8 ms·

Brazil's Supreme Court decriminalizes marijuana

163 points by meiraleal 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eru 2y ago
See https://archive.is/20240626025842/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-25/brazil-supreme-court-decriminalizes-marijuana-for-personal-use https://archive.is/20240626025842/https://www.bloomberg.com/... for the whole text. When I only read the headline at first, I thought: the object level decision sounds good, but I'm worried this went via the judges, not lawmakers. Funny enough, when I open the article, I see that Brazil's President of Senate had exactly the same complaint. Something curious from the article: > Brazilian drug law states that it is a crime to buy, keep, transport or bring drugs for personal use, in this case with a light penalty. Each judge can decide what quantity or amount of marijuana is consistent with personal use or drug trafficking. According to top judges that vote in favor of the decriminalization, this perception reinforces bias, especially against poor and Black people. I would like to see the original quote from the judge here. I doubt the original talked about 'Black people' the same way that (translated) phrase would be understood by an American audience. EDIT: https://www.dw.com/en/brazils-supreme-court-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession/a-69475215 https://www.dw.com/en/brazils-supreme-court-decriminalizes-m... gives the name of the judge. > Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes said these existing laws disproportionately harm "young people, especially Black people, who are treated as drug traffickers for possessing small amounts." So let's see if that's enough to dig up the original quote in Brazilian. Another update: https://www.poder360.com.br/justica/leia-frases-de-moraes-sobre-a-descriminalizacao-do-porte-de-maconha/ https://www.poder360.com.br/justica/leia-frases-de-moraes-so... has was it likely the source of the English phrase: > Ao defender sua posição, o magistrado escreveu, por exemplo, que “os jovens, em especial os negros (pretos e pardos), analfabetos, são considerados traficantes com quantidades bem menores de drogas (maconha ou cocaína) do que os maiores de 30 anos, brancos e portadores de curso superior”. The important bit here being 'negros (pretos e pardos)'. A literal translation for 'negros' would indeed by 'blacks', but I wonder what the exact connotations in Brazil are. Wikipedia has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Brazilians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Brazilians The whole article is interesting, but here's something relevant to US cultural influence: > According to Edward Telles,[22] three different systems related to "racial classification" along the White-Black continuum are used in Brazil.[23] The first is the Census System, which distinguishes three categories: branco (White), pardo, and preto.[23] The second is the popular social system that uses many different categories, including the ambiguous term moreno (literally meaning "tanned", "brunette", or "with an olive complexion").[24] The third is the Black movement, which distinguishes only two categories, summing up pardos and pretos ("blacks", lowercase) as negros ("Blacks", with capital initial), and putting all others as "whites".[25] More recently, the term afrodescendente has been adopted for use,[26] but it is restricted to very formal discourse, such as governmental or academic discussions, being viewed by some as a cultural imposition from the "politically correct speech" associated with the United States. > Sociologist Simon Schwartzman points out that to "substitute negro for preto, suppressing the pardo alternative would mean to impose unto Brazil a vision of the racial issue as a dichotomy, similar to that of the United States, which would not be true."[41]
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  >the object level decision sounds good, but I'm worried this went via the judges, not lawmakers. Some said the same about the US Supreme Court ending criminalization of gay marriage, but no one today has a problem with it other than actual homophobes. Court decisions often limit or strike down laws, but for some reason it's always a problem when doing so increases human rights. We should welcome more rights however they are earned. Many have had to be won through blood and destruction, I am thankful whenever that isn't necessary.
  - eru 2y ago
    > [...], but for some reason it's always a problem when doing so increases human rights. Huh, who says that? I just want, ideally, democratically elected lawmakers to make an actual law explicitly spelling out things. Because what a judge cobbles together, another judge can take away. (Yes, I know there's 'precedent' in some legal systems. But that just means that the next judge needs to come up with some reasons why her new case is sufficiently different. Not that hard.)
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      We, most unfortunately, don’t live in this ideal world. Occasionally, we luck out and reach consistency eventually from a policy perspective, with fits and starts along the way.
      - eru 2y ago
        Yes, I know that we can't all have a pony. Though some places' lawmakers still manage to make explicit rules on cases where it matters than some other places. (Btw, I'm not even talking about what rules I agree with or not. Eg Americans really like their state-owned mail service. So in that particular area, democracy is delivering what the people want, whether I like it or not.)
      - rayiner 2y ago
        What exactly is this “ideal world,” and how could it possibly be judged as such by any standard other than reflecting whatever the democratic polity wants?
Perenti 2y ago
I had a friend get charged with cultivation in 1982 for 200 female plants. His lawyer called in lots of witnesses that Geoff smoked a _lot_ of dope, and that it was for personal use. He also presented a petition with nearly half his village saying it was personal use, as he really smoked a _lot_ of dope. He also helped anyone with any task, and was a generally loved person, not a drug crazed maniac, but very very chill. He was fined for personal use. This was Australia, not Brazil, but Judges are supposed to use discretion. The only problem is when discretion is code for prejudice, not justice.
- lukevp 2y ago
  I’m not sure I get the point of this story. Is it that he was lying? 200 plants is ridiculous for personal use. Even 20 is ridiculous.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > 200 plants is ridiculous for personal use. Even 20 is ridiculous. Out of curiosity, why? (Not a big weed guy.)
    - lukevp 2y ago
      You can get over 16 oz of dried flower per plant if you grow outdoors in ideal conditions. Even with a super low final yield of only 1 oz per plant (this would be a beginner’s yield growing indoors, not someone with 200 plants), that would still be 200 oz of dried flower. 1 oz is like a year supply for an average person. I could see a heavy user getting through an ounce a month maybe? So this is still 10x what anyone would ever need, and that’s if you were a very inexperienced grower.
      - metachris 2y ago
        1ox seems like a year's supply for an average person. A really heavy smoker can consume up to several grams a day. Let's say 5 grams, that'd be 150g per month (5oz per month). Agree that it's hard to argue for 200 plants being personal use; 20 would be more realistic. For 200 plants, it's a big operation! Also, you can grow them in like 3-month cycles too.
vitorgrs 2y ago
It's worth to remind, in the current Brazilian legislation, is not a crime. There was a new drugs law in 2006, that was aiming exactly on "decriminalization", somewhat similar to what Portugal did a few years ago back then. It's considered only a misdemeanor to use drugs in Brazil. The thing is, in the law, it never says how much of a drug is a crime or not. So you can already guess what end up happening. The law in 2006 was so open, that what happened, was an increase of people arrested, and not a decrease. So in my opinion, this is a complete valid from Supreme Court, because there is a legal problem with how the lower courts are judging here. The decision from Supreme Court is actually because of a man that was convicted in São Paulo Court, with 3 grams (!). Fun fact: The 2006 law doesn't even mention which drug is a drug. It says that Anvisa (Brazil FDA) is that classify that. So if a President really want to make it LEGAL, they could just nominate liberal names on Anvisa, and suddenly, Anvisa could classify weed and other drugs as non-dangerous, and it would be legal to even sell it... Another fun fact: in 2000, by mistake, ANVISA removed a poppers drug (Chloroethane) from the drugs that was banned.... So for a few weeks, it was completely legal Chloroethane. And a guy end up being released from prison because of this!
mandibeet 2y ago
I think it is a major shift in drug policy in Brazil
andrewstuart 2y ago
Meanwhile in Australia there appears to be zero chance of marijuana being legalized any time in the future. So of course the young people who want to get high go to the bikies and get methamphetamine instead. The politicians don’t give a shit. Australia really is an incredibly conservative country.
- Tainnor 2y ago
  That's what we thought over in Germany. Then, against all odds, we got this weird centre-left-libertarian coalition government that can't agree on almost anything (especially not budgets), but one thing they could agree on was legalising marijuana (at least in part). You can never know what the future holds in store.
  - eru 2y ago
    Yes, though coalition governments, weird or otherwise, are much rarer in the Australian electoral system.
southernplaces7 2y ago
From what I've heard about the levels of police corruption and institutional incompetence in Brazil, i'll make a prediction based on what I've seen happen in Mexico (with similarly corrupt police and similarly inept institutions). The government decriminalizes the substance in some specified way, public platitudes are made about this widely known legal change, and police, on the streets, interacting with random people, continue to arrest them flagrantly for possession of any amount of marijuana out of sheer corrupt inertia until their victims cough up a bribe to avoid the tedious and sometimes dangerous process of being in custody and under blatantly false or at least ambiguously glued-up criminal charges. And so it goes, crap without end, Amen. Mexico didn't just decriminalize it either, the country's supreme court outright, definitively legalized recreational consumption and possession of marijuana in 2021, but because of a blend of dishonest law enforcement, state-level legal inertia and lack of clearly defined regulatory follow-through, and extremely ambiguous enforcement procedures, people, to this day, regularly get arrested and charged with possession, even of very small amounts. My main point: a media-friendly formal announcement of a certain new legal freedom in many countries (particularly developing countries with shitty, half-functional institutions) often widely fails to show meaningful improvements on the ground for years afterward.

163 points by meiraleal 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

eru 2y ago

See https://archive.is/20240626025842/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-25/brazil-supreme-court-decriminalizes-marijuana-for-personal-use https://archive.is/20240626025842/https://www.bloomberg.com/... for the whole text. When I only read the headline at first, I thought: the object level decision sounds good, but I'm worried this went via the judges, not lawmakers. Funny enough, when I open the article, I see that Brazil's President of Senate had exactly the same complaint. Something curious from the article: > Brazilian drug law states that it is a crime to buy, keep, transport or bring drugs for personal use, in this case with a light penalty. Each judge can decide what quantity or amount of marijuana is consistent with personal use or drug trafficking. According to top judges that vote in favor of the decriminalization, this perception reinforces bias, especially against poor and Black people. I would like to see the original quote from the judge here. I doubt the original talked about 'Black people' the same way that (translated) phrase would be understood by an American audience. EDIT: https://www.dw.com/en/brazils-supreme-court-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession/a-69475215 https://www.dw.com/en/brazils-supreme-court-decriminalizes-m... gives the name of the judge. > Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes said these existing laws disproportionately harm "young people, especially Black people, who are treated as drug traffickers for possessing small amounts." So let's see if that's enough to dig up the original quote in Brazilian. Another update: https://www.poder360.com.br/justica/leia-frases-de-moraes-sobre-a-descriminalizacao-do-porte-de-maconha/ https://www.poder360.com.br/justica/leia-frases-de-moraes-so... has was it likely the source of the English phrase: > Ao defender sua posição, o magistrado escreveu, por exemplo, que “os jovens, em especial os negros (pretos e pardos), analfabetos, são considerados traficantes com quantidades bem menores de drogas (maconha ou cocaína) do que os maiores de 30 anos, brancos e portadores de curso superior”. The important bit here being 'negros (pretos e pardos)'. A literal translation for 'negros' would indeed by 'blacks', but I wonder what the exact connotations in Brazil are. Wikipedia has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Brazilians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Brazilians The whole article is interesting, but here's something relevant to US cultural influence: > According to Edward Telles,[22] three different systems related to "racial classification" along the White-Black continuum are used in Brazil.[23] The first is the Census System, which distinguishes three categories: branco (White), pardo, and preto.[23] The second is the popular social system that uses many different categories, including the ambiguous term moreno (literally meaning "tanned", "brunette", or "with an olive complexion").[24] The third is the Black movement, which distinguishes only two categories, summing up pardos and pretos ("blacks", lowercase) as negros ("Blacks", with capital initial), and putting all others as "whites".[25] More recently, the term afrodescendente has been adopted for use,[26] but it is restricted to very formal discourse, such as governmental or academic discussions, being viewed by some as a cultural imposition from the "politically correct speech" associated with the United States. > Sociologist Simon Schwartzman points out that to "substitute negro for preto, suppressing the pardo alternative would mean to impose unto Brazil a vision of the racial issue as a dichotomy, similar to that of the United States, which would not be true."[41]

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
>the object level decision sounds good, but I'm worried this went via the judges, not lawmakers. Some said the same about the US Supreme Court ending criminalization of gay marriage, but no one today has a problem with it other than actual homophobes. Court decisions often limit or strike down laws, but for some reason it's always a problem when doing so increases human rights. We should welcome more rights however they are earned. Many have had to be won through blood and destruction, I am thankful whenever that isn't necessary.
- eru 2y ago
  > [...], but for some reason it's always a problem when doing so increases human rights. Huh, who says that? I just want, ideally, democratically elected lawmakers to make an actual law explicitly spelling out things. Because what a judge cobbles together, another judge can take away. (Yes, I know there's 'precedent' in some legal systems. But that just means that the next judge needs to come up with some reasons why her new case is sufficiently different. Not that hard.)
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    We, most unfortunately, don’t live in this ideal world. Occasionally, we luck out and reach consistency eventually from a policy perspective, with fits and starts along the way.
    - eru 2y ago
      Yes, I know that we can't all have a pony. Though some places' lawmakers still manage to make explicit rules on cases where it matters than some other places. (Btw, I'm not even talking about what rules I agree with or not. Eg Americans really like their state-owned mail service. So in that particular area, democracy is delivering what the people want, whether I like it or not.)
    - rayiner 2y ago
      What exactly is this “ideal world,” and how could it possibly be judged as such by any standard other than reflecting whatever the democratic polity wants?

Perenti 2y ago

I had a friend get charged with cultivation in 1982 for 200 female plants. His lawyer called in lots of witnesses that Geoff smoked a _lot_ of dope, and that it was for personal use. He also presented a petition with nearly half his village saying it was personal use, as he really smoked a _lot_ of dope. He also helped anyone with any task, and was a generally loved person, not a drug crazed maniac, but very very chill. He was fined for personal use. This was Australia, not Brazil, but Judges are supposed to use discretion. The only problem is when discretion is code for prejudice, not justice.

lukevp 2y ago
I’m not sure I get the point of this story. Is it that he was lying? 200 plants is ridiculous for personal use. Even 20 is ridiculous.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 200 plants is ridiculous for personal use. Even 20 is ridiculous. Out of curiosity, why? (Not a big weed guy.)
  - lukevp 2y ago
    You can get over 16 oz of dried flower per plant if you grow outdoors in ideal conditions. Even with a super low final yield of only 1 oz per plant (this would be a beginner’s yield growing indoors, not someone with 200 plants), that would still be 200 oz of dried flower. 1 oz is like a year supply for an average person. I could see a heavy user getting through an ounce a month maybe? So this is still 10x what anyone would ever need, and that’s if you were a very inexperienced grower.
    - metachris 2y ago
      1ox seems like a year's supply for an average person. A really heavy smoker can consume up to several grams a day. Let's say 5 grams, that'd be 150g per month (5oz per month). Agree that it's hard to argue for 200 plants being personal use; 20 would be more realistic. For 200 plants, it's a big operation! Also, you can grow them in like 3-month cycles too.

vitorgrs 2y ago

It's worth to remind, in the current Brazilian legislation, is not a crime. There was a new drugs law in 2006, that was aiming exactly on "decriminalization", somewhat similar to what Portugal did a few years ago back then. It's considered only a misdemeanor to use drugs in Brazil. The thing is, in the law, it never says how much of a drug is a crime or not. So you can already guess what end up happening. The law in 2006 was so open, that what happened, was an increase of people arrested, and not a decrease. So in my opinion, this is a complete valid from Supreme Court, because there is a legal problem with how the lower courts are judging here. The decision from Supreme Court is actually because of a man that was convicted in São Paulo Court, with 3 grams (!). Fun fact: The 2006 law doesn't even mention which drug is a drug. It says that Anvisa (Brazil FDA) is that classify that. So if a President really want to make it LEGAL, they could just nominate liberal names on Anvisa, and suddenly, Anvisa could classify weed and other drugs as non-dangerous, and it would be legal to even sell it... Another fun fact: in 2000, by mistake, ANVISA removed a poppers drug (Chloroethane) from the drugs that was banned.... So for a few weeks, it was completely legal Chloroethane. And a guy end up being released from prison because of this!

mandibeet 2y ago

I think it is a major shift in drug policy in Brazil

andrewstuart 2y ago

Meanwhile in Australia there appears to be zero chance of marijuana being legalized any time in the future. So of course the young people who want to get high go to the bikies and get methamphetamine instead. The politicians don’t give a shit. Australia really is an incredibly conservative country.

Tainnor 2y ago
That's what we thought over in Germany. Then, against all odds, we got this weird centre-left-libertarian coalition government that can't agree on almost anything (especially not budgets), but one thing they could agree on was legalising marijuana (at least in part). You can never know what the future holds in store.
- eru 2y ago
  Yes, though coalition governments, weird or otherwise, are much rarer in the Australian electoral system.

southernplaces7 2y ago

From what I've heard about the levels of police corruption and institutional incompetence in Brazil, i'll make a prediction based on what I've seen happen in Mexico (with similarly corrupt police and similarly inept institutions). The government decriminalizes the substance in some specified way, public platitudes are made about this widely known legal change, and police, on the streets, interacting with random people, continue to arrest them flagrantly for possession of any amount of marijuana out of sheer corrupt inertia until their victims cough up a bribe to avoid the tedious and sometimes dangerous process of being in custody and under blatantly false or at least ambiguously glued-up criminal charges. And so it goes, crap without end, Amen. Mexico didn't just decriminalize it either, the country's supreme court outright, definitively legalized recreational consumption and possession of marijuana in 2021, but because of a blend of dishonest law enforcement, state-level legal inertia and lack of clearly defined regulatory follow-through, and extremely ambiguous enforcement procedures, people, to this day, regularly get arrested and charged with possession, even of very small amounts. My main point: a media-friendly formal announcement of a certain new legal freedom in many countries (particularly developing countries with shitty, half-functional institutions) often widely fails to show meaningful improvements on the ground for years afterward.