Research on the Perception of Brazilian Parliamentarians on Drug Policy
Seeking to qualify the public debate on drug policy and guide the actions of its members, the Brazilian Drug Policy Platform conducted a survey with the Federal Legislative Branch to map the opinions and perceptions of the congressmen on the current drug policy in the country. The questionnaire, given to deputies and senators whose mandate began in 2015, was not restricted to the debate on the legalization of drugs, but also evaluated the perception of parliamentarians on the impacts of the fight against drugs in the country.
The survey was conducted between June and September 2015, by Strategos - junior company of graduate students in Political Science of the University of Brasília (UNB), - experienced in surveys in the National Congress. 200 deputies and 34 senators participated in the survey. The general analysis of the data, however, does not show a very large gap between the opinions gathered between deputies and senators, being sufficient for the construction of a generic map of the position of the National Congress on the subject.
According to the poll, which was published in 2016, both the MPs and Senators consider themselves well informed about drug policy. Most of the parliamentarians of both houses consider having a very in-depth knowledge on the subject.
As for the evaluation of the legislators on the current Policy on Drugs, in the Chamber of Deputies there was a more critical assessment: more than two-thirds of the deputies consider it "bad" or "terrible." Most senators consider drug policy "regular." As in the Chamber of Deputies, the positive evaluation was also a minority within the Senate, making up a negative evaluation of drug policy in Congress.
Surprisingly, the criminalization of the drug user - present in current Brazilian criminal law - was not defended by most of the congressmen. Asked if the drug user should be criminalized, the vast majority of deputies replied that no. Among the senators, the criminalization of the drug user had even less support. In view of the more conservative profile presented by congressmen in other responses, it is possible that the negative evaluation of this question is explained by an understanding that drug use is no longer criminalized in Brazil, since possession of drugs for personal use is not punished with restriction of freedom. In other words, it is possible that the defense of the congressmen would be to maintain the current legislation. In both houses, a large number of lawmakers did not justify their opinion for the non-criminalization of the drug user, ranging from a quarter of the total in the House and a fifth in the Senate. Among those who provided some justification - the proportion of non-respondent exceeded 20% - the argument that most stood out is based on the user's conception as a victim or a patient who needs support - not punishment. With far fewer mentions, however, it was also argued that the state should repress trafficking (and not use) and that drug policy should be driven by the field of public health - not the penal system. It is also worth noting that in the Chamber a considerable number - about 12% - justified the defense of the non-criminalization of the drug user for not believing in damages to third parties related to the practice.
Parliamentarians were asked directly about issues related to marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug in Brazil and in the world. Most of the deputies were reluctant after being questioned about the possibility of regulating production and sale of this drug, making it therefore licit.
Two points should be highlighted. The term "legalization" itself was not used in the questionnaire, which may have increased the recruitment of parliamentarians to the "bench" in favor of ending the marijuana ban. Another figure, also detected in other questions, is the significant proportion of non-respondents: 21% in the House and 41% in the Senate.
Adherence of parliamentarians to medical or therapeutic use of marijuana was, as expected, much greater than that reported for general use regulation. This approval, however, has reached a staggering level: almost half of deputies support all therapeutic uses of marijuana.
In the Senate, the context was more favorable and reached almost all the senators. This support is expressive and demonstrates great sympathy among parliamentarians for this particular aspect of marijuana regulation, possibly sensitized by the articulation of the movements that claim authorization of the use of the CBD. Added to those who were receptive to the use of CBD (cannabidiol, one of the active principles of marijuana with more established therapeutic application in the medical literature), deputies sympathetic to the therapeutic use of marijuana reached a sluggish majority of more than 80% of the Chamber.
The parliamentarians of the two houses were largely in favor of a more active stance by Brazil in the international debate on drug policy. The proportion of senators who favored Brazilian activism in the international debate on drugs was slightly lower than that found in the Chamber.
To identify which aspects of drug policy are viewed as important for parliamentarians, a list of state actions was presented to which congressmen were invited to assign a scale of one to five, one (1) for no priority and five for very high priority. In the responses, four aspects were considered as high priority for the vast majority of Members: investment in treatment for dependents, education to prevent problematic use, increased penalties for traffickers and investment in social policies for drug users. The consensus among deputies was not seen in the issue of repression against users, which was considered as having no or little priority for 43% of respondents.
In this sequence of questions, deputies and senators have not maintained an identical pattern of answers, although, in general, there are some points in common. In the case of the House, the regulation of the production and trade of marijuana, with the purpose of collecting taxes, was the most consensually rejected statement. On the other hand, the specific treatment of policies for each type of drug has generated more controversy by dividing the house.
The assertion that adults should have the right to use drugs, even if this practice poses risks to them, was mostly refused in the Senate and Chamber of the Deputies. It is curious to note that the application of equivalent sentences for small and large traffickers, although not supported by the majority, had significant approval: 31% in the House and 38% in the Senate.
Two topics were rejected in the two legislative houses, in different proportions: the regulation of marijuana production and trade for tax collection, and the State's lack of accountability for the treatment of drug addiction. Again, the relevant percentages - 17% of the deputies and 9% of the senators - have shown some agreement with the right to use drugs by adults, forming a minority but stable parliamentary group that rejects the current prohibitionist model of drug policy.
Most deputies and senators believe that the state should invest in the public network - Health Unique System (HUS) - but also in private clinics and therapeutic communities. In the Chamber, 16% only defended care and treatment by the HUS, a proportion chosen by only 6% of senators. Priority support in the private network was small, reaching 8% in the House and 6% in the Senate. 86% of deputies were in favor of the idea of hospitalization as the best form of treatment for drug addiction. 7% of them do not see effectiveness in this procedure.
There are two more general conclusions from the survey data on the perception of parliamentarians on drug policy. The first is that the majority of Congress has a more conservative and resilient stance on drug policy changes, including advocating increased penalties for crimes related to it. On this point, it is important to remember that the resistance to reform of the current model is not exclusive to the Legislature. Just to cite an example, a survey conducted by the Association of Brazilian Magistrates (AMB) with Brazilian judges, from all branches and instances, found that more than 70% of them are in favor of increasing penalties for drug trafficking, a similar percentage to which it was verified for a question asked to the congressmen.
The second conclusion, more optimistic, shows that there is support among congressmen to change the wrong points of the current model, such as the criminalization of users, for example. There is also a willingness to change specific points of drug policy, such as permission to use marijuana for therapeutic purposes, which has received significant support from most of the two legislative houses.
