Supreme Court judgment STS 301/2026 on hemp flowers and CBD: why it is not the end of the sector and where its reasoning can be challenged
An important ruling, but not the CBD apocalypse
Spanish Supreme Court judgment 301/2026 of 23 April has caused huge concern in the hemp, CBD and non-psychoactive flower sector. Some readings present it as the definitive end of these products in Spain. Caution is advisable.
The ruling is undoubtedly important. It comes from the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and convicts for a drug trafficking offence in a case involving the sale of cannabis-derived products presented as cigarettes, cigarillos, buds and bags, containing CBD and THC at levels that, according to the analyses, ranged between 0.3% and 0.7% THC.
But this is not a law. It is not a judgment of the full Supreme Court. It is not a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union. And, above all, it is not a judgment beyond question from a technical, legal or scientific point of view.
The ruling must be taken seriously, but not as a definitive end to the debate.
The central issue is not whether the State can regulate hemp flowers, CBD or cannabis-derived products. The issue is a different one: whether criminal law can be used to automatically treat CBD-rich, low-THC products as narcotics without properly proving their actual psychoactivity.
In our view, the answer must be no.
What the Supreme Court actually does
The judgment does not simply say that every cannabis flower is a drug. Its reasoning is somewhat more elaborate. The Supreme Court combines several elements:
- That the products came from cannabis.
- That they were presented as cigarettes, cigarillos, buds or bags.
- That they contained THC.
- That they were intended for consumption.
- That they were sold for money.
- That there was no AEMPS authorisation.
- That the total amount of THC in the consignment exceeded the 10 mg benchmark considered the minimum psychoactive dose (according to the 2001 report of the National Institute of Toxicology).
The problem is not that these elements are irrelevant. They can obviously matter. The problem is that the Supreme Court uses them cumulatively to build a kind of presumption that the product is a narcotic.
In other words, instead of asking whether a real unit of consumption could produce significant psychoactive effects, the judgment shifts the focus to other indicators: the plant appearance, the smokable format, the analytical presence of THC and the total amount seized.
That is the real weak point of the ruling.
The main error: confusing indicators with proof of real psychoactivity
Article 368 of the Spanish Criminal Code does not punish the sale of any plant product. It punishes acts of cultivation, production, trafficking or facilitating the illegal consumption of toxic drugs, narcotics or psychotropic substances.
Therefore, to convict, it is not enough to prove that a product comes from Cannabis sativa L. Nor is it enough that it looks like a bud or contains some THC. What matters is that the product really is a narcotic substance capable of harming public health.
Put simply:
It is not enough to show that there is cannabis. You have to show that the cannabis works as a drug.
The judgment, however, seems to lower that standard. It does not sufficiently prove that each unit of consumption had a real capacity to produce psychoactive effects. Instead, it adds up peripheral indicators and concludes that the conduct is criminal. That leap is precisely what must be challenged.
The influence of the AEMPS’s position: flower controlled because it is flower
Although the judgment does not convict solely because the product is flower, it does seem to partly adopt the restrictive position that the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices has been defending.
In essence, that position holds that cannabis flowering tops are controlled because they are included in the 1961 Single Convention, regardless of their actual THC content. This view has been publicly defended in many forums and set out in documents from institutions such as the Anti-Drug Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Agriculture; a well-worn mantra, but highly unscientific and contrary to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In other words: if it is cannabis flower, it would be controlled.
This approach is very problematic when applied to CBD-rich, low-THC hemp products, because it makes the botanical form of the product an almost decisive factor, when what should really matter is its composition and effect.
The analogy is simple: a glass does not make you drunk because it is shaped like a glass. It makes you drunk if it contains alcohol. If it contains water, there is no sense in treating it as wine. Something similar happens with hemp flowers. A flower should not be considered a drug because of its plant appearance, but because of its real capacity to produce narcotic effects.
The Supreme Court judgment does not crudely state that every flower is a drug, but by citing and partly adopting the restrictive administrative position, it ends up dangerously close to that logic.
The isolated interpretation of the 1961 Convention
Another weak point is the way the 1961 Single Convention is interpreted.
The Convention includes cannabis in the international control system and defines cannabis by reference to the flowering or fruiting tops of the plant. But that Convention cannot be interpreted in an isolated, literal and purely botanical way.
It must be interpreted together with the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which controls THC as the psychoactive ingredient of cannabis. The purpose of the international control system is not to prohibit harmless plant forms. It is to control substances that are psychoactive and pose a risk to public health.
So the question cannot simply be: Is it a cannabis flower?
The right question should be: Does it contain THC in sufficient quantity and form to produce narcotic effects?
If that question is not answered rigorously, criminal law should not come into play.
The CJEU’s Kanavape judgment: it does not legalise flowers, but it rules out an automatic reading
It is true that the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Kanavape judgment did not deal directly with hemp flowers. It concerned CBD extracts, since that was the subject of the proceedings.
But that does not make it irrelevant. Kanavape’s importance lies in its method of interpretation. The CJEU stated that the 1961 Convention cannot be interpreted in isolation, but together with the 1971 Convention and in light of the aim of protecting public health.
So, although Kanavape does not say that all CBD flowers are legal, it does provide an important criterion:
A cannabis-derived product cannot be automatically considered a narcotic without analysing its composition, its controlled active ingredient and its real risk.
The logic is clear: if a cannabis extract is not automatically a narcotic because it is an extract, a hemp flower should not automatically be a narcotic because it is a flower.
The Supreme Court tries to limit Kanavape to isolated CBD or extracts, but that reading narrows the scope of the European reasoning too much.
The problematic use of the National Institute of Toxicology report
One of the most important points of the judgment is its biased use of the 2001 National Institute of Toxicology report on minimum psychoactive doses.
The Supreme Court takes as its benchmark the figure of 10 mg of THC or dronabinol as the minimum psychoactive dose. From there, it holds that the total amount of THC in the consignment far exceeded that figure.
But the Institute’s report itself contains essential caveats that the judgment does not properly weigh. The report warns that it is difficult to set minimum doses for cannabis because many factors are involved: type of sample, presentation, route of administration, absorption, method of consumption and variability between people.
The report also points out something fundamental: doses of the active ingredient, delta-9-THC, must not be confused with the amount of plant or resin seized. And that is precisely what the judgment seems to do.
Total THC in a consignment is not the same as a real dose
This is perhaps the most instructive and important point.
The Supreme Court seems to reason on the basis of the total amount of THC in all the goods seized. But the relevant figure should not be how much THC is in the whole box, but how much THC a person can consume and absorb in a real unit of consumption.
Let’s use simple numbers. One gram of flower at 1% THC contains 10 mg of THC. So, to nominally reach those 10 mg, you would have to consume a whole gram of flower at 1%.
But in the case analysed we are talking about products with between 0.3% and 0.7% THC. That means that:
- 1 gram at 0.3% contains 3 mg of THC.
- 1 gram at 0.5% contains 5 mg of THC.
- 1 gram at 0.7% contains 7 mg of THC.
- 1 gram at 1% contains 10 mg of THC.
And all this without even taking bioavailability into account. If the amount actually absorbed by inhalation may be roughly below 20%, then a gram of flower at 0.7% would not provide 7 effective mg, but a much smaller absorbed amount, around 1.4 mg.
Therefore, the judgment should not be based on the whole consignment exceeding 10 mg of THC. It should analyse whether a real unit of consumption could reach an effective psychoactive dose. And that evidence is not sufficiently developed.
An analogy: sacks of industrial hemp seed
The Supreme Court’s logic can lead to absurd results.
Imagine a 25 or 50 kg sack of certified industrial hemp seed. These are legal products from varieties authorised in the European Union. They may contain tiny or residual amounts of cannabinoids.
If we add up the whole batch, the absolute amount of THC might exceed 10 mg. Does that mean the sack becomes a drug? Obviously not.
Because the analysis is not done by adding up everything in the batch. It is done by looking at the concentration, normal use, the intended use of the product and its real capacity to produce psychoactive effects.
The same applies to hemp flowers. A whole consignment cannot be turned into a drug by adding up THC cumulatively if each real unit of consumption does not show sufficient psychoactive capacity.
Another analogy: food with traces of unwanted substances
Something similar happens outside cannabis.
Some foods may contain traces of heavy metals within legal limits. If someone buys 100 kg of pulses, the total accumulated amount of those metals will be higher than in a single serving.
But that does not automatically make the batch dangerous or unlawful. What matters is the concentration, the real exposure and the ordinary unit of consumption. Risk is not assessed by abstractly adding up all the contaminant present in 100 kg. It is assessed by looking at how much a person can ingest under normal conditions.
The same logic should apply to THC: what matters is not only how much THC there is in the whole consignment, but how much THC a real unit of consumption contains and releases.
The ST/NAR/40 index: it does not create law, but it does provide science
The Provincial Court had given weight to the psychoactivity index in the United Nations ST/NAR/40 manual, which helps indicate whether a sample corresponds to fibre-type or drug-type cannabis.
The Supreme Court rejects the idea that this index alone can determine criminal liability because it is not part of the Criminal Code. That statement can be partly accepted: a technical manual does not create or exclude crimes by itself. But that does not mean it can be ignored.
The ST/NAR/40 does not replace the judge. But it does provide a scientific criterion on an essential question: whether the substance analysed has the profile of drug-type or fibre-type cannabis.
The Supreme Court rejects the index because it is not written into law, but then uses the 10 mg benchmark, which does not appear in the Criminal Code as an automatic rule either. That double standard is hard to justify, all the more so since the protocol comes from the United Nations, which is also where the Narcotics Control Conventions come from.
Criminal law cannot make up for a lack of clear regulation
The CBD and hemp flower market needs regulation. That is obvious.
Clear rules are needed setting THC limits, permitted uses, labelling, traceability, health controls, marketing conditions and operators’ responsibilities.
But the lack of regulation cannot be solved by using criminal law as a tool to shut things down. If the legislator wants to prohibit or limit certain products, it must do so clearly, expressly and proportionately.
What is not acceptable is for an activity in a regulatory grey area to be turned into a crime through an expansive interpretation of the concept of a narcotic. Criminal law must be the last resort, not a substitute for regulation that does not exist.
Why this ruling is not the end of the sector
STS 301/2026 is important, but it does not close the debate. It is not a judgment of the full court. It does not analyse all types of products. It does not resolve every possible scenario. It does not automatically turn every CBD flower into a crime. And its reasoning is debatable on several essential points.
Its main weaknesses are clear:
- It turns a sum of indicators into proof that a product is a narcotic.
- It makes questionable use of the National Institute of Toxicology report.
- It confuses the total THC in a consignment with an effective dose.
- It narrows the scope of Kanavape.
- It interprets the 1961 Convention rigidly.
- It sidelines the ST/NAR/40 index.
- It partly adopts the AEMPS’s restrictive position on flowers.
So rather than the end of the sector, we are facing an open legal battle.
A final paradox: more products, less control
The great paradox of this ruling is that it may produce exactly the opposite effect to the one it supposedly seeks to avoid.
If the idea that any presence of THC in hemp flowers can trigger a criminal response takes hold, the market will tend to shift towards flowering tops with 0% THC and containing cannabinoids not internationally controlled, many of them narcotic, with less scientific track record, less traceability and an even more uncertain control framework.
In other words, instead of encouraging clear, proportionate regulation based on objective psychoactivity criteria, the sector is pushed towards increasingly artificial formulas to avoid an expansive criminal interpretation. The result may be less legal certainty, less health control, more insecurity for consumers and operators, and a greater gap between the reality of the market and the response of the institutions.
Once again, the absurdity is clear: a judgment intended to strengthen public health protection may end up encouraging products that are harder to control, analyse and regulate.
Rigour, not alarmism
The judgment must be studied and taken seriously. But it should not be presented as the apocalypse for CBD or hemp flowers.
The real debate is not whether psychoactive cannabis can be prosecuted. Obviously it can. The debate is whether CBD-rich, low-THC products with unproven psychoactivity can be treated as criminal drugs by piling up indicators.
From a perspective that respects legal guarantees, science and European law, the answer should be no.
A flower is not a drug because it is a flower. A consignment is not psychoactive because, added up in full, it exceeds 10 mg of THC. And criminal law cannot be used to make up for the lack of coherent regulation of hemp and CBD.
It is not enough that there is flower. It is not enough that there is some THC. It is not enough that the product is smokable. It is not enough to add up all the THC in a consignment.
To convict, it must be proven that the specific product, in a real unit of consumption, is capable of producing narcotic effects and harming public health.
That is the underlying debate. The sector does not need alarmism. It needs clear regulation, serious technical analysis and a rigorous legal defence.
Do you need legal advice?
At S&F Abogados we specialise in cannabis law. Find out about our service for CBD and hemp businesses, send us an online enquiry or call us on +34 919 532 802.
