23 May 2026
Are there hidden motives behind the bill submitted to the Duma to amend the ‘people’s’ article?
By Leonid Nikitinsky
Source: Novaya gazeta
The Supreme Court submitted a bill to the State Duma on the humanization of criminal punishment for drug possession without intent to sell (Art. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [CC RF]), which had previously been approved by the Plenum of the Supreme Court and, not without difficulty, supported by the government. The Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs opposed the bill, which means that by the second reading, amendments may be introduced to exclude reduced sentences for the possession of drugs in large and especially large quantities (Art. 228, Parts 2 & 3, CC RF).
At the same time, the 18th Congress of Psychiatrists and Narcologists of the Russian Federation was held in St. Petersburg. At our request, one of the participants asked the drug addiction specialists what they thought of the Supreme Court’s initiative. First and foremost, it turned out that none of them had even heard of the draft. This suggests that no consultations with practicing physicians were held immediately prior to the draft’s approval by the Supreme Court plenum and its submission to the Duma.
On the substance of the issue, there is virtually no disagreement among specialists, and their position has not changed for a long time. For instance, as far back as 2010, the Vienna Declaration was adopted, which condemned the punitive drug policies of a number of states and called for the decriminalization of drug use without distribution. Most Russian addiction specialists also hold a similar view of drug addiction as a disease, including such an authority as Vladimir Mendelevich—a professor and head of the Department of Medical and General Psychology at Kazan State Medical University.
One of the arguments put forward by law enforcement officials who opposed the bill is that if penalties for drug possession without intent to sell—including in large and especially large quantities—are reduced, the law would have retroactive effect.
The courts would then have to review a flood of cases, and crowds of drug addicts could be released all at once. But this is an exaggeration since, as experts unanimously agree, the future law will not bring about any revolutionary changes, but will merely bring legislation into line with established practice.
The trend toward reducing penalties for drug possession without intent to sell—even without a formal change in the law—has been observed in judicial practice for many years. For example, under Art. 228, Part 1, CC RF in 2024 only 11% of defendants were sentenced to actual imprisonment, while in 46% of cases the courts limited the punishment to a fine. Under Art. 228, Part 2, CC RF (large quantities), about one-third of those convicted receive actual imprisonment (10 years ago, this figure was about half). Under Part 3 (particularly large quantities), 85 people were convicted in 2024, of whom 78 received actual imprisonment.
The legislative process in the State Duma is so blatantly cynical that we tend to look for someone’s personal gain and lobbying behind every new bill. But it seems that this particular bill actually benefits only those suffering from drug addiction. About ten years ago, Aleksei Kudrin’s Centre for Strategic Initiatives conducted a study and submitted a report to the relevant authorities, including the Supreme Court, that strikingly resembles the explanatory note to the current bill. The president issued the directive to draft this bill in 2025 following a meeting with the Human Rights Council. But the Duma acts immediately to turn repressive initiatives into laws, while deputies are in no hurry to address humanization.
In conclusion—what is missing from the draft?
It still does not specify a probation mechanism, that is, in this case—replacing criminal punishment with treatment for drug addiction.
There are many such rehabilitation centres in Russia, but, first, in most cases they are not cheap, and second, entering such a centre, for example, for six months, is currently only possible on a voluntary basis. In practice, when imposing sentences, judges consider reports provided by rehabilitation centres regarding the defendant’s completion of treatment or their willingness to undergo it. But it would be logical, given that we are discussing anti-drug policy, to enshrine in law a mechanism for replacing imprisonment with voluntary or compulsory treatment.
Translated by RiR
