TJ-SP authorizes domestic cultivation of cannabis for therapeutic purposes

Based on the principle of human dignity and the right to life and health, the 3rd Chamber of Criminal Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo granted a safe-conduct to a man to grow cannabis sativa for the extraction of cannabidiol oil, used in the medical treatment of your child.

123RFAuthorities are prevented from arresting the author of the action for the production of cannabis

By the decision, the authorities are prevented from arresting and proceeding with criminal prosecution for the artisanal production of cannabis and for the use according to medical prescription of the plant in question, and its seizure or destruction is also prohibited. In addition, the plantation will be monitored by the Civil Police, with regular visits to the beneficiary’s property.

The records show that the author’s son suffers from autism spectrum disorder and epilepsy, presenting aggressive dysfunctional behavior, which is why he uses cannabidiol oil, under medical prescription. Faced with the high cost of importing the drug, the father chose to grow cannabis sativa at home to extract the medicinal oil and, as there was no Anvisa regulation in this regard, he sought a safe-conduct through preventive Habeas Corpus.

The request had been denied in the first instance, but the TJ-SP unanimously reversed the decision. The appeal’s rapporteur, judge Jayme Walmer de Freitas, stated that the granting of the safe-conduct in this case meets the principle of human dignity and the right to life and health.

“The legislative omission to regulate the domestic cultivation of cannabis in situations such as the present does not go unnoticed, so that denying the patient’s child access to the drug would amount to a flagrant violation of the right to a healthy life. Therefore, the claim made finds justifiable resonance in the visualized panorama, deserving the acceptance of the claim”, he said.

According to the rapporteur, the right to cultivate cannabis is vital for the health of the patient’s child and, therefore, a possible denial of this claim means that the Judiciary “would agree with the precariousness of well-being demonstrated by that person, show one would be omitted, relegate the cure to its own fate, and endorse fear and neglect, adjectives that do not fit with the purpose of justice, which is to seek balance in all situations that are brought to it”.

Click here to read the judgement