Post by bisal37 on Mar 12, 2024 14:53:44 GMT 5
Growing two seedlings of Indian hemp (marijuana) at home for personal use does not constitute a crime. This was stated by the Sixth Criminal Section of the Cassation, which with a ruling (5254/16) filed last 8 February annulled the conviction issued in November 2013 by the Court of Appeal of Trento against a couple of twenty-year-olds, guilty of growing in a greenhouse cabinet... cultivating two marijuana plants at home for personal use does not constitute a crime ... of his home two Indian hemp plants, and to have a dryer for the treatment of the leaves produced.
According to the Supreme Court, the USA Phone Number interpretation provided by the judges of merit in their sentence, according to which the cultivation of plants for the production of narcotic substances is always punishable regardless of its possible personal use, appears to be ''undoubtedly rigid'', and this must instead be contrasted with an assessment regarding the existence of a ''concrete offensiveness'' of the conduct. On the basis of this principle, highlighted several times in recent years by the Constitutional Court and by the Supreme Court itself, the Sixth Criminal Section of the Palace of Justice recognized the substantial harmlessness of the home cultivation of two hemp plants, by virtue of its "confirmed use exclusively personal" and of its "minimum entity", such as to exclude "the possible diffusion of the producible substance and/or the expansion of cultivation" itself.
In fact, as established by the United Sections of the Supreme Court with two twin sentences of 2008, although the cultivation of marijuana plants is criminally relevant regardless of the destination of the product (therefore also for personal use), it is up to the judge from time to time to verify whether the conduct contested is suitable or not to ''jeopardize the protected legal asset'', i.e. public health. In other words, the punishment for the cultivation of this type of plant ''must be excluded when the judge ascertains its concrete inoffensiveness'', that is, if the obtainable substance ''is not suitable for producing a concretely detectable narcotic effect'' '.
According to the Supreme Court, the USA Phone Number interpretation provided by the judges of merit in their sentence, according to which the cultivation of plants for the production of narcotic substances is always punishable regardless of its possible personal use, appears to be ''undoubtedly rigid'', and this must instead be contrasted with an assessment regarding the existence of a ''concrete offensiveness'' of the conduct. On the basis of this principle, highlighted several times in recent years by the Constitutional Court and by the Supreme Court itself, the Sixth Criminal Section of the Palace of Justice recognized the substantial harmlessness of the home cultivation of two hemp plants, by virtue of its "confirmed use exclusively personal" and of its "minimum entity", such as to exclude "the possible diffusion of the producible substance and/or the expansion of cultivation" itself.
In fact, as established by the United Sections of the Supreme Court with two twin sentences of 2008, although the cultivation of marijuana plants is criminally relevant regardless of the destination of the product (therefore also for personal use), it is up to the judge from time to time to verify whether the conduct contested is suitable or not to ''jeopardize the protected legal asset'', i.e. public health. In other words, the punishment for the cultivation of this type of plant ''must be excluded when the judge ascertains its concrete inoffensiveness'', that is, if the obtainable substance ''is not suitable for producing a concretely detectable narcotic effect'' '.
