Barroso denies “decriminalization” in STF drug trial

After the negative repercussions of the resumption of the drug trial, the president of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), minister Luís Roberto Barroso, responded this Monday (4) to some criticisms about the possible “decriminalization” of drugs. According to Barroso, the discussion aims to define the quantity necessary to classify drug possession for personal use and drug trafficking.

“There is no decriminalization of anything. It was Congress who decriminalized personal drug possession many years ago. What the Supreme Court will decide is what quantity should be considered to be treated as possession or treated as trafficking”, said Barroso after giving a master class at a university in São Paulo.

The Court will decide whether the penalties provided for those carrying drugs for personal use, which are already mild, should be considered unconstitutional and no longer valid, which could overturn the last legal constraint on the purchase of illicit substances. They will also define what quantity of marijuana should distinguish trafficking from possession.

The trial that was resumed last year, after almost 8 years of interruption, already has five votes in favor and only one against for the decriminalization of marijuana. In August, the analysis was suspended after minister André Mendonça requested a review of the process and at the end of the year he returned the action for the trial to resume.

Last week, the president of the STF announced the resumption of the trial for March 6th. Ministers Alexandre de Moraes, Edson Fachin, Gilmar Mendes (reporter of the action), Luís Roberto Barroso and Rosa Weber, retired minister and former president of the Court, have already voted in favor of releasing the drug. Only, Zanin has voted against it so far.

Barroso highlighted that the STF wants to define a rule that “applies to everyone”, but avoided talking about the “judicial activism” pointed out by parliamentarians who see the Supreme Court’s attitude as “interference in the competence of the legislature”.

“Without the Supreme Court having this definition, it is the police who make it. And what we see is that there is an extremely discriminatory criterion. What the Supreme Court wants to do is have a rule that applies to everyone”, added the minister.