Introduction

On March 5, 2025, the “Georgian Dream” Parliament introduced a draft legislative package aimed at tightening drug policy, which was supported at its first reading on March 19. The package 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.

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 will classify evading a test to determine whether a person is under the influence of a drug, its analogue, or a precursor as an administrative offence. If the individual repeats this action after being subject to an administrative penalty, it will be punishable under criminal justice.[8] The legal sanctions for evading a drug test, in both administrative and criminal proceedings, are equivalent to those for drug use. Therefore, for a first-time, the penalty may include a fine ranging from 500 to 2 000 GEL or up to 60 days of administrative imprisonment, while in case of repeated action, the sanction can involve a fine, community service, or imprisonment for up to one year. 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 marijuana presence cannot serve as grounds for legal action, except for specific cases.

The proposed amendments allow a person to be tested if their appearance and/or behavior provide sufficient grounds to suspect they are under the influence of a drug, its analogue, or precursor. However, this definition is overly broad and raises concerns about the potential for unscientific evaluations by police officers, leading to arbitrary demands for drug tests from citizens. What is particularly concerning in the draft law is the arbitrary nature of drug testing and the penalties imposed for evading 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 24-hour period to provide the results of a 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 8 hours of receiving the referral, with the results to be submitted to the police within 24 hours.[12] Although this provision alters the forms of coercion, the citizen will still be obliged to cover the cost of the examination themselves and to inform the police within the specified time frame. This does little to reduce the pressure exerted of police control, inter alia, in terms of adhering to the deadlines. If the citizen fails to comply with this requirement or does not meet the deadline, it will be considered evasion of the drug test, classified as an administrative offence for first time, and a criminal offence for a repeated one, with the possibility of imprisonment for up to one year.

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 draft legislative package, through amendments to the Criminal Code, distinguishes between various drug-related offences, including the purchase/storage of drugs (Article 260), illegal manufacturing, production, transportation, or transfer of drugs (Article 260¹), and their possession (Article 260²). Additionally, the Code is being added a new provision - the sale of drugs (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. The amendment to Article 260 itself does not warrant criticism. However, the issue arises with the further increase in penalties for drug crimes, particularly for articles that primarily target psychoactive substance users. This is especially problematic in the case of Article 260 (1), where the current law provides for imprisonment of up to 6 years for the crime. The proposed amendments, however, set the penalty at a range of 3 to 6 years, establishing a lower threshold for the sentence. This change reduces judicial discretion, limiting a judge’s ability to impose a more lenient sentence if necessary, considering factors such as the personality of the offender, the type of substance, or the quantity involved.

The logic of increasing punishment is consistently applied to all actions covered under the current version of Article 260. For instance, the proposed draft law aggravates the punishment for the manufacturing, production, transportation, or transfer of drugs, with the penalty now extending to up to 7 years of imprisonment, up from the current 6 years. These penalties, however, apply only to criminally relevant “initial” amounts of drugs, without aggravating circumstances. The punishment for offences involving the purchase, storage, manufacturing, production, and transfer of drugs is even more severe when large or particularly large quantities are involved. Given that Georgian legislation[16] 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,[17] 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 main innovations of the initiated draft law is the legislative distinction between the concepts of drug distribution and the sale of drugs.[18] Drug distribution will be addressed under Article 260², while the sale of drugs will be punished by Article 260³ of the Criminal Code. It is noteworthy, that the authors of the draft law do not provide a substantive distinction between a “drug dealer” and a “drug seller” in either the Criminal Code or related legislation. The concept of a “drug dealer” was previously defined in the Law “on Combating Drug-related Crime”, where a person is considered a drug dealer if he/she has committed a crime under Articles 260, 261, or 273 and the purpose of selling the drugs is proven.[19] However, the current draft legislative package does not define the concept of a “drug seller”. Additionally, the proposed punishment for “selling” drugs is slightly more severe. Specifically, while the maximum penalty for distribution is 14 to 20 years or life imprisonment, the penalty for sale is set at 16 to 20 years or life imprisonment. Under the current wording, distribution is understood to include the sale of drugs, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise, such as sharing or transferring them between individuals. By introducing the concept of “sale” in the legislation, the intention seems to be to more precisely define crimes committed for commercial purposes and to clarify the intent behind such actions. Nevertheless, for greater legislative clarity and foreseeability, it is crucial to clearly differentiate between the “sale” and “distribution” of drugs at the legislative level.

Although severe penalties were already in place for drug dealing, the legislative initiative further aggravates the punishment for this crime. Specifically, the lower threshold of penalties is being increased for actions that already carried life imprisonment as the upper threshold. Additionally, 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.

On March 19, during the first reading of the legislative package at the plenary session, the initiators of the draft legislative package, alongside the already proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, also voted on the introduction of the concept of “mandatory treatment” within the Criminal Code. The initiators state that the details of mandatory treatment will be further clarified at the level of other laws and bylaws. However, the proposed amendments add “mandatory treatment” as an additional form of criminal punishment, which a judge can impose at his/her discretion for individuals with an addiction if convicted of drug-related offences.[20] The specificities of what constitutes “mandatory treatment”, including its form, duration, and enforcement mechanisms, remain unclear. A full assessment of the amendment’s content will only be possible once these details are clarified.

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.[21]

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.[22] 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”,[23] 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”.[24] 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.[25] 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[26] 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”.[27] 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.[28] 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.[29] 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).[30]

According to the declared state policy, drug policy in the country should be coordinated by the Inter-agency Coordinating Council on Combating Drug Abuse,[31] 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 call on the representatives of the “Georgian Dream” to cease pursuing repressive legislation and instead return to the priorities outlined in the National Drug Policy Strategy for 2023-2030.

[1] The Estimation of the Population Size of Injecting Drug Users in Georgia, 2022, available at: https://cutt.ly/KegZL7SP.

[2] Degenhardt L, et al. Epidemiology of injecting drug use, prevalence of injecting-related harm, and exposure to behavioural and environmental risks among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. The Lancet Global Health. 2023; 11(5):e659-e72. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00057-8.

[3] The Addiction Research Center Alternative Georgia, Study on Psychoactive Substance Use in the General Population, 2023, available at: https://cutt.ly/LeWJBnLS.

[4] The legislative package includes amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia, the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia, the Law of Georgia “on Organized Crime and Racketeering”, the Law of Georgia “on Public Service”, the Law of Georgia “on Combating Drug-Related Crime”, the Law of Georgia on “Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Precursors and Narcological Assistance”, and the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia.

[5] The explanatory note of the Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia”, available at: https://cutt.ly/fri6qBso.

[6] The Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia”, available at: https://cutt.ly/Ari57dKm.

[7] The Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia”, available at: https://cutt.ly/Fri6raLx.

[8] The Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia”, available at: https://cutt.ly/Ari57dKm.

[9] Constitutional Complaint No. 1282, Citizens of Georgia – Zurab Japaridze and Vakhtang Megrelishvili v. the Parliament of Georgia, available at: https://cutt.ly/mroqQcl8.

[10] Human Rights Watch, Harsh Punishment, The Human Toll of Georgia’s Abusive Drug Policies, 2018, p. 29, available at: https://cutt.ly/Kri6yiVV.

[11] The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Drug Testing Statistics, 2024, available at: https://cutt.ly/Sri6yDjp.

[12] The Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia”, available at: https://cutt.ly/Ari57dKm.

[13] According to Article 1 of the Law on “Combating Drug-Related Crimes”, these rights include: b) the right to medical and/or pharmaceutical practice and the right to establish, manage, or represent a pharmacy; c) the right to practice law; d) the right to work in pedagogical and educational institutions; e) the right to work in public bodies; f) the right to be elected; g) the right to manufacture, purchase, store and carry weapons.

[14] The Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Law of Georgia on Combating Drug-Related Crimes”, available at: https://cutt.ly/9ri6M9PS.

[15] For more details on the mechanism of rights deprivation, you can refer to: Social Justice Center, “Mechanism of Deprivation of Rights for Drug-Related Crimes”, 2024, available at: https://cutt.ly/pro4j5PQ.

[16] The Law of Georgia on “Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Precursors and Narcological Assistance”, available at: https://cutt.ly/Uro4kOeB.

[17] The Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Law of Georgia on Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, Precursors, and Narcological Assistance”, available at: https://cutt.ly/Mri77wY7.

[18] The Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia”, available at: https://cutt.ly/Cri5vm5R.

[19] Article 2 of the Law of Georgia “on Combating Drug-Related Crimes”.

[20] The examination of the draft legislative package in the plenary session, available at: https://cutt.ly/Aroi9yXC.

[21] The explanatory note of the Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia”, available at: https://cutt.ly/8rowiMsf.

[22] The Draft Law of Georgia “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia”, available at: https://cutt.ly/Aroq9X3l.

[23] Radio Liberty, 24.11.2021. “Irakli Garibashvili: The current liberal drug policy is absolutely harmful”, available at: https://cutt.ly/hrowjK2z.

[24] Publika, 11.03.2024. “Kobakhidze: Liberal drug policy is a continuation of a pseudo-liberal ideology”, available at: https://cutt.ly/mrowWmEw.

[25] Publika, 05.02.2025. “Which legislative changes are being announced by the Georgian Dream?” available at: https://cutt.ly/srowPxuv.

[26] National Drug Policy Strategy, 2013, available at: https://cutt.ly/trowHj0p, p. 16.

[27] National Drug Policy Strategy for 2023-2030, available at: https://cutt.ly/urowZFdd, p. 26.

[28] 2023-2024 Action Plan of the National Drug Policy Strategy, p. 5, Activity 5.1.3, available at: https://cutt.ly/7row2YG5.

[29] The official website of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia: https://cutt.ly/oro4RSDS.

[30] Order No. 494 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia on the approval of the statute of the National Drug Observatory, available at: https://cutt.ly/Aroetnh0.

[31] Information about the Interagency Coordinating Council on Combating Drug Abuse, available at: https://cutt.ly/XroeeRfT.

Share