Cannabis Legalization: The LFI Bill Has a Major Problem—THC

Legalize cannabis—yes. But how, with what limits, at what cost, and for which products? On paper, La France Insoumise has been advocating for years a clear end to prohibition.

But between the bill introduced in 2021 by Éric Coquerel, the «Addictions and Drugs» chapter of the *L’Avenir en commun 2025* platform, and the parliamentary report signed last year by *La France Insoumise* lawmaker Antoine Léaument, the discrepancy is striking. And it reveals a blind spot that few commentators point out: the issue of THC levels, where LFI tacitly perpetuates a prohibitionist approach.

The 2021 Law: The Foundation of the LFI Model

Bill No. 4746, submitted in late 2021 by Éric Coquerel, Mathilde Panot, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and about twenty other signatories, lays out the framework that LFI still advocates today: a state «monopoly,» though not a monopoly on production or distribution in the strict sense. A new administrative authority, the Authority for the Regulation of Cannabis Production and Distribution (AEPEC), would hold a monopoly on approvals and licenses, but not on cultivation or sales themselves.

In practice, production would remain in the hands of private farmers, who would be required to obtain a license, just as with any other regulated crop. Retail sales would be handled by private «retailers,» authorized by the government and acting as its agents in exchange for a license fee—an arrangement more akin to the tobacco shop model than a nationalization of the industry. The government sets the framework and monitors quality; farmers and retailers keep the industry running.

The text also provides for a amnesty for people convicted of simple possession, personal cultivation limited to a certain number of plants, a ban on sales to minors and on all advertising, and funding for prevention through a tax on legal sales.

It also paves the way, through implementing regulations, for non-capitalist models such as agricultural cooperatives or nonprofit organizations like the Cannabis Social Club, based on the German model, where participants grow and share their harvest outside the commercial system.

The proposal is therefore a hybrid model: public regulation of the right to produce and sell, with enforcement carried out by private entities or associations.

The 2025 Plan: The Same Philosophy, Far Fewer Details

The chapter on addiction in *L’Avenir en commun* (2025 edition) outlines the following key points: legalization and regulation through a state monopoly on the production, sale, and recreational use of drugs, tax revenue earmarked for prevention and rehabilitation assistance, oversight entrusted to the Ministry of Health rather than the Ministry of the Interior, and strengthened judicial and customs resources to combat trafficking networks.

But from an operational standpoint, the program falls significantly short of the 2021 draft. There is no mention of THC levels, no specific possession thresholds, no name of a regulatory authority, and no indication of prices. It is more of a framework of principles than a roadmap. This shortcoming is all the more surprising given that, four months before this version of the program was finalized, a member of La France Insoumise had just presented a much more comprehensive proposal on the subject.

What the Léaument-Mendès report adds—and what the program did not include

In February 2025, Antoine Léaument (LFI) and Ludovic Mendes (affiliated with Ensemble pour la République) have issued a report of more than 300 pages, the result of a 17-month fact-finding mission on the effectiveness of the fight against drug trafficking. The two rapporteurs set forth 63 recommendations, 46 of which are shared, and they, too, conclude that an all-repressive approach has failed. Their flagship proposal: to legalize the use and personal possession of cannabis through a new Cannabis Regulatory Authority (ARCAN) responsible for licensing and enforcing standards.

Several points—which are missing from the 2025 plan—are spelled out in black and white:

• a legal threshold for possession specified (25 grams according to Léaument's proposal, based on the German model, compared to 10 grams for Mendes); ;
• a plant limit for home cultivation, set at four feet per year; ;
• a price target explicit, priced under 5 euros per gram, designed to compete directly with the black market; ;
• a extension of reasoning to other substances, with the decriminalization of possession of cocaine or heroin in amounts of less than three grams.

The two rapporteurs disagree on the extent of state control: Léaument favors a public enterprise that would oversee the entire sector, following the Quebec model, while Mendes advocates for licensed private operators and market-based pricing.

But on the key issues, they are in agreement far beyond what LFI’s official platform dares to quantify.

The Real Problem: The Persistence of Prohibition

Public debate often focuses on a program’s shortcomings. Let’s instead look at what the legislation says regarding THC content regulation. The 2021 bill is unambiguous on this point. It stipulates that the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level shall be set by ministerial order, with a single requirement spelled out in black and white: this level must not be too low, so as not to make the black market more attractive than legal options.

In other words, the intent of the text is not to allow the legal market to cover the entire range of existing products, but to set a power limit above which a product would, in effect, be illegal.

This is a ban that shifts its focus without disappearing: the strongest concentrates and resins—the very ones that the most established customer base seeks out—would therefore remain illegal, with all that this implies in terms of a lack of health oversight.

However, there are tax tools that make it possible to regulate the potency of these products without banning them. Public health studies, particularly from Quebec, show, for example, that a Taxation based on THC content (The stronger the product, the higher the tax, proportionally) tends to reduce consumption of the most concentrated products, without the need to ban anything. Conversely, a flat-rate tax based on weight or value may even encourage the use of more concentrated products, since it works out to be less expensive per unit of THC.

By favoring a regulatory cap rather than a price signal proportional to THC content, LFI ultimately adheres to a logic very similar to that of prohibition: beyond a certain potency level, the product would be excluded from the legal market. This is a fundamental contradiction that the movement still has a few months to address before the presidential campaign.