Cannabis Clubs Defence Lawyers

The cannabis social clubs (CSC) operate in a singular grey area of Spanish criminal law. There is no state regulation that specifically regulates or prohibits them, generating a mosaic of regional and municipal regulation of limited effectiveness (the Navarre Regional Act 24/2014, annulled by STC 144/2017, and the Catalan Act 13/2017, annulled by the Constitutional Court in 2018). The legal viability of a CSC depends on the case-law doctrine of shared consumption, which STS 484/2015, of the Full Criminal Chamber, refused to extend to organised, institutionalised cultivation and distribution open to new members (290 in that case), even without a profit motive: only a small, closed group of consumers growing and consuming for themselves may fall outside the offence against public health under Art. 368 CP. Case-law uses for this purpose the requirements set out below, which the Full Chamber warned must not be applied as a mere formal checklist. As criminal lawyers specialising in cannabis clubs, we articulate technical defence with consolidated experience in these proceedings.

The five cumulative requirements of the Supreme Court are as follows. First, previously identified addict consumers: the member list must be closed, identifiable and composed exclusively of habitual consumers already consolidated; no non-consumers, first-time experimenters or occasional guests are admissible. Second, quantity proportional and limited to immediate consumption of those present in each session, without accumulated stock for future distribution. Third, closed, private place without exterior projection: discreet venue without public visibility, without shop window or open access, without possibility of street consumption. Fourth, simultaneous and on-site consumption by the present members, without delivery of take-away portions to the domicile. Fifth, complete absence of profit motive: revenues must be prorated exclusively to operating costs (rent, electricity, cultivation, management), without a single cent destined to personal remuneration of organisers or managers.

Since STS 484/2015, the Supreme Court has continued to treat organised distribution among the members of open clubs as an offence against public health under Art. 368 CP (STS 596/2015). Courts examine rigorously how the club actually works: size and openness of the group, storage, control over where the substance ends up and absence of any commercial spirit. In the case decided by STS 484/2015 an avoidable mistake of law was found, which reduced the directors' sentence to eight months' imprisonment. The penalties applicable to cannabis (substance not causing serious harm to health, first paragraph of Art. 368 CP) are prison from 1 to 3 years and fine; when the quantity exceeds the threshold of particular significance (notoria importancia; 10 kg of marijuana or 2.5 kg of hashish under the non-jurisdictional Plenary Agreement of 19 October 2001), the penalty rises to the next higher degree under Art. 369.1.5 CP (prison from 3 years and 1 day to 4 years and 6 months, fine equal to quadruple); and if the club operates from within a criminal organisation, Art. 369 bis CP imposes prison from 4 years and 6 months to 10 years (the range for substances that do not cause serious harm to health), with the next higher degree for its leaders, managers or administrators. The conviction usually extends to directors, managers and founding members, with confiscation of the crop, money and vehicles; and the association itself, as a legal person, may receive the penalties of Art. 369 bis CP (a fine and, where appropriate, dissolution, suspension of activities or closure of the premises).

The technical defence articulates several complementary lines. First, the documentary certification of compliance with the five requirements: closed member register with signed declaration of prior consumption, transparent accounting books with cost prorating, absence of stock beyond session consumption, exclusive on-site consumption protocol, evidence of venue discretion. Second, the defence of mere consumer members: criminal liability falls on organisers and managers, not on passive members who only consume; except for proven active collaboration in cultivation, distribution or management, members are not criminally liable. Third, the expert challenge to the quantity and the calculation of the average dose: the technical assessment of the INTCF can be challenged through independent pharmacological expertise. Fourth, in first-conviction cases, the negotiation of suspension of the prison sentence under Art. 80 CP (penalties not exceeding 2 years may be suspended subject to certain requirements).

In current forensic practice we observe growth of judicial investigations on clubs, especially in Madrid, Barcelona, the Basque Country, Navarre and tourist coastal areas. The Constitutional Court Judgment 144/2017 annulled the Navarre regional Act on cannabis user groups (the Catalan Act met the same fate in 2018), the Supreme Court Judgment 484/2015 consolidated the restrictive doctrine, and consolidated case-law has hardened the interpretation of the five requirements. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, Act 17/1967 on narcotics and the INTCF pharmacological criteria have transformed the evidentiary regime. At Alonso Sala, we preventively advise clubs on their statutory constitution, daily operation and admission protocols; we defend charged directors, managers and members; and we intervene in police operations with urgent legal assistance at detention. We treat each file with the technical discretion and legal rigour this complex matter demands.