A classic procedure in the city of Zurich: First comes a letter from the cantonal police because five hemp seeds have been confiscated by customs. It is good here that it is already clear on the letter: It's about NarcA art. 19a, so it's about a contravention (further down on this page you'll find an example from Zurich, where 19ff is written and so it remains open, if it's not about a misdemeanor).

Nevertheless, one must fill out the questionnaire thoughtfully: So order for own consumption! This is the criterion so that the illegal act is only considered a contravention. (If you have the nerve, you can of course try to deny the order and see if they can prove it to you). No previous consumption is admitted here (this would hardly increase the penalty, but can then alert the road traffic office - in general it is bad if there are too many illegal acts in the files).

This procedure is then followed by a standard summary penalty order, as can be expected in the city of Zurich:

Here, a few grams of weed were ordered for personal consumption and seized by customs. The Zurich Cantonal Police then sent a waiver to the person concerned. Anyone agreeing to the destruction should not have to fear any further investigative measures. Unfortunately, we did not receive a copy of the actual waiver. But here, at least, is the accompanying letter:

Geneva does neither house searches, nor interviews, nor questionnaires in hemp seeds import cases. Here, a fine is simply sent: 500 francs, plus 150 francs fees . A relatively efficient method, but expensive for the victims, who then have to think: Should I contest this and take the risk that it will be even more expensive?

Here a summary penalty order, as there is always in Bern, if you ordered hemp seeds. 100 francs fine, 100 francs fees .

It has become rarer, but house searches still take place because of the import of hemp seeds. Here in the city of Bern even because of the import of five hemp seeds. Well, the effort with five policemen and a drug dog resulted in nothing at all, as can be seen in the protocol. An enormous effort for - nothing. So that there is even more effort, an identification service was still ordered. Finally, the summary penalty order is in the normal range.

It doesn't always take house searches, subpoenas or questionnaires. Here, at last, the “easy case” is applied and no criminal proceedings are opened at all. The hemp seeds are destroyed, no costs are charged and the matter is settled. Baselland shows the other cantons how it can be done!

The import of five hemp seeds must also be clarified: Although there is no summons, a questionnaire must still be filled out. It would be nice if the questionnaire at least clearly stated “19a”, but the “19ff” just leaves it open whether it is about a contravention or a misdemeanor.

A typical moment of shock: police summons as the accused person. All it takes is an order for cannabis seeds or a neighbor going to the police or, of course, investigations by the police themselves. Now it is important to prepare as well as possible: Clean up, in case a house search still follows; exchange ideas with acquaintances about what the reason could be; think through variants.

Here we see nicely that hemp is simply one of the many illegal drugs and that the law makes no distinction. Even if one possesses different substances, it is only decisive whether one possesses them for personal use (contravention) or passes them on (misdemeanor). Here was a summary penalty order for personal use. The fine with fees is in the usual range. The only special thing is that the person concerned had to spend a day in police custody - until it was clear that it was for personal use. The larger the quantities found/confessed, the more likely one has to experience this.

Here a few grams of cannabis were seized. Because the amount is less than 10 grams, there is no punishment (minor amount). But the material is confiscated anyway. The justification for this is interesting: they are objects that were intended for the commission of a crime and endanger the safety of people. Therefore, they must be destroyed. I am curious whether the Federal Court will see this the same way (there are similar cases on the way there).