Imagine a first-year student stopped near campus with a few small zip-bags in his backpack. He says they’re for him. The bags are sealed; there’s no scale, no cash, no messages with buyers on his phone. Is this “possession for personal use” or “trafficking”? In Romania, the answer isn’t about a magic gram threshold. It’s about the law’s structure and the evidence that shows intent.
The legal map in one glance
Romania’s drug framework blends two pillars:
- Legea 143/2000 (prevention and combating illicit drug trafficking and use). It punishes both commercial operations (the broad family of “trafficking” acts) and possession for personal use. Penalties depend on whether we’re speaking about risk or high-risk drugs. For trafficking (Art. 2), the scale is 3–10 years for risk drugs and 5–15 years for high-risk drugs. For personal use possession (Art. 4), the scale is 3 months–2 years or a fine (risk) and 6 months–3 years (high-risk). (Sintact)
- Legea 339/2005 (the schedules). It hosts the tables (I–III) listing controlled plants/substances and ties into medical rules and the methodological norms (HG 1915/2006). That’s where “risk vs. high-risk” is anchored, which then drives the penalty band under Legea 143/2000. (Portal Legislativ)
Key takeaway: the same grams can live under very different penalty ranges depending on intent (Art. 2 vs. Art. 4) and classification (risk vs. high-risk).
No gram “threshold” in the law
You won’t find a statutory table in Legea 143/2000 that says “X grams = personal use; Y grams = trafficking.” Articles 2 and 4 define behaviors (operations vs. possession for use) and their penalties but do not set numeric cut-offs. That’s why courts and prosecutors look at contextual indicators, not a single weight figure. (There are High Court rulings clarifying when certain drug offenses are deemed consummated, but none inserts a gram threshold into Art. 2 or 4.) (Sintact)
If someone brought drugs into the country only for self-use, that is not “trafficking” in the sense of putting the drugs into circulation — a clarification made by the High Court (ÎCCJ) when drawing the line between mere introduction for use and trafficking as circulation. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție)
So what actually tips the scale?
Because the statute has no grams table, practice turns on intent evidence. Think of these as typical indicia (none is decisive by itself):
- Packaging patterns: individually portioned “one-gram” baggies aligned with resale practices. (DIICOT press lines frequently reference one-gram “doze” in street cases.) (DIICOT)
- Paraphernalia for distribution: digital scales, many empty zip-bags, ledger notes, or cash split into sale-style denominations.
- Communications: chat logs, buyer lists, delivery arrangements.
- Observed conduct: repeated hand-overs; surveillance showing offers, deliveries, or money exchanges.
- Quantity vs. user profile: an amount implausible for short-term self-use in light of the person’s habits and the drug’s pharmacology.
When those indicators suggest the person is offering, selling, distributing, delivering, sending, transporting, procuring, buying, or holding drugs “without right,” investigators gravitate toward Art. 2 (trafficking’s many verbs). If the proof shows cultivating/producing/fabricating… buying or possessing for personal use, the legal box is Art. 4. (Sintact)
“Risk” vs. “high-risk”: why it matters immediately
Which schedule the substance appears in (Legea 339/2005, Tables I–III) matters from day one: it determines whether the case is framed with the lower (risk) or higher (high-risk) penalty band. This can influence arrest, pre-trial measures, plea posture, and sentencing exposure. The classification stems from Legea 339/2005 and its norms (HG 1915/2006). (Portal Legislativ)
What about “simple consumption”?
Romanian law prohibits illicit drug consumption but orients the response to assistance, not a separate consumption crime: a user may be included, with consent, in an integrated assistance program (CPECA/ANA). This often becomes relevant where the facts show personal use rather than circulation. (Sintact)
Evidence fundamentals (the things that really decide cases)
- Laboratory confirmation of the substance
For any drug case, the substance’s identity and risk category must be proven. In adjacent contexts (like drug-driving), the High Court has expressly underlined the need for laboratory analysis — a principle that echoes the evidentiary expectation in narcotics cases generally: paper-level suspicion isn’t proof. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție) - Chain of custody and sampling
Seizure minutes, packaging, seals, transport to the forensic lab, sampling, and reporting must be traceable and consistent. Sloppy handling is a defense foothold. - Device extraction and context
Chats, notes, GPS trails, and money flows are often more telling than grams alone. “Ten baggies” can be personal stockpiling; “ten baggies + order book + delivery pings” is another story. - Behavior over time
One-off possession leans toward personal use; repeated offers/deliveries, even in small “student-market” quantities, push toward trafficking — remember that Art. 2 criminalizes many operations, not just selling. (Sintact)
A student-style scenario, unpacked
Fact pattern A: 6 small bags in a backpack; no scale, no spare baggies, no buyer chats, no marked cash; negative surveillance for hand-overs. The student admits use. Lab confirms a risk drug.
Likely legal lens: Art. 4 (possession for personal use). Penalty band: 3 months–2 years or a fine (judge now looks at clean record, cooperation, treatment enrollment). (Sintact)
Fact pattern B: 6 small bags + digital scale + 100 empty baggies + cash broken into sale denominations + phone showing delivery chats. Same drug.
Likely legal lens: Art. 2 (one or more trafficking verbs). Penalty band: 3–10 years (risk) or 5–15 years (high-risk). (Sintact)
Fact pattern C (border import just for self-use): traveler introduces a small amount for personal consumption only, with no evidence of circulation.
High Court line: introduction only for self-use is not trafficking as “circulation” (clarified in ÎCCJ Decizia 18/2018). The legal framing turns back toward personal-use provisions. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție)
Recent practice notes you can use in argument
- No numeric “personal use vs. trafficking” threshold exists in Legea 143/2000’s text — an absence you can point to when weight is the prosecution’s main lever. (Sintact)
- Street packaging realities: DIICOT routinely documents one-gram “doze” in urban cases; without more, packaging alone shouldn’t carry the day. (DIICOT)
- Schedules drive exposure: first identify the drug under Legea 339/2005 (and updates via norms) to anchor the proper penalty band. (Portal Legislativ)
Levers that can reduce exposure (when facts allow)
- Integrated assistance (Art. 22): where personal use is credible, proactive enrollment can influence prosecutorial and judicial assessment of danger and rehabilitation prospects. (Sintact)
- Cooperation clause (Art. 15): if, during the investigation, the defendant denounces and helps identify other persons who committed drug offenses, the legal limits are cut in half. (Note: by Legea 58/2024, a new Art. 15¹ forbids suspended sentences under supervision for the high-risk trafficking brackets in Art. 2(2) and Art. 3(2).) (Sintact)
Defense checklist for “student & sachets” cases
- Nail down the classification (risk vs. high-risk) from the lab report; verify the table under Legea 339/2005. Penalty bands hinge on it. (Portal Legislativ)
- Attack “intent to traffic” through context: no scale, no spare baggies, no cash pattern, no buyer chats, no observed deliveries = no circulation. Lean on the High Court’s circulation logic (Decizia 18/2018) when import/“introduction” themes surface. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție)
- Humanize the possession: stable user profile, plausible consumption timeline, assistance enrollment (Art. 22). (Sintact)
- Scrutinize chain of custody / device forensics: packaging, seals, times, and extraction legality; inconsistencies create reasonable doubt.
- Mind the cooperation calculus: where ethically and strategically sound, evaluate Art. 15’s halving effect vs. long-term consequences. (Sintact)
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Over-relying on weight alone. The statute doesn’t set grams rules; without active “operations” evidence, weight is just one factor. (Sintact)
- Ignoring phone evidence. Neutral packaging can become trafficking once chats reveal offers and deliveries.
- Misreading “introduction into the country.” If facts show only self-use, citing ÎCCJ Decizia 18/2018 is key. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție)
- Assuming suspended sentences are always on the table. Post-2024, Art. 15¹ blocks suspended-under-supervision for high-risk trafficking (Art. 2(2)/3(2)). (Colegiul Fermierului)
Bottom line
For the student with sachets, intent is everything. Romania’s law draws a sharp line between circulation (the many verbs of trafficking) and personal use possession — and it does not use a grams ladder to draw that line. The closer your evidence narrative sits to “no circulation,” the more defensible an Art. 4 framing becomes. Conversely, once communications, packaging logistics, money patterns, or observed deliveries show “operations,” Art. 2 takes over — with very different exposure.
Sources (primary law & high-court practice)
- Legea 143/2000, Art. 2 (trafficking verbs & penalties) and Art. 4 (possession for personal use). Current consolidated text (29 Mar 2025). (Sintact)
- Legea 339/2005 (tables/schedules) and HG 1915/2006 (methodological norms). (Portal Legislativ)
- ÎCCJ Decizia 18/2018 — introduction only for self-use is not trafficking (circulation). (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție)
- Art. 22 Legea 143/2000 — consumption is prohibited; users may enter an integrated assistance program. (Consolidated text & MS/ANMD reference.) (Sintact)
- Art. 15 & 15¹ Legea 143/2000 — cooperation halves the limits; suspended-under-supervision barred for high-risk trafficking brackets. (Sintact)
- DIICOT press reference — street “doze” commonly ~1 gram (illustrative of packaging practice in prosecutions). (DIICOT)