Under Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) art. 190(1), a person who, in order to facilitate the use of drugs, provides a place, equipment or materials, makes it harder for users to be caught or explains to others how to use drugs is punished with five to ten years’ imprisonment and a judicial fine of one thousand to ten thousand days. Publicly encouraging drug use, or publishing material of this kind, carries the same penalty (TCK art. 190(2)). Social media posts can fall within this scope.
Which acts are offences?
Paragraph one (facilitation):
- Providing a private place: opening one’s home, shop or car for others to use drugs,
- Providing equipment or materials: supplying paraphernalia for drug use,
- Making it harder to be caught: acting as a lookout for users, warning them that the police are coming,
- Teaching how to use: explaining to others how the substance is used.
Paragraph two (encouragement):
- Publicly encouraging drug use,
- Publishing material of this kind.
The concept of “publicly” covers settings that anyone can see. Posts on a public social media account that praise or encourage drug use may therefore become the subject of an investigation.
Aggravating circumstance
If the offence is committed by members of the health professions such as doctors, dentists, pharmacists, chemists, veterinarians, nurses, midwives or laboratory technicians, or by persons engaged in the pharmaceutical trade, the penalty is increased by half (TCK art. 190(3)).
The line between personal use, facilitation and trafficking
| Act | Offence | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Buying, possessing or using for one’s own use | TCK art. 191 | 2–5 years (mandatory postponement of the prosecution the first time) |
| Providing a place, materials or information for others to use | TCK art. 190 | 5–10 years |
| Selling, giving or transporting the substance itself | TCK art. 188 | At least 10 years |
The key distinction is this: giving the substance itself to someone else is not facilitation but trafficking (TCK art. 188(3)). Facilitation concerns providing means other than the substance itself.
If the act turns out to be personal use during the prosecution: If, in a prosecution for facilitation, it becomes clear that the act was aimed solely at the defendant’s own use, a decision is given under TCK art. 191 to defer the announcement of the verdict (HAGB) (TCK art. 191(8)).
Which court hears the case?
Since the upper limit of the penalty in the law is ten years, these cases are, as a rule, heard by the criminal court of first instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi). The assize court (ağır ceza mahkemesi) hears offences punishable by more than ten years’ imprisonment (Law on the Establishment, Duties and Jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance and Regional Courts of Appeal art. 12).
Key points for the defence
- For the offence of providing a place, the person must know that the place is being used for drug use and must allow this. A guest using drugs in the home without the owner’s knowledge is not enough on its own.
- For the offence of encouragement, the content of the post, how accessible it is and who it belongs to must each be examined separately.
- If the person is also a user, it must be examined whether the facilitation charge really describes providing a means for others, or rather using drugs together.
Recent Court of Cassation decisions
- Court of Cassation 10th Criminal Chamber, 09.07.2025, E. 2025/3472, K. 2025/7698: In a case brought for trafficking, the act turned out to be personal use. The Chamber recalled that TCK art. 191(8) requires a mandatory HAGB in prosecutions under arts. 188 and 190. However, it held that before deciding, it must be investigated whether the defendant had previously received a postponement of the prosecution or an HAGB for the same offence, or whether another case or investigation had been opened against them. Decision text
- Court of Cassation 10th Criminal Chamber, 24.02.2025, E. 2023/16493, K. 2025/1759: The act of a defendant tried for trafficking had been held to be personal use. The defendant’s earlier postponement had ended with a decision of non-prosecution after he successfully completed the supervision period. Since an HAGB was therefore mandatory under art. 191(8), the court’s decision that “there is no ground for HAGB” was reversed in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma). Decision text
- Court of Cassation 10th Criminal Chamber, 11.06.2025, E. 2023/20960, K. 2025/6386: A conviction for facilitating drug use, given by a criminal court of first instance and upheld by the regional court of appeal, was affirmed. A recent example showing that this offence is heard by the criminal court of first instance. Decision text
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. For your specific situation, please seek advice from a lawyer.