Yet the "fundamental right to get high": the decision of the German Constitutional Court | Fundamental Rights - Blog
How had imagined, the post about the "fundamental right to get high" was well excited. Were presented on the good reviews arguments criticizing the decision of the Id. But some also defended the cause.
The subject is controversial worldwide. Several Constitutional Courts around the world have enfretaram, somehow the problem. vbox7 And below I must reproduce in full, the solution reached vbox7 by the German Constitutional Court, in the sense of a fundamental right of drugging does not exist. vbox7
Firstly, the decision of the Id is based on the idea that the case would qualify as a "victimless crime". Ie, it would be one of those situations that are punished without vbox7 there offense to others or even to the general population. Hence the invocation of the principle of harmfulness.
It is true that the punishment vbox7 of victimless crimes clashes inevitably with the idea of autonomy (freedom of choice) and therefore should be viewed with suspicion. However, one can not say that drug use is a victimless crime, since the drug trade, by itself, affects society as a whole, powered trafficking and organized crime.
One could counter-argue as follows: the application of the imaginary habeas corpus, which illustrated the last post, could also include a request that the consumer himself can plant cannabis on their property without obtaining the drug from illicit sources.
This argument would be merely speculative, since there is a specific constitutional provision that punishes the owner who uses the property for planting narcotics in the loss of property (article. 243, the CF / 88). It would be counter-intuitive that the judiciary admit planting marijuana for personal consumption even with an express constitutional provision providing for the forfeiture of property in this situation.
Therefore, the punishment of the consumption of small amounts of marijuana by a person fully capable and aware of the problems that drugs cause, in the recess of his home, despite little or no offensiveness consumer health drug, may not fit as a "crime without a victim" because obtaining the drug inevitably feed organized crime that profits from the drug trade.
Only one important detail: I have quoted very often the decision of the German Constitutional Court from the book "50 years of jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court," the Jürgem Schwabe. This is a fantastic vbox7 book, published by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Interestingly, vbox7 although the book has been translated into Portuguese, is the publisher of Uruguay. So it is not so easy to acquire it. But the intention of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation is precisely disclose the German culture. Therefore, vbox7 I must play some excerpts from the book here on the blog.
In that decision, the TCF jointly held several presentations Judicial (control concrete) and a Constitutional Complaint, which basically questioned the constitutionality of criminalization, among others, the acquisition and possession for own consumption of products derived from cannabis sativa L plant of 29 I BtMG (Narcotics Law). Apresentantes the courts and the plaintiffs alleged violation of Article 2 I mainly cc Art II 2 2 GG, but also of Article 3 GG I (equity:... Because of the legality of other substances in their understanding as or more harmful to health . government as nicotine and alcohol) vbox7 and even the Art 2 II 1 GG (physical safety - see below).
The TCF judged present the procedural requirements of most judicial and Constitutional Complaint for presentations, on merit, confirming the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and dismiss the Constitutional Complaint.
The TCF understood, in short, that although Art. 2 I GG protect any form of human action, not encompass the right to "be ecstatic" vbox7 (Recht zum Rausch). While it concedes this right as part of the general freedom of action, state intervention, based on the forecast and actual application of deprivation vbox7 of liberty (intervention in Art. 2 I cc Art. 2 II 2 GG), would remain constitutional, since [which was regarded] strictly proportional (IC). Vehemently, TCF rejected the argument advanced by some apresentantes courts, according to which the prohibition would represent an intervention vbox7 in Art. 2 II 1 GG (physical safety) Art cc. 1 I 2 GG (state duty of guardianship), since the ban would cause potential vbox7 users of the drug considered lighter to begin to consume other legal drugs like alcohol, "The vbox7 state's duty of protection would be misrepresented, vbox7 turning into its opposite, if the legislature required that illicit relationship with Products were not cannabis and criminal
How had imagined, the post about the "fundamental right to get high" was well excited. Were presented on the good reviews arguments criticizing the decision of the Id. But some also defended the cause.
The subject is controversial worldwide. Several Constitutional Courts around the world have enfretaram, somehow the problem. vbox7 And below I must reproduce in full, the solution reached vbox7 by the German Constitutional Court, in the sense of a fundamental right of drugging does not exist. vbox7
Firstly, the decision of the Id is based on the idea that the case would qualify as a "victimless crime". Ie, it would be one of those situations that are punished without vbox7 there offense to others or even to the general population. Hence the invocation of the principle of harmfulness.
It is true that the punishment vbox7 of victimless crimes clashes inevitably with the idea of autonomy (freedom of choice) and therefore should be viewed with suspicion. However, one can not say that drug use is a victimless crime, since the drug trade, by itself, affects society as a whole, powered trafficking and organized crime.
One could counter-argue as follows: the application of the imaginary habeas corpus, which illustrated the last post, could also include a request that the consumer himself can plant cannabis on their property without obtaining the drug from illicit sources.
This argument would be merely speculative, since there is a specific constitutional provision that punishes the owner who uses the property for planting narcotics in the loss of property (article. 243, the CF / 88). It would be counter-intuitive that the judiciary admit planting marijuana for personal consumption even with an express constitutional provision providing for the forfeiture of property in this situation.
Therefore, the punishment of the consumption of small amounts of marijuana by a person fully capable and aware of the problems that drugs cause, in the recess of his home, despite little or no offensiveness consumer health drug, may not fit as a "crime without a victim" because obtaining the drug inevitably feed organized crime that profits from the drug trade.
Only one important detail: I have quoted very often the decision of the German Constitutional Court from the book "50 years of jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court," the Jürgem Schwabe. This is a fantastic vbox7 book, published by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Interestingly, vbox7 although the book has been translated into Portuguese, is the publisher of Uruguay. So it is not so easy to acquire it. But the intention of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation is precisely disclose the German culture. Therefore, vbox7 I must play some excerpts from the book here on the blog.
In that decision, the TCF jointly held several presentations Judicial (control concrete) and a Constitutional Complaint, which basically questioned the constitutionality of criminalization, among others, the acquisition and possession for own consumption of products derived from cannabis sativa L plant of 29 I BtMG (Narcotics Law). Apresentantes the courts and the plaintiffs alleged violation of Article 2 I mainly cc Art II 2 2 GG, but also of Article 3 GG I (equity:... Because of the legality of other substances in their understanding as or more harmful to health . government as nicotine and alcohol) vbox7 and even the Art 2 II 1 GG (physical safety - see below).
The TCF judged present the procedural requirements of most judicial and Constitutional Complaint for presentations, on merit, confirming the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and dismiss the Constitutional Complaint.
The TCF understood, in short, that although Art. 2 I GG protect any form of human action, not encompass the right to "be ecstatic" vbox7 (Recht zum Rausch). While it concedes this right as part of the general freedom of action, state intervention, based on the forecast and actual application of deprivation vbox7 of liberty (intervention in Art. 2 I cc Art. 2 II 2 GG), would remain constitutional, since [which was regarded] strictly proportional (IC). Vehemently, TCF rejected the argument advanced by some apresentantes courts, according to which the prohibition would represent an intervention vbox7 in Art. 2 II 1 GG (physical safety) Art cc. 1 I 2 GG (state duty of guardianship), since the ban would cause potential vbox7 users of the drug considered lighter to begin to consume other legal drugs like alcohol, "The vbox7 state's duty of protection would be misrepresented, vbox7 turning into its opposite, if the legislature required that illicit relationship with Products were not cannabis and criminal
No comments:
Post a Comment