22 Feb For the Italian Supreme Court seizing light hemp inflorescences is unlawful
We propose below the article, recently published on the website of NCTM Law Firm, signed by Paolo Quattrocchi (partner of NCTM Law Firm, director of the Centro Studi Italia – Canada and vice president of the Chamber of Commerce – Canada West), Guido Foglia (partner of NCTM Law Firm) and Michelle Pepe (Lawyer at NCTM Law Firm) to comment the judgment Criminal Supreme Court, dep. VI, Judgement no. 4920, January 31, 2019.
In the previous article Light hemp in Italy: products are booming in Italy, but recreational consumption is still illegal, it was not neglected to highlight that the Law 242/2016, as formulated, generated doubts of interpretation precisely on the sale of light hemp inflorescences, risking to inhibit this form of business in Italy.
The judgment in question in the “evolution of events” that we can create on the topic, certainly provides some answers and ideas for interesting reflections.
It is stated that “the lawfulness of the cultivation of cannabis on the basis of Law No. 242 of 2016 determines the lawfulness of the marketing of its products (and, in particular, of the inflorescences) containing an active substance of THC less than 0.6% – percentage of THC below which the substance is not considered by the law as production of legally relevant narcotic effects -, in the sense that they could no longer be considered (for legal purposes) as a narcotic drug subject to the discipline of the d.p.r. 309 of 1990, like other plant varieties that are not among those included in the tables attached to the aforesaid d.p.r. It follows that if the dealer of cannabis inflorescences from the crops considered by law n. 242 of 2016 is able to document the lawful origin of the substance, the probative seizure of the inflorescences, in order to perform further analysis, can be justified only if emerge specific evaluation criteria that make reasonable to doubt the truthfulness of the data offered and let us hypothesize the subsistence of a crime pursuant to art. 73, paragraph 4, d.p.r. 309 of 1990″.