“吸毒记录封存是纵容违法”？专家：记录仍在 监管未松

Core Viewpoint - The newly revised Public Security Administration Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China will implement a long-awaited record sealing system for administrative violations starting January 1, 2026, which has sparked widespread public discussion and concern [1][2]. Summary by Sections Record Sealing System - The law stipulates that records of administrative violations should be sealed and not disclosed to any individual or organization, except for specific state agencies for case handling or inquiries as per national regulations [1][3]. - The sealing of drug-related administrative violation records is included, leading to significant public discourse following a controversial comment on social media [1][2]. Public Concerns and Misunderstandings - Many members of the public are surprised to learn that drug use is classified as an administrative violation rather than a criminal offense, which is why it falls under the new sealing system [5][6]. - Legal experts express concern that misunderstandings about the sealing system could undermine its effectiveness and lead to negative consequences for its implementation [1][2]. Legal Framework and Implications - The sealing system aims to protect individuals from discrimination based on past minor violations, allowing them to reintegrate into society without the burden of a permanent record [7][9]. - The law differentiates between administrative violations and criminal offenses, emphasizing that the former typically involves less severe actions and penalties [5][6]. Scope of Administrative Violations - The range of behaviors classified as administrative violations is broader than many realize, including minor offenses like unauthorized opening of others' packages and public disturbances [6][7]. - The law aims to address the issue of individuals facing long-term consequences from minor infractions, which can affect their employment and social standing [9][10]. Future Developments and Challenges - The current provisions of the sealing system are seen as too general and require further clarification regarding the scope, methods, and conditions for inquiries [20][21]. - Ongoing public discourse is viewed as a catalyst for refining the system, with hopes for a more comprehensive framework that balances punishment and rehabilitation [22].