New Paper – June 2025: From rejection to recognition: Human rights, morality, and the future of Marijuana policy in Indonesia | Cannabis Law Report | Where to buy Skittles Moonrock online

Research on cannabinoid applications for neurological conditions provides emerging evidence relevant to cases of Fidelis Ari Sudarwoto and Santi Warastuti mentioned in Indonesia’s cannabis debate. Systematic reviews indicate that cannabis-derived medications may offer therapeutic benefits for symptoms associated with cerebral palsy and syringomyelia. Singh et al. (2023) documented substantial evidence that cannabidiol (CBD) can effectively reduce spasticity in neurological disorders through anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective mechanisms, with moderate adverse effects. Similarly, Boyaji et al. (2020) identified significant potential for cannabinoids in managing neuropathic pain—a predominant symptom in syringomyelia—through modulation of the endocannabinoid system and neuroinflammatory processes. Both reviews noted improvements in quality-of-life measures, including sleep quality and anxiety reduction. However, the research landscape presents important limitations, including methodological heterogeneity, inadequate standardization of dosing protocols, and insufficient long-term safety data.

These scientifically documented potential benefits create a significant legal and ethical dilemma between human rights considerations—specifically patients’ right to access effective medical treatments—and Indonesia’s prevailing moral-religious framework that categorically prohibits cannabis use. This scientific context underscores the Constitutional Court’s recommendation for comprehensive research, highlighting the disjunction between global advancements in medical cannabis evidence and Indonesia’s current policy approach.

The discourse on human rights has gained significant traction, often highlighting a perceived imbalance with moral considerations, which tend to receive comparatively less attention (Haule, 2006). The ongoing tension between these two perspectives remains unresolved, particularly in Indonesian society, where Eastern cultural values (Santoso et al., 2024) coexist with human rights principles that inherently emphasize individual freedom and autonomy (Ferrajoli, 2019; Kirchschlaeger, 2020). Community morality often constrains these individual rights, as it is shaped by collective societal values and heavily influenced by religious teachings (McKay et al., 2010; Moka-Mubelo, 2017). This debate exemplifies the broader conflict, frequently reflected in the opposing views of conservative groups—who emphasize ethical and communal values—and liberal advocates—who prioritize human rights and personal liberty.

Cannabis or marijuana has been documented in Indonesia since the 14th century, being introduced to Aceh by Gujarati traders. Acehnese culture employs it in various domains, including rituals, medicine, culinary applications, and agricultural practices (Lumbanrau, 2020; Putri & Blickman, 2016). In recent developments, there has been a notable change in the perception of cannabis, transitioning from an earlier acceptance to a current stance of rejection. The shift in comprehension can be attributed to the prevailing influence of religious discourse, particularly Islam.

Regarding the increase in Islamic religious discourse in Indonesia on cannabis, significant evidence mentioned that this discourse has indeed intensified in recent years. The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and other Islamic organizations have been increasingly active in voicing religious views related to cannabis, especially as the advocacy movement for the legalization of medical cannabis develops. In Indonesia, the Islamic perspective on cannabis is grounded in the classification of “khamr” (an intoxicant) and guided by the principle of “maqasid al-syariah”, which emphasizes the protection of reason and health., leading religious authorities to consistently positioned cannabis as a haram substance based on a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad stating that all intoxicants are khamr and all khamr is haram (A. Deuraseh & Deuraseh, 2024; N. Deuraseh, 2003; Kashim et al., 2023).

This intensification of religious discourse occurred in response to several developments. First, the emergence of a campaign for the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes has increasingly received public attention. Second, the development of international research on the medical benefits of marijuana has led some countries to relax regulations. In response to growing discourse on medical cannabis, religious figures in Indonesia have sought to reinforce Islamic perspective to ensure alignment with this foundational legal and ethical principles.

Recent studies indicate that Islamic interpretation on cannabis have evolved to become more complex. While the predominant view along Islamic research continues to uphold a comprehensive prohibition, emerging voices within contemporary Islamic thinkers have begun to distinguish between recreational and medical use, maintaining the prohibition of the haram while allowing for a more considered approach to the latter within specific (Rizka et al., 2024; Rosyidah, 2024).

In terms of fiqh studies on narcotic substances including marijuana, studies in mosques and Islamic boarding schools, and the publication of religious articles on the topic also rise more attention. Scholars are increasingly vocal in citing the principle of “dar”ul mafasid muqaddamun ‘ala jalbil mashalih” (preventing harm takes precedence over benefiting) in the context of marijuana (Abdulrahman, 2024; Azzahra, 2023). Furthermore, Islamic educational institutions have also included discussions on the dangers of drugs including marijuana in their curricula, as systematic effort to reinforce religious views on this issue among Indonesia’s Muslim youth. Thus, it can be concluded that a significant increase in Islamic religious discourse in Indonesia regarding cannabis are manifested through religious fatwas, fiqh studies, and faith-based anti-drug campaigns. These have a substantial influence in shaping public perceptions and legal policies related to marijuana in Indonesia.

This aligns with the assertion made by Imam Hafizh Ibnu Hajar, indicating that anyone who claims cannabis is not intoxicating while concealing its effects is someone who has overstepped boundaries, as cannabis produces effects comparable to arrack. Therefore, anyone who engages in its consumption should face punishment, which may involve severe consequences, such as corporal punishment or capital punishment, as dictated by religious law (Muhibbuthabry, 2019; Mustafa, 2013). Recent advancements in technology, information, and knowledge have incrementally heightened public consciousness regarding the potential medicinal applications of marijuana. This is particularly evident in the context of the controversy surrounding the arrest of Fidelis Ari Sudarwoto in Sanggau Regency, West Kalimantan, who cultivated marijuana for his wife afflicted with syringomyelia (Gumilar et al., 2022). Additionally, Santi Warastuti’s petition for a judicial review of the Narcotics Law, motivated by her child’s struggle with cerebral palsy (Anugerah, 2022; ICJR, 2020), further illustrates this evolving discourse. In both cases, there is a strong advocacy for the legalization of marijuana in Indonesia, particularly for medicinal applications.

Post-independence Indonesian narcotics regulations, including cannabis, have undergone various legal changes. Initially, regulation was carried out through Presidential Instruction Number 6 of 1971, followed by Law Number 8 of 1976, which ratified the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, establishing cannabis as a class I narcotic with limited use for medical and research purposes. Law Number 9 of 1976 further regulated narcotics without categorizing psychoactive substances before finally being replaced by Law Number 22 of 1997, which still limited the use of cannabis. This regulation was subsequently updated with Law Number 35 of 2009, which classifies cannabis together with heroin and methamphetamine as a Class I narcotic, with severe penalties for violators, including imprisonment, significant fines, and the death penalty in severe cases (Yustina et al., 2023).

In Decision Number 106/PUU-XVIII/2020, the Constitutional Court rejected the petition for a material review of Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, which had been submitted by six petitioners, comprising individuals and legal entities. The rejection was founded on the premise that certain petitioners did not possess legal standing and that the arguments were devoid of legal merit. The petitioners contended that the ban on the use of Category I Narcotics for medical purposes contradicted the constitutional rights assured by Article 28C paragraph (1) and Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Court determined that the regulation is constitutional, citing insufficient comprehensive research in Indonesia and the imperative for stringent control over narcotics to mitigate adverse societal effects (Prassetyo, 2022).

In 2024, the Constitutional Court once more dismissed a lawsuit concerning the legalization of medical cannabis that Pipit Sri Hartanti and Supardji submitted. The individuals in question are the parents of Shita Aske Paramitha, a child diagnosed with cerebral palsy, who was thought to gain advantages from the use of medical cannabis oil therapy. Their petition presented an argument that legal regulations in Indonesia continue to obstruct the use of medical cannabis as a treatment option. Consequently, they sought a declaration that Article 1 paragraph 2 of Law Number 8 of 1976, which pertains to the Ratification of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics, is inconsistent with Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which ensures the right to health (Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, 2024).

In Constitutional Court Decision Number 13/PUU-XXII/2024, Constitutional Judge Guntur Hamzah outlined four primary justifications for the rejection of the petition by the Constitutional Court. Initially, it is important to highlight that Indonesia has not ratified document E/CN/7/2020/CRP.19, Document E/CN/7/2020/CRP.19 is a report of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs entitled “The Recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) on Cannabis and Cannabis-Related Substances” issued in January 2020. This document contains six recommendations from the WHO regarding the reclassification of cannabis and cannabinoids, including the removal of cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 indicating recognition of its medical potential. However, this document retains cannabis in Schedule I, which means that strict supervision of its use is still required. The CND’s decision in December 2020 to adopt these recommendations reflects a global shift in medical cannabis policy, however Indonesia, as a sovereign nation, has the right not to implement the policy based on consideration of its national values and legal system, indicating that there is no legal obligation to legalize the use of medical cannabis within its health services. Secondly, according to Law Number 35 of 2009 regarding Narcotics, it is classified as a class I narcotic, permitted solely for scientific advancement and not for medical therapy purposes. The high potential for dependence is a significant factor, as highlighted in the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 106/PUU-XVIII/2020, which indicates that there is currently no comprehensive research demonstrating the effectiveness of medical cannabis in health services.

Third, the Constitutional Court evaluated that this petition shares the same essence as case 106/PUU-XVIII/2020, explicitly concerning legalizing cannabis for health services. Consequently, the factors outlined in the earlier decision remain relevant. Fourth, while the petition was rejected, the Constitutional Court reiterated the necessity for the government to promptly undertake a comprehensive scientific study on the application of medical cannabis.

Although the Constitutional Court in case decision 106/PUU-XVIII/2020 recommended the government to immediately conduct a “comprehensive scientific study on the application of medical cannabis”, the implementation of the recommendation is still not optimal. Research by Prassetyo (2022) revealed that the Indonesian government has yet to implement a comprehensive study as recommended.

Current research shows that research efforts remain limited in scope and fragmentary, not reaching the comprehensive standard intended by the Constitutional Court. Although some institutions such as the Health Research and Development Agency and the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) have conducted preliminary research into the medicinal potential of cannabidiol (CBD), these findings have not been integrated into national policy. This gap underscores a tension between the human right to health and morality dimensions of Indonesian drug policy. Pangaribuan (2024) argues that given the current socio-political climate, significant changes in cannabis and narcotics policy are unlikely to occur.

The main challenge lies in the strong communitarian values underpinning cannabis regulation, which position the state as a “moral guardian.” This perspective is reflected in legal policies that emphasize moral judgment and social control. Additionally, the pragmatic issues embedded in the current structure and design of the Narcotics Law further reinforce these obstacles.

As a result, shifting toward a more scientific and health-oriented policy approach remains extremely difficult in Indonesia. This absence of comprehensive studies has implications for the limited treatment options for patients with certain conditions, who could potentially benefit from cannabinoids, as well as prolonging the dialectic between human rights and morality in the context of Indonesian legal culture. It also demonstrates the gap between court rulings and policy implementation, reflecting the complexity of establishing an alternative moral discourse in Indonesian legal culture regarding cannabis policy.

The ongoing discussion regarding the legalization of medical cannabis in Indonesia has prompted the Constitutional Court to assert that policy decisions should rely on thorough and logical research. A comprehensive review by the government is essential to assess the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis in healthcare, ensuring that the resulting policy genuinely serves the public interest (Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, 2024). Broader discussions on drug policy draw attention to the possible drawbacks of severe prohibition narcotics, particularly cannabis, yields counterproductive outcomes across multiple domains. This approach overburdens criminal justice systems with non-violent offenders, hinders evidence-based public health interventions, violates fundamental human rights including access to medical treatment, and generates significant socioeconomic costs.

The policy creates unregulated black markets, fueling violence and corruption while failing to meaningfully reduce drug prevalence. As demonstrated in Indonesian context, prohibition impedes potential development of sustainable agricultural economies in regions, such as Aceh. International evidence increasingly suggests that harm-reduction approaches and regulated legalization better address drug-related issues than criminalization, aligning with both human rights principles and public health objectives.

Much research indicates that legislation prohibiting drugs such marijuana may expose users to criminal networks, impede regulatory advancements, and result in discriminatory law enforcement (Derrickson, 2014; Heidt & Wheeldon, 2023; Shepard & Blackley, 2007; Steiner, 2021). These ideas capture the current debate over whether the harm-reduction strategies put forth by reformers are more important than a “drug-free” society as promoted by governments (Nilsen, 2010).

The condition in question is the situation where narcotics prohibition policies produce numerous counterproductive impacts, such as: overburdening criminal justice systems with non-violent offenders; hindering evidence-based public health interventions; violating fundamental human rights including access to medical treatment; generating significant socioeconomic costs; creating unregulated black markets that fuel violence and corruption; failing to meaningfully reduce drug prevalence; and impeding development of sustainable agricultural economies in regions, like Aceh.

The tension between the “drug-free” approach promoted by governments and the “harm-reduction strategies” were proposed by reformers. This situation raises the crucial question about the extent to which laws prohibiting marijuana violate fundamental human rights and what justifications are adequate for such violations. According to recent research, strict prohibition approaches have proven to bring various negative consequences. Shover and Humphreys (2019) demonstrate that prohibition policies not balanced with harm reduction tend to increase health and safety risks for users, expand social inequalities, and fail to achieve intended public health objectives. Meanwhile, Hudak and Wallach (2023) argue that evidence-based and human rights-centered drug policy reforms not only promise reduced negative impacts, but also enable more equitable access to potential medical and economic benefits of cannabis. To what extent do laws that forbid marijuana violate fundamental human rights, and what grounds are adequate to support such violations?

The necessity of this conversation is further highlighted by changing cultural perceptions of marijuana use. This policy must consider the ethical and human rights implications of prohibition beside practical considerations.

A moral foundation that transcends pragmatic concerns must underpin any justification for restricting personal liberties, such as making marijuana illegal. Therefore, it is essential to take a holistic approach when creating marijuana laws, particularly in Indonesia, incorporating moral, historical, and human rights viewpoints to produce a just and practical solution.

Medical Marijuana in Indonesia: the conflict of human rights and existing morals

The moral change about marijuana in Indonesia is the changing view of a society that once embraced and included it in several spheres of life—such as medicinal use, rituals, and culinary practices—into dangerous substance. This change can be ascribed by progressively strict laws since the colonial era to the present, classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug and punishing any related actions. As the introduction describes, religious elements also shape this process. The interaction of these

Finding a middle ground between human rights and moral conflicts of Marijuana policy in Indonesia

Critics of the “war on drugs” claim that its implementation has been ineffective and violated human rights worldwide (Husak, 1992). Substance users often face severe penalties, arbitrary detention, capital punishment, and various other injustices. These human rights abuses are attributed to the international drug control architecture founded on three major treaties that establish global standards for drug policy (Bone, 2019). Critics argue that these standards are fundamentally “punitive” and

Conclusion

The human rights and moral considerations surrounding marijuana policy in Indonesia illustrate a complex interplay between statutory law, customary practices, and moral reasoning. The current legislation of Law Number 35 of 2009 regarding Narcotics is often perceived by Indonesian society as lacking a solid ethical foundation, especially considering the diverse applications of marijuana, including its medicinal benefits. This legislation can be seen as a crucial ethical requirement in

Authorship contribution statement

Aga Natalis: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Adventi Ferawati Sembiring: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation,

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.