In recent days a lively debate has arisen around the rule desired by Matteo Salvini, which increases the penalties for those found guilty driving with traces of cannabis in the blood. For the Minister of Transport "Every type of drug is not good for those who take it and if you get behind the wheel you pay the consequences". This issue does not only concern road safety, but leaves room for discussion on the balance between prevention and proportionality of the measures adopted. Matthias Cusani, president of the National Association of Sativa Hemp Italy, wanted to highlight the impact on the agricultural and commercial supply chains related to light cannabis in Italy: "Law enforcement tests are not always reliable: and so the legal hemp sector risks being further penalized."
The crux of the rule: safety or excessive rigor?
In the direct exchange with the minister Vasco Rossi he wanted to underline how: “I never said that you can drive while drunk or under the influence of drugs. I don’t recommend smoking or drinking. I don’t recommend anything. I said that Salvini’s new highway code is an absurd propagandistic modification of the old law that already provided for the withdrawal of the license for those who drive under the influence of cannabis. But after a week you drive perfectly lucid. It is an unacceptable thing that should be obvious to everyone! Here we are not saving lives, but we are ruining many others”
The current law, as amended, imposes zero tolerance on any trace of THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, detected in a driver's saliva. Unlike alcohol, which can be metabolized within hours, THC can remain in the human body for days or even weeks, depending on the person's metabolism and frequency of use. This means that a driver who has consumed cannabis even several days previously—and is completely lucid at the time of driving—could still face severe penalties, including license suspension.
This approach does not take into account the driver's actual ability to drive safely, indiscriminately targeting those who have used cannabis, regardless of their state of lucidity at the time of driving.
A concrete response through the JustMary initiative
In this scenario, JustMary, an Italian company known to the general public for the distribution of products related to legal cannabis, has entered the field by distributing an innovative product: a natural spray that helps reduce traces of THC in saliva. It is called Kleaner Anti-THC Spray: in practice it is an innovative, safe, tested detergent that eliminates THC from saliva in a few minutes. It is explicitly aimed at those who fear incurring fines despite feeling completely lucid and able to drive safely.
It might interest you
The initiative has raised concerns and ethical questions. Is this an offer that positions itself as a concrete response to a rule perceived as unfair or is it, on the contrary, a way to circumvent a law designed to protect road safety?
The question opens a further debate: is it ethical to use a product to avoid the legal consequences of a rule, even if this is perceived as disproportionate? In the meantime, sales of the spray have taken off.
The need to review the rule
The solution, for many, lies not in the proliferation of tools or expedients to circumvent the law, but in revising the law itself. Numerous legal experts and representatives of civil rights groups have called for a clear distinction between those who are truly impaired while driving and those who have traces of THC despite being fully alert. This approach, based on scientific criteria and not simply on a measurement of metabolites, could ensure more equitable enforcement of penalties. Trentino lawyer Nicola Canestrini, contacted by the local press, was keen to clarify that: "Driving under the influence of substances, i.e., while impaired, has been a crime since 1992. What's new is that the requirement of impaired driving has now been eliminated: the presence of traces of substances in the body is sufficient, even if one is not impaired in any way. This risks opening a harmful breach in the legal system."
Towards a more balanced regulation
It's clear that the legislation, as currently structured, needs to be reexamined. While ensuring road safety is essential, it's equally important that laws are proportionate and based on sound scientific criteria. Otherwise, there's a risk of criminalizing behaviors that don't pose a real danger, with negative consequences for both the individuals involved and the justice system.
The case raised by the statements of many well-known people, united at the initiative of JustMary, represents a starting point for reflecting on the need for a more balanced and modern approach to regulating the relationship between cannabis and road safety. The short-term goal becomes to find a compromise that protects both citizens' rights and collective safety.
Choose the channel you want to subscribe to