On LCP, MILDECA's defense of prohibition runs up against the facts

Guest of DebateDoc Appearing on LCP to defend France’s cannabis policy, Nicolas Prisse, president of MILDECA, faced off against two experts on the subject: law professor Yann Bisiou and Inserm sociologist Marie Jauffret-Roustide. For nearly half an hour, the traditional arguments in favor of French prohibition were pitted against the available data. And the exchange sometimes proved tough for Nicolas Prisse.

Ali Baddou begins by outlining the «French paradox»: France has some of the most repressive laws in Europe, yet it remains one of the countries where cannabis is widely used.

To defend the government’s record, Nicolas Prisse first focuses on teenagers. And on this point, the figure seems striking: among 16-year-olds, cannabis use has dropped from 31% in 2015 to 8.4% in 2024. France is now among the European countries where young people of this age use the least. Data from the OFDT confirms this.

But Yann Bisiou and Marie Jauffret-Roustide immediately shift the focus. Among young adults, the situation is quite different. European data available for France showed that 19.2% of 15- to 34-year-olds had used the substance within the past year, compared with approximately 15% in the European Union. Above all, they point out, the decline in teenage use is being observed worldwide, in Canada as well as in Europe.

When Regulation Neither Raises Prices Nor Reduces Supply

Yann Bisiou summarizes the problem using three classic indicators of an illegal market: prevalence, price, and potency of the products. Despite decades of law enforcement efforts, cannabis remains widely available in France.

Prohibitionist policy, on the other hand, creates what legal scholars call a «pariah user»: a consumer forced to operate outside the law, even though this illegality does not eliminate either the product or its market.

Marie Jauffret-Roustide contrasts this approach with that of regulation. She cites Quebec in particular, where the Legal distribution is entrusted to a public monopoly rather than a private industry seeking to maximize its sales. The case of Quebec is all the more interesting given that public health data do not show the predicted surge in consumption among the youngest consumers : Among 15- to 20-year-olds, reported use is actually lower today than it was before legalization.

On global legalization, Prisse is redefining the trend

This is probably the weakest point in MILDECA’s defense. Nicolas Prisse asserts that the international movement is not particularly moving toward legalization and points to countries that, in his view, have backtracked. He specifically cites Thailand and Germany, which «did not see their reforms through to the end.».

The reality is more complicated.

Thailand has not legalized cannabis as Canada has. After legalized medical cannabis in 2018, she removed the plant from the list of controlled substances in 2022, leading to widespread decriminalization and the emergence of a vast commercial market that lacked adequate oversight. The government then implemented regulations to refocus access on medical uses. Portraying this legal development as a «step backward» from legalization therefore perpetuates confusion about the very nature of Thailand’s reform.

Germany, for its part, has indeed undergone a change of regime. Since April 2024, adults may possess certain amounts of cannabis and grow up to three plants; the cultural organizations are also permitted.

However, the German project had a second pillar: to test a regulated commercial distribution model in certain regions. Initially designed with European and international constraints in mind, it did not was ultimately not implemented and the coalition that came to power in 2025 has indicated that it does not plan to continue this policy—without reversing the previous ban—while pursuing other legislative efforts aimed at eventually legalizing the sale of cannabis.

More broadly, the UN itself describes a continuing shift in cannabis policies: Canada, Uruguay, 28 U.S. states, as well as Malta, Luxembourg, and Germany, have adopted various forms of legal access to non-medical cannabis, while Switzerland and the Netherlands are experimenting with regulated systems, the The Czech Republic is no exception.

Medical cannabis: a pilot program that didn't test what Prisse claims

Another difficult issue for the MILDECA president: medical cannabis.

Nicolas Prisse describes the French trial as part of the standard process for assessing the risk-benefit ratio and organizing potential treatment.

Yann Bisiou picks it up again: the’the primary objective of the French pilot program was not to determine whether cannabis could have therapeutic value, but to conduct a practical test of its distribution system.

And on this point, the ANSM’s documents support the lawyer’s position: the agency itself defines the «primary objective» of the trial as assessing the «feasibility of the process for making it available to patients.».

And MILDECA itself benefits from the proceeds of the seizures

The latest battleground: the fixed-amount civil fines (AFD), which have become one of the main tools for cracking down on drug use since 2020. Nicolas Prisse continues to defend the principle, particularly as a means of «empowering» users. Historically, the fine was 200 euros, reduced to 150 euros for prompt payment and increased to 450 euros for late payment, and recently increased to 500 euros under the RIPOST Act.

Yann Bisiou points out, however, a far less convincing reality: a large portion of these fines simply go unpaid. The most recent parliamentary data show that payment rate of approximately 34% after one year, even though it was «only» €200. In other words, issuing more fines does not necessarily make the penalty more effective.

Marie Jauffret-Roustide raises an even deeper issue: the question of who receives these fines. Cannabis use cuts across all social classes, but police stops are not distributed evenly across the population. The sociologist emphasizes the social and racial biases in police stops: young people from working-class neighborhoods and people of color are more likely to be stopped and, consequently, penalized. Thus, the AFD does not merely penalize a behavior; it primarily penalizes those whom the police stop.

And this is perhaps where the French argument becomes most difficult: not to prove that cannabis is risk-free—no one on the panel is claiming that—but to explain why these risks would justify maintaining a repressive model that has produced no results.

One final factor is significant in this debate on law enforcement: MILDECA manages the «Drugs» support fund, which is financed by the proceeds of criminal assets confiscated in drug-related cases. The official allocation assigns 35% of these funds to the police, 25% to the gendarmerie, 20% to the judiciary, 10% to customs, and 10% participates in prevention initiatives under the auspices of MILDECA.

Under these circumstances, it is hard to ignore this paradox: the policy that MILDECA is tasked with defending actually helps to increase the resources at its disposal.