thereby exploits his position, shall be
sentenced to imprisonment between one and twelve years.
(3) Narcotic drugs, illicit substances in sport and the tools for their consumption shall be
seized.

13

The article 33 is disputable as a whole. In the first paragraph it stipulates an offence for
possessing negligible amounts of illicit drugs and in the second paragraph it stipulates even more
severe offences for possessing a smaller quantity of illicit drugs for one-off personal use. The articles
are confusing and contradictory because it would be normal to expect that the first paragraph
defines a lighter sentence for the possession of smaller quantity of illicit drugs for one-off personal
use and for the second paragraph defines a heavier sentence for larger quantity of illicit drugs. The
current definitions enable punishments with heavier sentences already for negligible amounts of
illicit drugs. The quantity that should differ between lighter and heavier sentence, but not explicitly
determined and because of that even the possession of negligible amounts of illicit drugs can be
punishable by a heavier sentence and as criminal offences. The acts do not clearly define the specific
amount considered as smaller quantity of illicit drugs for one-off personal use.
From the Poroevalec Dravnega zbora (PoDZ-1, Parliament official bulletin), where proposed laws
are listed as well as the process of passing the laws with amendments, the purpose for such
definition is not clear as well as it is not clear why the statutory provisions changed if compared to
the first draft of the Act. According to an explanation of one of the members of the expert group
assigned for the preparation of the law, they were trying to avoid the definition of specific quantity
that should differ between a lighter and heavier sentence. Instead they left the decision to the courts
that determine the difference between misdemeanour and criminal offence, by which possession of
illicit drugs for (not only one-off) personal use is insufficient for a criminal offence. Evidence on the
possession with the intentions to sell can be prosecuted as a criminal offence. If the stated is genuine
(it cannot be determined from the official documents), the legal directions are acceptable, but are
not practised in the actual legal practice. The responsibility for this lies first with the courts.
The government of the Republic of Slovenia stated in the recent discussions on the proposed law on
Cannabis, prepared by civil initiatives and not government authorities, that by passing the ZPPPD
Slovenia decriminalized Cannabis. However, it enables prosecution for negligible amounts of illicit
drugs. Sadly, each day more Cannabis users and not drug dealers or traffickers are confronted with
prosecutions and penalties because of it.
Such official text, which is literally understood by the courts, enables criminalization of Cannabis
users possessing a smaller quantity of Cannabis for one-off personal use or even negligible amounts
of the illicit drug; although the government ensures that the use of drugs is not punishable by law in
Slovenia. Such statutory provisions signify criminalization of drug users: How can you use drugs, if
you do not possess them prior to use?
Text of the third paragraph of article 33. of ZPPPD is also unusual because it presumes that each drug
user has health issues such as an addiction or is abusing the substance. Those charges may be subject
to more lenient punishment if they voluntarily enter the programme of treatment for illicit drug
users or social security programmes approved by the Health Council or Council for Drugs. This is an
additional degradation of individuals who possess smaller quantity of Cannabis for personal use. Not
only are they degraded into criminals, but they are also treated drug addicts or mental patients.
The delimitation between misdemeanours and criminal offences is even more unclear. As previously
stated there are no explicit guidelines in the Slovenian legislation that would clarify the severity of
the offence by quantity of possessed illicit drugs. There are no specifics on the quantity of possessed
illicit drugs which could be tolerated by the courts or even the definition of possession of larger
quantities of illicit drugs for multiple personal use. It remains unclear under which circumstances the
14

courts still proceed with a misdemeanour, despite some larger quantities for multiple personal use.
On the other side it is evident, that the possession of some larger quantities of the illicit drug for
multiple personal use, cannot be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Criminal offence is defined by
manufacturing, processing, selling or offering for sale, keeping or transporting drugs or substances
with a view to resell them, soliciting another person to use illegal drugs or providing a person with
drugs to be used by him or by a third person, or whoever provides a person with a place or other
facility for the use.
Nevertheless, the practice in courtrooms shows that current Slovenian drug policy allows individuals
to be convicted of a criminal offence because of possession of small quantities of Cannabis (even less
than 3 grams) or cultivation of a few plants regardless of the reason (e.g. self-medication; selfsupply).
Alarmingly evident from the courts orders is the fact that one can be convicted of a criminal offence
for small quantities of Cannabis packed in two or three packages regardless of the actual quantity of
Cannabis in the packages. Convictions are handed down even in the absence of any additional
evidence of intent to sell.
The stated arguments signify extremely low evidentiary standards that determine if one committed a
criminal offence and are based on indirect deduction derived from reconstructed evidence. Such
inference regarding the known evidence, rules and standards do not by far represent a closed circle
of clues which are needed in order to be even able to make the judgement on the case that is in
accordance with legal standards, practice and theory. In cases related to Cannabis even the smallest
quantity of Cannabis in three or more packages can be enough for a conviction without any further
evidence. The unemployment / employment status of the individual and similar data is taken into
consideration in such cases to determine the sentence. Such practice is discriminatory and leads to
criminalization of the unemployed. This is especially alarming due to the current economical crisis
when the unemployment rates are high.
The criminalization and marginalization of Cannabis users is unacceptable. We also have to point out
the very low standards for tolerable police proceedings in Cannabis related cases. Many police
proceedings are conducted without the individuals' approval and under increased constraint: police
officers demand that individuals empty their pockets without any preliminary signs or clues for
criminal suspicion. If the individual refuses, the officials intensify the procedure until the individual
gives in. Such practices are a violation of fundamental human rights: the right for privacy, respect of
personal integrity and dignity. The Organization and Work of Police Act (ZODPol, Official Gazette of
the Republic of Slovenia no. 15/2013) allows the option to file an appeal in cases of police
misconduct, but in reality most of the legal instruments are focused on the justification of officials'
actions and not on the protection of the victim (Ministry for internal affairs in the case 260058/2014/10).
Police investigations are often based on highly controversial procedures that ignore the applicable
legal standards (e.g. needed evidence to carry out a house, car, or personal search). These procedural
deficiencies are too often overlooked by the courts. Even more, such procedures are supported by
the courts incarcerations without conclusive evidence. One example of such practice is registered at
the district court in Murska Sobota (District Court Murska Sobota II KS 47924/2012). The accused was
incarcerated for one month because of cultivation of five Cannabis plants which grew in his garden.
The appeals were rejected and incarceration extended for two additional months with the argument
15

of iteration risk, regardless of the fact that during the house search no additional evidence of a
criminal offence was found that would suggest suspicion of iteration risk.
The state's failure to comply with the law is also evident from the differences in the sentences, in
some cases sentences are absurdly heavy, especially if compared to criminal offences not related to
drugs. Such practices raise even more suspicion of the practice of the courts in Slovenia.
In a case from 2013 (I K 39942/2010) the accused was sentenced to 7 months in prison without
probation for the possession of 16,13 grams of Cannabis. This sentence was later annulled but the
proceeding is not yet over.

16

Some individual cases of criminalization

of recreational drug users in Pomurje
(NE of Slovenia)
Not only do some individual police departments criminalize drug users, but judges and
prosecutors also play an important role in the criminalization of drug users. If the given statistics are
not convincing enough, we would also like to add some actual cases that will further affirm our
statements. We can only report about individual cases processed by the District Court in Murska
Sobota, Celje and Maribor as we do not have information about the others, but suspect similar
practices are in place at other police departments in Slovenia (and EU). For all reported cases we
have the necessary documentation that supports our statements. This documentation can be
translated and delivered if needed.
1. The following case could take the de minimis non curat lex principle into consideration as an
alternative method of enforcing criminal sanctions (District Court Murska Sobota, case number:
UP-415/14):
A 17 years old boy was convicted to 4 months in prison with 1 year on probation for possession of 2,
6 g of Cannabis (dried buds). The police officer stated he looked suspicious because he was sitting on
the side walk in front of a grocery shop. During the investigation an official found 2,6 g of Cannabis
(dried buds), which was enough to convict him of drug trafficking and force him into a treatment
program (in that way he was able to lower the sentence). This offer of lower sentencing in exchange
for entering a treatment program might be an explanation for high rates of Cannabis users in
treatment programmes in Slovenia and all over EU. Due to this stigma the mentioned minor
delinquent will be suffering all his life. He is deprived of travelling to some countries; he cannot
strive after certain job opportunities or careers. These consequences will have a much more
destructive impact on this boy's life than the harm that could potentially be caused by smoking of
Cannabis.
2. At the end of April 2014 the PAU Celje together with PAU Murska Sobota (cca 300 law
enforcement authorities) carried out an extensive investigation where 47 Slovenian citizens (aged
between 20 and 45) were accused of committing 50 criminal offences related to the cultivation of
Cannabis and to trafficking. With classical methods and undercover work the authorities investigated
one legally established on-line garden supply shop and eavesdropped on its customers. During the
investigation of one of an involved individual, the officials found only a smaller amount of Cannabis (for
personal use). Nevertheless, they arrested him and he has been in detention already for two and a
half months without any clear evidence of the crime he was accused of (District Court Murska Sobota
I Kpr 16666/2014).
At present another 2 individuals are imprisoned in Murska Sobota. Their stories are similar. The
authorities found Cannabis plants at their homes and suspect that both were growing Cannabis for
further trafficking. Again they do not have any clear evidences for such accusations. According to the
official report, the authorities prevented 'criminals' from earning 150.000 on the black market. We
are having a dispute about these cases because we have to consider the seriousness of the supposed
17

crimes and compare them to the harm such prosecutions can have consequences not only for the
individual, but in a broader economic and socio-cultural context. Further-more, these young
individuals are perceived as criminals and treated as such by law enforcement. We argue that the
prosecutors and judges should process the individual not with a narrow focus; instead they should
consider the broader contexts.

The Cultivation and use of Cannabis

as self-medication in Slovenia

Another concern for us is people using Cannabis for medical purposes. Each year there are
more and more cases where police investigates Slovenian citizens for criminal offences related to
Cannabis such as drug trafficking or the cultivation of Cannabis, and treat them as criminals, where in
fact they are growing it for self-medication or to medicate a family member. According to some
media reports, almost half of cancer patients use Cannabis (oil, dispensaries or dried plant) as selfmedication in order to treat side effects of chemotherapy.
There are several reasons for the self-supply of Cannabis (growing for personal use). Firstly,
people want to know exactly what they are consuming. The black market is an unreliable source
regarding the quality of drugs. Secondly, people want to eliminate the chances of having problems
with the authorities and avoid dealers. Indoor laboratories are an effective and safe option for a lot
of them. In the long-term it is a cheaper option if compared to prices of Cannabis or Cannabis oil on
the black market or in comparison to pharmaceutical products.
The case of J.P. (District Court Krko, II K 53346/2012-37 and the complete documentation
under II K 53346/2012) is an example of the risks that people can face if they produce for personal
medical use or use Cannabis as a medicine. On June 11, 2014, the Krko district court sentenced J.P.
for cultivation of Cannabis to 8 months imprisonment and to two years parole because he was
growing 8 Cannabis plants in his garden in order to produce Cannabis oil to treat his wife's multiple
sclerosis and his son's diabetes. There is debate as to whether in such cases the seriousness of the
supposed crimes should be taken into consideration and it should be compared to the harm and
consequences a criminal record can have for the individual, his family and society.

18

The recent response of decision makers

and medical experts in Slovenia
The government officials and decision makers are well aware of the cases discussed above.
They made recently minimal changes to the classification list of illicit drugs by allowing patients to
use the substance THC. This reform still does not regulate medical use of the Cannabis plant which is
commonly used in Slovenia. The government does not take into consideration the actual situation or
the needs of individuals, but enforces only minimal changes which leave the above mentioned cases
outside of any reformed legal frameworks.
Even more, the new classification that came into force is contradictory. Cannabis (plant, dried buds,
hash oil, tinctures, extracts) is listed in the first group along with the coca plant (cocaine itself is listed
in group II), DMT, heroin, poppy extract, mescaline, MDMA, LSD, psilocybin and psilocin, etc. The
recent reform reclassified THC, the active ingredient of Cannabis, from group I into group II. Such
reforms are dust in the eyes of medical Cannabis patients and bring grist mostly to the
pharmaceutical mill. It is clear that such classification is in contrast with logic and enables
moneymaking with one of the cannabinoids the psychoactive one regardless of its natural or
synthetic origin. This classification was approved without acknowledging the experts groundwork.
After only 6 days of the validity of the new classification, the European Court made a judgement on
the united cases C-358/13 in C-181/14. From this judgement it is evident, that it is based on the
experts findings on harmfulness of synthetic cannabinoids (concretely THC). If we compare the new
classification with the judgement of the European Court, the stated signifies that the classification
does not comply with experts findings and allows medical professionals to prescribe the synthetic
THC, which is more hazardous for the health of individuals than the Cannabis plant (with natural
THC).
Cannabis, the mostly used illicit substance in Slovenia is also the most prosecuted among
illicit drugs, regardless of its relative harmlessness to individual consumers or to public health. The
false notion that marijuana is a valid predictor of the use of more dangerous and more addictive
drugs is still present in Slovenia although international surveys and studies have failed to confirm it.
Also the professional standings that passed the classification of illicit drugs are questionable and
controversial.
Our advice for more just and effective drug policy is to regulate both pharmaceuticals and
the Cannabis plant (also for self-medication). Regulation in accordance with the socio-cultural
situation and other aspects is the most reasonable action to take in order to avoid unnecessary
incrimination of medical Cannabis users. We are trying to persuade the authorities that we need
more research and the more we are 'diving' into it, the more and more questions seem to be
appearing. This is only one of the reasons why we should finally get over old prejudices and start
reacting to the issues we are facing to create a safe environment for Cannabis (drug) users. We
cannot eliminate drug consumption, but we can eliminate the harm of prohibition, which is far
greater than Cannabis itself.
19

Harm reduction programs should not be focused on reducing Cannabis consumption but
rather aim to reduce the adverse health, social and economic consequences of the use of Cannabis,
especially in regard to the medical users in Slovenia who represent the most vulnerable group and
need to be protected against prohibitive laws (Trace, 2012).
The recreational use of Cannabis should not be criminalized by state officials. It is
unacceptable that at this very moment several Slovenian citizens are being imprisoned because of
having grown or possessed Cannabis for their own use (without clear evidence of trafficking). The
attitude towards minor offenders should be more constructive with other methods than intimidation
and 'forced' drug treatment programs. If we further continue searching for the perfect drug policy,
nothing will ever change, but if we act just a little bit bolder, and if we are eager to experiment, we
can develop a far more effective approach in tackling drug related issues in Slovenia. We can provide
an environment that does not exclude Cannabis users from society, but one that instead integrates
the notion of Cannabis use as not physically damaging and socially deleterious when used in
culturally appropriate and specific contexts. Discussions about moderate drug use or the socially
integrative benefits of drug consumption are still a taboo theme in Slovenian society. Also, the
scientific research focuses entirely on substance use and abuse and excludes crucially important
contextualizing behaviours. It is still rare in anthropology for drug use to be placed in a broader
context like for instance familial, occupational, economic, social, religious, political, or educational. It
is important to place the potential dangers of marijuana use in context with the potential side effects
of many modern pharmaceutical products. Unlike many medicines commonly prescribed by doctors,
marijuana use has no risk of overdose or physical dependence. In addition, while marijuana has
potential side effects like with any medicine, it is the experience of many medical marijuana patients
that the side effects of marijuana are less in number and intensity than the side effects of more
traditional medicines used to treat their condition (Hunt and Barker, 2001).

20

Conclusion
Current drug policy in Slovenia despite its ostensibly prohibitive nature still
provides the adolescents easy access to drugs; allows for flourishing organized crime, black
markets and corruption; leads to too many sentenced and imprisoned Slovenian citizens
(non-criminals); triggers systematic violations of human rights; and is generally producing
rising economical, legislative, moral, medical and social costs. Cannabis is not illegal because
it is dangerous, but it can be dangerous because it is illegal. Even in Slovenia, where the
legislation appears to be progressive, the outcome of a prosecution depends on the state
official, his individual preferences, state of mind or worldliness leaving too much space open
for interpretation. Drugs are decriminalized on the declarative level, but with no specific
limits which could guide the police authorities, judges or prosecutors when making a
decision as to whether a case is a criminal offence or a misdemeanour.

The fact that the Cannabis plant was left (after the recent reform of the Decree of
Illicit Drugs) in the first group of illicit drugs that cannot be used in medicine and the false
notion that Cannabis is a dangerous and harmful drug, influences judge's decisions of judges
in individual cases. No one is considering the 'side-effects' of prohibition (loss of job, social
security, human rights, future career opportunities, etc.) that destroy peoples lives. On the
one hand the government allows the use of THC for medicinal purposes, but on the other
they fight individual self-suppliers and persecute them as criminals. This is not an effective
method of harm reduction. Rather, it is 'fuelling the fire' in a time of a global economic crisis
where increasing repression or discriminatory attitudes towards drug users undermine harm
reduction, drug treatment, social re-integration and the potential for recovery.
We witness the consequences on a regular basis thus, we would like to encourage
EMCDDA to be attentive to what is happening in Slovenia (and other EU countries), take our
appeal with high priority and help us develop indicators of the harmful effects of
prohibitionist drug policy. And most importantly, to contribute to a more comprehensive,
evidence based and humane approach towards Cannabis and other drug users.

21

ONEJ - Association of Prekmurje Initiative

http://onej.info/
2014
22