Yesterday afternoon (November 28), Old T reposted my previous article, “Why Has a Public Security Punishment Record Sealing Clause Silenced the Legal Community?” verbatim on Zhihu. The result left me stunned—almost every comment was questioning it.

Combined with my debates with others in the comments under other questions, I argued from 8 PM last night until 3 AM, got up at 8 AM this morning to continue, and as of now, the total number of debate exchanges has approached 200.

The anger of netizens is highly concentrated: “Drug use records can actually be sealed too? Isn’t this condoning drugs?”

So, I decided to pull out all my comments, remove duplicates, refine and categorize them, and finally condensed them into the following 50 most typical, sharpest, and most upvoted misconceptions, along with the most direct responses.

These 50 points basically cover all the current online doubts about “sealing drug use records” that one can think of.

50 Common Misconceptions About Sealing Drug Use Records

1. Once sealed, the records are completely inaccessible. How will the public’s right to know and safety be protected?
   Sealing only applies to “units and individuals without the authority to query.” Legally authorized entities such as public security, procuratorates, courts for case handling, organization departments for political reviews, education departments for teacher qualification reviews, and military recruitment can still access them as usual. Previously, some units would “use their own means” to query without legal authorization. Now, this loophole is formally closed, returning to the rule of law.

2. Sealing means deleting the drug use record, so it’s completely gone from the system?
   Sealing ≠ deletion. The internal public security system still marks and issues warnings as before. When checking into hotels, internet cafes, or using high-speed rail with an ID card, alerts will still pop up for the local police station, and surprise urine tests will continue as usual.

3. The cost of drug use drops significantly, so everyone will start using drugs recklessly from now on!
   The cost of drug use has never been “being discovered by one’s workplace.” The real costs are being sent to compulsory rehabilitation for two years + three years of dynamic control + urine tests + social worker interviews. Sealing only affects “criminal record queries” and does not impact arrests or compulsory measures. The cost hasn’t decreased at all.

4. Drug addiction is impossible to quit, the relapse rate is 99%, and releasing addicts is like setting off a time bomb!
   Community-based drug rehabilitation indeed has a high relapse rate. However, China relies on two years of compulsory isolation rehabilitation + three years of dynamic control after release, achieving the world’s highest five-year non-relapse rate (over 60%). Currently, no other country in the world matches this. The “impossible to quit” you’ve heard about is mostly based on foreign data or community rehabilitation statistics.

5. From now on, drug users can easily become civil servants, join the police or judiciary, enlist in the military, or enter state-owned enterprises!
   Article 59 of the Civil Servant Law, Article 9 of the Measures for the Examination of Civil Servant Recruitment, the Regulations on Political Assessment for Military Recruitment, and the Measures for Political Review in the Recruitment of People’s Police by Public Security Organs have long closed these loopholes. Organization departments, the military, and public security political reviews are completely unaffected by sealing. Don’t even think about it.

6. Will artists involved with drugs be able to whitewash their image and make a comeback after sealing?
   Industry blacklists by the National Radio and Television Administration and performance industry associations do not rely on public security query systems. They rely on initial notifications, news reports, and public reports. Sealing does not affect the validity of those initial notifications. Artists like Man Wenjun and Su Yongkang couldn’t return to the stage back then due to public opinion and industry norms, and it’s the same now.

7. Will my colleagues, delivery drivers, and ride-hailing drivers all be addicts from now on? How can I protect myself?
   Over the past decade, more than 2 million rehabilitated drug users have reintegrated into society, averaging over 60 per town of 50,000 people. They have been around you all along; you just didn’t know. Whether you know or not, life goes on as usual.

8. Ordinary companies no longer have the right to query. Aren’t they entitled to screen out drug users?
   The law has never granted ordinary companies the right to query citizens’ public security punishment records. Previously, it was a “gray area” of unauthorized queries. Now, that gray area is being clarified. If you really want to screen, include a clause in the labor contract stating “concealing drug use history constitutes fraud.” The employee’s signature serves as authorization.

9. Sealing HIV records harmed the Chinese people, and sealing drug records will repeat the same mistake!
   HIV record sealing is handled by the health system, while drug record sealing is handled by the public security system. Their query permissions are completely different. Confusing the two systems is a typical case of shifting the goalposts.

10. Drug traffickers will also benefit, making ‘using dealing to support addiction’ more rampant!
    Drug trafficking is a criminal offense under the Criminal Law and is not covered by the sealing provisions of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law. Criminal records are queried as usual.

11. What if my spouse has a drug history and I don’t know? I’d be totally screwed!
    Ordinary people have never had the right to conduct a “pre-marital political review.” If you really want it, you could propose amending the Marriage Law to add a “mandatory pre-marital disclosure of drug history” clause. But are you sure you want all records of petty theft, drunk driving, and fighting to be disclosed before marriage too?

12. At least we could ‘find a way’ to check before, but now it’s completely impossible!
    Previously, “finding a way” mainly involved state-owned enterprises and public institutions pressuring the police with official letters during year-end evaluations. The police, forced into a corner, pushed for legislation to close this loophole, returning to “no action without legal authorization.”

13. If even misdemeanors are sealed, the next step is drug legalization!
    The Public Security Administration Punishment Law seals “public security detention”-level drug use behavior. 99% of actual addicts are sent to compulsory rehabilitation centers for two years. Compulsory rehabilitation records are not covered by sealing.

14. Articles 72 and 73 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law impose penalties that are too light. Detaining drug users for only a few days is outrageous!
    Articles 72 and 73 serve as fallback provisions for the police. When the amount of drugs seized is insufficient for criminal prosecution, or when only consumers are caught without evidence of trafficking, administrative detention is used as a last resort. Real addicts are almost always sent to compulsory rehabilitation. Administrative detention applies only to a tiny minority of cases, like “first-time users caught in the act.”

15. Will drug users no longer be publicly named in notifications? Who will supervise them?
    Regulations on the openness of law enforcement by public security organs are subordinate laws. The Public Security Administration Punishment Law is a superior law. When the superior law explicitly requires sealing, notifications can no longer use full names. However, industry bans, dynamic control, and urine testing remain in full force.

16. This was proposed by the vice president of the lawyers association, clearly creating a green light for their own people!
    The Public Security Administration Punishment Law is a departmental law under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Security. The lawyers association doesn’t even have the right to propose amendments. The real push came from the Ministry of Public Security itself because grassroots units were overwhelmed by requests from various organizations.

17. What about school security guards, cleaners, or kindergarten teachers with a drug history?
    Teacher qualification certification and education system political reviews are completely unaffected by sealing. Ordinary private schools and security companies indeed cannot query on their own. However, both sectors are regulated by education and public security authorities. Responsible authorities will choose to conduct checks, especially for security guards, who are directly managed by public security departments.

18. This is creating a backdoor for privileged kids and well-connected individuals. Ordinary people don’t get this treatment!
    Truly powerful and well-connected people never needed “sealing” to clean up their mess—they might not even have a record in the first place. Sealing truly protects ordinary kids who were tricked by friends into trying drugs once, sparing them a lifelong stain.

19. Even criminal sentences under three years are being sealed. The next step is complete liberalization!
    Sealing for minor crimes with sentences under three years is a separate system targeting offenses like aiding information networks and concealing criminal proceeds—crimes with “high volume but light sentences.” It’s a completely different track from drug offenses.

20. Your lengthy explanations are just whitewashing, covering up, and obfuscating!
    Explaining legal provisions, actual implementation, and historical context is called whitewashing? Then I have nothing more to say. But the fact is: sealing changes “query permissions,” not “arrests, rehabilitation, dynamic control, industry access, or political reviews.” It merely turns a gray area white, replacing “extra-legal favors” with “acting according to law.”

21. After sealing, will there still be alerts when checking into hotels or taking high-speed rail?
    The public security organs’ dynamic control over “drug users” is completely unaffected by sealing. ID card checks will still trigger alerts, and police stations will still conduct surprise urine tests.

22. Will future cases of drug users caught in the act still be publicly notified online as before, e.g., ‘Zhang XX, male, 35, administratively detained for drug use’?
    Full names will no longer be published. When the superior law requires sealing, notifications can only use “Zhang” or omit the name entirely. However, the case will still be filed, and compulsory rehabilitation will proceed as usual.

23. If even notifications can’t use full names, isn’t this indirectly encouraging drug use?
    Notifications were never meant to shame someone for life. Their purpose is to inform local police of a person’s relapse risk. The real deterrents are urine tests and two years of compulsory rehabilitation, not online shaming.

24. My friend’s company used to directly ask contacts at the police station to check if job applicants had a drug history. Is that completely cut off now?
    That was illegal before. Now, the illegal loophole is being closed by law. Ordinary companies never had the legal authority to query citizens’ administrative punishment records.

25. Can sensitive industries like finance, banking, security, and aviation also no longer check?
    They can check. The People’s Bank of China, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, the Civil Aviation Administration, and the Ministry of Emergency Management all have special query permissions. Industries on the statutory negative list for access are completely unaffected by sealing.

26. Can drug users become kindergarten or elementary school teachers now?
    Impossible. Teacher qualification certification is handled by education administrative departments, and public institution staffing is managed by organization and personnel departments. Sealing is completely ineffective against the education system; they can legally query.

27. After drug records are sealed, will insurance companies still deny claims based on “concealing pre-existing conditions”?
    Insurance companies’ health declarations and channels for querying medical history have always existed separately and are not connected to the public security administrative punishment system.

28. If someone was detained for 15 days for drug use before, and now it’s sealed, does that mean they serve 15 days and are completely cleared?
    Almost no real addict is released after just 15 days of detention. In 99% of cases: on-site urine test positive → directly ordered into compulsory isolation rehabilitation for two years. Compulsory rehabilitation records are not covered by sealing.

29. Do cases that only result in administrative detention without compulsory rehabilitation actually exist?
    Very few. Usually, it applies to first-time users caught with minimal amounts of drugs who actively confess—considered “minor circumstances.” There are only a few thousand such cases nationwide each year, a drop in the bucket.

30. After sealing, will drug users become ride-hailing drivers, designated drivers, or delivery drivers, endangering passengers?
    The Ministry of Transport explicitly stated in a 2021 document: individuals with a drug history (including administrative punishment) cannot engage in ride-hailing services for three years. Transportation law enforcement departments have independent query channels.

31. Can drug users now travel in and out of the country freely?
    The query authority of immigration border inspection stations is directly stipulated in the Exit-Entry Administration Law. Sealing does not affect visa denials; those who should be denied will still be denied.

32. Is this paving the way for children of certain ‘influential people’ who used drugs to enter the system?
    Truly well-connected individuals don’t need to wait for sealing—they might not even face administrative detention. Sealing truly helps ordinary kids who were tricked by friends into one-time use, preventing a lifetime of ruin.

33. You keep saying two years of compulsory rehabilitation is effective, but I know someone who relapsed soon after release!
    If someone relapses within three years after compulsory rehabilitation, they can be directly sent back (up to four times consecutively). The person you know either wasn’t selected for a urine test or was lucky enough not to get caught temporarily. That doesn’t mean the system is ineffective.

34. Why not simply exclude drug use from the sealing clause? A one-size-fits-all approach is sneaking in hidden agendas!
    Because the Public Security Administration Punishment Law covers hundreds of behaviors subject to sealing. It’s impossible to create a special exception for drug use; otherwise, gambling, prostitution, and theft would all cry “unfair.” Severe drug addicts are already handled through the compulsory rehabilitation channel. Those who end up with administrative detention are the extremely mild cases.

35. No matter how much you explain, you can’t change the fact that this is a ‘compromise with drugs’ and the start of the ‘broken windows theory’!
    The real broken window isn’t a sealing clause. It was 20 years ago when people thought “being able to check records meant safety.” In reality, over 20 million people with public security punishments and over 2 million rehabilitated drug users have long been working and living around you, and society hasn’t collapsed. Basing anxiety on “not knowing” is the biggest broken window.

36. If drug users are caught from now on, will they just get 15 days of administrative detention and then have it sealed? Will compulsory rehabilitation centers go out of business?
    Dream on. The Ministry of Public Security’s “Measures for Identifying Drug Addiction” clearly states: urine test positive + assessment of severe addiction = direct compulsory rehabilitation for two years. Administrative detention is only a last resort for the tiny minority where evidence is insufficient for criminal charges but doesn’t meet the threshold for compulsory rehabilitation. Almost no one escapes compulsory rehab.

37. You always say it was normal not to be able to check before. Then how did so many people manage to check?
    Previously, it was a gray-area practice: during year-end evaluations or award selections, units would send official letters, and police stations would provide the information as a “favor”—purely illegal. Now, the illegal “favor” is being replaced by strict “rule of law.”

38. Will drug users become nannies, postpartum caregivers, or domestic helpers, harming children?
    Domestic service industry associations (e.g., the Beijing Domestic Service Association) have long had query agreements with the police. A drug history directly lands someone on a blacklist, and platforms wouldn’t dare assign them.

39. You’re talking without feeling the pressure. What if I hire a drug user and they ruin my company? Who’s responsible?
    If your company can be ruined by a “mild first-time user” who only served 15 days of detention, then your company is too fragile. What really ruins companies are those who both use and deal drugs—that’s a criminal offense, never sealed.

40. Other countries don’t have sealing. Why does China have to be the first to try this?
    The United States, Canada, Portugal, and the Netherlands have long decriminalized or sealed records for minor drug offenses (mainly marijuana). Treating “public security detention” as an ordinary administrative punishment is also mainstream international practice.

41. What if drug users become doctors, nurses, or pharmacists with access to narcotics?
    The Physician Law, Nurse Regulations, and Narcotic Drugs Management Measures all clearly state: individuals with a drug history (including administrative punishment) cannot work in related fields for five years. The National Health Commission and the National Medical Products Administration have independent query permissions.

42. You say the police can still check internally. What if the drug user is a relative of a police officer? Won’t there be internal tip-offs?
    Internal police queries have strict logs. Who checked, whom they checked, and the reason are all recorded. If an audit later finds an unauthorized query of a sealed record, disciplinary action is taken immediately. Relatives can’t save them either.

43. Previously, records for prostitution and gambling could also be easily checked. Will they be sealed now too?
    Same law, same clause—all sealed. Prostitution, gambling, theft, fighting—all sealed together. Why single out drug use and cry “the sky is falling”?

44. You keep citing ‘over 2 million rehabilitated drug users.’ Doesn’t that prove the relapse rate is high and the risk is great?
    The 2 million figure is a cumulative total over more than a decade, with about 200,000 newly reintegrated each year. Over 60% remain drug-free for five years, several times higher than in Europe and the US. If you think 60% isn’t high enough, then no country in the world meets the standard.

45. Will drug users become volunteers, community service workers, or community correction helpers?
    Judicial offices and community correction centers have query permissions stipulated in the Community Corrections Law. A drug history directly qualifies someone as “unsuitable” for such work.

46. I just don’t trust people who have been addicted to drugs. No amount of explanation will change that!
    You’re entitled to your distrust, but laws can’t be made based on “your distrust.” It’s the ultimate unfairness for the law to keep someone down for life simply because of subjective distrust.

47. Your article reads like you were hired by the Ministry of Public Security. The whole thing is whitewashing!
    If I were really hired by the Ministry of Public Security, I’d have already banned all you sarcastic commenters. I’m just explaining the provisions, practical implementation, and historical context. If you don’t understand and call me a hired writer, there’s nothing I can do.

48. Can drug users become National People’s Congress delegates or members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference now?
    The Electoral Law…Article 29: Those currently serving a sentence or undergoing compulsory rehabilitation cannot be candidates; those who have completed compulsory rehabilitation are also restricted during the three-year dynamic monitoring period. Administrative detention for 15 days is indeed permissible, but do you really think such individuals could even reach the stage of being nominated as candidates?

49. Why not clearly state “drug use exception” in the law? Not doing so shows a guilty conscience!
    Because over 110 types of conduct under the Public Security Administration Punishments Law must be treated equally. Singling out drug use as an “exception” would be granting special privileges and undermining the rule of law.

50. Are you just saying “drugs aren’t that scary” and “don’t panic”?
    I only said one thing: what’s truly frightening isn’t “someone has used drugs,” but treating “knowing who has used drugs” as a source of security. Over 20 million people with past records have long been sharing the same subway with you, and you’re still alive, which shows society has already absorbed this risk. Basing anxiety on “I don’t know” is the greatest vulnerability.

After engaging in over 200 comment exchanges from yesterday to today, Old T has only one feeling: What everyone truly fears is never drugs, but “I don’t know.”

Yet society has long absorbed over 20 million people with public security penalty records and over 2 million individuals who have returned from rehabilitation.

The reason we can still live well isn’t because we “know” who has a past record, but because the system has been functioning all along.

It’s just that in the past, the illusion of “knowing” gave us a false sense of security.

Now that this thin veil has been pierced, everyone is panicking instead.

The law has merely turned gray areas into white, transformed “inquiries based on personal connections” into “inquiries based on the law,” and changed “exceptions made outside the law” into “acting in accordance with the law.”

As for those who insist on interpreting this as “indulgence,”

All I can say is:

If you want to stay anxious, go ahead and stay anxious.

I’m going to sleep.