To Marijuana Decriminalization the Light of Brazil’s Drug Policy

MARTINS, Alisson [1]

PEREIRA, Cristiano Alves [2]

JUNIOR, Elias Mantovani [3]

ONASSIS, Jackelini Kennedy [4]

SANTOS, José Carlos dos [5]

REZENDE, Sergio [6]

ANDRADE, Thiago [7]

MARTINS, Alisson; et. al. To Marijuana Decriminalization the Light of Brazil’s Drug Policy . Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal Nucleus of Knowledge. Year 1. Vol. 11. PP 281-305 December 2016. ISSN: 2448-0959

SUMMARY

We are convinced that the content of this article shows one of the most influential factors in the Brazilian media today, we will systematically address some points of the importance of the discussion that we will extend on this subject that is of extreme relevance in the determined research during the course of the study. This contradiction of who is for or against the decriminalization of marijuana in Brazil, has been emphasizing every day in the media. We will also see that marijuana is already released in Uruguay. The idealizers of the discussion about the legalization of marijuana in Brazil are comparing with factors of the country’s economy once the drug is released, the economy will be strengthened with the taxes that will be collected by selling the drug. The object of this research will give us the subjective idea of ​​what is good or bad, if marijuana is legalized in Brazil.

KEYWORDS: Consumption, decriminalization, legality, marijuana.

1. History and origin of marijuana

Marijuana is a drug derived from the Cannabis sativa [8], a shrub about two feet tall, of origin Growing in tropical and temperate zones. It is known that the plant was already used in China in 7000 BC. In India, the plant was widely used to cure constipation, malaria and menstrual pain, etc.

The textile properties of the weed made its fiber very much harnessed by the Romans and Greeks in the manufacture of fabrics and paper. The cultivation of the herb was widespread in the Middle East, Europe and other regions of Asia. In the Renaissance, marijuana was one of the main products of Europe; GUTEMBERG’s books, [9], the inventor of the press, were made from hemp paper. Marijuana has been taken to Africa [10] and to America [11] by the Europeans. In South America, the first plantations of Cannabis sativa were made in Chile [12] by the Spanish [13].

By the end of the nineteenth century, the plant was already used as a psychotropic by artists and writers, however, it was still considered a drug, being used by many pharmaceutical laboratories. From the 1960s onwards, the consumption of marijuana as a drug became increasingly popular with people from all walks of life. Currently, marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the world:

According to data from the UNODC [14], around 280 million people, or 4% (four) of the world population between 15 (fifteen) And 64 (sixty-four) years of marijuana use daily. Taking into account the world population is 7 (seven) billion people on the planet earth. That is, a lot of people make daily use of marijuana throughout the universe.

Due to the high consumption of drugs that spread worldwide, especially the Opium [15], in 1912 there was a meeting of leading world leaders to discuss The enormous consumption of drugs.

2. The arrival of marijuana in Brazil.

To start talking about the arrival of the drug in Brazil, we have to know a little of its history. In 1783, Portugal created the “Royal Flax-Hemp Factory”, with orders to plant hemp in the new lands of the Colônia Brazil with the aim of Supply the growing international demand for the derivatives of this plant. The first farm was installed in the south of the colony, where today it is the State of Rio Grande do Sul [17], but also financed hemp farms in Pará [18], Amazonas [19], Maranhão [20], Bahia [21] and Rio de Janeiro [22], places where the plant has adapted better.

But marijuana is perhaps the only plant to be introduced in Brazil by both the Portuguese settlers and the black slaves coming from Angola, who brought seeds hidden in their garments or otherwise, but blacks used to smoke the substance, hence the name ” Smoke from angola [23].

There are also reports that the slaves planted the grass, hidden in the cane fields, or during the off-season of the reed. Some researchers believe that their use by blacks was a form of resistance to uncharming, that is, a way to keep part of their culture and native customs still alive, even living with the fact of slavery.

In Brazil in 1921 the prohibition of the “pito do pango [24], influenced by the Opium Conference [25] in 1912 in The Hague [26], marijuana users were already criminalized and persecuted, mainly on the streets Of the city of Rio de Janeiro, by the same institution responsible for repressing the vagrants, the samba, capoeira and candomblé wheels. During the thirties (1930), repression became more intense, with army incursions into the Northeast to destroy plantations and the arrests of Brazil’s first marijuana smugglers.

In this way we can see that marijuana is marginalized because it is directly linked to the slaves, so that the owners of the farms and owners of the slaves could not allow them to use the plant, which was the custom of the blacks, who used the herb in their Worship services performed at night after tiring hours of forced labor, and even so, the services were joyful, not only to ease the pain of the soul but also the body because of the exhaustive work and ill-treatment they suffered, as the story goes.

3. The prohibition in our legislation.

We noticed that there were some changes in the current legislation comparing with the legislation of the past, that is, to equate the Law that was revoked, with Law No. 11,343 [27] of 2006. As a consumer and / or user of drugs, we have made great progress, which leads us to believe that with these considerable changes, leaving more lenient punishment for drug users in Brazil. We will make a brief comparison of the two Laws, for the best understanding. In the old Law in which it was repealed, Law No. 6,368 [28] of 1976 we had in its article 12 that it was the punishment to the drug traffickers and the article 16 the treatment that would be applied to drug users: Below is what described art. 12:

Article 12: Providing or exporting, remitting, preparing, producing, practicing, acquiring, selling, exhibiting or selling, provides, free of charge, taking, transporting, carrying, storing, prescribing, administering or delivering Form, consumption or narcotic substance that determines physical or psychological dependence, without authorization or in disagreement with legal or regulatory determination;

Penalty- Imprisonment, from 3 (three) to 15 (fifteen) years, and payment of 50 (fifty) to 360 (three hundred and sixty) days-fine.

• – 1º In the same penalties incurs who, unduly:

I – Imports or exports, remits, produces, manufactures, acquires, sells, sells or offers, also provides, free of charge, holds, carries, carries with it or stores raw material intended for the preparation of a narcotic substance or that determines physical dependence Or psychic.

II – Sows, cultivates or harvests plants for the preparation of narcotic substances which determines physical or psychological dependence.

• 2º In the same penalties, whoever:

I – It induces, encourages or assists someone to use narcotic or substance that determines physical or psychic dependence;

II – uses a place in which he has ownership, possession, administration, custody or supervision, or allows another person to use, even if gratuitously, for misuse or illicit traffic in a substance or a substance that causes physical or psychological dependence.[29]

In the article quoted above, the Act was considered a bit lighter for people who committed the illicit drug trade, that is, traffickers were less penalized, compared to the current legislation of which it mentions article 33 of Law 11,343 of 2016. See below what specific article in current legislation that talks about treating people who sell drugs:

Art. 33. Import, export, remit, prepare, produce, manufacture, acquire, sell, exhibit for sale, offer, deposit, transport, carry, store, prescribe, administer, deliver for consumption or supply of drugs, even if Without charge, without authorization or in disagreement with legal or regulatory determination:

Penalty – imprisonment from five (5) to fifteen (15) years and payment of five hundred (five hundred) to one thousand five hundred (2400) fine days. [30]

In view of this, the minimum sentence was three (3) years in the old law, and in current legislation, the minimum sentence is five (5) years, the maximum has not changed in either law, fifteen (15) Years of imprisonment. However, in the current legislation increased the penalty of fine days payment, which is from 500 (five hundred) to 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred) days fine in the current Law.

We will see below article 16 of the former Antidrug Law, where the user treated with detention penalty, for those people caught with marijuana or any other narcotics, even if they claimed that marijuana was for their own use. Article 16 of the repealed Law regulates that:

Art. 16: Acquire, store, or carry with itself, for its own use, a narcotic substance or that determines physical or psychic dependence, without authorization or in disagreement with legal or regulatory determination:

Penalty – Detention, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and payment of 20 (twenty) to 50 (fifty) fine days. [31]

The repealed Law No. 6,368 of 1976 treated the trafficker and the user marijuana as offending figures of high danger to public health, that is, trade or use from simple exposure such as the sale and consumption of drugs as issues that do not harm only The moral of the community, as well as the health of the community, as they directly influence the users, who are in poor health and therefore dependent on public health, resulting in a very high burden on the entire population.

Considering that at that time Brazil was under the regime of the Military Dictatorship [32], in the year 1976 it was President Ernesto Geisel. The majority of the military were cruel, the citizens who disobeyed the public administration were punished in some way. We can take into account that the Anti-Drug Law was more severe for drug users, because at the time Brazil was under an authoritarian regime, and government officials did not like the attitudes that some civilians had regarding public order, and Fact, a person who was a consumer of some type of drug, this person was considered the cause of the public disorder, and was punished with detention, etc.

Currently Law 11,343 of 2006, which is known under the Antidrug Law, current legislation considers crimes both the consumption and the sale of narcotics to very different degrees, in relation to the Repealed Law. More that does not stop being considered crime, coming today to have in its art. 28, (before it was article 16 of the extinct law), the provision that deals with the figure of the user in our legal system.

Art. 28. Anyone who acquires a store has, on the deposit, carries or brings with him for personal consumption drugs without authorization or in disagreement with legal or regulatory determination, shall be subject to the following penalties:

I – warning about the effects of drugs;

II – provision of services to the community;

III – educational measure of attendance at a program or educational course. [34]

Nowadays, the infraconstitutional law is much less rigorous than the extinct law, in the question of the drug user, it is currently the chemical dependent is considered a sick person, even has the characterization of the ICD [35], WHO [36], which is the ICD 10 [37], that specific professionals who treat drug users, ie doctors need to treat these addicts and not let a person sick and in need of treatment, Psychiatric, psychological, among others, are imprisoned in a penitentiary cramming the prison system.

In this aspect, the Brazilian legislators thought of the collective good of the Brazilian population, they took the figure of the drug user as an unsociable being and became a sociable figure who needs and needs treatment for the cure of his disease: That is chemical addiction.

Therefore, in this sense there was an evolution for the benefit of the marijuana consumer among other drugs. See below the continuation of the explanation of the mentioned article that treats the drug user in the current Law:

• 1º To the same measures is submitted who, for his personal consumption, sows, cultivates or harvests plants destined to the preparation of small amount of substance or product capable of causing physical or psychic dependence.
• 2º In order to determine whether the drug was intended for personal consumption, the judge shall consider the nature and quantity of the substance seized, the place and conditions under which the action was taken, the social and personal circumstances, and the conduct And the agent’s background.
• 3º The penalties provided for in items II and III of the caput of this article shall be applied for a maximum period of five (5) months.
• 4º In case of a repeat offense, the penalties provided for in items II and III of the caput of this article shall be applied for a maximum period of ten (10) months.

5. The provision of services to the community shall be carried out in community programs, educational or healthcare entities, hospitals, similar establishments, public or private non-profit, which are preferably concerned with the prevention of consumption or recovery of users and dependents Of drugs.

• 6º To ensure compliance with the educational measures referred to in the caput, in items I, II and III, to which the agent is unjustifiably refused, the judge may, in turn, submit to:

I – verbal admonition;

II – fine.

• 7º The judge shall order the Public Authorities to place at the disposal of the offender, free of charge, a health facility, preferably outpatient, for specialized treatment.

When comparing Laws Nos. 6738 of 1976 (revoked) and nº 11.343 of 2006, we verified that there were improvements for the consumer of drugs, not only specifically users of marijuana, but of other drugs as well. We also verify the reality of the rise in what concerns: Public health and the reduction of the population of the Brazilian prison system, etc.

Article seventy-four of the current anti-drug law mentions that the Act came into force forty-five days after its publication. [39] >

This means that those who were arrested before the publication of this Law, people caught with drugs, even for personal consumption, these people were imprisoned and imprisoned, and this Law made the Brazilian prison population decrease in all the country. Therefore, the burden of Brazilian states in this regard had a significant decrease in spending on prisoners who were deprived of their liberty, since there were several people who were arrested with drugs until November 2006, the month in which the current Anti-Drug Law passed. Force. Consequently the population has benefited in a certain way, since we are the ones who finance all the state’s costs, through the taxes we pay daily.

4 The use of marijuana in medical treatment

Our country is going through a historic moment in the health sector on the positive side, since recently, more precisely on March 21st, 2016, the National Health Surveillance Agency [40](ANVISA) has authorized a medical prescription and the importation of medicines and products containing cannabidiol, per person, to the public.[41] (CBD) tetrahydrocannabinol [42] (THC) in its formulation, provided that it is exclusively for its own use and for health treatment.

This resolution will certainly bring many hopes to several families who have been waiting for the compositions that are derived from marijuana to be released in Brazil to start treating their loved ones suffering from various diseases and who depend on the substances mentioned above to begin with Or maintain treatment to alleviate the suffering of those who are sick and especially to family members who are close and suffering with the sick patient.

There are families who have been treating their children through medicines imported from the United States, however, people who had or have greater purchasing power to import the medication, because these substances are not cheap, that is, it has a very high cost. However, now all people who have health problems and who can be treated by the respective substances, in which it is released by the regulatory agency can seek the SUS [43] to start treatment. Citizens who need treatment for their loved ones or even for themselves are protected by Law 8.080 of 1990, which in its art. 4 provides:

Art. 4 The set of actions and health services provided by federal, state and municipal public bodies and institutions, direct and indirect Administration and foundations maintained by the Public Power, constitute the Unified Health System (SUS).

• 1. Included in this article are the federal, state and municipal public institutions for quality control, research and production of supplies, medicines, including blood and blood products, and health equipment.

[…] [44]

Let us also see that all citizens of Brazil are protected in several rights by our Law Major [45] (CF 1988), and in the specific right that is Health, is mentioned in art. 196 of the CF in which it reports that:

Article 196. Health is the right of everyone and the duty of the State, guaranteed by social and economic policies aimed at reducing the risk of disease and other diseases and universal and equal access to actions and services for their promotion, protection and recovery [46]

We have seen that we have the rights expressed in Constitutional and infraconstitutional Laws, the State can not deny the treatment of health to any citizen, whatever the health problem that the citizen is going through. A person who feels that he is having his rights prevented can file a lawsuit to be protected by his rights in which he is owed and still seek compensation for moral damages, for having his rights denied by public agencies, which he denied The treatment of the disease.

ANVISA professionals, by note, emphasized that legalized substances have not yet been registered in Brazil and, therefore, their safety and efficacy are not evaluated and proven by Brazilian sanitary surveillance. The agency warned that, for this reason, CBD and THC based products may cause unexpected adverse reactions.

Many of these products are not registered as medicines in their countries of origin and therefore have not been evaluated by any competent health authority. Therefore, it is not possible to guarantee the adequate dosage and the absence of contaminants nor to predict the possible adverse effects, which entails unpredictable risks to the health of the patients who will use them. DA SILVA JUNIOR [47]

Extracted from marijuana, cannabidiol is used to combat seizures caused by various diseases, including epilepsy. ANVISA in January of last year withdrew cannabidiol from the list of prohibited substances and classified it as a controlled use drug.

The regulator then facilitated the importation of cannabidiol-based medicines. The standard foresees that the patient or his / her legal guardian request to ANVISA, in an appropriate form, an exceptional authorization for the importation and use of the product, presenting a medical prescription, medical report and declaration of responsibility and clarification signed by the physician and patient or legal guardian. Below is one of the standards regulated by the ANVISA professionals, under the RDC [48] nº 66, which is characterized by ANVISA Resolution 66, which establishes :

Art. 61 […]

• 1º Except for the provisions of the caput:

I – the prescription of medicines registered with ANVISA containing the Cannabis sativa plant, its parts or substances obtained from it, including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

II – the prescription of products containing the substances cannabidiol and / or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), to be imported on an exceptional basis by a natural person, for their own use, for medical treatment, by medical prescription [49]

We are convinced that in this specific aspect marijuana will be for good human consumption, that is, the herb will be used to treat serious diseases, bringing hope to many families, to soften or even end the suffering of the patient he so badly needs Of substance-dependent health care, which are now legalized in Brazil for this purpose.

5. The march of marijuana in Brazil

March marijuana is an event that takes place all over the world in several different countries and simultaneously in diverse places of the world. At first, this is an event in which its idealizers have a day of struggle and demonstrations favorable to changes in laws related to marijuana, in favor of legalization of the herb, regulation of trade and use both recreational and medical and industrial.

The March of Marijuana world-wide occurs generally in the first weekend of the month of May, but in our country, can occur in other weekends, but generally it is in the month of May that occurs in the Brazilian territories, since they occur in several States. Besides the march itself, there are meetings, walks, meetings, concerts, festivals, discussion tables, among others.

The marijuana event, as we say, is also characterized by celebrating the scientific studies that reveal the various uses of the herb, medicinally, industrially, and religiously. Whereas, in this event several people from various cultural levels, social classes and professionals of various categories.

One of the important and curious factors is that these people are the ones who pass the information on marijuana, the majority of these individuals who go in these meetings are in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana in our country.

In Brazil, demonstrations in favor of marijuana have taken place since 2002 in Rio de Janeiro. In 2007 a group of intellectuals who favored the decriminalization of the herb in Brazil to have the desire to consume the drug freely in the streets, articulated and created a website and a visual identity around the name March of Marijuana.

From then on, there was an attempt to make the Marijuana March in Brazil in twelve capitals on May 4, 2008, but there was a great repression of opposing religious groups, those groups that are completely against marijuana use and vehemently Against marijuana decriminalization in Brazil. Consequently, there were several lawsuits against the marijuana event moved by the groups that were against the demonstrations that would be held on due date.

And because of large court rulings across the country that banned the March March event in most of them, magistrates have argued from apology to drug use to gang membership.

The event should take place in Belo Horizonte, Brasília, Cuiabá, Curitiba, Fortaleza, Joao Pessoa, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador and São Paulo, but only occurred legitimately in Recife, where there was confusion and arrests of many people. In the years of 2009 and 2010, the marijuana march occurred peacefully and without major problems in several cities, such as Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Belo Horizonte.

In 2011, however, the court again banned the March of Marijuana in São Paulo, Belo Horizonte and Curitiba, although it occurred in Porto Alegre, Rio de Janeiro, Recife, Vitória and Niterói, among others. In June 2011, the STF released the marijuana march unanimously. Below is a passage narrated by writer CARNEIRO [50] who is co-author of the book Movimentos em marcha, which says:

[…]

On June 18, 2011, freedom marches took place in 42 Brazilian cities, with perhaps 10 to 20 thousand people, two thousand in São Paulo and about one thousand in Rio de Janeiro, the two largest. This movement began to occur in response to the prohibition of marching marijuana, especially that of Sao Paulo, violently repressed by police at Av. Paulista on May 21. In response, the first “march of freedom” was called on the following Saturday in the same place, the free space of MASP [51], which brought together about 5 (five) thousand people, in one of the largest parades in São Paulo in recent years. From there on June 18, marches throughout the country were called, which happened a few days after the STF [52] released the realization of the ” Marches of Marijuana, “and represented a victorious conclusion of the movement that finally called for the true, first authorized marijuana march in Sao Paulo for July 2, when similar marches will also occur in other cities, beginning with Rio from January. The marches of freedom were thus triggered by the prohibition of the march of marijuana, and now the theme of Cannabis itself returns to the center of the debate. “Marches against the release of marijuana” have also been called, and the president of the CNBB himself has stated that such a march is necessary in the same way That the evangelicals in the “marches with Jesus” have made the civil unions of homosexuality and marijuana their axis of agitation. The defense of the rights of illicit drug users is today an international social rights movement for one of the most repressed and persecuted social sectors. Its philosophical foundation is the same as feminism and the homosexual movement: Free disposition about the body itself. Autonomy about itself in the religious, sexual, aesthetic, etc. It was conquered as one of the democratic foundations of the modern era and expanded in the second half of the twentieth century from powerful international political-cultural movements […].

6. Supreme Court releases Marijuana March.

In June 2011, in a unanimous decision 8 (eight) votes, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) released the events called Marcha de Maronha, which gather demonstrators favorable to the decriminalization of drugs. For the ministers, the constitutional rights of assembly and free expression of thought guarantee the realization of this event. Many have emphasized that freedom of expression and manifestation can only be prohibited when it is intended to incite or provoke unlawful and imminent action.

By decision, taken at the ADPF ([54] 187) filed by the Attorney General’s Office [55] (PGR), article 287 [56] of the Criminal Code [57] (CP) must be interpreted according to the Federal Constitution so as not to prevent public demonstrations in defense of the legalization of drugs. The vote of the Minister of MELLO [58] was followed in full by his colleagues. According to him:

… marijuana march is a spontaneous social movement that claims, through the free expression of thought, the possibility of democratic discussion of the prohibitionist model of drug use and of the effects that this model has produced in terms of increased violence .

In addition, the minister considered that the event has a distinctly cultural character, since in it are performed musical, theatrical and performance activities, and creates space for the debate of the theme through lectures, seminars and exhibitions of documentaries related to public policies linked to Drugs, whether legal or illegal.

Celso de Mello explained that the mere proposal of decriminalization of a given criminal offense is not confused with the act of inciting to the practice of the crime nor with the apology of criminal fact. Let us see what the minister said:

The debate on the criminal abolition of certain punishable conduct can be carried out rationally, with respect among interlocutors, although the idea for the majority may be considered strange, extravagant, unacceptable or dangerous, “said MELLO.

While accompanying the rapporteur, Minister FUX said that it was necessary to set parameters for the demonstrations, as the minister stressed that the marijuana marches event Must be peaceful, without the use of weapons and incitement to violence. They must also be previously reported to the public authorities, including information such as the date, time, place and purpose of the event. According to the Minister of Luiz Fux added still and said to be:

“It is imperative that there is no incitement, encouragement or stimulus to the consumption of drugs during the march.”

Finally, he emphasized that children and adolescents can not be engaged in these marches, mentioning in the following words:

If the Constitution took care to provide for the protection of minors dependent on drugs, it is a result of this prediction that a constitutional purpose is sought to avoid as much as possible the contact of children and adolescents with the drug and the eventual risk of addiction, FUX said.

At this point, the Minister Celso de Mello noted that the legal provision that establishes the duty of parents in relation to their minor children is a rule that imposes itself by its own authority. He added that other restrictions imposed on events such as the march of marijuana are determined in the Constitution itself.

The Minister LÚCIA [60] accompanied the rapporteur’s vote citing the following statement by an American jurist, saying:

“If, in the name of security, we give up freedom, tomorrow we will have neither freedom nor security.”

She expressed sympathy for street demonstrations and recalled that, thirty years ago, her generation was prevented from expressing herself by the change of government in the Afonso Arinos Square, adjacent to the Faculty of Law, Belo Horizonte [61] (MG), where the minister graduated. According to Carmen Lúcia:

“It is necessary to ensure the right of demonstration on the decriminalization or non-use of marijuana, because demonstrations such as these may lead to changes in laws.”

Minister LEWANDOWSKI made a point of calling attention to the point of the vote of Minister Celso de Mello, which dealt with the legal regime of freedom of assembly. [62] For Lewandowski, this passage of the vote is a remarkable contribution of the Court’s [63] for the doctrine of public liberties. After analyzing what drugs would be, both now and in the future, the Minister said he understood that it would not be lawful to curb any discussion of drugs, provided that the constitutional provisions were respected.

In this session in the STF the BRITTO Minister [64] pointed out that:

Freedom of expression is the greatest expression of freedom, which is toned down when exercised gregariously, because the dignity of the human person is not exhausted in the enjoyment of strictly individual rights, but of rights that are collectively experienced rights.

Minister GRACIE [65], in turn, reminded colleagues that she is a member of the international commission studying drug decriminalization. According to her:

“I am even relieved that my freedom of thought and expression of thought is guaranteed.”

For Minister AURÉLIO MELLO, [66], the decisions of the Judiciary prohibit the performance of public acts favorable to the legalization of drugs simply because the use of marijuana is Are incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. According to the Minister:

“Even when collective adhesion proves unlikely, the mere possibility of publicly proclaiming certain ideas corresponds to the ideal of personal fulfillment and demarcation of the field of individuality.”

At the time, the then President of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Human Rights, PEDRO PELUSO, said that freedom of expression is an emanation from the supreme value of the dignity of the human person and a factor of formation and enhancement of democracy. He further clarified:

“From this point of view, freedom of expression is a relevant factor in the construction and preservation of democracy, whose indispensable presupposition is ideological pluralism.”

Consequently, the then Minister Antonio Cesar Peluso added that freedom of expression:

“It can only be prohibited when it is intended to incite or provoke imminent illegal actions.”

Finally, Minister Peluso warned that:

The State must, with respect to the Federal Constitution and the infraconstitutional law, take, as in all meetings, the necessary precautions to prevent possible abuses. But he emphasized: This does not mean that freedom in itself does not deserve the constitutional protection and recognition of this Court.

As we saw above in the statements of the STF Ministers in 2011, this session in the STF was marked by many high-level cultural and respectful speeches among the members of that court, for the subject on which the magistrates judged were and are until the days Of today of extreme importance for the community.

However, at that time, though a very recent past, Marijuana March events were released by STF magistrates, and made many citizens go to the streets to defend marijuana decriminalization in Brazil.

Although in these events, there are also many people of religions in which the use of any drug, especially Christians as a whole, be they Catholics and or Protestants, there have been many discussions and even physical aggressions among the individuals who are the Favor of decriminalization and those against marijuana legalization.

We live in a country where everyone has the right to come and go, and we certainly must respect each other, since there are several positions on this controversial subject we are dealing with. Everyone has the right to claim their positions within the limits set by law.

7. The decriminalization hypothesis and the economic factor

Many believe that if marijuana were legalized in Brazil, there would be a strengthening of the economy of our country. In view of this, marijuana could be sold in all trades that have the purpose to do so: For example, in bars, pharmacies and other trades.

The people who advocate the legalization of marijuana at this point, on the one hand, may even be right, indeed any sale of legal product in the trades, consequently generates taxes for the coffers of the public, no doubt. And they also believe that legalizing the drug would end marijuana trafficking in Brazil.

The question of the extinction of marijuana trafficking would almost be impossible, as we will only analyze and compare it with a legal product, for example: Psychotropic drugs (clonazepam). This drug is legal and can only be purchased in pharmacies with a doctor’s prescription and patient documentation, however, this does not mean that there is no irregular sale of this drug, ie there is certainly the sale unfit for people who do not have a medical prescription, That is, the illegal sale of any product that is lawful will not cease to be done even if marijuana were legalized.

It is a very broad discussion, involving a lot of different opinions from different people, the purpose of this research is not to argue the issue: Who is against and who is in favor of marijuana decriminalization in Brazil , Is simply to score some relevant topics on both sides.

Here in the state of Espírito Santo [69] or psychiatrist LIMA [70] is a renowned professional in the area of ​​addiction recovery center, and has more than thirty (30) years of experience in psychiatry, and is one of the advocates that marijuana should not be legalized in Brazil. Here’s what he said in his book he wrote about various drugs:

[…] some groups, under the inadmissible justification of reducing the violence of drug trafficking, have proposed the decriminalization of marijuana. […].

In attempting to legalize marijuana, many untruths spread to try to manipulate public opinion and garner sympathy for their cause, according to LIMA (2011: 34).

This specialist in drug treatment strongly supports his view of the position on being against marijuana legalization in this country, because of some reports that the professional wrote in a book released in the past very recently, to be precise, was In the year 2011. Look what he reported:

[…] the growth of the marijuana trade would make society even more insecure. A simple turn in the block would have unpredictable consequences; We would be at the mercy of divine mercy alone.

Just imagine that drug being freely consumed, which would immediately raise several issues: Ever imagine a part of the drivers driving under the effect of marijuana?

The traffic would slow down, the accidents would follow one another; Accidents involving motorcycles and run-ins. (Lima, 2011, p.35).

Marijuana has recently been released for recreational and medicinal purposes in a neighboring country of Brazil, where we are talking about Uruguay [71], there the Marijuana is legalized. Here is one of the excerpts from the condition of being a legal marijuana consumer in that country:

Uruguay marijuana has been released since the end of the year two thousand and thirteen, in that country the state has full control of the importation, production, purchase, for any title, storage, commercialization and distribution of marijuana and its derivatives. All individuals over the age of eighteen years of that country or foreigners who have residences in Uruguay, these persons can obtain an official registry of the state, which they declare that they are consumers for recreational or medical use, they can buy marijuana in authorized trades. (BBC).

Taking into account that the population of Uruguay that is only 3.3 million inhabitants, that is, has fewer inhabitants than the State of Espírito Santo, this is one of the key factors for Uruguay to have the domain of total control About marijuana. Of course, in that country control is efficient because there are few people who consume the drug, some experts talk about 150,000 people who use marijuana daily.

The importance of this discussion is very great, since the immensity of different opinions here in Brazil does not have any size, taking into account the number of inhabitants in our country. Because our population is almost 205 million people, according to population estimates presented by IBGE [72], there are many people, there is no way Compare the ideals of the conscience of the inhabitants of Uruguay with the Brazilian citizens in relation right with the subject of the legalization of marijuana.

8. Final considerations

We are convinced of this research has brought us the idea of ​​how great the importance of this controversial issue is the : Decriminalization of marijuana in Brazil. The object of this study is very complex, since it involves several antagonistic opinions, and that later it may be that it gains even more attention from the public administration of our country. At the moment the politicians that integrate the government are not interested in putting in guidelines the beginning of the discussions that could take in the plenary of the National Congress the subject of this research in the future.

Certainly, this research was not the concrete object of mentioning our personal positions on who is in favor or who is against the legalization of marijuana in Brazil, considering that some members of this research are in favor and others against legalization Of marijuana in our country. However, these individual thoughts were not taken into account for the accomplishment of this analysis in which we arrived, that is, the opinion of any member of the group was questioned in the course of the mentioned explanations in this research.

We have done enough so that we can be very clear in the course of this content so that the understanding of all the readers was clarified in an objective way, since, the subject is very important and of different opinions, for sure, we hope that we have reached the interest of all .

REFERENCES:

Unknown author. Sketch of academic work [personal message]. Message received by & lt; [email protected]> On Mar 15. 2016.

BBC Brasil. Uruguay: See how the production and sale of marijuana will work. Available at: Legalization of marijuana in Uruguay . Available at Motion on the go . P, 123 and 124. São Paulo, 2013.

Regional Council of Medicine of the State of Espírito Santo. Vicente de Paulo Ramatis Lima. Available in: tp: //www.crmes.org.br/index.php? MedicosName = vicente + ramatis + lima & amp; medicosCRM = & medicosUF = ES & medicosSituacao = & amp;

MedicosTipoInscricao = & amp; doctorsSpeciality = & doctorsAreaActuation = & amp; captcha =

HZK355 & searchFetched = true & option = com_medicos # searchMedicos & gt ;.

Accessed on: 07 jun. 2016.

Official Gazette of the Union. Resolution 66 of ANIVSA. working document. Available at: < http: //portal.anvisa.gov.br/wps/wcm/connect/ca877e004c1cfcfea649f629f3404e01/49+-+RDC+n+66-2016.pdf? MOD = AJPERES & gt ;. Accessed on: 27 May. 2016. Feitoria has. Royal hemp factory . Available at: Population Estimates . Available at: Anti-drug law revoked in 2006 . Available at: and No. 8,080, 1990. Working Paper . Available at: Anti-drug law . Available at: Social trap . Victory. Ed. Of the author, 2011, p. 34-35.

Medicinanet. International Code of Diseases . Available at: STF releases Marijuana March . Working Document. Available in:

. Accessed on: 27 May. 2016.

ROSA, Pablo Ornelas. Drugs and neoliberal governmentality: A genealogy of harm reduction . Insular Publishing House, 2014.

Your search. Military dictatorship in Brazil . Available at: . Population of Uruguay . Available at: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Available at: [1] Academic of the bachelor’s degree course in Law at Serra Law School;

[2] Academic of the bachelor’s degree course in Law at Serra Law School;

[3] Academic of the bachelor’s degree course in Law at Serra Law School;

[4] A student of the law degree course at Serra Law School;

[5] Bachelor’s degree student in Law at Serra Law School;

[6] Administrator. Postgraduate in International Logistics. Academic of the course of bachelor in Law of the Faculty of Law of Serra.

[7] Full Professor of Criminal Law I and II at Serra Law School.

[8] Cannabis sativa is a herbaceous plant in the Cannabis family, widely cultivated in many parts of the world. The main marketed product of the plant today is marijuana, which is classified as illegal in many countries of the world.

GUTEMBERG, Johannes (Birth date is not accurate, it is only said that he was born in the year 1398 and passed away on February 3, 1468. [9] ), Was a German inventor and graphic designer. He played a key role in the development of the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution and laid the material foundation for the modern knowledge-based economy and revolution of the Press.

[10] African continent.

[11] American Continent.

[12] Country located in South America.

[13] People born in Spain.

[14] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

[15] Drug Derived from Opium Poppy Plant, The use of opium chewing, which has spread in the East, causes euphoria, followed by sleepy sleep; Repeated use leads to habit, chemical dependency, and then physical and intellectual decay.

[16] Royal Hemp Flax Workshops functioned as a “Portuguese state”, relying on a large number of African slaves, and produced flax hemp, raw material for Candles and twines.

Rio Grande do Sul is a state of Brazil located in the South region.

[18] Pará is a state of Brazil located in the North region.

[19] Amazonas is a state of Brazil located in the North region.

[20] Maranhão is a state of Brazil located in the Northeast region.

Bahia is a state of Brazil located in the Northeast region.

Rio de Janeiro is a state of Brazil located in the Southeast region.

[23] Angola smoke was the drug of African slaves, now known as marijuana.

[24] Pango dick was marijuana itself at the time.

[25] The International Opium Conference was the first international drug control treaty.

[26] The Hague is a city located in the country of the Netherlands.

[27] Law 11,343 of 2006 is the current anti-drug law.

[28] Law revoked nº 6.368 of 1976 on 08/23/2006 by Law 11.343 of 2006.

[29] Art. 12, §1, I, II, §2, I and II of revoked Law 6738 of 1976.

[30] Article 33 caput, of law 11.343 of 2006.

[31] Art. 16 of the repealed Law 6,368 of 1976.

[32] Period of Brazilian policy in which the military ruled Brazil. This period goes from 1964 to 1985.

[33] General of the Brazilian Army and President of the Federative Republic of Brazil from 1974 to 1979.

[34] Article 28, I, II and III of Law 11,343 of 2006.

[35] International Classification of Diseases.

[36] World Health Organization, is a specialized health agency, founded on April 7, 1948 and subordinate to the United Nations. Its headquarters are in Geneva, Switzerland.

[37] ICD 10 provides codes related to the classification of diseases and a wide variety of signs, symptoms, abnormal aspects, complaints, social circumstances and external causes For injury or illness. Each health status is assigned a unique category to which a CID code 10 corresponds.

[38] Art. 28, §§ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, I, and II, paragraph 7 of Law 11,343 of 2006.

[39] Art. 74 of Law 11.343 of 2006, indirect citation.

[40] It is a municipality under a special regime, that is to say, a regulatory agency characterized by administrative independence, a certain Regulatory Agency has a field of activity not a Specific sector of the economy, but all sectors related to products and services that may affect the health of the Brazilian population. Its competence covers both health regulation and economic regulation of the market.

[41] Substance that is derived from marijuana, these products are found in marijuana, which are currently released in Brazil for medical purposes.

[42] Substance that is derived from marijuana, these products are found in marijuana, which are currently released in Brazil for medical purposes.

[43] Unique System of Health, system that manages the public health sector of Brazil.

[44] Article 4, Paragraph 1 of Law 8.080 of 1990.

[45] Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988.

[46] Art. 196 of the 1988 CF.

[47] DA SILVA JUNIOR, Jarbas Barbosa is the CEO of ANVISA.

[48] Resolution of the Board of Directors of ANVISA is a board of professionals very knowledgeable about the subject, which discusses and creates standards for certain activities without specific legislation , Or in very specific cases.

[49] Art. 61, §1, I and II of Resolution 66 of ANVISA published on March 21, 2016 in the Federal Official Gazette.

[50] CARNEIRO, Henrique is a writer and professor at the University of São Paulo.

[51] São Paulo Museum of Art.

[52] Supreme Federal Court.

[53] National Conference of Bishops of Brazil.

[54] Arguement for Non-compliance with Fundamental Precept, action that can only be filed in the STF.

[55] The Attorney General’s Office (PGR) is the administrative headquarters of the Federal Public Ministry (MPF) and is located in the federal capital, in Brasília .

[56] Art. 287 of the CP: Publicly make an apology for a criminal or a crime.

[57] Brazilian Penal Code, DECREE-LAW 2,848 of 1940.

[58] DE MELLO, Celso is Minister of STF.

[59] FUX, Luiz is a STF minister.

[60] LÚCIA, Carmem is the STF Minister.

[61] Capital of Minas Gerais, State of the Southeast Region of Brazil.

[62] LEWANDOWSKI, Ricardo is a STF Minister.

[63] It means that it is the oldest member of all STF Ministers.

[64] BRITTO Ayres is a former STF minister, who retired compulsorily on November 18, 2012.

[65] GRACIE, Ellen is a former STF minister, retired on August 8, 2011.

[66] AURÉLIO MELLO, Marco is a STF Minister.

[67] PELUSO, Antônio Cesar is a former STF minister, retired on August 31, 2012.

[68] Origin or Provenance.

[69] State of southeastern Brazil.

[70] LIMA, Vicente de Paulo Ramatis is a psychiatrist from Espírito Santo.

[71] Country that is located in South America.

[72] Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics.