This type of content is very rare on the CBD.FR blog! We grant you that. Nevertheless, in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of Law No. 70-1320 of December 31, 1970, we have decided to offer you some content on the subject. Because, until proven otherwise, it (the law) has had and will continue to have an impact on the CBD sector
in France. With that said, we invite you to explore a few points related to it.
A Brief Overview of Law No. 70-1320 of December 31, 1970 Indeed, it is practically impossible to discuss the law without pausing, however briefly, to provide some background information. For those unfamiliar with it, let’s answer this question: what is Law No. 70-1320 of December 31, 1970? In simple terms, this is the law that largely governs activities related, directly or indirectly, to substances classified as “narcotics.” You’re probably familiar with the list. It came into effect on January 2, 1971. So, it’s been doing what it was designed to do for almost half a century.
Given this, you’re probably wondering what it contains. We’re sharing this short excerpt with you to give you an idea:
“Those who unlawfully use any of the substances or plants classified as narcotics will be punished by imprisonment for two months to one year and a fine of 500 to 5,000 francs.” The origins and motivations behind this law are rather unclear. In fact, the accounts surrounding it differ depending on who you ask. On the one hand, some argue that it was established to protect young people who, at that time, were losing their way. From this perspective, the law is seen as conservative, protective, and well-thought-out. On the other hand, some believe it was a direct consequence of an event. They maintain that it stemmed from the death of a young girl, a minor, in 1969 due to a drug overdose. According to this view, the law was conceived hastily. Furthermore, many claim it was created in reaction to the French Connection (heroin trafficking between Marseille, Montreal, and New York) at that time. Regardless of the origins and motivations, the fact remains that this law exists and is in effect. The real debate surrounding it lies elsewhere. Are all drugs the same?
We are far from encouraging drug trafficking and use. We are simply asking questions to encourage reflection with our readers. After reading the preceding excerpt, it would be reasonable to ask: Can/should all drugs be considered equal? The Misuse of Drugs Act in the United Kingdom answers this question in the negative. It classifies drugs into categories. Namely:
Category A: heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy, for example, are included. It should be noted that drugs classified in this category are severely punished. Category B: cannabis, codeine, and ketamine are included. It goes without saying that this category is also punishable.
- Category C: GHB and Valium are included.
- This categorization is based on the degree of dangerousness, according to the legislator. But what about France? The reality is quite different. Drugs seem to be treated as equally dangerous. Voices are being raised on this issue. Many believe it would have been wise to classify these narcotics according to a more precise logic. Because, until proven otherwise, nothing indicates that heroin has the same degree of danger as cannabis, for example.
- In fact, this classification may seem pointless at first glance, since they are, after all, drugs. But ultimately, it is important, in that it can either open or close the door to reflection, particularly regarding drugs that could be used for the common good. From this perspective, numerous studies and research support the idea that the cannabis plant, for example, contains active components that can be beneficial to both humans and animals. This is the case with CBD. The emergence of this sector in Europe and America is proof of this. How many people worldwide already use CBD products for skin problems every day? How many are undergoing medical cannabis treatment? How many CBD food supplements are already available on the market? Following this logic in the case of heroin, it is clear that very few (or no) positive outcomes can emerge. This is why classification is important. It avoids legal ambiguity and prevents users from falling into confusion. We are not saying that legislators completely ignore the idea that one of these drugs could be useful. Indeed, several highly regarded initiatives are in line with this logic. These include: The fact-finding mission on cannabis regulation
The experimentation with medical cannabis in France with its related specifications These initiatives show that the State is already moving in this direction. However, classifying these drugs remains important.
- What is the cost of criminalizing drug use for France?This type of question isn’t asked often enough. But what does criminalizing cannabis, for example, really cost? Particularly in terms of logistics, human resources, and finances. It goes without saying that the cost is enormous! In return, what does the French State gain? Not much. It’s obvious that drugs, regardless of the severity of the laws, will continue to circulate. They will still be sold on the black market.
- What if France decided to take control of the sector? If efforts to curb drug trafficking fail, perhaps it’s time to try something else. The legislature could, for example, decriminalize the simple consumption of cannabis. But it could set limits (quantity) regarding possession, consumption, and cultivation. It could even create a legal market to monitor the flow and tax legal dealers. Because, until now, the cartels have been living the high life. They make millions without paying their fair share to the state. Relocating this black market by decriminalizing simple use could be one solution among many. The same reasoning can be applied to other drugs, which are clearly different from cannabis. A case-by-case study would be needed to find a way to control this sector.One thing is certain: legislators would benefit from looking beyond criminalization. Is drug communication adequate?
We often tell our loved ones:
communication is key in everything.
We can therefore ask ourselves: What message does the current repressive approach convey to citizens? Some might interpret it as a way of depriving some of their freedom to choose their lifestyle. Let’s not forget that France is a country of liberties. In other words, the French are naturally and intrinsically attached to their freedom. Thus, this repressive approach could be poorly received. This would also explain why, despite the severity of the law, France remains one of the leading consumers of cannabis in Europe.
What if France tried to communicate and educate its citizens? The result could well be different. By highlighting professionals who have the scientific legitimacy to speak about the dangers associated with drugs, the results could be surprising. We are thinking first and foremost of specialized doctors and researchers. With them, citizens will see more of a helper, a guide, than a threat to their freedoms. The process might be slow, but this education about drugs is more likely to bear fruit than repression. Discover more:
