RE 635.659 was a case of the Supreme Court of Brazil concerning the decriminalization of drugs for personal use.[1] The case's rapporteur, Gilmar Mendes, cast the initial vote in favor of decriminalization, and the majority of the Court agreed to decriminalize cannabis.[2][3]
The case did not concern the legality of drugs themselves, but instead decided on two important topics: if drug possession constitutes a crime according to current law (an act that becomes part of the offender's criminal record), and what exactly distinguishes a drug user and a drug trafficker (which are different offenses, with different punishments).[3]
The Court decided that possession of cannabis is not a criminal offense (though still illegal, and punishable by administrative sanctions).[3] Additionally, the ministers decided on 40 grams (1.4oz) as the quantity limit for classification as "possession for personal use"; quantities above that are considered trafficking.[3]
The sale of any narcotics is not affected by this case and, as such, remains illegal.[4][3] Furthermore, the Court's decision only concerned cannabis; possession of other narcotics remains a crime.[3]
Background
Legal status of cannabis possession for recreational use
The case concerns the constitutionality of Article 28 of the Brazilian Antidrug Law (Law 11.343/2006), which criminalizes drug possession for personal use, although the crime is penalized only with warnings, community service and educational measures, instead of prison time or fines. Additionally, current legislation does not specify what amount constitutes personal use, so an offender is uncertain if they will be charged for trafficking instead.[5]
The case was escalated to the Supreme Court after a man was caught in 2011 with 3 grams (0.11oz) of cannabis inside a provisional detention center, and state courts sentenced him to 2 months of community service.[6][7] The public defender argued consumption didn't constitute a crime, but the recourse was denied by the state attorney, and the case was brought to the Supreme Court on the federal level.[7]
In 2015, opening the case as rapporteur, minister Gilmar Mendes cast the initial vote in favor of decriminalization of possession of drugs for personal use.[6] Subsequently, ministers Edson Fachin and Roberto Barroso voted in favor of decriminalization of possession, but only for cannabis and not any other substances.[6] Fachin proposed Congress pass legislation distinguishing personal use and trafficking; Barroso proposed 25 grams (0.88oz) be the limit until Congress passes regulation.[6]
In 2023, the Court reached a majority vote to request objective criteria differentiating drug users and traffickers.[4] Ministers Rosa Weber and Alexandre de Moraes voted for decriminalization, with Moraes arguing for the limit of possession for personal use to fall between 25 grams (0.88oz) and 60 grams (2.1oz).[4] Mendes amended his vote to also restrict decriminalization to just cannabis, and adopted Moraes' limit of 25 to 60g.[4]Cristiano Zanin voted to maintain the constitutionality of the law – and, therefore, voted against decriminalization – though he argues the Supreme Court should designate 25g as the upper limit of possession for personal use.[4]
On 30 September 2023, Rosa Weber retired as Supreme Court minister. Flávio Dino, Weber's successor to the court, should not be able to recast a vote in this case.[1]
Voting in this case returned on 6 March 2024, with dissenting votes by ministers André Mendonça and Nunes Marques, both against decriminalization.[8] However, the voting session was again interrupted as minister Dias Toffoli requested a review of the case,[8] which postpones voting for at most 90 business days.
On 20 June 2024, Toffoli dissented, voting to maintain the constitutionality of the law.[9] Toffoli, however, justifies the vote by arguing that the law already imposes only administrative sanctions, and not penal ones, to personal use. In effect, the minister argues, the law should not be considered unconstitutional, but instead interpreted as already not criminalizing personal use.[9] Toffoli further states that declaring its unconstitutionality, or even deciding on a unique position for cannabis only, could bring repercussions to cases concerning the use of other narcotics.[9]
Before voting resumed, on 25 June 2024, minister Toffoli requested to clarify his vote, stating "there's six votes for decriminalization", and "my vote is clear, in the sense that no user of any substance can be criminalized".[2] That is, Toffoli's position, previously considered a dissenting vote (as well as a "third interpretation"), was clarified to be an agreement with the rapporteur that the personal use of drugs does not constitute a crime (while still being illegal). Additionally, Toffoli clarifies that his position is not limited to cannabis, but applies to any narcotic substance.[2] Toffoli further considers that a strictly quantity-based distinction for personal use and trafficking might not be sufficient to deal with current issues of prejudice, but didn't offer an alternative.[2]
Despite having already reached a concurring majority after Toffoli's vote, ministers Luiz Fux and Cármen Lúcia followed Toffoli's clarification by casting votes of their own.[2] Fux and Lúcia followed Toffoli's reasoning that the law is not unconstitutional, but that it already doesn't criminalize possession or personal use, but instead considers them administrative illicit acts.[2] Fux further argues that Anvisa should be responsible for establishing which substances, and their quantity limits, are safe for personal use.[2] Lúcia, on the other hand, argues that, while Congress doesn't pass legislation regulating a quantity distinguishing drug users and traffickers, the Supreme Court should determine the criteria.[2]
The rapporteur, minister Gilmar Mendes, emphasized that the Court is not legalizing any narcotics, and that personal drug use, even if not criminalized, will remain an illicit act – meaning it will still be punished, although not by prison time.[2]
Decision
On 26 June 2024, the Court reached a decision.[3] The ministers decided that acquiring, storing, transporting or carrying cannabis for personal use does not constitute a crime, although it remains illegal, punishable by warnings on the negative effects of drug use and/or participation on socioeducational programs.[3] If an offender is caught with the drug, it will still be seized by authorities, as it remains an illicit substance.[3] The decision only applies to cannabis, and not any other narcotic.[3]
Additionally, the Court decided that the limit for classification as "personal use" for cannabis is 40 grams (1.4oz) or 6 female plants.[lower-alpha 1][3] Quantities above that are considered trafficking, which remains a crime.[3]
Minister Roberto Barroso further clarified that the quantity limit for personal use is not the only differentiating factor: "Sometimes, if someone with 40g also carries a weighing scale and sale records, they're evidently trafficking, they're a trafficker. So, 40g is not an absolute. But someone who has been convicted without participating in a criminal organization, exclusively for having been caught with 40g of weed, they can possibly ask for a revision of this conviction".[10]
↑ The female sexual expression of Cannabis sativa is the one used for narcotic purposes.
Related Research Articles
While recreational use, possession and trade of non-medicinal drugs described by the Opium Law are all technically illegal under Dutch law, official policy since the late 20th century has been to openly tolerate all recreational use while tolerating possession and trade under certain circumstances. This pragmatic approach was motivated by the idea that a drug-free Dutch society is unrealistic and unattainable, and efforts would be better spent trying to minimize harm caused by recreational drug use. As a result of this gedoogbeleid, the Netherlands is typically seen as much more tolerant of drugs than most other countries.
R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the legal test for whether a government action infringing a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is justified. David Oakes challenged the validity of provisions under the Narcotic Control Act that provided a person found in possession of a narcotic, absent of evidence to the contrary, must be convicted of trafficking the narcotic. Oakes contented the presumption of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under Section 11(d) of the Charter.
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, commonly referred to as the NDPS Act, is an Act of the Parliament of India that prohibits a person the production/manufacturing/cultivation, possession, sale, purchasing, transport, storage, and/or consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 23 August 1985. It was passed by both the Houses of Parliament, received assent from then President Giani Zail Singh on 16 September 1985, and came into force on 14 November 1985. The NDPS Act has since been amended four times — in 1988, 2001, 2014 and 2021. The Act extends to the whole of India and it applies also to all Indian citizens outside India and to all persons on ships and aircraft registered in India.
The Global Marijuana March (GMM), also referred to as the Million Marijuana March (MMM), is an annual rally held at different locations around the world on the first Saturday in May. A notable event in cannabis culture, it is associated with cannabis-themed events, which may include marches, meetings, rallies, raves, concerts, festivals, and attempts at educational outreach.
A drug policy is the policy regarding the control and regulation of psychoactive substances, particularly those that are addictive or cause physical and mental dependence. While drug policies are generally implemented by governments, entities at all levels may have specific policies related to drugs.
Drug liberalization is a drug policy process of decriminalizing, legalizing, or repealing laws that prohibit the production, possession, sale, or use of prohibited drugs. Variations of drug liberalization include drug legalization, drug relegalization, and drug decriminalization. Proponents of drug liberalization may favor a regulatory regime for the production, marketing, and distribution of some or all currently illegal drugs in a manner analogous to that for alcohol, caffeine and tobacco.
Canada's drug regulations are measures of the Food and Drug Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In relation to controlled and restricted drug products, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act establishes eight schedules of drugs and new penalties for the possession, trafficking, exportation and production of controlled substances as defined by the Governor-in-Council. Drug policy of Canada has traditionally favoured punishment for the smallest of offences, but this convention was partially broken in 1996 with the passing of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
The drug policy of Portugal, informally called the "drug strategy", was put in place in 2000, and came into effect in July 2001. Its purpose was to reduce the number of new HIV/AIDS cases in the country, as it was estimated around half of new cases came from injection drug use.
ADPF 54 is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Brazil. The rapporteur, minister Marco Aurélio Mello, voted in favor of decriminalization of abortions involving anencephalic fetuses. The minister considered it unconstitutional the interpretation that interrupting a pregnancy of anencephalic fetus is a crime according to the Penal Code of Brazil:
Aborto é crime contra a vida. Tutela-se a vida em potencial. No caso do anencéfalo, não existe vida possível. O feto anencéfalo é biologicamente vivo, por ser formado por células vivas, e juridicamente morto, não gozando de proteção estatal. [...] O anencéfalo jamais se tornará uma pessoa. Em síntese, não se cuida de vida em potencial, mas de morte segura. Anencefalia é incompatível com a vida.
Abortion is a crime against life. The potential life is protected. In the case of the anencephalic, there is no possible life. The anencephalic fetus is biologically alive, being composed of living cells, and juridically dead, not warranting state protection. [...] The anencephalic will never become a person. In short, it is not about caring for a potential life, but an assured death. Anencephaly is incompatible with life.
In the early 21st century, advocacy for drug legalization has increased in Latin America. Spearheading the movement, the Uruguayan government announced in 2012 plans to legalize state-controlled sales of marijuana in order to fight drug-related crimes.
Cannabis in Portugal is decriminalized, as a result of the decriminalization of all drugs in Portugal in 2001. Medical use of cannabis was legalized in 2018.
In the Czech Republic, cannabis is not legal for recreational use, but personal possession has been decriminalized since 1 January 2010 and medical cannabis has been legal since 1 April 2013.
Cannabis in Argentina is regulated by the Penal Code of Argentina, which prohibits its possession, cultivation, and supply, except for authorized medical purposes. Official statistics estimate that cannabis is used by 7.8% of Argentina's population.
Cannabis in Brazil is illegal but decriminalized, while possession and cultivation of personal amounts and for private use were de-penalized in 2006. In 2024, Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that Brazilians can possess and transport up to 40 grams of cannabis for their own consumption. however, the sale continues to be considered a crime. Use of cannabis medications is allowed for terminally ill patients or those who have exhausted other treatment options. It is also possible to import, manufacture and sell cannabis-based medicines.
Cannabis in Latvia is illegal for recreational and medical purposes, but production of industrial hemp is permitted.
The list includes and details significant events that occurred in the global history of national-level implementations of, or changes made to, laws surrounding the use, sale, or production of the psychoactive drug cannabis.
The Cannabis Act (C-45) of June, 2018 paved the way for the legalization of cannabis in Canada on 17 October 2018. Police and prosecution services in all Canadian jurisdictions are currently capable of pursuing criminal charges for cannabis marketing without a licence issued by Health Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the federal Parliament has the power to criminalize the possession of cannabis and that doing so does not infringe upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Ontario have, however, held that the absence of a statutory provision for medical marijuana is unconstitutional, and to that extent the federal law is of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained. The recreational use of cannabis has been legalized by the federal government, and took effect on 17 October 2018.
Alexandre de Moraes is a Brazilian jurist, currently serving as president of the Superior Electoral Court and as a justice of the Supreme Federal Court.
Luciana Boiteux de Figueiredo Rodrigues is a Brazilian lawyer, professor of criminal law and criminology at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (URFJ), researcher, feminist, and human rights activist. She is currently a councilwoman for the city of Rio de Janeiro, affiliated with the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL).
ADPF 787 is an ongoing case of the Supreme Court of Brazil concerning ease of access of transgender people to public healthcare in Brazil, provided by the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). The case's rapporteur, minister Gilmar Mendes, cast the initial vote asserting the right of any person, regardless of gender, to access healthcare they require, and the majority of the Court agreed.
This article needs additional or more specific categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.(May 2024)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
