Introduction

On March 5, 2025, the “Georgian Dream” Parliament introduced a draft legislative package aimed at tightening drug policy. This package was adopted in its third reading on April 16. It proposes amendments to eight legal acts, including the Criminal Code, the Administrative Offences Code, and the Law “on Combating Drug-related Crime”. These changes significantly worsen the human rights situation for individuals who use or are addicted to psychoactive substances, while failing to effectively address the dangers posed by these substances and society’s concerns.

It is important to highlight that the situation in Georgia regarding the use of psychoactive substances is indeed concerning. According to the latest data from 2021, there were approximately 50 000 injecting drug users (IDUs) in Georgia, representing 2.23% of the country’s adult population.[1] Some sources suggest that this places Georgia first in terms of the number of injecting drug users.[2] Furthermore, recent information confirms that the use of non-injection drugs has also become a significant challenge in the country.[3] In response, experts in this field and health professionals are advocating for drug policy reform that would place the issues of psychoactive substance use and addiction under the health sector, rather than the criminal justice system. This reform would aim to address the problem with an evidence-based, human rights-oriented approach. However, the changes supported by the “Georgian Dream” disregard existing expertise and best practices, opting instead for carceral methods that rely on repressive apparatus.

In light of the recent repressive legislative changes introduced by the “Georgian Dream”, it is likely that the proposed amendments are also aimed at tightening control over broad segments of society. Under the guise of combating drug use, these changes could be used to persecute and harass individuals with differing opinions.

The Key Changes Outlined in the Legislative Package:

The draft law proposed by “Georgian Dream” includes amendments to a substantial portion of the legislation governing drug policy.[4] These changes concern both the penalties outlined in the Criminal Code and administrative sanctions, the maximum thresholds in terms of amounts of psychoactive substances, the evasion of so-called street drug testing procedures, as well as issues related to the restriction of other fundamental human rights. Additionally, the Criminal Code introduces a completely new concept: “compulsory treatment”.

The explanatory note to the draft legislative package states that the purpose of the amendments is to “strengthen the fight against the sale of drugs, as well as new psychoactive, psychotropic, and potent substances”.[5] The authors of the draft law emphasize the goal of raising the next generation in a healthy environment, alongside economic, public, and social development. However, the legislative package itself does not propose any changes to the legislation that would directly impact the upbringing of minors. Additionally, it is not grounded in any scientific knowledge or evidence related to the well-being of children.

Despite the stated goal of the draft legislative package to combat the sale of substances, the legislation significantly worsens the human rights situation for people who use psychoactive substances, disregarding their real needs. The amendments proposed to the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia increase the sanctions for the use of narcotic drugs (excluding cannabis and marijuana) as well as for the purchase/storage of small amounts. The upper limit of the existing fine and the term of administrative imprisonment are both quadrupled. As a result, a substance user, instead of the current fine of 500 GEL or up to 15 days of administrative detention, may face a fine ranging from 500 to 2 000 GEL or up to 60 days of administrative detention.[6] Under the current legislation, the repeated instance of drug use by someone subject to administrative penalty is also punishable under criminal law; However, the proposed draft law specifies the fine amount (as one of the sentences), which would be at least double the fine outlined in Article 45 of the Administrative Offences Code, leading to an increase in the criminal law penalty for drug use.[7] Drug users, especially injecting drug users, are a particularly vulnerable segment of society. Increasing the fine for the use of psychoactive substances will impose further financial pressure on them, worsening their social situation and limiting their access to essential services.  

The amendments to the Administrative Offences Code and the Criminal Code have classified evading a test to determine whether a person is under the influence of a drug, its analogue, or a precursor as an administrative offence. Originally, the draft amendments provided that repeated evasion by a person already subject to an administrative penalty would be treated as a criminal offence.[8] However, in the final version that was adopted, the provision for criminal liability for repeated evasion was removed. Despite this change, categorizing drug test evasion as an administrative offence is still highly problematic. Furthermore, the imposed penalties are disproportionately severe, with fines ranging from 500 to 2 000 GEL, or administrative imprisonment of up to 60 days. Notably, the penalty for refusing to undergo drug testing is equivalent to that for actual drug use. It is noteworthy, that this rule does not apply to the use of marijuana or testing to determine its effects, as the Constitutional Court of Georgia has partially legalized the use of marijuana.[9] Consequently, testing for the presence of marijuana cannot serve as a basis for legal action, except in specific cases.

The proposed amendments allow persons to be tested if their appearance and/or behavior raises sufficient suspicion that they may be under the influence of a drug, its analogue, or a precursor. This definition is too broad and raises concerns about the possibility of unscientific evaluations conducted by police officers, as well as the arbitrary requests for drug tests directed at citizens. What is particularly concerning in the draft law is the arbitrary nature of drug testing and the penalties imposed for refusing a test. Georgia has a challenging history with street drug testing. Between 2012 and 2016, over 190 000 individuals underwent forced drug tests, with 130 000 of these tests indicating no evidence of drug use. The situation was especially concerning in 2013 (with 60 000 tests conducted) and 2014 (with 50 000 tests conducted), with positivity rates ranging between only 30-40%.[10] Following 2016, there was a decline in the number of tests, continuing into recent years. In 2024, of the 4 709 individuals tested, 3 385 were confirmed to have used drugs, resulting in a positivity rate of 72%, suggesting an improvement in testing accuracy.[11]

Based on past experience, the initiative of the “Georgian Dream” carries the risk of drug testing becoming a widespread, systemic practice once again. With sanctions in place for refusing to take the test, the process could become even more repressive, particularly given that testing inherently involves significant intrusion into an individual’s personal space. The extensive use of this mechanism could lead to thousands of citizens - many of whom have never used drugs, and whose laboratory tests confirm this fact - being subjected to arbitrary state control.

Under the proposed draft law, if a citizen refuses to voluntarily undergo a drug test, they will be given a specific timeframe to complete the test on their own. A police officer will issue a referral, and the citizen will be required to undergo a clinical and laboratory examination within 4 hours of receiving the referral. The examination must be conducted either at the Forensic-Criminalistics Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia or at the LEPL - Levan Samkharauli National Forensics Bureau. The police will request the results of the examination.[12]  

Although this provision alters the forms of coercion, the citizens will still be obliged to cover the cost of the examination themselves and to ensure that the police is informed within the specified timeframe. As a result, it does little to alleviate the pressure imposed by police control, particularly regarding adherence to these deadlines.

Moreover, the four-hour time limit for undergoing testing is unreasonably short and may pose serious challenges, especially at night or in geographically remote areas. If the citizens fail to comply with this requirement or do not meet the deadline, their actions will be considered the evasion of a drug test, resulting in an administrative sanction. Consequently, the imposition of a strict four-hour window for testing significantly infringes on the rights of broad segments of society, including individuals who have never used drugs.

As mentioned, amendments are also being made to the Law “on Combating Drug-related Crime”. This law addresses the deprivation of civil rights for individuals convicted and sentenced for drug-related offences, in parallel with the administrative penalty/criminal sentence. Under the proposed amendments, individuals convicted of drug use (under Article 273 of the Criminal Code) will be deprived of their driving license, and other rights, particularly those related to professional activities for 5 years, up from the previous 3 years.[13] Additionally, the individuals sentenced to administrative penalties (under Articles 45 and 45¹ of the Administrative Offences Code) will lose their driving license for 3 years, as well as the right to engage in professional activities, including teaching and working in public bodies, for 5 years.[14] This amendment highlights that the primary targets of the proposed legislative changes are drug users and people having addiction to the substances. As a result of their conviction, they will face extended periods of social and professional exclusion, significantly worsening their human rights situation.[15]

The legislative package, through amendments to the Criminal Code, introduces a distinction between the purchase/storage of drugs (Article 260) and illegal manufacturing, production, transportation, or transfer of drugs (Article 260¹). Additionally, a new offence is established - the illegal transfer of drugs without receiving a material benefit (Article 260²)[16], while the sale of drugs for material gain is criminalized under Article 260³. In general, specifying and differentiating criminal acts enhances the foreseeability of both the policy and practice of imposing punishment, which is an acceptable development. While the amendment to Article 260 itself is not subject to criticism, concerns arise regarding the increased penalties for drug-related crimes, particularly those aimed at users of psychoactive substances.

The approach of increasing sentences is maintained for all actions currently covered under Article 260. While the penalty for the purchase/storage of drugs remains unchanged - punishable by up to 6 years of imprisonment - the draft law proposes an increase in the sentence for illegal manufacturing, production, transportation, or transfer of drugs. Under the proposed changes, these acts would be punishable by a term of 3 to 7 years of imprisonment, instead of imprisonment of up to 6 years. Notably, the introduction of a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years reduces judicial discretion, meaning that judges will no longer have the ability to impose a sentence below this threshold for such offences.    

The aforementioned punishment applies to criminally relevant, “initial” amounts without aggravating circumstances. The penalties for offences involving the purchase, storage, manufacturing, production, and transfer of drugs become significantly harsher when large or particularly large quantities are involved.  For instance, under the new amendments, manufacturing, production, transporting, or transferring drugs in “large quantities” will now result in imprisonment for 6 to 9 years, an increase from the previous penalty of 5 to 7 years.

Given that Georgian legislation[17] defines the quantities of drugs unfairly, the daily dose for a person with a strong addiction to psychoactive substances may frequently amount to what is considered a large or particularly large quantity. As a result, the law may impose life imprisonment for those actions. It is noteworthy, that the proposed draft law seeks to aggravate the thresholds for the quantity relevant to criminal liability concerning eight substances,[18] specifically by reducing the amount that qualifies as a particularly large quantity. Specifically, it reduces the threshold for particularly large quantities and further aggravates penalties for a range of drug-related offences.

One of the key innovations of the initiated draft law is the legal distinction between the concepts of drug distribution and the sale of drugs.[19] Drug distribution without the intention of receiving material benefit will be regulated under Article 260², while the selling drugs for financial gain will be punished by Article 260³ of the Criminal Code. Differentiating the forms of drug distribution and subjecting them to separate legal regimes is a reasonable approach and, in this respect, represents an improvement in the legislation - despite the fact that the penalty for the distribution of drugs “without receiving material benefit” remains disproportionately severe. Under the previous legal framework, the form and context of drug distribution were irrelevant to the qualification of the crime, and all instances were categorized as “sale”. This approach led to considerable problems, as even a one-time transfer or sharing of drugs or other illegal psychoactive substances between individuals resulted in that person being labeled a "distributor" and facing an excessively severe sentence.   

The recent amendments have led to the categorization of offences into distinct articles, which in turn affects the severity of punishments. For instance, the transfer of drugs without receiving material benefit is now punishable by 10 to 15 years of imprisonment, while the sale of drugs for commercial purposes is punishable by 12 to 20 years or life imprisonment. Although the sale of drugs for commercial gain poses a significant public danger, the penalties prescribed for such acts are exceptionally severe and exceed those imposed for many other particularly serious crimes. Even acknowledging the state’s legitimate interest in effectively addressing crimes of significant public concern, the punishments for drug offences remain disproportionately harsh. A more balanced approach would involve establishing a more humane minimum sentence and allowing judges greater discretion in determining appropriate penalties. This approach would better balance the need to address the dangers associated with drug offences with the necessity of respecting human rights and fostering rehabilitation.

The legislation has been significantly aggravated for both the distribution and sale of psychotropic substances, as well as cannabis and marijuana. Under the new provisions, the commission of these offences under aggravating circumstances may result in up to 17 years of imprisonment.

The most significant change proposed by the legislative package is the introduction of the concept of “compulsory treatment” into the legislation governing drug-related offences. A new chapter, titled “Social Protection Measure”, is added to the Criminal Code, which outlines the general rules for implementing compulsory treatment. Under the amendments, “compulsory treatment” may be imposed on a “person suffering from drug addiction” who has committed any drug-related crime, or on a someone diagnosed as such before a guilty verdict is issued. It is important to note that the legislation employs outdated and stigmatizing terminology; it would be preferable for the law to adopt a more ethical language, such as “person with a dependence on psychoactive substances”.

Under the law, “compulsory treatment” may be imposed on an individual for a period of up to two years, based on the decision of a commission of narcologists. This treatment can be applied even if the person has fully served their punishment or is under a conditional sentence. “Compulsory treatment” will be carried out in a designated facility and will be intended to prevent the individual from committing repeated offence, maintain public order, and support the person’s recovery. The commission of narcologists is required to review the necessity of continuing the compulsory treatment every three months.

The legislation defines only the concept of “compulsory treatment” and establishes general enforcement rules. The specific content of “compulsory treatment” and its enforcement procedures are expected to be detailed by a Government Decree and the Law of Georgia “Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Precursors and Narcological Assistance”. However, until these procedures are clearly defined, many questions remain about what “compulsory treatment” will involve. Georgia currently operates an Opioid Agonist Treatment program, commonly known as the “Methadone” and “Buprenorphine” programs, which is voluntary. Notably, this program is not available in penitentiary institutions, despite long-standing demands from healthcare professionals. Furthermore, the Opioid Agonist Treatment program[20] is designed exclusively for individuals with opioid dependence, meaning those having dependence on other psychoactive substances, such as stimulants, cannot access it. Therefore, it remains unclear how the state intends to provide treatment for individuals using non-opioid substances, for whom no unified system of diagnosis and treatment currently exists.

Sustainable addiction treatment is most effectively achieved through a combination of bio-psycho-social interventions. Modern approaches emphasize the importance of creating a comprehensive “continuum of care.”[21]  Therefore, the specifics of what “compulsory treatment” will involve and the medical methods it will use remain unclear. A final assessment of the concept of compulsory treatment will only be possible after amendments are made to the Law of Georgia “Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Precursors and Narcological Assistance” and once the Government adopts a corresponding Decree. It will be essential for medical professionals to study and evaluate the medical protocols related to compulsory treatment thoroughly.

The Necessity and Justification of the Proposed Changes:

First and foremost, it is important to highlight that, like other repressive laws, the draft legislative package concerning drug crimes is being examined in an accelerated manner. The explanatory note to the draft law merely mentions the dangers of psychoactive substances and, without presenting any supporting evidence, assumes that tightening the legislation will positively address the issues of addiction and the misuse of substances without a doctor’s prescription in the country.

According to the explanatory note to the draft law, no consultations were held with international partner organizations or field experts during the drafting process, and no working groups were created. As a result, no expert assessments or conclusions were provided regarding the expected outcomes of the law. Additionally, the experience of other countries regarding the aggravation of the law and the potential impact has not been discussed. The authors fail to reference any scientific sources, criminological studies, or official statistics to support the claim that the chosen approach to addressing substance use will be effective.[22]

Representatives of the “Georgian Dream” do not mention any positive outcomes from the policy they have implemented so far in their explanatory note. For instance, the punishment for drug distribution has already been made more severe once. In 2021, the penalty for drug distribution - imprisonment - was increased from a range of 6 - 11 years to 10 - 15 years. The sentence for distribution of large quantities of drugs has been aggravated (from 7 to 14 years of imprisonment), and for distribution of particularly large quantities (from 8 to 20 years, or life imprisonment). The revised law foresaw a sentence of imprisonment ranging from 12 to 17 years in the first case, while in the second case, the punishment was set from 14 to 20 years, or life imprisonment.[23] Despite this significant aggravating of penalties, the state itself acknowledges that the number of drug sales has not decreased; in fact, it continues to rise.

This indicates that representatives of the “Georgian Dream” are manipulating the fears and concerns within society, which are shaped by the historical context and social factors surrounding drugs. “Georgian Dream” politicians attempt to create the perception that they are addressing issues related to addiction. However, in reality, they seem to be changing criminal law and policy for populist purposes.

Using drug policy as a tool for political populism has become a tradition among prime ministers of the “Georgian Dream”. In 2021, then-Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili described the current drug policy as “liberal” and “harmful”,[24] even though drug crimes were already subject to some of the most severe penalties. His statement was followed by a further aggravating of penalties, yet this did not result in any improvement in the addiction situation of the country. In 2024, Irakli Kobakhidze also referred to the drug policy as “liberal”, framing it within the context of the global “pseudo-liberal ideology”.[25] This once again underscores the unscientific approach to addiction and its instrumentalization for populist purposes. In February 2025, as the “Georgian Dream” parliament was adopting repressive legislative changes, the “Georgian Dream” representative Mamuka Mdinaradze once again announced a further aggravating of drug policy.[26] The timing of this announcement, alongside other repressive legislation restricting the activities of media and non-governmental organizations, reinforces the idea that the tightening of drug policy is driven by a political agenda rather than a genuine effort to address public health and social issues.

The inconsistency in the “Georgian Dream's” approach to drug policy and psychoactive substance use in the country, and its consideration of the issue through the lens of political expediency, is evident in the work of the Ministry of Justice itself. It was under the “Georgian Dream” government that the first National Drug Policy Strategy[27] was developed. As early as 2013, this strategy defined one of its main goals: “the establishment and implementation of a more liberal approach, rather than a repressive approach, towards drug users”. The policy document was updated in 2023 with the approval of the new “National Drug Policy Strategy for 2023-2030”. One of the key priorities of this policy document is to “review the legislative framework to implement liberal approaches and use alternative forms of punishment”.[28] Although two years have passed since the adoption of the Strategy, the review of the legislative framework aimed at developing alternative punishment mechanisms has not been prioritized. The 2023-2024 Action Plan of the National Drug Policy Strategy included the preparation of an analytical document as one of its activities, which would help assess the current legislative framework.[29] The relevant structural unit of the Ministry of Justice, the National Drug Observatory, was tasked with preparing this document by the end of 2024. However, it remains unclear whether this document has been prepared, and if so, what role it played in the decision to tighten drug-related legislation.

It is important to note that, from a human rights perspective, the state has taken on the responsibility of implementing evidence-based policies. In 2020, the National Drug Observatory was established within the Ministry of Justice to collect and analyze data related to the use and illicit distribution of psychoactive substances. The Observatory was also tasked with introducing evidence-based scientific and practical methodologies.[30] The Observatory took on the responsibility of analyzing the epidemiological and statistical indicators of the use of substances under special control and assessing the medical and social harm caused by their use, following the indicators developed by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (now EUDA).[31]

According to the declared state policy, drug policy in the country should be coordinated by the Inter-agency Coordinating Council on Combating Drug Abuse,[32] which operates within the Ministry of Justice. The policy should be based on evidence and scientific knowledge gathered by the National Drug Observatory, established within the Council. However, it is evident - supported by the results of parliamentary hearings - that the recent draft legislative amendments were not grounded in the data processed by the state, conducted research, or contemporary scientific findings.

It is also evident that the draft legislative package presented by the “Georgian Dream” parliament contradicts their own adopted national strategy and disregards the obligations stipulated by it. The proposed draft law significantly worsens the human rights situation of individuals addicted to psychoactive substances.

Summary:

It must be reiterated that the presented draft legislative package is a clear example of political populism and is unlikely to provide an effective solution to the challenges related to addiction in the country. On the contrary, it will likely significantly worsen the human rights situation for individuals with substance addiction.

To effectively address the public safety, health, and social challenges posed by drug use, an evidence-based reform of drug policy is essential. This reform should focus on fundamentally shifting the current approach to drug use, moving away from punishment-based policies and towards care- and prevention-oriented strategies. It should be informed by international best practices and grounded in scientific methods.

Drug policy reform should cover three main directions:

• Review of repressive legislation;
• Improvement and expansion of healthcare services (harm reduction, treatment and rehabilitation services, social integration approaches);
• Development and implementation of a systematic approach to substance use prevention.

We urge the representatives of the “Georgian Dream” to stop addressing this critical public health issue with unscientific methods and instead return to the priorities outlined in the National Drug Policy Strategy for 2023-2030.

Share