Brazil Appeals Court Rules Drug Possession Not a Crime

dhcdavid

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Messages
777
Location
uk
Feature: Brazil Appeals Court Rules Drug Possession Not a Crime

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #538, 5/30/08

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/538/brazil_appeals_court_drug_possession_no_crime

At the end of March, a Brazilian appeals court in São Paulo declared that possession of drugs for personal use is not a criminal offense. Several lower courts had previously ruled in the same way, but the ruling from the São Paulo Justice Court's 6th Criminal Chamber marked the first time an appeals court there had found Brazil's drug law unconstitutional as it pertains to simple drug possession.

The ruling came in the case of Ronaldo Lopes, who was arrested with 7.7 grams of cocaine in three separate bags on the night before Carnival began in 2007. Lopes acknowledged that the drugs were his and said they were for his personal use. Lopes was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison as a drug trafficker. But the appeals court judges threw out the trafficking charge since it was based on an anonymous complaint. It then threw out the possession charge, saying it was unconstitutional.

In his opinion in the case, Judge José Henrique Rodrigues Torres said the law criminalizing drug possession for personal use was invalid because it violated the constitutional principles of harm (there is no harm to third parties), privacy (it is a personal choice), and equality (possessing alcohol is not a crime). "One cannot admit any state intervention, mainly repressive and of penal character, in the realm of personal choice, especially when it comes to legislating morality," he said.
The ruling applies only to Lopes, but can be used as a precedent in other court proceedings. There is no word yet on whether the Brazilian government will appeal.

The ruling comes nearly two years after Brazil changed its drug laws to depenalize -- but not decriminalize -- drug possession for personal use. Under that law, drug possession is still a criminal offense, but penalties are limited to fines, fees, education, and community service.

In his opinion, Torres cited earlier decisions by now retired Judge Maria Lúcia Karam, who told the Chronicle this week the appeals court decision was "praiseworthy" and "significant."

"The praiseworthy ruling by a Court of Appeals in São Paulo, proclaiming the unconstitutionality of the Brazilian law that criminalizes drug possession for personal use, is a remarkable moment in Brazil's judicial history," she said. "This is a decision of great significance. This is the first time a Brazilian appeals court has clearly stated that a law that criminalizes drug possession for personal use contradicts the Constitution and the international declarations of human rights. This is the first time that a Brazilian appeals court has clearly stated that drug possession for personal use is a behavior that matters only to the individual, to his or her privacy, and to his or her personal choices. This is the first time that a Brazilian appeals court has clearly stated that the state is not authorized to interfere within this sphere of privacy. This is the first time that a Brazilian appeals court has clearly stated that the individual shall be free to be and to do whatever he or she wants, while behaving in such a way that does not affect any rights of others," Karam said.

The decision should reverberate through the Brazilian courts, said Karam. "This is a real precedent, and it should encourage other Brazilian courts and judges to also accomplish their main mission, that is to guarantee liberty and all other fundamental rights of individuals, to actually respect the Constitution and the international declarations of human rights," she said.

"This is good news," agreed Luiz Paulo Guanabara, head of the Brazilian drug reform group Psicotropicus. "The 2006 drug law reform did away with prison sentences for people possessing illicit drugs for personal use, but under that law, drug users were still criminals who could be penalized by community service or fines and fees. This is an advance," he said.

"Amazing," said Martín Arangurí Soto, a graduate student in political science in São Paulo and Drug War Chronicle's Spanish and Portuguese translator. "The Justice Court of São Paulo is a very conservative court. It was among the ones that banned the marijuana marches at the beginning of this month," he noted. "Does this mean the marijuana march is on next year? They won't be able to argue that it is an 'apology for drug use,' because possessing for personal use is not a crime anymore."

Drug law reform is a work in process in Brazil, said Guanabara. "This is a timely decision because the new law is not carved in stone and must be amended to fit social reality. Now we have the chance to quit unjustly criminalizing people for consuming this or that substance or carrying illicit drugs for personal use."

One of the remaining issues to be resolved is what quantity of drugs is considered personal use, said Guanabara. "There is no set quantity to distinguish users from dealers," he explained. "This ruling is notable because the defendant was caught carrying more than seven grams of cocaine. If he had lived in a slum and been detained with that same amount he would have been considered a drug dealer and subjected to the same penalties as someone caught with 10 kilos of cocaine, which is one of the more irrational aspects of our drug laws."

Beyond the impact the ruling could have on the lives of drug users, it also shows how far Brazil has come, said Guanabara. "The drug policy discussion has reached the mainstream in Brazil," he said. "When Psicotropicus was created just a few years ago, the topic was taboo and people who spoke in favor of drug policy reform were regarded as lunatics or advocates against the 'indisputable' crime of possessing, using or selling the forbidden drugs."

 
Last edited:
US of course. I have been helping a friend of mine who is a professor at U of I in Illinois and she was doing this thing on the war on drugs and anti drug propaganda and it has really got me outraged about it lately LOL
 
luvaluvagirl, I thought you were referring to the good old U.S. of A. but didn't want to jump the gun and automatically assume that was the case :\

dhcdavid said:
At the end of March, a Brazilian appeals court in São Paulo declared that possession of drugs for personal use is not a criminal offense.

The ruling came in the case of Ronaldo Lopes, who was arrested with 7.7 grams of cocaine in three separate bags on the night before Carnival began in 2007.

I just think this is awesome, my fellow bluelighters!

I mean if you get caught with 7.7 grams of coke in the UK you're in trouble, in the U.S. you're in major trouble and in Brazil? Your case for trafficking not only gets thrown out on appeal but even the simple charge of possession (which the poor defendant feely admitted) is quashed as the judge declares that possession of drugs for personal isn't a criminial offense. Wow.

Let's watch closely and see where this one goes.

Any Brazilians here - or interested others - who know what's going on with all this these days in Brazil?
 
Last edited:
"In his opinion in the case, Judge José Henrique Rodrigues Torres said the law criminalizing drug possession for personal use was invalid because it violated the constitutional principles of harm (there is no harm to third parties), privacy (it is a personal choice), and equality (possessing alcohol is not a crime). "One cannot admit any state intervention, mainly repressive and of penal character, in the realm of personal choice, especially when it comes to legislating morality," he said."


wow an incredibly intelligent and decent stance from a judge. Too bad no judge in amercia would stand up like this and say something intelligent for once.
 
bhmoab1 said:
"In his opinion in the case, Judge José Henrique Rodrigues Torres said the law criminalizing drug possession for personal use was invalid because it violated the constitutional principles of harm (there is no harm to third parties), privacy (it is a personal choice), and equality (possessing alcohol is not a crime). "One cannot admit any state intervention, mainly repressive and of penal character, in the realm of personal choice, especially when it comes to legislating morality," he said."


wow an incredibly intelligent and decent stance from a judge. Too bad no judge in amercia would stand up like this and say something intelligent for once.


Hey, I'm trying to get one to say it.
I'm close.
The court said it's hesitant to recognize a property right not subject to governmental control.
The court's wrong - according to caselaw - and has no choice but to recognize this right, as it is both fundamental and unalienable.

I'm still working on it - I have a rough draft of my next motion here;
http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/9010.html

For the rest of the stuff related to the case,
http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/ - that's everything, my motions, the prosecution's reply briefs, the court's written opinion on my original motion (what 9010 challenges), etc...

For further discussion head over to the legal forum - there's a 12 page thread in there on my case.

This case could prove beneficial...
If possession for personal use is not malum in se - as the court claims (inherently wrong and/or evil) - then there is no way for the government to prevent distribution of one's private property whether or not it is for personal gain.

These are fundamental aspects of our property rights - possession and distribution.
 
It is a great thing for drug users everywhere when something like this happens. Maybe more countries in the region will see that this is a more sensible policy and it will spread. I just wish the USA would be more sensible. I don't expect anything like this in the US anytime soon, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I'd love to see this happen in Mexico. That would really freak out the US government.
 
Kalash said:
Hey, I'm trying to get one to say it.
I'm close.
The court said it's hesitant to recognize a property right not subject to governmental control.
The court's wrong - according to caselaw - and has no choice but to recognize this right, as it is both fundamental and unalienable.

I'm still working on it - I have a rough draft of my next motion here;
http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/9010.html

For the rest of the stuff related to the case,
http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/ - that's everything, my motions, the prosecution's reply briefs, the court's written opinion on my original motion (what 9010 challenges), etc...

For further discussion head over to the legal forum - there's a 12 page thread in there on my case.

This case could prove beneficial...
If possession for personal use is not malum in se - as the court claims (inherently wrong and/or evil) - then there is no way for the government to prevent distribution of one's private property whether or not it is for personal gain.

These are fundamental aspects of our property rights - possession and distribution.

But you got busted with thousands of pills of E, right? Thats a little different, buddy.
 
phrozen said:
I know where you got this from, but please provide a link in your OP.

The link's been there for over 12 hours now.

Apologies for being tardy :)
 
It's an interesting gesture.
In my opinion the courts are simply admitting that due to the violent crime through the nation, they cannot possibly handle simple possession cases.
Brazil is already having enough problems with prison riots and something like a civil war in Rio de Janeiro.
Perhaps this legislation is only a sign of the overcrowded judicial system in Brazil.
 
johanneschimpo said:
But you got busted with thousands of pills of E, right? Thats a little different, buddy.

Not quite.
It was less than 2000, unless you count the conspiracy charge - then there's another 3,000 I never saw nor touched...
The total conspiracy charge is under 5,000....


But it's not different...
If the possession of one's private property is a right...
Control of one's private property is a right...
And consensually contracting with one's property is a right...

How is it any different if one is in possession for personal use... or in possession for personal use as a commodity to trade for profit?

It's the same thing... The interstate commerce clause does not trump one's property rights.
The entire concept that "interstate commerce" gives Congress unlimited control over anything in/entering/pertaining to/affecting interstate commerce eliminates the entire bill of rights and the construct of the Constitution.

Rights > privileges
The interstate commerce clause is a PRIVILEGE granted to the government.
Property RIGHTS are inherent and unalienable.
Congress may not abrogate one's property rights.
Property rights assume control over one's property - to possess, use, and distribute freely - as one chooses - so long as that use, possession, or distribution do not impinge upon the rights of anyone else.

“That property which a man has honestly acquired he
retains full control of, subject to these limitations
: First, that he
shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not
mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that
if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to
control that use; and third, that whenver the public needs
require, the public may take it upon payment of due
compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW
YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Those are the only lawful limits on your property rights - so long as your property is acquired honestly; not through theft or extortion.

“All things are not the subject of property the sea, the air, and the like,
cannot be appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive
right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are
excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is
plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right,
can have any, claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing
of them as, he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right
to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to
dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving
them away to any other person
, without any consideration, or even
throwing them away. Rutherf. Inst. 20; Domat, liv. prel. tit. 3; Poth. Des
Choses; 18 Vin. Ab. 63; 7 Com. Dig. 175; Com. Dig. Biens. See also 2 B. &
C. 281; S. C. 9 E. C. L. R. 87; 3 D. & R. 394; 9 B. & C. 396; S. C. 17 E. C.
L. R. 404; 1 C. & M. 39; 4 Call, 472; 18 Ves. 193; 6 Bing. 630.”
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/property)
Those are your property RIGHTS...
Not your limited property privileges that the state may take away at will.


The CSA, therefore, defines CRIMINAL ACTS the government MUST commit against people exercising their rights to their private property.
U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 1 § 1951
“(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or
obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of
another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or
violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or
property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or
property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his
company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from
another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or
threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right”

If one possesses drugs, the government comes in and takes the drugs from him claiming they have a right to use force to make you part with your private property.
This is robbery. Armed robbery, generally... combined with breaking and entering 99% of the time.

Extortion is when you cut a deal with a cop - give them your joint and they'll let you off with a verbal warning.

These things are CRIMES.
Congress cannot empower ANYONE to commit crimes.
Criminal acts cannot be licensed and permitted.
Imagine Congress creating a license to rob banks.
It isn't within their power.

“Here we are concerned with neither eavesdroppers nor
thieves. Nor are we concerned with the acts of private
individuals. . . We are concerned only with the acts of federal
agents whose powers are limited and controlled by the
Constitution of the United States.
The Eighteenth Amendment has not, in terms,
empowered Congress to authorize anyone to violate the
criminal laws of a State. And Congress has never purported
to do so. Compare Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9. The terms of
appointment of federal prohibition agents do not purport to
confer upon them authority to violate any criminal law.

Their superior officer, the Secretary of the Treasury, has not
instructed them to commit crime on behalf of the United States.
It may be assumed that the Attorney General of the United
States did not give any such instruction.” Olmstead v. United
States 277 U.S. 438

During prohibition, one had no right to OWN alcohol - as it had been devaluated from "property" into something else through due process (constitutional amendment.)

No Constitutional amendment has been created giving drugs this special status of not being property.
Ownership of drugs is not criminalized.

One may OWN drugs legally...
One may not possess that which he owns - according to this false law.

The law clearly defines the exercise of one's unalienable property rights as something which Congress has prohibited.
Congress has no such authority under the Constitution... The law is void ab initio and may be ignored with impunity.
 
I understand you don't want to go to prison, and I don't feel like reading all that law info you pasted, but you know you broke the god damn law, and you're going to have to deal with it.
It sucks, but you did it. Having less than 2000, or less than 5000 pills (like theres really much of a difference) could not be construed as "legal" or "not illegal" or whatever it is you're trying to say, in any stretch of the mind.
I wish you the best of luck, and I suppose you have to keep treading on, but you're not innocent. Deep down, you know you aren't. But thats alright, keep your game face on. Fight them to the death (not literally).
 
johanneschimpo said:
I understand you don't want to go to prison, and I don't feel like reading all that law info you pasted, but you know you broke the god damn law, and you're going to have to deal with it.
It sucks, but you did it. Having less than 2000, or less than 5000 pills (like theres really much of a difference) could not be construed as "legal" or "not illegal" or whatever it is you're trying to say, in any stretch of the mind.
I wish you the best of luck, and I suppose you have to keep treading on, but you're not innocent. Deep down, you know you aren't. But thats alright, keep your game face on. Fight them to the death (not literally).


If you believe the law is above basic human rights, then yes - you are correct. I deserve to be punished for breaking the infallible law.

If, however, human rights are superior to the law, then I am correct - and your desire to promote the LAW as some higher authority that cannot be questioned is seriously in error.

What am I guilty OF?
Breaking the law? Is the LAW some fundamental right that can be broken?
Who suffered because of my actions - that is seeking relief for my actions?

The state is an uninvolved 3rd party without standing.
No CRIME has been committed - except the crime of the government against me.

You should read the legal stuff.
The law, ironically, is on my side.
 
Top