Cannabis and CBD: French Drivers Can Now Lose Their License Even Without a Positive Test Result

Since August 20, 2026, the RIPOST Act has introduced in France a new offense into the Highway Code: driving after «obvious» use of narcotics. What makes it unique? Unlike the traditional offense of driving after using narcotics, its classification does not necessarily depend on a positive saliva or blood test.

A driver may therefore be suspected based on his or her behavior or appearance and, most importantly, have his or her license temporarily impounded and then administratively suspended even before being tried in court—even if he or she denies having consumed anything.

A New Offense of ’Overt Use« of Narcotics

The RIPOST Act, enacted on August 18, 2026, established theArticle L. 237-1 of the Highway Code. The Code now penalizes driving «while having clearly used substances or plants classified as narcotics.».

The offense is punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 9,000 euros. A conviction also automatically results in the loss of half the maximum number of points on the driver’s license.

This new offense differs primarily from the one already familiar to cannabis users stopped for driving.

With regard to driving after using narcotics, Article L. 235-1 stipulates that use must be confirmed by a saliva or blood test. It therefore does not matter whether or not the driver shows signs of impaired driving ability: the presence of the narcotic is sufficient. With ’manifest use,« the reasoning is different.

No need for a positive test result

The impact assessment for the RIPOST Act explains that, in terms of evidence, this new offense follows the same logic as driving while obviously intoxicated. Police officers or gendarmes must therefore observe signs that lead them to conclude the driver has clearly consumed alcohol: his or her behavior, attitude, or appearance.

The Council of State itself had noted during its review of the bill that the substantive definition of this new offense did not require establishing the presence of these substances in the body.

That is precisely what makes this new offense unique: a positive toxicology test is not, in and of itself, a requirement under Article L. 237-1.

However, this does not mean that saliva tests will disappear from traffic stops. They are still provided for in the Highway Code and may be administered, in particular, when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a driver has used narcotics.

But the new offense opens up another avenue, based on evidence gathered by law enforcement.

Can you be penalized just for having red eyes?

That is, of course, the question raised by a concept as subjective as ’obvious use.«.

The law does not provide a list of symptoms that would indicate that a driver has used cannabis or another narcotic.

Red eyes, dilated pupils, unusual behavior, or difficulty speaking could be among the observations recorded by the police. But none of these signs alone proves drug use.

Red eyes can be caused by allergies, irritation, contact lenses, or a lack of sleep. Stress can affect a person’s behavior during a screening. Certain medications can also cause symptoms similar to those associated with drugs.

To have red eyes does not, therefore, automatically mean that one is guilty of overt drug use.

To issue a conviction, a court must find that the evidence in the case actually establishes the offense. And since the provision has only just taken effect, we will have to wait for the first court rulings to see where the courts draw the line.

The problem is that between the traffic stop and a potential court ruling, the driver may already face very real consequences.

A driver's license may be suspended before the trial

The RIPOST Act did more than just create a new offense. It also amended the rules regarding driver’s licenses. The Highway Code allows for the suspension of a driver’s license when there is one or more reasonable grounds to suspect that a driver has used narcotics.

The law now also provides for the administrative suspension of a driver’s license when it has been impounded as a result of a traffic violation despite the «obvious use or consumption» referred to in the new Article L. 237-1.

This administrative decision is being made prior to the criminal judgment.

This could theoretically lead to a rather confusing situation: a driver has not used any drugs, but law enforcement interprets several physical or behavioral signs as indications of drug use. Their license is confiscated, proceedings are initiated for apparent drug use, and an administrative suspension is imposed.

The court may then determine that the evidence was insufficient and not convict him. In the meantime, however, the driver may have been suspended from driving.

What if the saliva test comes back negative?

The case is likely to go to court soon. A negative test result would obviously be a major factor in favor of a driver facing charges who claims not to have consumed anything. However, Article L. 237-1 does not stipulate that a negative test result automatically precludes a finding of obvious drug use.

This is precisely because the new offense is not based on the same mechanism as driving after using narcotics. It therefore remains to be seen how the courts will handle a situation in which police observations suggest drug use, even though a drug test detects nothing.

With RIPOST, the driver's appearance now matters

The law therefore does not allow us to simplify the situation to «red eyes = license revoked.» Nor does a mere police observation amount to a conviction: that remains within the jurisdiction of the courts.

RIPOST does, however, introduce a significant change. Until now, driving under the influence of narcotics was governed by a system based primarily on the detection of the substance. The new concept of «obvious use» now makes it possible to establish a separate offense based on outward signs observed by law enforcement.

And the administrative consequences can begin long before a judge issues a ruling. That is what makes this system problematic: a driver who has not consumed any drugs may, in theory, be subject to these proceedings if his or her condition is interpreted as that of someone who has used narcotics.

The coming months will reveal, above all, what evidence the French courts will accept as sufficiently compelling to transform a suspicion into «clear evidence.».