Source corrections

Legal-limit rows prefer statute, consolidated national codes, and official gazettes. Where English commentary is used, it is cross-checked against the local-language instrument. Scientific claims follow peer-reviewed pharmacokinetics and public-health references cited on the Methodology page.

Secondary news summaries or unverifiable crowd sources are not treated as authoritative for numeric limits or penalty descriptions.

Each jurisdiction page shows a last-verified metadata field when the underlying legal evidence row has been reviewed. Inherited or dependent territories may inherit a parent statute; when that relationship applies, we label it explicitly rather than implying standalone codification.

If a source URL rots or a statute consolidates, the evidence register records the gap until a new primary anchor is pinned.

Email a concise description of the page, the incorrect claim, and a link to the primary source that supports the correction. Include the jurisdiction lawKey or URL if possible.

The operator acknowledges good-faith reports by updating the evidence register, on-page copy, and structured-data dates when the fix ships. Complex legal questions may require additional review time.

There is no fixed statutory polling interval for every country. High-traffic jurisdictions are rechecked when readers report changes or when consolidated codes publish amendments. Methodology references are reviewed when major scientific consensus documents update.