I hope the classification for these drugs is not so wide that "normal" drug users are now weapon holders while using their stuff recreational without harming anybody.
Edit: I got more infos:
- Germany's national authorities will classify GBL and 1,4-Butanediol as weapons under German criminal law, treating administration as weapon deployment to strengthen prosecution.
- Under previous German criminal law, administering date-rape drugs was often charged as bodily harm without weapon classification, while survivor groups noted victims face memory loss complicating evidence.
- The reform permits courts to apply strengthened sentencing, allowing German prosecutors and courts to impose longer prison terms and mandatory minimums since administering drugs counts as weapon use, aiding prosecution.
- Survivors of drug-facilitated assault stand to gain a stronger legal foundation and clearer accountability, while the symbolic framing signals a cultural shift in German society prioritizing survivor protection.
- Legal experts warn that judicial training, forensic improvements and survivor-centered reporting systems are vital, while critics caution offenders may exploit loopholes or switch substances without such measures.
In California, rape of an unconscious person is not considered a violent felony for the purposes of 'strikes' as well as early release from prison. A rapist may serve as little as 50% of their sentence due to this fact.
It was only this year (2025) that rape of an unconscious person who was made unconscious by the assailant (a date rape drug provision like Germany's) became a violent felony. Germany is not alone in these types of reclassifications.
Could someone with a background in law explain the advantage of a reclassification over imposing the same penalties on this particular group of substances?
Because outside of the legal definition, I would not call those “weapons” in everyday language. They are a thing on their own…
I don't have a background in law, but here are some suggestions. The German penal code often imposes harsher punishments for the same offense if a weapon was involved. Rape, for example, carries a minimum sentence of two years. If a weapon is present, it is a minimum of three years. If the weapon is used, the minimum sentence is 5 years.
Before the change, date rape drugs would have fallen under a minimum of three years because of a separate clause.
Classifying them as weapons would also affect crimes other than rape.
Additionally, if legal substances can be used as date rape drugs, classifying them as weapons would give the police more authority to act in certain situations.
One avenue, couched in specifics of US law, but I presume the ideas have analogs in Germany's legal system:
A battery occurs when a harmful physical contact occurs. Contact with a weapon is pretty much by definition battery.
The use of such a drug in the commission of rape or other violent crimes would then be a very easily proven case. If the substance is present in a victim's body, then battery has occured, basically by definition.
Given that rape and other violent crimes that are committed with the use of such drugs may not leave other physical signs on the body of the victim, then this may be the only physical evidence.
The examination for presence of such a drug in the bloodstream is also much less intrusive than for a typical rape kit exam.
There's nothing binary or black and white in such investigations, so this is an additional avenue to provide evidence to support the prosecution of these violent criminals.
There is a possibility that the accused has nothing to do with it, you still have to prove it wasn't some third party or the victim who procured and took the drug.
Let me clarify. I meant the following. Assume ghb is found and evidence of sex. The woman claims she didn't take it and didn't want to have sex. Wouldn't this be enough for a conviction?
if the jury believed the woman's claims, yes, it's enough for conviction. conviction rates are high not because it's easy to prove guilt, but because district attorneys don't bring case that are likely to be lost. the scenario you describe might not be considered strong enough to win, and resources are limited, so this hypothetical case might not get a hearing.
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Germany has a written legal code. This could mean that punishments are more strictly classified than under a, say, precedence-based common law system. Changing the classification could move these kinds of crimes into harsher punishment bands.
The law being written does not prevent changing it[0]. Someone changed the written law once to add these weapon-specific provisions, they can do it again. And unless the optimal provisions for date rape drugs are identical to those for weapons, they probably should do it again.
[0] It might actually be easier to change a properly written law. I hate our stupid precedent-based system in the US.
If aliens land in Germany on a field and a peasant shoots them with his shotgun, he would have committed no crime in my opinion. No murder, since Aliens are not humans. It would not be illegal hunting, since aliens are not animals. Illegal discharge of a firearm?
That is definitely not how German law would deal with the situation in practice. Aliens would certainly be considered people and protected by the law, even if they weren't humans, and they would definitely still be animals.
Shooting an alien robot though, then you would have something legally problematic. Ownership? Is it so advanced it's a person? But you'd probably get something like those Star Trek episodes with legal weirdness rather than any no-crime-without-law reasoning.
You can't write a law for every possible situation. And many laws were introduced because they were committed, and they realized, there is no law to punish the person.
English common law had many good ideas. The US criminal system may be a mess, but the underlying ideas are good. Not everybody can be Norway.... ;-)
I wasn't able to find any information on how exactly that reclassification is happening. Everyone just quotes that one sentence by the Federal Minister of the Interior that they are doing it.
My best guess is that they don't see a chance to get a law to this effect passed (see also the note about the other related bill being postponed), so they are taking some measure that's in the existing jurisdiction of the ministry. That might be the ministry passing regulations to this effect, or the federal police trying to declare date rape drugs as illegal weapons
They fall into the same fuzzy area as chemical weapons imo. They have a non-standard form factor, sure, but they’re still primarily intended to harm people
In Germany participation in a gang rape of a minor might get you nothing more than probation (No, not because there was any doubt over the guilt, the guilt was established.).
It is completely ridiculous to debate these nuanced laws about rape, when the punishment for participating in a brutal gang rape is a stern talking to.
Please tell me which legal case you mean? Sounds very much like a bubble-YouTube story about ‘Muslims can rape everybody in Germany without getting punishment.’
Seems reasonable, but maybe not exactly a weapon. It is used to subdue someone, but not as a threat. Should be a parallel class.
And while the intended assault is a sexual assault, a date rape drug still incapacitates you, which easily classifies as kidnapping, unlawful detainment, etc.
I would have thought poisoning someone, even with a sedative, would already be a serious crime. This makes me wonder if this is addressing a weakness in the force of law or if it’s political pandering to look tough on a class of crime without changing anything.
Exactly, or a piece of wood. If you threaten someone with a 2x4 you may have intended to use it as a weapon even if it was technically just a piece of wood.
This can of course lead to problems where the police can turn everything into a weapon even if it was never intended to be one, but I'd argue this is less of a problem with these rape drugs, as this shouldn't be a thing people normally carry with themselves for legit reasons.
Ah yes, nothing like the right propaganda thing where a random chart is made to magically align with their rhetoric without actually being so in reality.
I hope the classification for these drugs is not so wide that "normal" drug users are now weapon holders while using their stuff recreational without harming anybody.
Edit: I got more infos:
- Germany's national authorities will classify GBL and 1,4-Butanediol as weapons under German criminal law, treating administration as weapon deployment to strengthen prosecution.
- Under previous German criminal law, administering date-rape drugs was often charged as bodily harm without weapon classification, while survivor groups noted victims face memory loss complicating evidence.
- The reform permits courts to apply strengthened sentencing, allowing German prosecutors and courts to impose longer prison terms and mandatory minimums since administering drugs counts as weapon use, aiding prosecution.
- Survivors of drug-facilitated assault stand to gain a stronger legal foundation and clearer accountability, while the symbolic framing signals a cultural shift in German society prioritizing survivor protection.
- Legal experts warn that judicial training, forensic improvements and survivor-centered reporting systems are vital, while critics caution offenders may exploit loopholes or switch substances without such measures.
---
Seems reasonable, complicated topic
In California, rape of an unconscious person is not considered a violent felony for the purposes of 'strikes' as well as early release from prison. A rapist may serve as little as 50% of their sentence due to this fact.
It was only this year (2025) that rape of an unconscious person who was made unconscious by the assailant (a date rape drug provision like Germany's) became a violent felony. Germany is not alone in these types of reclassifications.
So if they're unconscious for some other reason - or the assailant wasn't the one who drugged them - it's not a felony?
Sometimes I'm still surprised at how politicians can defend certain positions.
[dead]
Source?
Could someone with a background in law explain the advantage of a reclassification over imposing the same penalties on this particular group of substances?
Because outside of the legal definition, I would not call those “weapons” in everyday language. They are a thing on their own…
I don't have a background in law, but here are some suggestions. The German penal code often imposes harsher punishments for the same offense if a weapon was involved. Rape, for example, carries a minimum sentence of two years. If a weapon is present, it is a minimum of three years. If the weapon is used, the minimum sentence is 5 years.
Before the change, date rape drugs would have fallen under a minimum of three years because of a separate clause.
Classifying them as weapons would also affect crimes other than rape.
Additionally, if legal substances can be used as date rape drugs, classifying them as weapons would give the police more authority to act in certain situations.
One avenue, couched in specifics of US law, but I presume the ideas have analogs in Germany's legal system:
A battery occurs when a harmful physical contact occurs. Contact with a weapon is pretty much by definition battery.
The use of such a drug in the commission of rape or other violent crimes would then be a very easily proven case. If the substance is present in a victim's body, then battery has occured, basically by definition.
Given that rape and other violent crimes that are committed with the use of such drugs may not leave other physical signs on the body of the victim, then this may be the only physical evidence.
The examination for presence of such a drug in the bloodstream is also much less intrusive than for a typical rape kit exam.
There's nothing binary or black and white in such investigations, so this is an additional avenue to provide evidence to support the prosecution of these violent criminals.
> If the substance is present in a victim's body
There is a possibility that the accused has nothing to do with it, you still have to prove it wasn't some third party or the victim who procured and took the drug.
> you still have to prove it wasn't some third party or the victim who procured and took the drug.
Does it actually work that way in the real world?
Yes, people can and do recreationally take GHB quite often. (also commonly used in date rape cases)
The same can be said for MDMA, and others
Let me clarify. I meant the following. Assume ghb is found and evidence of sex. The woman claims she didn't take it and didn't want to have sex. Wouldn't this be enough for a conviction?
if the jury believed the woman's claims, yes, it's enough for conviction. conviction rates are high not because it's easy to prove guilt, but because district attorneys don't bring case that are likely to be lost. the scenario you describe might not be considered strong enough to win, and resources are limited, so this hypothetical case might not get a hearing.
[dead]
Otherwise it would have been a free send anyone promiscuous to jail card.
Have sex, take a tiny amount of whatever drug it is, straight to cops.
I think weapons is the right term. It's a method of chemical restraint. Combat gases with similar functions are regarded as weapons too.
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Germany has a written legal code. This could mean that punishments are more strictly classified than under a, say, precedence-based common law system. Changing the classification could move these kinds of crimes into harsher punishment bands.
The law being written does not prevent changing it[0]. Someone changed the written law once to add these weapon-specific provisions, they can do it again. And unless the optimal provisions for date rape drugs are identical to those for weapons, they probably should do it again.
[0] It might actually be easier to change a properly written law. I hate our stupid precedent-based system in the US.
No law, no crime. [nullum crimen sine lege]
If aliens land in Germany on a field and a peasant shoots them with his shotgun, he would have committed no crime in my opinion. No murder, since Aliens are not humans. It would not be illegal hunting, since aliens are not animals. Illegal discharge of a firearm?
In the US the outcome may be very different.
That is definitely not how German law would deal with the situation in practice. Aliens would certainly be considered people and protected by the law, even if they weren't humans, and they would definitely still be animals.
Shooting an alien robot though, then you would have something legally problematic. Ownership? Is it so advanced it's a person? But you'd probably get something like those Star Trek episodes with legal weirdness rather than any no-crime-without-law reasoning.
Anyway this is a matter of judicial discretion to decide whether personhood and rights would apply to an alien visitor.
The only difference between precedent laws and codes is that the judges act as a secondary less stable legislature.
You could very well have a mixed system where legislature has to filter and ratify court rulings to decide which become law and which do not.
In short this has nothing to do with having actual laws
I am pretty sure that hunting laws would apply
How do you think that bears on my post, which is a variation on "please write the damn law, but in a sensical way please"?
You can't write a law for every possible situation. And many laws were introduced because they were committed, and they realized, there is no law to punish the person.
English common law had many good ideas. The US criminal system may be a mess, but the underlying ideas are good. Not everybody can be Norway.... ;-)
[dead]
I wasn't able to find any information on how exactly that reclassification is happening. Everyone just quotes that one sentence by the Federal Minister of the Interior that they are doing it.
My best guess is that they don't see a chance to get a law to this effect passed (see also the note about the other related bill being postponed), so they are taking some measure that's in the existing jurisdiction of the ministry. That might be the ministry passing regulations to this effect, or the federal police trying to declare date rape drugs as illegal weapons
They fall into the same fuzzy area as chemical weapons imo. They have a non-standard form factor, sure, but they’re still primarily intended to harm people
[flagged]
Wait did you just put rape in quotes wtf
"Forget it, Jake. It's Hacker News."
In Germany participation in a gang rape of a minor might get you nothing more than probation (No, not because there was any doubt over the guilt, the guilt was established.).
It is completely ridiculous to debate these nuanced laws about rape, when the punishment for participating in a brutal gang rape is a stern talking to.
Please tell me which legal case you mean? Sounds very much like a bubble-YouTube story about ‘Muslims can rape everybody in Germany without getting punishment.’
Seems reasonable, but maybe not exactly a weapon. It is used to subdue someone, but not as a threat. Should be a parallel class.
And while the intended assault is a sexual assault, a date rape drug still incapacitates you, which easily classifies as kidnapping, unlawful detainment, etc.
I would have thought poisoning someone, even with a sedative, would already be a serious crime. This makes me wonder if this is addressing a weakness in the force of law or if it’s political pandering to look tough on a class of crime without changing anything.
It is already. This offense is ususlly dropped since other crimes overshadow it and mostly the biggest crime matters in the german criminal court.
A stick of dynamite probably counts as a weapon too (I would think?), in a legal sense. I'd say it's a reasonable perspective for the legalese.
Also, cars have been considered weapons in some cases.
Exactly, or a piece of wood. If you threaten someone with a 2x4 you may have intended to use it as a weapon even if it was technically just a piece of wood.
This can of course lead to problems where the police can turn everything into a weapon even if it was never intended to be one, but I'd argue this is less of a problem with these rape drugs, as this shouldn't be a thing people normally carry with themselves for legit reasons.
In a fundamental level giving someone a drug like this without their knowledge and against their will is an attack on their bodily autonomy.
And bodily autonomy is a human right.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
What's the elephant? What are you trying to say?
Time to open the borders to North Korean immigration?
Ah yes, nothing like the right propaganda thing where a random chart is made to magically align with their rhetoric without actually being so in reality.
[flagged]
This is a technical community, I think you can imagine the majority of visitors (hopefully) understand data and charts.
I see nazi scaremongering bots have now arrived here as well.
I wonder why lie about Poland?
Anyone could find a link to the source?
> rape by ethnicity
doesn't say of victims or perpetrators. or either?
Perpetrator
Why do I have to assume perpetrator?
Pretending not to understand a chart will not stop people from voting for the right wing parties. Just a thought, in case you care about that.
the vague label just a sign that it's generally sus. no links to underlying data. it's very easy to make up bar charts.