The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) of Mexico declared this Wednesday unconstitutional to penalize the possession of more than five grams of dopeunless it can be proven that it is not for personal consumption.
This day, during the session of the First Chamber of the SCJNthree of five ministers spoke out for the invalidity of a portion of article 478 of the General Health Law, which “allows the possession of less than five grams for personal consumption, but punishes with 10 months to three years in prison if it exceeds that amount”.
LOOK: The Supreme Court of Mexico overturns the ban on the recreational use of marijuana
The portion declared unconstitutional, only for cannabisis that of article 478 of the General Health Law referring to “in equal or less quantity than that provided for in it”.
This, by preventing the Public Ministry from determining “the non-exercise of criminal action in the case of a consumer of the narcotic cannabis sativa, who possesses for personal consumption an amount greater than 5 grams as the maximum dose” establishes a guidance table inserted in article 479 of the General Health Law.
LOOK: 5 questions about what changes in Mexico now that the law does not prohibit the recreational use of marijuana
Later, in a statement, the SCJN reported that this criterion derives from an amparo filed by a person who was ordered to stand trial for the aforementioned crime, under the hypothesis of simple possession of dope.
He pointed out that, dissatisfied with this decision, the defendant “promoted an indirect protection claim in which he claimed to be a consumer of said narcotic, He claimed the unconstitutionality of the articles analyzed and requested the application in his favor of the criteria issued by the Supreme Court on the recreational use of the aforementioned narcotic.”
In its sentence, the First Chamber of the SCJN estimated that “The punitive measure has no constitutional basis under the protection of public health.”
In addition, it pointed out that the criminal measure “is neither suitable nor necessary, since it is not justified in a legal right of criminal relevance, in addition to the existence of more adequate measures to guarantee the right to health in any case.”
He also argued that the measure “is disproportionate, since it generates minimal protection for collective values compared to the intense interference of the State in its greatest coercive force.
The First Chamber of the SCJN finally specified that this decision “does not imply the legalization of narcotics, nor the elimination of the criminal conduct of simple possession of narcotics provided for in article 477 of the General Health Law or the decriminalization of certain narcotic or psychotropic drugs as objects of crime.