Editorial boundary: The following is an authorial commentary by Mgr. Dušan Dvořák. Allegations of unlawful or criminal conduct are claims made by the author and the alliance; they are not final findings by a court or another public authority. The Czech authorial version controls.
On Monday 14 September 2026, the Czech Government was due to consider item 684/26, an amendment to the Addictive Substances Act responding, among other things, to synthetic and semi-synthetic substances sold on the market. The commentary focuses on a provision concerning the processing of cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA).
The author argues that the proposal links regulation of synthetic and semi-synthetic products with a measure that could affect handling of otherwise legal cannabis and could also have consequences for the long-running dispute over forensic methods used by police laboratories to determine THC content.
The draft provision quoted in the Czech version prohibits processing cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid into other chemical substances, while setting exceptions for specified scientific, research, therapeutic and state-authority activities.
What could this mean in practice?
The commentary points out that CBD and THCA can change during storage, drying and heating. It argues that ordinary processing such as making an ointment or tincture may involve chemical transformation and asks how the proposed prohibition would apply to growers and processors of cannabis within the legal THC threshold.
The author further argues that the analytical treatment of THCA is central to criminal cases. He states that heating a cannabis sample during gas-chromatographic analysis can convert THCA into THC and contends that the legal significance of that conversion, sampling, validation and measurement uncertainty has not been handled consistently in the cases he follows.
The commentary refers in particular to current proceedings before the Ostrava Regional Court and to the forensic unit in Frýdek-Místek. It alleges that the unit lacked certain historical standard operating procedures and refers to a later internal order intended to harmonise police forensic practice. These are allegations and interpretations advanced by the author; the controlling records should be read directly.
The author says he has challenged these practices since 2010 before criminal courts, public prosecution offices, ministries, police bodies and other institutions, and cites Czech criminal and constitutional case references. He also points to Denmark as an example where a different approach to cannabis analysis was adopted.
Source identified by the author: Czech Government meeting material, item 684/26, ODok material KORNDVEC8EF8.
Update, 14 September 2026: The Government considered item 684/26 and approved it with an amendment. This update does not alter the date or wording of the original Czech commentary of 11 September 2026.
Postscript concerning Czech Television
The Czech version reproduces two automated acknowledgements from Czech Television dated 12 September 2026 confirming receipt of the submitted article / report idea. They do not contain a substantive assessment of the allegations made in the commentary.
Mgr. Dušan Dvořák
Chair, Cannabis is The Cure, z. s.