Future approach to personal cannabis use in Jersey

STATES OF JERSEY

FUTURE APPROACH TO PERSONAL CANNABIS USE IN JERSEY

Lodged au Greffe on 19th December 2025 by the Minister for Health and Social Services Earliest date for debate: 3rd February 2026

STATES GREFFE

2025  P.116

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. to request the Minister for Health and Social Services to bring forward detailed proposals to be considered by the Attorney General (if adopted) to cease prosecution for offences associated with personal possession and associated cultivation of small quantities of cannabis subject to indicative thresholds, and treat personal cannabis use as a public health issue;
2. to request the Minister for Health and Social Services to bring forward detailed proposals to repeal or amend offences associated with personal possession and cultivation of small quantities of cannabis, subject to specific thresholds in law; and
3. to  request  the  Minister  for  Health  and  Social  Services  to  bring forward detailed  proposals  for  a trial  of  government-controlled production and  sale  of  non-medical cannabis  to  understand and evidence whether safe and responsible regulation delivers public health benefits.

MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES

REPORT Contents

Section 1: Background

Background to proposition  Page 6 Background to cannabis and cannabis policy  Page 9 Background to UK response to drugs policy reform  Page 11 Background  to  UN  reporting  framework  and  international  Page 13 approaches

Background to Jersey legislation  Page 13 Background to drugs policy  Page 15 Impact of cannabis use and mitigations  Page 27

Section 2: Development of proposed options

Initial development  Page 31 Section 3: Proposed options

Option A: bring forward detailed proposals to be considered by  Page 38 the  Attorney  General  (if  adopted)  to  cease  prosecution  for

offences  associated  with  personal  possession  and  associated cultivation of small quantities of cannabis subject to indicative thresholds, and treat personal cannabis use as a public health

issue;

Option B: bring forward detailed proposals to repeal or amend  Page 46 offences associated with personal possession and cultivation of

small quantities of cannabis, subject to specific thresholds in

law; and

Option  C:  Bring  forward  detailed  proposals  for  a  trial  of  Page 49 government-controlled  production  and  sale  of  non-medical

cannabis  to  understand  and  evidence  whether  safe  and responsible regulation delivers public health benefits

Section 4: Voting for multiple options  Page 55 Financial and manpower implications  Page 61 Appendix 1-8  Pages 64-98

Glossary

Cannabis: the Class B drugs "cannabis" and "cannabis resin". This collectively includes both the cannabis plant, any naturally occurring product or preparation derived  from  the  cannabis  plant,  such  as  fresh  or  dried  herbal  flower,  resin, oils, tinctures or other extracts in liquid forms.

Cannabis  Social  Clubs  (CSCs):  Cannabis  social  clubs  are  private,  non-profit organisations in which cannabis is grown and distributed to registered club members. As there is no profit, there is no motive to encourage cannabis consumption – hence clubs provide an alternative to illicit cannabis or government-controlled production and sale.

Cannabidiol (CBD): a non-psychoactive component of cannabis, it can interact and lessen some of the effects of THC. There is an ever-growing market for health and wellness products that contain CBD.

Criminalisation: making an action illegal and punishable in law (for example, drink- driving is punishable by fine or sentence).

Decriminalisation: an action is illegal and an offence is committed but there is no penalty in specific circumstances.

Legalisation: Actions are legal and not an offence, but associated offences may be introduced to protect other people from harm (for example, it is legal to possess and smoke cigarettes, but smoking is illegal in certain places).

Non-profit and for-profit markets: for-profit markets exist primarily  for  financial gain and profit. These are usually made up of private businesses. Examples include alcohol and tobacco markets. Non-profit markets are rarer and exist primarily for public good or other beneficial purposes. These are usually run by government agencies, non-profit organisations or charities. Examples could include Norway's government monopoly on alcohol, or charity gambling events where revenue is used to fund good causes.

Regulation: actions  are regulated  with  a framework of controls  to  ensure  public health and safety. Two examples of current regulation are medicines and alcohol (for example, it is legal for a shopkeeper to sell alcohol if a licence is held, but it is illegal for the shopkeeper to sell alcohol to under 18s.

Utensils: refers to equipment used to produce or consume cannabis, for example, pipes and bongs used to smoke cannabis.

Personal  cannabis use: refers  to  the  possession, cultivation and  consumption  of cannabis a by person, whose sole intent is to use the cannabis themselves rather than to supply the cannabis to others (whether or not they are supplying for profit). The definition of Personal cannabis use in this report does not include social supply (see below). Personal cannabis use differs from commercial cannabis activities, which are activities undertaken with the intention of profiting from the production and supply of cannabis, whether legally or illegally.

Public good: In relation to drug policies, the concept public good' means the development of policies that deliver benefits to the wider public and to distinct groups of  people  (for  example,  people  who  use  drugs)  by  helping  improve  their health, welfare or safety. This is distinct from policies motivated by economic factors along (for example, increase profit etc).

Social supply: social supply is supplying drugs to friends and acquaintances (either for free or at cost') as opposed to selling drugs to strangers for profit.[1]

THC: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol: is the psychoactive component of cannabis that causes the individual to feel high'. It effects both the nervous system and the brain.

Section 1: Background

BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION

1. In June 2024, the States Assembly debated P.31/2024 (as amended), agreeing that the Council of Ministers should bring forward proposals related to proposed approaches to the decriminalisation, legalisation and regulation of non-medical cannabis2.
2. The purpose of this report and proposition is, in accordance with P.31/2024, to set out high  level  information related  to three different approaches to shifting  public policy away from criminalisation for personal use of cannabis, towards a health based harm reduction approach, and to ask the Assembly which of the three Options should be subject to further development by the Minister for Health and Social Services. In this proposition, and for the avoidance of doubt:

• Option A is to request the Minister for Health and Social Services to bring forward  detailed  proposals  to  be  considered  by  the  Attorney  General  (if adopted) to cease prosecution for offences associated with personal possession and associated cultivation of small quantities of cannabis subject to indicative thresholds, and treat personal cannabis use as a public health issue;

• Option B is to request the Minister for Health and Social Services to bring forward detailed proposals to repeal or amend offences associated with personal possession and cultivation of small quantities of cannabis, subject to specific thresholds in law;

• Options C is to request the Minister for Health and Social Services to bring forward detailed proposals for a trial of government-controlled production and sale of non-medical cannabis to understand and evidence whether safe and responsible regulation delivers public health benefits.

3. Should Option  A,  B and/or  C be  approved  for  continued  development  by  the Assembly  then  further  research,  consultation and  policy  development  will  be undertaken to support the design of detailed policy proposals for future debate by the States  Assembly. Specifically,  should  Option  A  be  approved  for  continued development, either on its own or in combination with any other Options, it must be noted that any detailed proposals that are adopted by the Assembly, at a future date, would need to be considered by the Attorney General. This is because it is the Attorney General who is officially responsible for the prosecution service and for guidance as to prosecutions in Jersey.
   4. Voting for multiple Options

States Members may vote for one Option, or more than one Option. The effects of voting for more than one Option are explained in Section 4. In summary:

Table 1: Overview of voting for either single or multiple options

Voting for:

2 Note: P.31/2024 also required rescheduling of cannabinol and its derivatives which will be provided for by Order of the Minister by the end of 2025.

*Example amount for illustrative purposes only

5. No change to current approach

If States Members do not want to change Jersey's current approach to criminalisation for personal use of cannabis, they can vote to reject all three Options.

If all three Options are rejected, Jersey would retain its current framework in relation to controls on personal cannabis use, with matters being dealt with at Parish Hall s in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidance. See paragraph 31 for information about the Attorney General's Guidance.

Furthermore, Jersey would effectively be deciding not to reform its public policy on drugs control and would therefore avoid any potential diversion from UK public policy. See paragraph 12 for information on the UK response to drugs reform.

6. Note: Non-medical cannabis

The three proposed Options focus on use of cannabis for non-medical purposes only.

Non-medical cannabis refers to cannabis which is used for non-medical purposes i.e., it is not medical cannabis which has been prescribed by a clinician, in accordance with the law, to treat illness or symptoms (see paragraph 10).

Non-medical  cannabis is cannabis  used  for  recreational  purposes,  and  for  other purposes, such as self-medication. It includes medical cannabis, where that medical cannabis is being used contrary to its prescribed purposes or by persons other than the patient.

BACKGROUND TO CANNABIS AND CANNABIS POLICY What is cannabis?

7. Cannabis is the most widely consumed illicit drug in Jersey, the UK and Europe. Cannabis refers to any plant in the genus cannabis or its preparations for use (such as in herbal, resin and liquid forms).
8. Hemp is  a  form  of  cannabis  cultivated for  industrial  use to make biomaterials, cosmetics, animal feed, food and supplements. One of the key differences between hemp and other forms of cannabis is their cannabinoid content. Cannabinoids are compounds found primarily in the cannabis plant; many are psychoactive with the most

widely  known  psychoactive  compounds  being  tetrahydrocannabinol  (THC)  and cannabinol (CBN).

9. CBD is a non-psychoactive cannabis compound, but it has biological effects and can influence the effect of psychoactive cannabinoids. CBD products are widely available in health food shops.

What is medical cannabis?

10. Medical cannabis or Cannabis Based Products for Medicinal Use (CBPMs) are typically herbal and oil-based cannabis preparations which are prescribed to patients for the treatment of various conditions. CBPMs include both licenced and unlicenced CBPMs.

1. Licensed CBPMs have undergone testing and have been granted marketing licences by medicines regulators to treat certain conditions such as epilepsy. In Jersey, licenced CBPMs (such as Sativex, Drobabinol and Epidiolex) are only prescribed by hospital consultants.
2. Unlicensed CBPMs are medicines that have not undergone full testing to prove their safety or effectiveness in treating any medical conditions and have not received a marketing authorisation license from medicine regulators. In Jersey, unlicenced CBPMs are prescribed by doctors in multiple private cannabis clinics as a treatment for a wide range of conditions (e.g. insomnia, pain).

11. In 2023 an audit of unlicenced CBPMs dispensing in Jersey was published. That audit found that:

• the volume of unlicenced dispensing in Jersey is notably higher than the UK by percentage  of  population  (4.01%  of  the  Jersey's  population  received  a prescription for a CBPM compared to 0.04% of England's population; 6.08% of  Jersey's  working  age  population  received  a  prescription  for  a  CBPM compared to 0.05% in England.

• a number of patients received prescriptions from two or more prescribers in Jersey.

• Multiple prescriptions were for amounts that would reasonably be assumed to be  more  than  1 months'3 supply  of  medical  cannabis (NICE and  NHS guidance advises no  more  than  30  days'  supply should  be  provided  to a patient)4.

BACKGROUND ON UK RESPONSE TO DRUGS POLICY REFORM

12. In considering Options A, B and C, the Assembly are asked to note that drugs policy in Jersey must accord with three United Nations conventions that provide for global drug control which have been extended to Jersey (see paragraph 23 for more detail). The UK, as the signatory to those Conventions, is accountable to the UN for Jersey as part of the UK's compliance and, as such, it must be anticipated that the UK will

3 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng46/chapter/recommendations

4 https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/2019-08/Controlled%20drug%20prescribing.pdf

examine closely any actions taken by Jersey which, in the UK's opinion, may impact on their own compliance.

13. Government of Jersey officers have discussed the three Options set out in this proposition with UK Government officials (from the Home Office, Foreign Office and Ministry of Justice). In doing so, Jersey has evidenced that other jurisdictions, that are also signatories to the three UN Conventions, have actively implemented public policies which accord with the three Options, i.e. we do not think that Jersey is proposing anything that has not been determined to be Convention complaint by those other jurisdictions.
14. At this juncture, the UK has not provided detailed comment on the three Options, but it has sought legal advice on actions permitted under the three UN conventions and agreed that, once informed of the Assembly's decision on whether to pursue Option A, B and / or C, they will advise Jersey of their position. In doing so, the UK will need to consider matters related, but not limited, to:

1. compliance with the three UN drug control Conventions,
2. matters such as border security (e.g. if cannabis is legal in Jersey, will this have an impact on illegal cannabis importation at the UK's borders?),
3. the potential impact that Jersey's public drug policy could have / be considered to have on the various other international conventions / arrangements (related to matters such as travel and trade) for which Jersey is reliant on the UK.

15. Hence, in determining which Options to adopt, if any, the Assembly must note that:

1. the Health Minister requires a decision on the Assembly's preferred Option/s in order to bring forward detailed proposals to the Assembly.
2. the  Health  Minister's  ability  to  realise  the  preferred  Option/s could be impacted by the UK. It is understood that the UK will advise Jersey of its legal position once it is informed of the preferred Option/s and dialogue will continue throughout the development of any detailed proposals.

16. Therefore, any decision taken by the Assembly is a decision that supports further development of Options, and associated liaison with the UK. The Assembly is not, at this juncture, being asked to determine Jersey's public policy in relation to personal cannabis use.
    17. UK response to drugs  policy reform in devolved  administrations / overseas territories

In  2023  the   Scott ish  Government [2]called  on  the  UK  Government  to  either decriminalise all  drugs  for  personal use in  Scotland  (including updating the drug classification system to reflect harms cause) or devolve powers to Scotland to enable them to reform their drugs laws.[3] The UK Government said that there were no plans to alter the current stance on drugs policy across the UK.

In 2022, Bermuda's parliament passed a Bill legalising the supply of recreational cannabis and removing its status as a controlled drug, permanently. However, Royal Assent was withheld as it was concluded that the Bill was not consistent with obligations held by the UK and Bermuda under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances7.

18. Local information suggests that the traditional illicit cannabis market has largely been displaced by diverted medical cannabis, i.e., people are securing prescriptions for medical cannabis as opposed to using illicit cannabis and / or supplying or selling their medical cannabis to others. It is therefore reasonable to assume that any future changes to Jersey's drug policy may impact the medical cannabis market.
19. Work is currently underway to develop improved monitoring and regulation of medical cannabis prescribing in Jersey to help ensure patient safety.

Cannabis use in Jersey

20. Local data is not sufficient to estimate the prevalence of total cannabis use in Jersey (medical and non-medical). UK data indicates 6.8% of people (aged 16 to 59 years) have used cannabis in the last year8 compared to 8.4% of people (aged 15 to 64) across the EU9. Noting that an audit of medical cannabis prescribing in Jersey indicates around 4% of the local population (aged 18 and over) are in receipt of a medical cannabis prescription10, it is probably reasonable to assume that overall use of medical and non- medical cannabis in Jersey may be closer to EU rates than to UK rates
21. In 2018, 13% of Year 10 students and 27% of Year 12 students who responded to Jersey's Children and Young People's Survey reported they had used cannabis in the previous year, with these rates subsequently dropping year-on-year to 8% and 21% in 2024.  This drop corresponds to  a  drop  in self-reported alcohol  and  other  drug  use amongst  young  people and is contrary  to  concerns  that  access  to diverted medical cannabis would result in higher rates of use amongst young people.

Cannabis Use Disorder

22. The prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) (also known as addiction or dependency) in Jersey is unknown, but CUD is estimated to effect around 10% of people who use cannabis for non-medical and medical purposes respectively11. Across the EU it is estimated that around 1.5% of adults use cannabis daily (or almost daily) with daily use indicating potential dependency12. The legalisation of the sale of cannabis in some high-income countries may increase the prevalence of CUD by making more potent cannabis products more readily available. Any change to Jersey's approach to cannabis should inform users about the risks of CUD and provide information on how to obtain assistance if they develop cannabis-related mental and/or physical health problems.

7https://www.gov.uk/government/news/governor-of-bermuda-update-on-cannabis-licensing- bill

8Office for National Statistics (2024) Drug misuse in England and Wales: year ending March 2024.

9https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/european-drug-report/2025/cannabis_en

10 https://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=5794 11https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8655458/ 12https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/european-drug-report/2025/cannabis_en

BACKGROUND  TO  UN  REPORTING  FRAMEWORK  AND INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES

23. Global drug control is shaped by three United Nations drug conventions:

1. Single  Convention  on  Narcotic  Drugs  1961:  aims  to  combat  the production, trafficking and abuse of narcotic drugs
2. Convention  on  Psychotropic  Substances  1971:  aims  to  control  the production, distribution and consumption of psychotropic substances (extends beyond the narcotics controls in the 1961 convention)
3. Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988: aims to promote and strengthen global cooperation to combat drug trafficking and related offenses.

24. Taken together the three Conventions:

1. define thelegal obligationsof States that are signatories to the Conventions
2. shapenational  drug  policiesthrough scheduling, criminalisation  and  public health mandates
3. enableoperational coordinationacross borders to combat drug trafficking and misuse.

25. The  UK is a signatory to  the  three  Conventions, which  have  all  been  extended to Jersey. This means Jersey must comply with Conventions in a similar way to the UK but possesses no direct power or influence at the UN level. The UK has the authority and  power  to represent Jersey  at  the  UN  and will seek to protect the  UK's own compliance by monitoring and acting on actions in Jersey which could breach the conventions.

26. See Appendix 1 for more detail on the UN Conventions. BACKGROUND TO JERSEY LEGISLATION

27. The Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 is the primary piece of legislation that controls narcotic drugs in Jersey. The Law:

• categorises certain substances or products into three classes of controlled drugs (Class A, B and C),

• imposes  various  restrictions  on  those  controlled  drugs,  in  relation  to importation, exportation, production, supply, manufacture, possession, etc.,

• creates a series of criminal offences for breaches of those restrictions. E.g., producing or supplying a controlled drug could result in a prison sentence of up to 14 years (or a fine) whereas possession carries a potential sentence of up to 5 years (or a fine).

28. Cannabis and cannabis resin are categorised as Class B drugs, and Cannabinol and cannabinol  derivatives are  categorised as  Class  A  drugs  (although  these  will  be reclassified as Class B drugs before the end 2025). As a controlled drug, cannabis's cultivation, production, supply, importation, etc. are tightly controlled. Possession of associated utensils is also prohibited (e.g.: bongs, pipes).

29. Various Orders under the Law make associated provisions. Examples include:

1. cannabis cultivation is permitted by Ministerial licence13,
2. cannabis can be both a prohibited controlled drug and a medical product that can  be  prescribed, supplied and  administered,  although  medical  cannabis cannot be smoked legally,
3. Centeniers may impose a fine (£200) where a person is charged with possession of cannabis (or importation of personal amounts) where the person accepts the decision of the Centenier.

30. See Appendix 2 for additional information about relevant legislation in Jersey. Attorney General's guidance in relation to cannabis
31. The Attorney General is officially responsible for the prosecution service and for guidance as to prosecutions in Jersey. The Attorney General is also the titular head of Jersey's Honorary Police and provides Directions and Guidance to Centeniers on how Parish   Hall  Enquiries  should  be  conducted  in  relation  to  offences  involving  the possession of controlled drugs. The Attorney General's Direction and Guidance for Centeniers dealing with cases of the possession of controlled drugs14 states that:

"it is in the public interest for certain cases of possession and importation for personal use only of controlled drugs to be dealt with by way of written caution at a Parish Hall rather than by prosecution (i.e. summary fine at a Parish Hall or in the Magistrate's Court)."

32. Therefore, a Centenier may deal with a person by way of written caution for a first or second offence of possession (or importation) of a range of class A, B and C drugs. This includes cannabis for personal use only if the amount is less than 15 grams, if the individual admits the offence, and certain criteria are met. These criteria can include that the individual attends the Alcohol & Drug Service for education and harm-reduction advice and does not commit any other offences during a set time period.
33. All written cautions will be recorded in writing, with a record of that written caution being maintained by the Police, but it will not appear on the person's criminal record.
34. Where a person commits a third offence of possession of a personal amount (or a second  offence  within  less  than  12  months  after  their  first  offence,  or  where the Centier determines a fine should be imposed), the Centenier may impose a fine (£200 for cannabis).
35. Where a fine is imposed, a record of that fine will be maintained by the Police, but it will not appear on the person's criminal record.
36. Parish Hall written cautions and fines are not addressed by the Rehabilitation of Offenders  (Jersey)  Law 2001; hence  they  stay  on  a  person's  police  record  in perpetuity.

13A number of companies in Jersey have been granted a licence, by the Health Minister, to cultivate cannabis in order to manufacture cannabis based medical products. These companies have been through a thorough application and assessment process, which includes inspected by officials from the Drugs and Firearms Licencing Unit from within the Home Office. They must demonstrate adherence to strict security, procedural and cultivation standards. 14https://www.lawofficers.je/publications/guidance-and-directives/parish-hall- enquiries/controlled-drugs/

37. All  other  offences  which  a Centenier or  the  Attorney  General  feels  are not appropriate for Parish Hall s must be dealt with the via Youth, Magistrate or Royal Court. Outcomes can range from fines to probation, treatment orders or imprisonment.
38. In general, decisions about whether to prosecute are taken by individual Centeniers but the Attorney General has ultimate authority and can overrule a Centenier's decision. More detail about the Attorney General's Directions and Guidance is in Appendix 2.

BACKGROUND TO DRUGS POLICY Summary of approaches to drugs policy

39. There are three main approaches to drugs policy:

• criminalisation  (or  prohibition)  -  drug  use  and  related  activities  (such  as possession for personal use) is illegal, punished, and treated primarily as a criminal justice issue

• decriminalisation  - personal drug  use  and  related  activities  are  illegal  but considered minor offences which are not punished

• legalisation (legal regulation) - where personal drug use is a legal with no need for police involvement, unless in relation to activities that are outside the law (for example, the personal use of cannabis is legal, but importation of cannabis is illegal)

40. Beneath  these  three  main  approaches  there  exists  a  continuum  of  different responses, which runs from the death penalty as one extreme, to permitting commercial production of drugs as the other extreme.

Further information on three main approaches to drugs policy is set out in Appendix 3. Shifting approaches to drug policies in other jurisdictions

41. Governments worldwide have historically adopted punitive approaches to drugs in order to eliminate use. To date, elimination has not been achieved and there is growing recognition that punitive approaches include harmful consequences.[4] This recognition is creating a shift towards more effective approaches to drug policy which typically aim to delay the onset of use and to prevent harms associated with use[5].

Table 2: impact of key policy interventions

17https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/45/2/e215/6779883

18Babor et al. (2018) Drug Policy and the Public Good: Second Edition. Oxford University Press.

42. Indeed, the UN's Chief Executives Board for Coordination – the highest-level coordination forum of the United Nations system chaired by the UN Secretary-General

- recently called for jurisdictions to:

"promote alternatives to conviction and punishment in appropriate cases, including the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use, and to promote the principle of proportionality, to address prison overcrowding and over incarceration by people accused of drug crimes."

43. At present, over 30 countries  have  adopted some  form of decriminalisation of possession for personal use (whether ceasing prosecution or repeal of offences from law) with several others moving beyond decriminalisation toward the introduction of government-controlled production and sale or for-profit sale:

Table 3: High level overview of global approaches

 See Appendix 4 for an overview of different countries approaches to cannabis.

44. Whilst evidence of the effects and benefits of ceasing prosecution or repealing offences relating to personal use is generally well established, there is comparably less evidence as to the effects of government-controlled production and sale, as this is still a relatively novel approach.

45. When comparing models across jurisdictions (as set out in the table above), it is important to bear in mind that each jurisdiction faces its own unique issues which inform their local decisions regarding drugs policy. Therefore, no two approaches are exactly alike. The variation in models across jurisdictions can make comparisons and evaluations between them difficult, and it should not be assumed that a drug policy from one jurisdiction will have the same outcomes when applied to a different jurisdiction.
46. It is similarly anticipated that any future detailed proposals developed for Jersey will be unique to Jersey and will not directly replicate the provisions of other jurisdictions.
47. The  countries  that  have  moved  towards  introducing  government-controlled production and sale (equivalent to Option C) have generally done so by:

• legalising the regulated sale and supply of cannabis on a trial basis, with a view to testing and producing evidence on which models of production and sale are the most effective at reducing harm (these trials have not been declared by the UN as non-Convention compliant), or

• legalising the sale and supply of cannabis on a permanent basis and, in doing so, accepting the risk of criticism and potential sanction as signatories to the UN Conventions (e.g. Uruguay).

Local drugs policy/policy context

48. As  described  in  paragraph 32, there  are  already  some  elements  of non- prosecution in Jersey's current approach to drugs, as provided for in the Attorney General's Direction and Guidance (e.g. in relation to possession and importation for personal use). However, that Direction and Guidance, and the associated elements of non-prosecution, does not extend to possessing utensils and cannabis cultivation for personal  use.  More  importantly,  a  person  is  still  arrested  for  possession  and /or importation for personal use, is still charged and will still receive a written caution, albeit will not incur a fine for first or second offence.
49. Furthermore, Jersey law continues to provide for punishment across a spectrum of drug offences. The law currently does not formally differentiate between "personal" and "commercial"  offences  or  punishments.  Prison  penalties  for  offences  involving cannabis can be up to fourteen years for cultivation or intent to supply, and up to five years for possession. However, if a person is charged with possession of a Class B drug (without intent to supply), a Centenier has the power to impose a written caution or fine (see paragraph 32). Where a written caution or fine is imposed, the case must be related to personal possession as opposed to commercial supply.
50. It is not envisaged that any commercial supply offences would be repealed or amended as a result of any detailed proposals that may be developed as a result of Option/s A, B or C. Offences in relation to intent to supply, possession or cultivation amounts above any personal thresholds, and cultivation of above personal limits will remain in law and will continue to be prosecuted.

Relevant Jersey strategies

51. There are a number of government strategies which are relevant to Jersey's drugs policy. These include:

• Jersey's Substance Use Strategy 2023 to 2033

• Youth Justice Review 2019

• Sustainable wellbeing/Future Jersey

• Building A Safer Community Framework

52. Jersey's Substance Use Strategy 2023 to 2033[6] sets out how Jersey will respond to substance use, including alcohol and drugs. It takes a "health and social" approach i.e. it focuses on addressing health and social harms associated with substance use, as distinct from a punitive approach. The strategy acknowledges that the current policy of criminalisation of drug use creates issues that may impact the improvement of people's health and social outcomes. Key strategy objectives include:

1. Reviewing how small quantities of controlled drugs are dealt with to ensure alignment with a health and social based approach. This includes a focus on identifying and responding to wider risk factors that influence substance use and offending behaviour,
2. Review of existing legislation, ensuring that Jersey's laws are workable within the current drug landscape and are consistent with a health and social approach,
3. Continue progression away from criminalisation toward decriminalisation and legalisation. This will include ensuring alignment to existing government commitments related to health improvement and protecting children,
4. Protecting children, young people, and others at risk of exploitation by organised crime. This includes exploring legislation options to provide amnesty in cases of coercion.

53. Arguably Jersey's current drugs policy fails to align with our Substance Use Strategy.
54. The Youth Justice Review (2019) [7]recommended a multi-agency approach to youth justice, focusing on the rights and needs of children. That review informed the Youth Justice Roadmap, which outlines an approach to youth justice that is restorative in nature and addresses the needs of children involved in offending behaviours, primarily through prevention, early intervention, and rehabilitation. It is arguable that the current approach to drugs policy could negatively impact the improvement of some key outcomes of the Youth Justice Review. Ideally, a revised approach to drugs policy should enable, strengthen and benefit the existing Youth Justice Roadmap and its intended outcomes.
55. Sustainable wellbeing / Future Jersey (2017) [8]sets out Jersey's commitment to sustainable wellbeing. Sustainable wellbeing is about improving long-term community, economic and environmental wellbeing. The Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019 requires decisions on taxes and spending to take sustainable wellbeing into account.
56. Progress on sustainable wellbeing is measured through Island Outcome Indicators (IOIs), and it is intended that, wherever possible, all policy proposals should increase sustainable wellbeing. Therefore, any changes to Jersey's drug policy should work to improve community wellbeingincluding supporting people to be safe and secure, in addition to healthywhilst minimising impact on economic and environment outcomes. This includes supporting people's employment and economic activity. As

such, all public policies should consider IOIs in their development and balance potential benefits against risks.

57. It is acknowledged that drug policy changes can impact a wide range of IOIs. (A full  list  of  potential  impacted IOIs can  be  found  in  Appendix 7). Changes  made in one area can  affect indicators  in  another  area. One  example  is  that unrestricted cannabis  use in  some  young  people  could lead to  poorer  educational attainment  and  increased  risk  of  mental  health  problems. To mitigate  this risk, prevention methods specific to young people feature as part of all three Options.
58. Building  a  Safer  Community  (BASC)  Delivery  Framework22 (2024  – onwards) The Building a Safer Community Framework is an approach to community safety in Jersey which requires coordinated effort from a wide range of stakeholders across  the  Island.The  Framework  encompasses prevention  to  community safety and how the island responds to crime, pro criminal behaviour and associated harm.
59. It is envisaged that elements of the BASC Framework will be incorporated into any detailed proposals related to Option A, B and / or C, to ensure that those proposals align with the framework.

Rationale for changing Jersey's approach to drug policy

60. In addition to failing to align with, or having some negative impact on, adopted government strategies (as described above), there are other key problems or policy failings that arise from Jersey current approach to drugs policy, as described in the table below.

Table 4: Underlying problems and key considerations

22https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Crime%20and%20justice/Building%20a%20Sa fer%20Community%20(BASC)%20Framework.pdf

23https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262797020_Beyond_drug_dealing_Developing_an d_extending_the_concept_of_'social_supply'_of_illicit_drugs_to_'minimally_commercial_sup ply'

Realisation of public benefit

• It will take time for changes to drugs policy to embed and deliver benefit

• The inability to evidence impact / benefits in the short to medium term may be  interpreted as  lack  of effectiveness hence  it  is  critical to  manage all stakeholders expectations (including the public) and, at the same time, to identify and delivery early benefits.

IMPACT OF CANNABIS USE AND MITIGATIONS Predictors of problematic and dependent use

61. Predictors  of  problematic  and  dependent  use  of  cannabis  include  biological, psychological,  and  social  factors.  These  can  include  genetic  predisposition,  brain changes, childhood trauma, mental health and psychological traits, unhealthy coping mechanisms, family or peer influences, or self-medicating due to lack of healthcare access. Problematic or dependent cannabis use is rarely the result of cannabis use itself, it is often driven by other factors, some of which can be prevented or mitigated.
62. There are a wide range of evidence-based approaches which could be adopted to help prevent increases in cannabis use. These will be built into delivery of the three proposed Options:

• Discourage cannabis use - encourage islanders to reduce or stop using cannabis entirely

• Delay onset of use in children, young people,  and adults through primary prevention and other prevention efforts (e.g. supervised leisure activities for children and young people, which reduce risky behaviours and promote positive behaviours, promotion of healthy lifestyles and selective and targeted support.)

• Reduce risks and strengthen protective factors, which can lead to problematic and dependent use (e.g. through specific advice to higher risk groups, increased screening within services, and targeted prevention.)

• Introduce brief interventions as part of early intervention efforts to encourage people to access support services (e.g., a receptionist at a GP surgery, a practice nurse assessing a new patient, a health visitor advising new parents).

Association of psychosis-related outcomes and cannabis use

63. It is widely acknowledged that some cannabis users experience psychosis-related outcomes, which can range from sub-clinical expressions to full clinical diagnoses (e.g., from non-persistent paranoia or uneasiness to people with severe disorders of mental functioning and behaviour including, for example, schizophrenia). Appendix 8 provides additional information about psychosis-related outcomes.
64. The  relationships  between  cannabis  use  and  psychosis-related  outcomes  are, however, generally considered to be  associations  rather than  being causal. Studies regularly identify the same three variables as being associated with increased risk of cannabis-induced psychosis-related outcomes:

• Predisposition through genetics, individual's personal history or their familial history  of  mental  health  conditions.  This  may  include  conditions  like schizophrenia, brief psychotic disorder, etc.

• Cannabis-related factors, such as strength and frequency of use. E.g. frequently using high THC strains, bingeing on cannabis or using daily.

• Age of first cannabis use, e.g. using at a young age.

65. A number of evidence-based interventions can be used to prevent psychosis-related outcomes. These will be built into delivery of the three proposed Options:

• Discourage cannabis use - encourage islanders to reduce or stop using cannabis entirely

• Raise awareness regarding potential genetic predisposition

• Raise awareness of early signs and symptoms which could prevent psychosis- related outcomes from worsening or progressing

• Provide advice regarding risks of high THC levels and use patterns which could put certain individuals at increased risk (such as children and young people, or adults with relevant family histories)

• Training professionals to spot signs and symptoms of early psychosis-related outcomes

• Introduction of brief interventions as part of early intervention to encourage earlier access to mental health support. E.g. a receptionist at a GP surgery, a practice nurse assessing a new patient, a health visitor advising new parents

Smoking tobacco and cannabis together  

66. The harmful effects of tobacco smoke are well understood, but the harmful effects of  cannabis  smoke  are  less  well  known.  Cannabis  smoke  can contain more tar, hydrocarbons and different risks than tobacco smoke26. While the  associations between cannabis and lung cancer are weaker than tobacco, cannabis smoking is associated with mouth cancer, chronic bronchitis, and impaired respiratory function. Using cannabis and tobacco together can increase those harms and make it more difficult to reduce or stop using both substances.
67. While cannabis and tobacco  smoke contain different carcinogens many can be eliminated through the use of vaporisers27, which also reduce lingering smells and the risks  of  second-hand  smoke.  Hence, regardless  of  the Option/s adopted by  the Assembly, work will continue to:

• discourage tobacco use and prevent children and young people from beginning to smoke

• target  at-risk  individuals  to  reduce  or  stop  smoking  (whether  tobacco  or cannabis)

• encourage safer alternatives (for example, using edibles, vaping cannabis or smoking with tobacco-free alternatives)

Immediate and short-term harms of cannabis use

68. Immediate and short-term effects of cannabis use can include increased heart rate, nausea or vomiting, confusion, anxiety, paranoia, delayed reaction times, impaired motor skills or distorted perceptions. While generally considered temporary, and rarely requiring medical intervention, accidents and harms can still occur. In many cases, these can be reduced through simple actions.

26Agrawal, A., Budney, A. J., & Lynskey, M. T. (2012). The cooccurring use and misuse of cannabis and tobacco: a review. Addiction, 107(7), 1221-1233.

27Melamede, R. (2005) Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic. Harm Reduct J. 18; 2:21.

69. A number of evidence-based interventions can be used to limit immediate and short- term harms. Any Option/s adopted by the Assembly will include work related to:

• Raise awareness of potentially dangerous/possible interactions with other medicines

• Discourage the use of cannabis alongside alcohol or other drugs

• Encourage people to eat before using cannabis

• Encourage harm reduction practices (e.g. short inhalations, reducing amounts used and THC levels) and socially responsible use (such as using away from children)

• Raising awareness of drug, mindset and setting factors, whether as part of prevention or at point of sale. For example, covering:

• recommended dosages,

• effect of recent mood, or current thoughts, feeling, emotions

• effect of ongoing mental health issues, and

• using in a safe environment, with other trusted people nearby.

• Training staff of cannabis outlets to offer advice and to respond to welfare concerns such as nausea or anxiety

• Limit THC levels on regulated products

Long-term health effects of cannabis use  

70. The long-term effects of cannabis use on a person can include an increased risk of addiction to cannabis. Long-term use can also impact a person's memory, concentration, and ability to think and make decisions. Theseeffects can last from several days, to months or longerafter you stop using cannabis. They may not be fully reversible, even when cannabis use stops.[11]
71. A number of evidence-based interventions can be used to mitigate the long-term effects of cannabis use. These include:

• Raise public awareness of cannabis risks and it should not be thought of as "healthy" especially if smoked

• Raise awareness amongst people who use cannabis of the key physical and mental health conditions that result from use, and their early signs and symptoms

• Provide targeted health promotion advice and interventions to individuals with certain higher risk profiles

• Incorporate cannabis use into standard health discussions to allow for brief interventions and early treatment of people who use cannabis

Road safety and cannabis use  

72. Matters related to road safety and drug use are not straightforward;[12] whilst cannabis use has been shown to impair driving, the extent of impairment is affected by multiple factors including:

• how the cannabis was consumed

• an individual's frequency of use and tolerance to cannabis

• whether cannabis is used in isolation or with other substances. E.g., where alcohol use is below the drink-drive limit, but the alcohol has been combined with cannabis, the levels of impairment can be significantly raised

73. Hence, regardless of Option/s adopted by the Assembly, steps will continue to be undertaken to:

• Support current work in tandem with other Ministers to address drug driving and wider road safety which includes the following:

• defining drug-impaired driving by law, based on a specific level of THC in blood

• defining impaired driving through combined alcohol and cannabis use by confirmed detection of both substances either in isolation or alongside each other

• introduction of roadside testing for drug driving

• Consider and mitigate the risks of combined alcohol and cannabis use on road safety

• Enable meaningful education and awareness raising of risks to the public and those who use cannabis (whether medical or non-medical).

Section 2: Development of proposed options

INITIAL DEVELOPMENT

74. The three proposed Options were developed following a process of desk research, which  included  consideration  of  a  wide  range  of  international  drug  policies  and associated  outcome/evidence  reviews.  This  research  enabled  identification  of  key matters for consideration (as per column A below,) which were then examined from the perspective of UN Convention compliance, perceived relative risks and the potential impact on health, safety and criminal activity outcomes, in order to determine if they should be incorporated into high level Options for discussion with the public and key stakeholders (as per column B below) or excluded (as per column C below).

Table 5: Initial decision on key matters

Public consultation  

75. A public consultation on potential approaches to non-medical cannabis ran from 30 May to 11 July 2025. The aim of the consultation was to gather public views to help inform the Options to be presented to the Assembly.

76. It is important to note that people who responded to the consultation chose to do so because of their interest in subject. It must not be assumed that their individual or collective views are representative of wider public opinion.

77. The consultation process included  public  meetings and  an  online survey.  See Appendix 5 for full details regarding survey findings.

78. 10,199 survey responses were received; however, it was evident from initial analysis that the majority of responses were completed by automated software or bots. Repeat IP address submissions that conformed to a specific pattern were therefore excluded from these results, leaving 2,063 responses that were deemed to be from the public in Jersey.

79. Key findings include:

• 47%  of  respondents  supported  allowing  a  regulated  sale  and  supply model (Option C)

• 34% of respondents supported allowing personal possession and home growing by individuals or within cannabis social clubs

• 12% of respondents said there should be no change in the current policy approach

80. Respondents  who  said there  should  be  no  change  to  current  policy  gave  the following top three reasons for their response:

• cannabis is harmful to people's health and should stay illegal

• changing the law could make cannabis more accessible to people, including young people

• legalising cannabis could lead to more addiction and mental health problems

81. Respondents who said there should be a change in approach to allow personal possession, home cultivation or cannabis social clubs gave the following top three reasons for their response:

• it is not right that people are criminalised for personal cannabis use

• the current approach wastes police and court time

• allowing some activities, like possession or home cultivation could reduce organised criminal involvement.

82. Respondents who said that regulated sale or supply of cannabis should be allowed gave the following top three reasons for their response:

• people should not be prosecuted for personal cannabis use

• the current approach wastes police and court time

• a legal cannabis market could generate revenue for other services.

83. The survey also asked if Jersey should begin to consider universal decriminalisation of all drugs. 80% of respondents supported the exploration of a different approach to universal drugs policy, and moving away from a criminalisation approach.

Stakeholder consultation  

84. In addition to public consultation, there was direct engagement with key groups of stakeholders between July to September 2025. This included dedicated workshops, meetings with service representatives, and discussions as part of existing multi-agency meetings.

Table 6: Stakeholders who were consulted

85. Key themes arising from stakeholder feedback included:

1. Need for change: All stakeholders either directly stated there is a need for change of approach in relation to cannabis for personal use or indicated support in  principle  for  a  change  of  approach.  Health  service/support  service stakeholders felt that criminalising personal cannabis use (and other drugs) had led to unintended consequences, many of which were evidenced in their own lines of work.

2. Proposed options: All stakeholders broadly felt that the three Options were rational and  responsible  approaches  (subject  to  provision  of more  detail). Stakeholders noted the requirement to explain the problems/issues each of the three Options is intended to address to aid understanding.
3. Areas of concern: Often focused on how proposals would be implemented, rather than what the  proposals aimed  to achieve.  In many cases, concerns about how aspects of proposals would be actioned were due to the current lack of detail.
4. Impact of proposals: Stakeholders stated that it was difficult to fully understand the likely impact of the three proposed Options due to lack of detail at this stage of development (as per Paragraph 3, Assembly direction on preferred Option is required  to enable  detailed  proposal  development).  In  particular,  the stakeholders found it difficult to consider the potential impact, or potential opportunities, of the proposed Options on their individual services or ways of working  (e.g.,  how  would  proposals  affect  arrangements  with  the UK and France? How would the Police test if an amount of cannabis was over or under a specific threshold?).
5. Need for caution by learning from medical cannabis: Many stakeholders referenced  the  need  to  learn  from  legislation  changes  that permitted the prescribing of medical cannabis in absence of any controls to ensure patient safety. Stakeholders felt that appropriate time should be taken to ensure any changes to cannabis policy result in safe, effective and practical outcomes, and that those changes should be considered against the backdrop of current high levels of medical cannabis prescribing in Jersey and the associated decline in illicit cannabis imports.
6. The stakeholder feedback was used to refine the three proposed Options as presented in this proposition.

Independent Drug Policy Consortium

86. The Independent Drug Policy Consortium ("IDPC") is a global network of over 190 members and a trusted source of expertise on drug policy reform. IDPC was founded in 2006 and, since 2011, has been an independent, not-for-profit organisation legally registered in the UK. The network is a collaborative initiative and a trusted source of expertise on drug policy reform.  It focuses on issues related to drug production, trafficking and use; and promoting objective and open debate on the effectiveness, direction and content of drug policies at national and international level. The IDPC provide  advice  to  UN  Member  States,  national  and  regional  governments, civil servants and policy makers.
87. The IDPC Secretariat was commissioned to provide advice and expertise on the three Options, this included:

• option design

• harm reduction and health prevention design

• identification of potential gaps or oversights in respect of drug policy

• relevant information, learnings and insights from other jurisdictions

• report structure and editorial critique.

88. Advice was also sought from the IDPC regarding the compliance of Options A, B

&  C  with  the  three  UN  Conventions,  and during problem  identification  (see table 4), inclusion and exclusion decisions (see table 5). The IDPC said:

1. Decriminalisation (Option A and B)

• "No specific obligations to criminalise or penalise the use' of drugs exist per se within any of the Conventions."

• "All  three  Conventions  also  include  a  specific  clause  allowing  for  an alternative' to conviction or punishment"

• The current position of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB)[is]: "For minor drug-related offences including possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use committed by people who abuse drugs, the conventions do not oblige States to adopt punitive responses."

2. No prosecution of offence (Option A)

• The INCB acknowledges that there are a "restricted number of exceptions to the treaty obligation to establish the non-medical use of drugs as a punishable offence'", which are:

• "Application of alternative sanctions for "personal drug use instead of conviction and punishment", including treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation and social reintegration;"

• "The  principle  of  proportionality  allowing  States  to  refrain from punishment;"

• "Discretion permitted by virtue of Article 36(4) of the 1961 Convention, which recognises "that offences shall be prosecuted in conformity with the domestic law of a Party."

• In this analysis of the treaties, the INCB also states: "The Board [i.e. the INCB] has  consistently  explained  that,  within  these  limits,  measures  to decriminalise or depenalise the personal use and possession of small quantities of drugs are consistent with the provisions of the drug control conventions."

3. Regulated / government-controlled production and sale (Option C)

• "The UN treaties include exemptions from the broad prohibitions where a drug is  being  used  for  scientific  or  medical purposes'.  Some  member  states have sought to use these prominent exemptions for a novel strategy to explore commercial  retail  cannabis  markets  by  undertaking  pilot'  retail  markets, research  studies'  or  policy experiments'.  Such  approaches  are  often government authorised, overseen by academic institutions, subject to careful evaluation on agreed outcome indicators, and geographically and time limited."

• "Ultimately, multilateral entities exist to serve the needs of their member states and, appreciating the direction that cannabis reforms are taking globally, there does appear to be some willingness to allow such experiments as a way of navigating these unchartered waters in international law."

89. In  summary, the IDPC  advises that  Options  A,  B  and  C "can be  taken forward" within  the  current  wording  of  the  UN Conventions. IDPC  advice on Convention compliance will continue to be sought during the development of final detailed proposals, to ensure compliance with the three relevant UN Conventions. A full copy of the IDPC advice is provided in Appendix 6.

Section 3: Proposed Options

90. The Assembly is asked to consider three Options for change, with each option to be voted on separately. Members may vote for one Option or more than one Option. Should members wish to see no change to Jersey's current approach, they may vote to reject all Options.
91. This Section of the report describes the Options at a high level and sets out matters that will be considered in more detail once the Assembly has indicated which Option/s should be subject to further detailed development. As stated in paragraph 15, developing the Assembly's preferred Option/s will require ongoing discussion with the UK to understand their position. In addition, should detailed proposals for Option A to cease prosecution, be developed and adopted by the Assembly, then these detailed proposals would need to be considered by the Attorney General.
92. Section 4 of the report then describes the effect of adopting one or more of the Options.

Indicators and metrics  

93. All the Options would require development of detailed indicators and metrics to understand the impact of implementing the Option/s. These include:

1. the  health,  wellbeing  and  wider  outcomes  (e.g. employment,  mental  and physical impacts) for people who use cannabis
2. changes in rates of use or to the cohorts of people who are using cannabis
3. impact on the illicit commercial cannabis market and the legal medical cannabis market
4. impact  on  wider  society,  including  in  relation  to  crime  and  antisocial behaviour

94. These metrics would be critical to understanding whether the changes are positive or negative or require further mitigation. At this stage, the proposed Options are not sufficiently detailed to set out what those indicators should be, but this detail will be brought forward should the Assembly decide to progress any Option/s.

Option A:  Bring  forward  detailed  proposals  to be considered by the Attorney General (if adopted) to cease prosecution  for offences  associated  with  personal possession and associated cultivation of small quantities of cannabis subject to indicative thresholds in law, and treat personal cannabis use as a public health issue

95. Option A aims to address the following identified problems. These problems are fully explained in Table 4, and are mostly negative consequences of criminalisation:

• Barriers to accessing support as a result of:

• Stigma around drug use

• Fear of arrest if disclosing use or involvement in illegal activity

• Restrictions on public health interventions:

• Difficulty in providing brief interventions

• Restrictions on enabling harm reduction actions

• Challenges for effective young person prevention

• Limitations on meaningful health advice.

• Detrimental impact of criminal justice system, such as:

• No current acknowledgement of social supply

• Impact of arrest and repeated interaction with police

• Impact of criminal record

• Disproportionate effect on specific groups of disadvantaged people

• Impact on families

• Impact to children from parental arrest.

• Burden on Police, Parish Hall s and Courts

• Drug market effects

• Problematic acquisition of cannabis

96. Option A will address those negative consequences through the delivery of two main aims and associated actions:

• Aim 1: Cease prosecution for personal cannabis use offences within indicative thresholds

• Aim 2: Respond to personal cannabis use as a public health issue (as opposed to a criminal justice issue) and increase access to earlier help and support

Aim  1:  Cease  prosecution  of  personal  cannabis  use offences within  indicative thresholds

Aim  1  /  Action  1:  Cease  prosecution for  the  possession  of small  amounts of cannabis, for the cultivation and production of small amounts, and for social supply of small amounts

97. Subject to development of detailed proposals and further consideration by the Attorney General should those detailed proposals be adopted, activities associated with cannabis for personal use could be considered minor offences for which individuals will not be prosecuted. Personal cannabis use offences would most likely include:

a.  possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use only.

1. cultivation and production for small amounts of cannabis for personal use only. Cultivation would likely include growing a small number of cannabis plants at home, as well as potential requirements for any plants to be hidden from public view. Production would likely include harvesting, drying and storing the leaves and flowers, and potentially processing oil or resin. It would not include extraction of THC.
2. associated social supply of small amounts of cannabis. As stated in the glossary, social supply is supplying drugs to friends and acquaintances (either for free or at cost') as opposed to selling drugs to strangers for profit.

98. In all cases those small amounts would need to fall within indicative thresholds (see below).
99. Treating personal cannabis use as a minor offence, which is not prosecuted, would mean that arrest, investigation and charge would not be necessary, providing that the offence was within all provisions/agreed criteria set out in law (see below).

100. Instead  of  taking  formal  action  (arrest,  etc.), the  Police  would most  likely issue words of advice (i.e. they would address the matter informally, as required and as appropriate to the circumstances). If the Police issue words of advice, a record would be  kept,  but  this  would  not  appear  on  a  person's  criminal  record,  nor  would  it be disclosed in Court proceedings. The purpose of keeping a record of words of advice is, for example, to support the identification of repeated offences that:

• indicate patterns of potential problematic cannabis use by the individual,

• are  potentially  borderline  vis-à-vis  what  is permitted in  law  (e.g. smoking cannabis in public where this is not permitted), or

• suggest that a commercial drugs offence may be committed.

101. For the purpose of clarity, personal cannabis use would remain an offence, but would be, subject to future consideration by the Attorney General, a minor offence for which prosecution would cease BUT the following would remain serious offences for which current practices related to arrest and charge would continue:

1. commercial drugs offences (whether or not for cannabis)
2. possession of other drugs for personal use
3. possession  associated  with  the  intent  to  supply,  or  offer  to  supply,  for commercial purposes
4. possession with intent to import or export.

102. In  cases  of  ambiguity  as  to  whether  an  offence  was  a personal  cannabis use offence; the police would investigate which may include arrest or interview under caution as it does now.

Indicative thresholds

103. The  distinction  between  possession  (and  cultivation/production)  for  personal cannabis use and for commercial activities would, in part, be differentiated by the amount of cannabis involved i.e. it would be a small amount based on indicative thresholds rather than specific thresholds as per Option B (e.g. 5 days' supply as opposed to 6 grams).

104. Use of indicative thresholds avoids the criminalisation of people who are known to possess larger  amounts, and  for  whom  criminalisation  would  simply  work  to compound existing harms and vulnerabilities or have a detrimental effect on their life chances and outcomes. This can include, for example:

1. people who are dependent on cannabis, and
2. younger adults and teenagers whose cannabis use may be driven by factors such as a recognised propensity toward higher risk, their peer relationships etc.

105. Examples of indicative thresholds used in jurisdictions which have moved away from criminalising people for cannabis offences include:

• possession of an amount that can be reasonably demonstrated to be for personal use only

• possession of X days' supply of cannabis, accepting that a day's supply for a person who is dependent on cannabis will be more than a day's supply for an occasional user

• cultivation  of  X  number  of  plants,  correlated  to  an  amount  that  can be reasonably demonstrated to be for personal use only, or

• in relation to social supply, an amount that can reasonably demonstrated to be a single day's supply which is for the purpose of supply to a person known to the individual without soliciting or without profit.

106. It is envisaged that, in most cases, small amounts of cannabis intended for personal use would not be confiscated by police or disposed of. Confiscation can be detrimental to the individual's immediate health and safety in cases of dependency and can increase demand for drugs which benefits illicit markets (where there is no legal market). This would be subject to development of detailed proposals related to powers to confiscate and dispose for safeguarding purposes, for example, in situations involving children or in response to welfare concerns.