Japan's New Cannabis Use Offence (Narcotics Act Article 66-2): What It Means for Foreign Residents

Until recently, cannabis was punished through possession and transfer, and there was no provision directly punishing use itself. That changed on 12 December 2024, when article 66-2 of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act made the administration and receipt of administration of narcotics, cannabis included, a criminal offence. For foreign nationals and their families facing a situation where nothing was seized and the case rests on a urine test, this article sets out the shape of the new provision and how it interacts with the right to stay, in as plain a form as possible.

Key points

• Under article 66-2(1) of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, use (administration) and receipt of administration of narcotics including cannabis is punishable by imprisonment for up to 7 years. The provision came into force on 12 December 2024.
• Use before the date the provision came into force cannot be punished retroactively under it.
• A conviction for cannabis use is also a "conviction" for the purposes of article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法24条4号チ) and is a ground for deportation (退去強制).
• National Police Agency figures for 2025 record 700 arrests for administration among cannabis offences.
• Because the offence is new, sentencing patterns are still hard to read, which makes the work done before charges are filed all the more important.

When did cannabis use become a crime in Japan, and under which provision?

Use (administration) and receipt of administration of narcotics including cannabis is punishable under article 66-2(1) of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act by imprisonment for up to 7 years. This is a new provision that came into force on 12 December 2024. Where there was a profit-making purpose (営利目的), the penalty is imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years, together with a fine of up to 3 million yen.

One premise matters a great deal: conduct that took place before a law comes into force cannot be punished retroactively under a newly created penal provision. If investigators keep returning to the question of when you used the substance, it is worth understanding what that line of questioning is aimed at. The timing of use is among the things that determine whether this provision can apply at all.

Possession, meanwhile, remains punishable by imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 66(1) of the same Act, and use and possession are treated as separate offences. Some cases involve both; others involve use alone.

Why can a case go ahead when nothing was found in my possession?

In use cases, the analysis of a urine sample taken from the body is in practice almost the only objective evidence. That is why proceedings can go forward on the strength of a forensic result even though no cannabis was seized.

The existence of a forensic result and the establishment of an offence are not, however, the same thing in law. Whether the sample was truly given voluntarily; where it was taken compulsorily, whether the requirements for the warrant were met; whether the identity of the sample collected and the sample analysed is secured by an unbroken chain of custody. All of these are matters that ought to be examined.

There is also the question of how precisely the time and place of use can be pinned down. We confine ourselves here to general propositions; whether any of these points leaves room for argument in a particular case has to be examined concretely against the record.

How does a conviction for use affect your status of residence?

In short, a conviction for cannabis use also falls within the ground for deportation in article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. That provision covers persons convicted of violating the listed laws, beginning with the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, and draws no distinction between possession and use.

The sub-item contains no limitation as to the type of sentence and no proviso excluding suspended sentences. Even where the only fact is use, nothing was seized, and the sentence was treated lightly, a conviction places the case on the same footing as any other for deportation purposes.

The type of status of residence (在留資格) makes no difference either. Sub-item (chi) applies equally to the statuses in Appendix I (別表第一) and to those in Appendix II (別表第二) such as permanent resident (永住者), spouse or child of a Japanese national, spouse or child of a permanent resident, and long-term resident (定住者).

The limits of the statistics so far

According to the National Police Agency's report on the organised crime situation in 2025 (final figures), arrests for cannabis offences in 2025 broken down by conduct were 5,354 for possession, 700 for administration, 126 for cultivation, 180 for transfer and 192 for smuggling. Arrests for use are clearly accumulating in real numbers.

On the other hand, statistics showing prosecution rates or sentencing patterns for the cannabis use offence have not yet built up sufficiently. We are therefore not in a position to say responsibly, on the basis of published material, that "use alone leads to this kind of disposition".

That the outlook is hard to read has a flip side: there is greater scope for circumstances assembled at an early stage to influence the outcome. It is not a reason to sit back and wait.

The three lines of defence

For drug cases involving foreign nationals, our office designs the defence in three stages. That does not change in a use case, even where the structure of proof looks simple.

The first line is a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) in the criminal case. We examine the elements of the offence, intent (故意), and the lawfulness of the way the evidence was gathered, and seek to resolve the matter before charges are filed. Because sub-item (chi) requires a "conviction", stopping the case here avoids the effect on residence at its root.

The second line is contesting, within the deportation proceedings, whether the grounds for deportation apply at all. The third is special permission to stay (在留特別許可), where we build up, one by one and with supporting material, the factors set out in article 50(5) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. In drug cases, "conduct" and "the facts giving rise to deportation" are the greatest obstacles, so a treatment and relapse-prevention structure, and the substance of family supervision, need to take concrete form early.

Whether these three stages are kept in mind changes what material should be preserved during the criminal process. Not separating the criminal defence from the immigration response is the basic stance of this office.

• First line: a decision not to prosecute before charges are filed
• Second line: contesting whether the grounds for deportation apply in the deportation proceedings
• Third line: special permission to stay, building the factors under article 50(5)

Case results, and how we work with clients

The two matters below are examples from our practice where work done before charges were filed decided the outcome. Past results reflect the particular circumstances of those cases and are not a guarantee of a similar outcome.

Attorney Daisuke Matsumura personally handles every stage, from the first visit at the detention facility through to the close of trial. 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. Extensions and changes of status of residence after the criminal case ends are handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener, so that everything is dealt with in one place.

• In a matter where the client was accused of acting as a collector in an organised fraud scheme and was rearrested several times, we handled each round of questioning carefully, objected to improper questioning, and built up our arguments and evidence, obtaining decisions not to prosecute on every count.
• 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 also handle cases tried before lay judges.

The cannabis use offence has been in force for only a short time, and practice around it is still developing. That is exactly why it is worth looking carefully at the reach of the provision, at the procedures surrounding the forensic analysis, and at the consequences for residence, each in turn. Rather than letting time pass on the assumption that use alone must be a minor matter, we would encourage you to take stock of the situation early. 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