Arrested for Cannabis Possession in Japan: Penalties Under Narcotics Act Article 66(1) and What It Means for Your Visa

Since 12 December 2024, cannabis has been treated as a "narcotic" under the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act. Simple possession alone carries a statutory penalty of imprisonment for up to 7 years. This article is for families who have taken a call from a police station after a relative was arrested for cannabis possession, and for those under investigation who have no one to ask what will happen to their status of residence (在留資格). It sets out how the provisions fit together, and how a defence looks when the aim is to protect the right to stay. The criminal outlook and the immigration outlook are measured on entirely different scales.

Key points

• Since 12 December 2024, simple possession, transfer and receipt of cannabis have been punishable under article 66(1) of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act by imprisonment for up to 7 years.
• For drug offences, the fact of conviction alone is a ground for deportation (退去強制) under article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法24条4号チ). The weight of the sentence is irrelevant.
• A suspended sentence at trial therefore does not prevent the ground for deportation from arising.
• In 2024, the rate of suspension of prosecution (起訴猶予) for offences under the Cannabis Control Act was 35.5 per cent, so work before charges are filed has real meaning.
• The only exit that fully protects the right to stay is a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) before charges are brought.

Which law now covers cannabis possession in Japan, and what is the penalty?

Cannabis is currently regulated as a "narcotic" under the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, and simple possession, transfer and receipt carry imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 66(1) of that Act. This has been the position since 12 December 2024.

If a profit-making purpose (営利目的) is found, article 66(2) applies: imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years, and depending on the circumstances that sentence together with a fine of up to 3 million yen. A profit-making purpose is sometimes inferred from external circumstances such as the quantity held, division into small packages, and the presence of scales or records, so whether a case is handled as simple possession or as possession with profit-making purpose needs close attention from the outset.

• Possession, transfer, receipt (Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act art. 66(1)) = imprisonment for up to 7 years
• Possession etc. with profit-making purpose (art. 66(2)) = imprisonment for 1 to 10 years, and depending on the circumstances that sentence together with a fine of up to 3 million yen
• Import, export, manufacture (art. 65(1)(i)) = imprisonment for 1 to 10 years
• Cultivation (Act on Regulation of Cannabis Plant Cultivation art. 24(1)) = imprisonment for 1 to 10 years

If I get a suspended sentence, can I stay in Japan?

In cannabis cases, regrettably, that is not something we can tell you. Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act lists as subject to deportation a person who, on or after 1 November 1951, has been convicted of violating the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, the Act on Regulation of Cannabis Plant Cultivation, the Opium Act, the Stimulants Control Act, the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act, or Chapter XIV of Part II of the Penal Code.

The provision contains no limitation as to the type of sentence, no minimum length, and no proviso excluding suspended sentences. The requirement is satisfied by the bare fact of conviction. A fine, an exemption from punishment, and a fully suspended sentence are, on the wording, treated alike.

Article 24, item 4, sub-item (ri), which deals with imprisonment exceeding 1 year, does contain a proviso excluding those given a fully suspended sentence. The belief that "a suspended sentence means you are fine" appears to come from stretching that proviso to drug offences. But sub-item (ri) opens with the words "in addition to those listed in sub-items (ni) through (chi)", so drug offences lie outside its scope from the start.

What the statistics show about where cannabis cases divide

According to the 2025 White Paper on Crime (drawing on the Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution), in 2024 the prosecution rate for offences under the Cannabis Control Act was 44.1 per cent and the rate of suspension of prosecution was 35.5 per cent. That is lower than the 45.5 per cent suspension rate for special-law offences as a whole excluding road traffic offences, but compared with the 8.5 per cent rate for offences under the Stimulants Control Act, it shows that suspension of prosecution remains a realistic possibility in cannabis cases.

Turning to sentencing, the same White Paper (drawing on the Annual Report of Judicial Statistics) records that in 2024, of 2,326 determinate sentences imposed by district courts for offences under the Cannabis Control Act, 1,959 (84.2 per cent) were fully suspended and 367 (15.8 per cent) were terms to be served. Two facts intersect here: as criminal cases, most such matters end with a suspended sentence, and under article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) that same suspended sentence gives rise to a ground for deportation.

These figures are aggregated by offence name. They do not distinguish between first and repeat offences, between simple possession and transfer, or by quantity. You cannot read the outlook for your own case directly from them, so please treat them as an overall trend.

Why we set the goal at non-prosecution rather than a suspended sentence

For a foreign client, obtaining a suspended sentence at trial may be an endpoint in the criminal case, but as a target measured against the right to stay, it is the wrong one. Under the structure of sub-item (chi), a conviction gives rise to a ground for deportation whatever the sentence.

In drug cases involving foreign nationals, our office therefore builds the defence around a single first priority: a decision not to prosecute before charges are filed. The detention period is short, and within it we work through whether the elements of the offence and the awareness of possession leave room for argument, whether anything was wrong in the way the evidence was gathered, and how far a guarantor arrangement and an environment for preventing relapse can be put in place, and we press these points on the prosecutor's discretion.

Cases do exist in which a defence built without regard to the structure of the immigration legislation produced a favourable criminal outcome and the loss of the status of residence. Designing the criminal defence and the immigration response as one from the beginning is the key.

What remains if you are convicted

A final conviction is not the end of everything. Within the deportation process, the framework of special permission to stay (在留特別許可) under article 50 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act remains.

What matters most here is that the persons listed in the proviso to article 50(1), on whom a heightened requirement is imposed, are those sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment exceeding 1 year (excluding those given a fully suspended sentence and the like) and those falling under article 24, items 3-2 and 3-3, or item 4, sub-item (ha) or sub-items (o) through (yo). Sub-item (chi) is not among them. So long as the sentence is not a term exceeding 1 year to be served, the case is assessed under the ordinary framework rather than the heightened standard of "special circumstances such that refusing permission would be contrary to humanitarian consideration".

In making that assessment, article 50(5) sets out as statutory factors the reason for wishing to remain, family relationships, conduct, the length of stay, the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to deportation, the need for humanitarian consideration and other matters. In drug cases, "conduct" and "the facts giving rise to deportation" are the greatest obstacles.

On the other side, once a person has been deported, article 5(1)(v) creates a ground for denial of landing (上陸拒否) as a person who has been sentenced for violating laws concerning the control of narcotics, cannabis and similar substances. The denial of landing based on a deportation record under article 5(1)(ix) carries fixed periods of 1 year, 5 years and 10 years, but item (v) has no such time limit. That asymmetry is a heavy fact that shapes decisions at the earliest stage.

From our case results

The following three matters, drawn from our work in drug cases and cases involving foreign nationals, are those we are able to describe publicly.

Past results reflect the particular circumstances of those cases and are not a guarantee of a similar outcome.

• A client prosecuted under the Stimulants Control Act for possession with profit-making purpose was acquitted following exhaustive analysis of the evidence together with examination of the defendant and cross-examination. We have also handled many cases tried before lay judges and serious cases covered in the media.
• In a matter where a woman in her twenties was accused of withdrawing money as part of an organised fraud scheme, we argued the subjective circumstances as a whole and obtained a decision not to prosecute. It was a case where the work done before charges were filed decided the outcome.
• A client who had come to Japan as a tourist lost his status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful stay. A marriage and an acknowledgment of paternity had not yet been completed and the application was initially refused; we negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint so that both could be completed, gathered favourable evidence in a situation where almost no official documents from the country of nationality existed, and analysed the immigration authorities' past grant examples, obtaining special permission to stay on a single application.

How we work with clients

Funado International Law Office is located at 3F Fuse Building Main Wing, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo. Attorney Daisuke Matsumura personally handles every stage, from the first visit at the detention facility through to the close of trial. We do not delegate this work to clerks or junior lawyers.

For Chinese we have a dedicated interpreter on staff who is experienced in cases involving foreign nationals. Separate from the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities, this interpreter works for the client and is available throughout the criminal process. For languages other than Chinese, we arrange an interpreter according to the needs of the case.

Through an affiliated administrative scrivener, we also handle extensions and changes of status of residence after the criminal case has ended, so that everything is dealt with in one place.

Cannabis possession cases are a category that often ends, as criminal matters, with a suspended sentence, while for foreign clients the same case decides the fate of their status of residence. Understanding early that these are two different scales is the first step towards not narrowing the options available to you. This article is a general explanation; for your own case, consult a lawyer directly. Past results reflect the particular circumstances of those cases and are not a guarantee of a similar outcome.

This article reflects the law as at August 2026.

About the author

Daisuke Matsumura, Attorney at Law
Dai-Ichi Tokyo Bar Association (registration no. 59077, admitted 2019)
Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo)
Practice focused on criminal defence for foreign nationals and immigration proceedings.
Results include an acquittal in a Stimulants Control Act case (possession for the purpose of profit), non-prosecution in organised fraud cases, and special permission to stay in cases regarded as difficult.

Funado International Law Office
Website: https://matsumura-lawoffice.jp/
WeChat ID: matsumura1119