Growing Cannabis in Japan: Article 24 of the Cannabis Cultivation Regulation Act and What Happens to Your Visa

You were growing cannabis plants in a room at home or on a balcony, and one day your home was searched. For a foreign national, a case that begins this way threatens not only criminal liability but the entire basis of life in Japan. Cultivation is dealt with under a different provision from possession or use, and the penalty is heavier. This article works through the framework of the cultivation offence, the change of the statute's name on 12 December 2024, the relationship to grounds for deportation (退去強制), and what needs to be built up if special permission to stay (在留特別許可) is to be sought.

Key points

• Cultivation of cannabis plants carries imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years under article 24(1) of the Act on Regulation of Cannabis Plant Cultivation.
• Where there was a profit-making purpose (営利目的), the penalty is imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year, together with a fine of up to 5 million yen.
• That Act is one of the laws listed in article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法24条4号チ), so a conviction is a ground for deportation.
• National Police Agency figures for 2025 record 126 arrests for cultivation among cannabis offences.
• When seeking special permission to stay, there is room to analyse the grant examples published by the Immigration Services Agency and build arguments from the principle of equality.

Which law and article cover cannabis cultivation, and what is the penalty?

For cultivation of cannabis plants, article 24(1) of the Act on Regulation of Cannabis Plant Cultivation provides for imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years. Where there was a profit-making purpose, the penalty is imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year, with a fine of up to 5 million yen added.

What distinguishes the offence is that it is heavier than possession or use and carries a floor of 1 year. For comparison, simple possession, transfer and receipt of cannabis carry imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 66(1) of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, and use (administration) and receipt of administration carry imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 66-2(1) of the same Act. Cultivation stands on its own, in a separate statute, as a distinctly heavier category.

Note also that since 12 December 2024 cannabis has been treated as a "narcotic" under the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, and the statute regulating cultivation was renamed to its present title at the same time. When searching for the provisions, use the current name.

Is growing a few plants for personal use still the cultivation offence?

Article 24(1) does not divide the offence itself according to the number of plants grown or whether the purpose was personal use. There is a structure under which the penalty is aggravated where there is a profit-making purpose, but the absence of such a purpose does not take the case outside the provision.

The number of plants, the scale of the growing equipment, whether there was a harvest and whether there were recipients do, however, carry considerable weight in practice as sentencing factors. Whether a full set of equipment such as lighting, fans and nutrient solution was in place, and whether plants at several stages of growth were being managed, can also feed into the debate over inferring a profit-making purpose.

In addition, if harvested material was being kept, a possession offence may arise separately from cultivation. Breaking the case down conduct by conduct is where understanding it begins.

• Cultivation (Act on Regulation of Cannabis Plant Cultivation art. 24(1)) = imprisonment for 1 to 10 years
• Cultivation with profit-making purpose (same article) = imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year together with a fine of up to 5 million yen
• Possession of harvested material (Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act art. 66(1)) = imprisonment for up to 7 years
• Use (administration) and receipt of administration (Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act art. 66-2(1)) = imprisonment for up to 7 years

How common is this type of case?

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. Cultivation is small in number, but between the weight of the statutory penalty and the volume of material typically seized, it is a category where a term to be served has to be in contemplation from the beginning.

The same source records 6,832 arrests for cannabis offences in 2025, the highest figure on record, with a first-time offender rate of 72.6 per cent. Across cannabis offences as a whole, most of those involved are encountering the process for the first time.

These figures indicate overall trends and do not predict the outcome of any individual case.

What happens to your status of residence?

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 statute governing cultivation appears expressly in that list.

The sub-item contains no limitation as to the type of sentence, no minimum length, and no proviso excluding suspended sentences. The bare fact of conviction satisfies it. Article 24, item 4, sub-item (ri), which deals with imprisonment exceeding 1 year, does contain a proviso excluding fully suspended sentences, but it opens with the words "in addition to those listed in sub-items (ni) through (chi)", so drug offences fall outside its scope from the start.

The provision also applies whatever the type of status of residence (在留資格). Statuses under Appendix I (別表第一) such as Engineer / Specialist in Humanities / International Services and Student are covered, and so are statuses under Appendix II (別表第二) such as permanent resident (永住者), spouse or child of a Japanese national, and long-term resident (定住者). The longer someone has built a life in Japan, the heavier this consequence tends to fall.

What to build up when seeking special permission to stay

Even where a ground for deportation applies, the framework of special permission to stay under article 50 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act remains. In cultivation cases a term to be served is comparatively likely, and if that term exceeds 1 year the heightened requirement in the proviso to article 50(1) is triggered, so keeping the sentence down has significance within the system itself.

On that footing, article 50(5) sets out as statutory factors the reason for wishing to remain, family relationships, conduct, the circumstances that led to entering Japan, the length of stay, the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to deportation, the need for humanitarian consideration, conditions in Japan and abroad, and other matters. In drug cases, "conduct" and "the facts giving rise to deportation" are the greatest obstacles, so the substance of family supervision, the prospect of continued employment, and a concrete structure for preventing relapse have to be presented in the round, through submissions and supporting material.

Here our office places particular weight on the special permission to stay examples published by the Immigration Services Agency (出入国在留管理庁) since 2004. These are nothing other than an accumulation of precedents in which the administrative authority itself judged permission to be appropriate. Where permission has been granted in cases with similar circumstances and this case alone is treated differently, the rationality of that difference falls to be questioned. There is room here to structure an argument around the principle of equality in article 14(1) of the Constitution. The fact that article 50(5) has put the relevant factors into statute has also made the basis of comparison clearer.

We cannot say that comparison with published examples will secure permission. The decision turns on the particular circumstances. We confine ourselves to two accurate statements: such grants exist, and arguments built on them are possible.

Case results and how we work with clients

The two matters below, from our work on special permission to stay and on defence before charges are filed, 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.

Attorney Daisuke Matsumura personally handles every stage, from the first visit at the detention facility through to the close of trial. In cultivation cases, analysing the seized equipment and records, proving the client's circumstances, and preserving material with the immigration process in mind all have to proceed in parallel, so keeping the case with one lawyer matters. For Chinese we have a dedicated interpreter on staff who is experienced in cases involving foreign nationals. 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.

• 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.
• 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 the questioning carefully and built up our arguments and evidence, obtaining decisions not to prosecute (不起訴処分) on every count.

In cultivation cases, the volume of material seized and the state of the equipment tend to produce a grim forecast from the outset. But that forecast is made with one measure only, the sentence. For a foreign client, a separate plan is needed alongside the criminal case: how to protect the right to stay. Beginning to think about the two processes together, rather than apart, is what keeps the options open. 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