Cannabis laws in Europe FAQ: How do EU countries respond to illegal use and supply of cannabis?

This page is part of the Cannabis laws in Europe FAQ which answers some of the more frequently asked questions raised in discussions about cannabis legislation.

Last revised: 21 April 2026

Table of contents/Search

Table of contents/Search

Search within the book

Operator

Any match

Exact term match only

Select any filter and click on Search to see results

Close

Introduction

While the recreational use of cannabis remains illegal across nearly all EU Member States, the laws and the practice of implementing them differ greatly. This section includes a discussion of the relevant EU laws and legislative texts of Member States that penalise illegal cannabis use and supply. This includes laws passed by parliaments and governments, ministerial decrees, directives to national prosecutors and guidance to national police forces. As described, in some cases national sentencing guidelines and constitutional court decisions also shape the legal framework on cannabis. In many countries, a lack of comprehensive outcome data means that it is not possible to discern how the laws are actually implemented; for example, while incarceration for use or personal possession offences is possible by law in many countries, experts often state that the actual implementation of this sanction is very rare. In some countries informal approaches may exist at national or local level, which influence how the legal framework is actually implemented, meaning that the police may not always proactively attempt to enforce laws that could be applicable to some forms of cannabis use. Such arrangements are difficult to monitor or report on here but may impact on how cannabis users or the public perceive the legal status of the drug or the risk that using the drug may attract a sanction.

Is there a harmonised EU law on illicit cannabis?

There is no harmonised EU law on illicit cannabis use or personal possession; this is the responsibility of EU Member States individually. However, the European Union does have legislative competence to ‘establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension’, which specifically includes illicit drug trafficking (Article 83, TFEU). In this context, the Council Framework Decision (2004/757/JHA) provides minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit trafficking in drugs and precursors. Thus, there is some harmonisation with respect to a common approach at the EU level to the fight against illicit drug trafficking.

Drug possession for personal consumption is, however, specifically excluded from this Council Framework Decision (Article 2(2)). Member States are obliged to take the measures necessary to ensure that the offences covered by the Framework Decision are punishable by ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ criminal penalties. Besides this general obligation, minimum and maximum levels of sanctions are provided (Article 4). Aggravating circumstances include offences involving ‘those drugs which cause the most harm to health’ (Article 4 (2)(b)), but the definition of what drugs are included under this category is left to the interpretation of Member States.

Do EU countries impose the same penalties for cannabis as for other drugs?

In general, European countries can be divided into two groups with regard to the approach they take to imposing penalties for cannabis-related offences according to the wording of the laws (see Figure 1). In the first group, cannabis is treated differently from other drugs by law, typically because penalty levels are applied according to the amount of harm that the use of a specific drug is considered to cause. In these countries, lists or classes of drugs established in (or directly linked to) laws are used to determine different degrees of severity in defining and prosecuting drug offences. In Europe, cannabis is often included among those drugs that do not incur the most severe legal penalties.

In the second group of countries, penalties under the law are the same for all drugs, including cannabis. However, instructions to police or prosecutors, and judicial discretion in practice, may distinguish between substances on the basis of perceptions of their relative harm, in the context of resource prioritisation or for other reasons. These distinctions may apply to offences related to drug use, supply or both.

Will a positive drug test for cannabis lead to police action?

A positive drug test might lead to police action if drug use (not merely possession for personal use) is a punishable offence under national law. Such an offence is not required by the UN conventions, which are primarily aimed at limiting drug supply and the import and export of controlled drugs. Nevertheless, several countries specify drug use as a distinct offence, whether as a signal of society’s disapproval of drug use or as a practical measure to give the police certain powers to investigate a crime or apprehend people who use drugs (see the box Example: Cannabis use offences in Europe and Figure 2).

In other countries, being subjected to a drug test in a public place, and potentially facing subsequent police action, is only likely if the person is driving a vehicle. This can be considered more as part of a road safety policy than a drug control policy (see the section Is it illegal to drive with cannabis in the body?, for further details). Drug use in more specific circumstances and locations, such as safety-critical situations (e.g. where workers are operating heavy machinery or involved in public transport) or in prisons or military premises, may be addressed by other laws, with the approach used varying considerably by country.

#EMBED-cannabis-laws-faq-box-3#

Can you be imprisoned for possession of a small amount of cannabis?

About more than half of the EU countries include imprisonment as a possible penalty for unauthorised possession of cannabis for personal use. Overall, since around 2000, there appears to have been a general trend across Europe towards reducing the likelihood of imprisonment for the possession of cannabis for personal use.

In some European countries, a prison sentence (or other incarceration) for possession of cannabis for personal use is possible according to the law; in other countries it is not (see Figure 3). However, in several of these, the relevant authorities are instructed to use non-custodial penalties or powers of dismissal for minor ‘personal use’ offences. In some countries, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the law does not allow incarceration in the case of possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use only (see the box Example: Custodial and non-custodial approaches to drug possession for personal use).

#EMBED-cannabis-laws-faq-box-4#

Where is cannabis possession for personal use decriminalised?

As there is no consensus on the criteria to be used to test for whether a country has decriminalised cannabis possession for personal use, there is no simple answer to this question. In common use, ‘decriminalisation’ denotes a move away from prohibition that is enforced by criminal penalties (see Key definitions below). Other terms used to describe reductions in penalties are ‘depenalisation’ and ‘legalisation’, but these terms may sometimes be used interchangeably, often leading to inconsistent descriptions of national laws, even by experts within that particular country. In fact, it is perfectly possible for a country to incorporate more than one of these options in their laws or criminal justice system guidelines. For example, a country may opt for the decriminalisation of cannabis-related offences, the depenalisation of cocaine offences and diversion for heroin offences. Although the different terms mentioned above may be applied in respect of a country’s laws, the implementation of those laws may also differ in practice because of directives to police or prosecutors or because of informal working practices.

What limits have European countries set for possession for personal use?

The approach to cannabis possession offences may sometimes be determined by the amount of cannabis found. Threshold quantities are often understood as guidelines for quantity limits, with exceptions allowed under certain circumstances. The objective of these threshold quantities varies in several respects across Europe — to delimit personal use, small quantities, minor offences etc. — and there is little consistency between countries in terms of the limits that they have established. For example, criminal prosecution for the possession of cannabis resin starts at 0.25 grams in Lithuania, while in Germany the threshold quantity is 6 grams or higher, depending on the regulations in the respective federal state. Threshold quantities for different drugs also vary widely across countries. For a given offence, the established weight threshold for the possession of cannabis herb may be equal to that of resin (e.g. in Belgium) or up to 20 times more (as is the case in Lithuania). Furthermore, the threshold for possession of cannabis can be between three times (in Cyprus) or ten times (in the Netherlands) that set for the possession of heroin. Estonia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovakia set maximum limits for personal possession, above which the offender is likely to be charged with a supply offence. Belgium and Czechia may respond to the possession of a small amount with a non-criminal penalty, while Austria, Germany and Poland may suspend or close a ‘minor’ case.

How and why have countries changed their laws (or punishments) for possession of cannabis?

Since the EUDA began monitoring drug laws in the late 1990s, the general trend among countries has been to reduce their legal penalties for cannabis-use-related offences, as summarised in Table 3. However, this refers to the legislation and police or prosecutor directives only. In the absence of comparable national data on criminal justice system outcomes, it is not possible to comment on how these penalties are operationalised and impact on practice.

Changes to laws on cannabis possession, or the penalties attached to them, have been made for various reasons. These include, for example, ensuring that punishments are consistent; matching the severity of the punishment to the health risks posed by different drugs; and prioritising treatment over punishment. In some countries, changes in cannabis laws were incidental to legislative changes targeting other drugs or broader criminal justice system issues. This was the case, for example, with the decriminalisation of all illicit drugs in Portugal in 2000 (a move that appears to have been primarily motivated by the need to respond to the country’s heroin problem); a 2005 change in Slovenia, which removed prison penalties for all types of minor offences (including drugs possession); a 2013 amendment to the legislation in Croatia, which was motivated by considerations of proportionality in punishments; and a 2015 legal change in Malta, which was intended to facilitate the rehabilitation of people suffering from drug dependence.

Does changing the penalty in the law have an impact on levels of cannabis use?

It is not easy to show whether or not changing the severity of the punishments set out in the drug laws of countries such as Croatia, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia has affected levels of cannabis use. This is in large part because factors other than the legal status of the drug may have a bearing on trends in consumption, and because legal changes may not necessarily have a direct impact on police practices or the perceptions of individuals concerning the risk of incurring a legal or other form of sanction because of their cannabis use. It should also be remembered that the primary objectives of these changes were usually to address other issues, and therefore reducing consumption was not always an explicit policy objective. Furthermore, impact evaluations are rarely carried out, meaning that it is difficult to judge if these changes have had any direct or indirect impact on levels of cannabis consumption. How the laws are actually put into practice may create a further complication.

One frequently expressed concern is that reducing the penalties for cannabis use will send a message that consumption of the drug is more acceptable, leading to an increase in prevalence of use. Conversely, when cannabis use increases, concerns are expressed that the penalties are too low and should be raised in order to discourage consumption. To examine the evidence behind these assumptions, the EUDA published a simple comparison of estimated prevalence rates for the use of cannabis in the years before and after legal changes in countries where the law had changed (EMCDDA, 2011). As cannabis use is concentrated among younger age groups, the analysis was performed using EUDA prevalence estimates for 15- to 34-year-olds, who were asked if they had used cannabis in the last year.

The legal impact hypothesis, in its simplest form, predicts that increased penalties will decrease drug use and reduced penalties will increase drug use. However, in the original analysis and an updated version (Figure 4), mapping data relevant to the policy changes in Table 3, no simple association could be found between legal changes and the prevalence of cannabis use.

This is a very simple analysis, and there are a number of caveats to be considered in relation to it, including whether the (sometimes minor) legal changes were understood by cannabis users, or if they impacted upon their perception, or the reality, of the risks of receiving a penalty. It is also likely that factors other than the nature of the changes to the legal frameworks may be driving changes in drug consumption trends. Surveys are also likely to provide imperfect and not always very timely assessments of levels of drug prevalence. Furthermore, it is possible that legal changes may impact more on future initiation levels (incidence) rather than on the behaviour of current users (prevalence). Nonetheless, despite these limitations, this analysis does illustrate that it is difficult to observe any consistent or direct relationship between legal changes and consumption levels as measured by surveys, and this is important as at times these data appear to have been selectively used to support arguments regarding the impact of legal changes on consumption patterns.

Table 3. Types of change in the law for cannabis use-related offences

What alternative approaches do countries take to respond to cannabis use?

Some countries employ policies of diversion for people who use drugs, referring them to rehabilitative measures, known as alternatives to punishment or alternatives to coercive sanctions (ACS). ACS is an umbrella term referring to measures that may be implemented at the national or local level and are primarily intended to be used instead of ‘punitive’ criminal justice system measures, such as incarceration, a fine or other forms of punishment.

Examples of ACS for cannabis users include arrest referral schemes, commissions for the dissuasion of drug use (in Portugal), diversionary measures, drug awareness courses, probation with a treatment element, and sentencing to rehabilitative programmes (see the box Example: alternatives to coercive sanctions in Europe). In line with recent EU drug strategies and action plans, some countries are increasing their use of ACS, and they may be the primary response to drug users (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). While evaluations of the different models of interventions are currently limited, it is recognised that diverting drug-using offenders towards rehabilitative measures and away from incarceration can have a number of positive effects.

ACS vary in their design and implementation, and recent European studies have found that implementation issues might be considered at the levels of the system (e.g. the legal context), the provider (e.g. available resources) and the client (e.g. motivation). The EUDA is working on tools to facilitate stakeholder cooperation in this field (See further resources in section Find out more at the bottom of this page).

Information on criminal justice referrals to specialised drug treatment services is reported annually through the EUDA treatment demand indicator (TDI) data. While these data are imperfect and there are methodological challenges related to this dataset (²), it was documented in 2020 that an estimated 12 000 cannabis users were referred for the first time to specialised drug treatment by the criminal justice system in Europe, which represented 31 % of referrals among new cannabis clients. This proportion varies by country, ranging from less than 10 % in Slovenia, Czechia, Denmark, Türkiye, Poland, Finland and Greece to more than 60 % in Romania and Hungary.

#EMBED-cannabis-laws-faq-box-5#

How do countries respond to the cultivation of cannabis for personal use?

A few countries define the exact quantity of cannabis plants grown for personal use that will lead to prosecution or punishment, while others take a more general approach. Also, the punishments for cultivation for personal use are not always comparable to those for possession for personal use.

In some countries, the lower priority given to prosecuting owners of one cannabis plant has been interpreted by some plant growers as permitting collective growing, known as cannabis social clubs (see section 'Cannabis Social Clubs' in 'Is there a trend towards cannabis regulation in Europe — and if so, why?'  ). Usually, these clubs are not legally recognised by any national governments in the European Union and thus their activities remain illegal, but they appear to be informally tolerated in some locations and are now a possibility in Malta.

#EMBED-cannabis-laws-faq-box-6#

What are the possible penalties for cannabis sale or trafficking?

The maximum penalties for cannabis supply offences vary considerably between European countries, in ways that can be difficult to describe simply. For example, the maximum penalties for minor cannabis supply offences range from 2 to 3 years in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Spain and Sweden to life imprisonment in Cyprus, Ireland and Malta. However, the first group of countries have established a scale of offences with graduated punishments, within which an offence of aggravated supply may attract maximum sentences of 10 to 20 years in prison, while the second group of countries have one maximum sentence for any supply offence, but allow judicial discretion to play a wider role. Yet in both groups the sentence received for similar offences may be nuanced by factors such as the court in which the offender is tried, involvement in organised crime and profit motives, among other considerations.

An EMCDDA (2017b) study of expert opinion found the expected penalties for the supply of 1 kilogram and 10 kilograms of cannabis resin, by a defined profile of offender, varied greatly between EU Member States (Figure 7). However, the maximum penalties provided by law were not necessarily reliable indicators of the expected length of typical sentences, as reported by experts who were familiar with the judicial practice of a given country. The penalty ranges established in the law may also not be directly correlated with the penalties expected for a first offender in practice.

This study also supports a general observation found in other studies and across offences that the criminal policies of the Member States, with regard to their penalties, often differ considerably. These variations may be based on different sentencing frameworks and also rooted in the history and culture of individual criminal law systems. Furthermore, political and contextual factors may be influential here and include, for example, the prevalence of different drugs and their associated harms, as well as divergent beliefs in the proportionality of sentences appropriate for particular offences or the effectiveness of sentencing as a general deterrent.

At the other end of the scale from a consideration of maximum sentences for the most serious offences is the concept of minor supply or reduced penalties for supply offences that are seen as less serious. Although some laws consider the profit motive (or lack thereof) of the offender, there have also been attempts to take account of group use, where the practice of sharing a cannabis cigarette, for example, could be viewed under some circumstances to amount to an offence of drug supply, which may require a proportional response.

#EMBED-cannabis-laws-faq-box-7#

Is it illegal to drive with cannabis in the body?

One review of the available evidence found that driving after recent use of cannabis and cannabis intoxication were associated with a 35 % increase in the risk of having a car accident. The review also found that the presence of a high level of THC in the blood may double the risk of such an accident (Rogeberg and Elvik, 2016). In all countries in Europe, it is illegal to drive when skills are impaired due to cannabis consumption. However, the laws vary both in their phrasing and in their interpretation.

The two definitions of ‘drug driving’ — ‘under the influence’ and ‘after consumption’ — suggest different policy emphases: one on traffic safety and the other, more generally, on illicit drug control (see Driving under the influence: definition). Yet, this distinction is not always clear. In practice, some experts report that ‘under the influence’ may be interpreted by prosecutors as including any trace of drugs in a biological sample — thus effectively creating a system of prosecuting anyone who is detected driving ‘after consumption’.

#EMBED-cannabis-laws-faq-box-8#

Over the last 10 years, advances in roadside screening technology have resulted in roadside oral fluid screening devices now being used in 15 countries (Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain.) and many EU countries also report a two-stage screening with both THC saliva tests and behavioural tests being used together. Most will go on to collect a confirmatory blood test as evidence to convict, though convictions are possible after two saliva screens in Cyprus and Spain. These technological advances have facilitated the introduction of laws in some countries that penalise drivers found with the presence of more than a defined amount of THC in their blood. The specified level may vary, from a low level that confirms the presence of the drug (as is the case in Denmark and Spain), to a level that is considered equivalent to the drink-driving limit in terms of its association with impairment (Norway).

As policymakers try to avoid condoning drivers with small amounts of illicit substances in their bodies, the binary classification of drug driving as either legal or illegal is being replaced in several countries by graduated punishments, with a lower punishment for any detection of THC and a higher one for being clearly impaired (such as in Belgium, Finland, Germany and Spain). There is also the possible combination of road safety and drug laws; when cannabis metabolites are detected in a driver at levels unlikely to impair driving, the driver can be charged with a drug use offence rather than a road traffic offence (as reported in Estonia, Finland and Norway).

With the increase in popularity of ‘low-THC food products’, countries may be faced with new challenges in terms of their policies to deter drug-impaired driving. In addition, the increase in authorisations and prescriptions of cannabis products for medical purposes has also raised the potential for drivers to test positive for cannabis use. At present, the overall number of people prescribed cannabis for therapeutic reasons remains relatively low, but if this number increases the issue may grow in importance in the future. It should be noted that many prescribed medicines have adverse effects on driving ability, and this will often be indicated on a warning label on the product.

The new legal recreational cannabis markets are driving more detailed studies of the distinctions between modes of consumption (smoking, digesting, vaping) and their varying effects on the body (Ramaekers et al., 2021). From such studies, there are emerging signs that any maximum tolerated blood-THC content, often 5 nanograms per millilitre, may need reviewing.

(²) Methodological challenges include differences in national monitoring systems, coverage and definitions, and disruptions to services due to COVID-19, which will influence the interpretation and comparability of the results. The identification of cannabis use disorder as well as access to specialised treatment and reporting on it are also impacted by the use of different screening tools in EU Member States at the service provider level.

Text boxes

Available text boxes:

• Example: Cannabis use offences in Europe
• Example: Custodial and non-custodial approaches to drug possession for personal use
• Key definitions
• Example: alternatives to coercive sanctions in Europe
• Example: Penalties and limits to cultivation for personal use
• Example: ‘Drug use in group’ as a supply offence
• Driving under the influence: definition

Source data

The data used to generate infographics and charts on this page may be found below.

The complete set of source data for the Cannabis laws in Europe: questions and answers for policymaking, including metadata and methodological notes, is available in our data catalogue.

A subset of this data, used to generate infographics, charts and similar elements on this page, may be found below.

References