11/28/25 -
”Some commentary on the public discourse surrounding “whether drug history should be sealed”.
Public discourse is all over the place right now, someone should elaborate on the key points. This case has two controversial points: drug sentences being too light, and sealed records. We’ll go into them separately.
First, is the penalty for doing drugs too light?
China’s anti-drug policies is very strict, and it’s made people assume that “doing drugs = death sentence”, but this is actually wrong. China has always taken an administrative punishment approach to doing drugs, where the first offense is usually 10 days of administrative detainment. More severe cases might warrant doing rehab at a designated facility for three months. Only extremely severe cases result in prison time.
This is because the focus of anti-drug policies isn’t on doing drugs, but on selling drugs. The demographics for drug dealers is fairly uniform, so everyone who gets caught ends up with death sentences, but the demographics of people who do drugs is much more complicated, and some of them are victims whether directly or indirectly, so the sentencing for doing drugs is very light.
And from another angle, if doing drugs and selling drugs carried the same sentence, that’s forcing drug users to be on the same side as the drug dealers, which increases enforcement costs. Sentencing drug abusers lightly is a way to protect minor criminals and help them return to society. But if you have a history of abusing drugs and check in at a hotel or enter or leave the country, the police will still take you aside to test your urine.
Now, sealing records.
Some people think this is because “some nepo baby got in trouble”, which is ridiculous. It takes a long time to pass a law. This version of the “Public Safety Management And Sentencing Act” posted its first draft back in 2023 to ask for the public’s opinion. One line in it which concerned “wearing clothes that harm ethnic feelings” even drew a lot of debate. The edited version was posted on the 28th of June for the public’s opinion, and after the second round, another year passed before it’s been decided to institute it in 2026.
This new Act’s core theme is “crime minimalisation.” This concept comes from even earlier. “Crime minimalisation” has been discussed all the way back in 2015. In 2021, the justice system began pushing for it, and the Ten Year Committee of the Supreme Court began talking it up in 2022. So any discussion about nepo babies or Celestial Dragons [a concept from the anime One Piece where founding families of the World Government enjoy special privileges and are above the law] is pure lies.
So why do we want crime minimalisation? Because this is a step China must take in order to become a fully mature society.
We know the story that chaotic times call for harsh laws. This is because the government’s organisational ability is relatively weaker during chaotic times, and its tolerance for crime is limited. It’s very easy to cause a social crisis, so harsh laws are necessary. As rule of law develops, our current public safety context is completely different. We have cameras all over the street and a completely new way of organising police and the economy. We’ve already infinitely increased the cost of violent crime.
One set of data shows that from 2013 to 2021, the number of murders, muggings, kidnappings, and other severe crimes decreased by over 30%. In the criminal cases that went through court in 2021, almost 85% are light crimes with a sentence of less than 3 years. Back during the Two Meetings, the Attorney General has said that China’s crime structure has obviously changed.
As severe violent crime has decreased, light crimes has rapidly increased—assisting in internet crimes, dangerous driving, small theft, traffic violations. The ratio of light crimes has been climbing year after year, with aiding in internet crimes being the most prominent. Lately, the ubiquity of itnernet fraud has caused there to be a bunch of people knowingly or unknowingly participating in these crimes in China, like renting out their bank accounts or SIM cards.
If you haven’t done too much harm and you’re a first offender, it’ll be classified as a light crime and you’ll be given the chance to reform.
Sealing records of light crimes is not a loophole either. It’s closing a loophole. The Chinese justice system has always been about sentencing light crimes harshly. This is the philosophy of modern courts and is the philosophy of traditional Legalism in China.
On the April of 2021, the Attorney General pushed for the policy of “less arrests, careful prosecution, careful imprisonment”, and crime minimalisation began to appear. Local justice systems have explored this a lot, and one of the result of this policy is this version of the “Public Safety Management and Punishment Act”.
So in summary, we can see that it’s reasonable to give administrative punishments for doing drugs and it has been ongoing already. Sealing records of minor crimes is the correct policy, and receiving an administrative punishment for doing drugs as a first offense is in the realm of minor crimes. But these two points are so unique that their interaction along with rumourmongers has caused this round of public discourse. The only fault int his case is that government departments and media didn’t perform their duty in propaganda and directing discourse.
I was very hesitate to write this post, because I’ve always tried to make this account as independent as possible, unaffected by outside influences. But I come from a small town in Southwestern China. This city is a small town with advanced transportation, a poor economy, a lot of ethnicities, and an aggressive culture. It is an important path for drugs from the Golden Triangle to enter China. So I’ve seen the results of drug epidemics with my own eyes, and I’ve seen the hard work and blood and sweat of drug enforcement personnel. This is exactly why I think it’s necessary to post my opinion about this public discourse to direct things onto the right course.
Sealing records of drug use is a special policy aimed at targeting minor crimes and first offenders. It is reasonable, but it’s also not universal. It’s not a policy meant for all drug abusers and drug dealers and the severe social impact and public discourse that might result in. Everyone who is participating in this needs to remain rational and calm and cover this case in detail and state their positions clearly. We need to stop people from being riled up based on a couple of fragments.”
Comments say, “I haven’t been riled up at all. If I have, then it’s a result of our history and government. I’ve received 12 years of public education and 4 years of advanced education. Every single period of my education has told me that my country is a country that absolutely bans all drugs. Any activity that has anything to do with drugs is absolutely unforgivable in the hearts of every young person who grew up in this era. The second we heard this news, we instinctively hate it without any need to rile us up.”
“If you really did get sentenced to death for using drugs, would people ever use drugs?”
“I don’t think your post is very rigorous. Your first argument tried to explain to people that “there’s degrees of drug abuse”, where the lightest version only warrants 10 days of detainment. But the second argument goes from, “all of society is minimising crimes” to equate it to “abusing drugs is a light crime” and abusing drugs should follow in the same footsteps as other light crimes in minimisation. I don’t think this is correct.”
#Hong Kong Taipo Fire has caused 128 deaths. “The details dumbfounded me.
Hong Kong’s Secretary of Security, Tang Ping-keung, said at a press conference, “The fire has caused 128 deaths, including 108 bodies recovered from the scene, 4 people who passed away at the hospital, and 16 burnt bodies still inside the building. There’s the possibility of more bodies being discovered once police enter the scene to search for evidence.
The identities of 39 deceased victims have been identified. Half of the rest of the bodies were found in their unit so I’m sure we can identify them later. There’s still over 40 bodies whose identity still needs to be verified.
The police have received 467 cases of missing persons, with some overlap. We can confirm that of the people who are missing, 39 are already dead, 35 are injured and at the hospital, and 110 people are safe. There’s still 200 people whose situation we do not know, including 89 unidentified bodies.”
Huh???”
Comments say, “So who’s Hong Kong gonna hold responsible for this one?”
“If this happened over here, who knows how many people would be arrested already, especially that bamboo lobbiest or whatever. He would be detained already, and now he’s trying to pass himself off as a victim.”
“So there’s still possibly up to a hundred bodies waiting to be found?”