Costa Rica to Debate Hemp and Medical Cannabis Bill

Home | Canna Law Blog | Costa Rica to Debate Hemp and Medical Cannabis Bill Costa Rican legislators are set to reinitiate debate over a bill (Expediente N.° 21.388) to legalize hemp and medical cannabis. The bill was cleared by the Legislative Assembly's Environment Commission last November, but its presentation to the assembly's plenum has been delayed. The bill's author is independent legislator Zoila Rosa Volio, an agronomist and lawyer, who has wielded both economic and health arguments in support of legalization. In addition to ensuring Costa Ricans' access to cannabis treatments, the development of a cannabis industry is seen as a potential driver of growth and increased government revenues. Under the proposed law, hemp is defined as cannabis with THC content of less than 1%. The bill differentiates between therapeutic (uso terapéutico) and medical (uso médico) products. This is interesting, as the terms cannabis terapéutico and cannabis medicinal are sometimes used interchangeably. As defined by the bill, however, therapeutic use is that for which medical supervision or authorization is not required, while medical use does require medical supervision. Despite this distinction, the terms are used in tandem throughout the bill, except in Article 13.2, which provides for licensed artisanal production of therapeutic use products only. The bill does not establish any licensing requirements for hemp cultivation, beyond what is required for general agricultural activity. As for medical cannabis, growers must obtain a license from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. For their part, those seeking to produce finished products will need to obtain a license from the Ministry of Health. Licensing of foreign parties is not addressed in the bill. Given discussion surrounding the proposed law, as well as the general openness of Costa Rica's economy, this omission is likely indicative of an intent to allow foreign participation in the nascent cannabis industry. According to the bill's provisions, qualification as a medical cannabis patient is to be determined by the person's doctors. Patients will be authorized to grow their own cannabis. The new law would establish a 1% tax on medical cannabis (but not hemp) transactions. If the bill becomes law, the executive branch will have six months to issue regulations. Overall, the bill appears to strike a good balance between the government's desire for budgetary gains from cannabis legalization and giving the industry room to grow as it sees fit. The reduced regulatory burdens on hemp are to be applauded as well as a sensible adjustment. Given Costa Rica's success at attracting investment from foreign businesses, in particular electronics and medical device manufacturers, there are reasons to be hopeful about its cannabis industry's prospects – assuming the Legislative Assembly votes it into existence! Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Hemp/CBD, International Cannabis Law, Medical Marijuana, News Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply