Mexico's Supreme Court (SCJN) fell one vote short of declaring unconstitutional the 5-gram limit on marijuana possession under the General Health Law. While five justices supported the proposal, the six votes needed for a general ruling were not reached. The decision only applies to an individual case involving a person detained in Ciudad Juárez with 14 grams.
Mexico's Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) examined the constitutionality of a portion of Article 478 of the General Health Law, which excludes cannabis possession from criminal offense only for amounts equal to or less than 5 grams. The discussion stemmed from an individual amparo filed by a homeless person detained on February 7, 2021, in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. This individual carried 14 grams of marijuana, 9 grams over the legal limit, and was charged with narcomenudeo.
On proposal by Justice Giovanni Figueroa, the majority voted to remove the rigid limit for this specific case. They instructed the judge to assess objective circumstances such as time, place, manner, and quantity, as well as subjective ones like pharmacodependency or personal context, to determine if the marijuana was for personal use. The ruling is based on protecting rights like free development of personality, privacy, and individual health, without the limit safeguarding a relevant legal interest.
However, a general declaration of unconstitutionality was not achieved, as one vote short of the required six was reached. Opposing were Justices Estela Ríos, Sara Irene Herrerías, Lenia Batres, and Yasmín Esquivel. Justice Ríos argued that the right to free development is not absolute and that addiction impacts entire families. Justice Herrerías criticized that removing the limit would create legal insecurity and corruption risks, failing to ground theory in practice.
In favor voted President Justice Hugo Aguilar, Loretta Ortiz, Arístides Guerrero, and Irving Espinosa, along with rapporteur Figueroa. This resolution does not decriminalize cannabis possession generally but applies only to the individual case, avoiding excessive discretion in future rulings.
