Seeking to qualify the public debate on drug policy and guide the actions of its members, the Brazilian drug policy Platform (PBPD) conducted a survey of the federal legislative power to map the opinions and perceptions of congressmen about the current drug policy in the country. The questionnaire, delivered to members and Senators whose mandate began in 2015, not restricted to the debate of legalizing drugs, but also assessed the perception of parliamentarians on the impact of the fight against drugs in the country.

The survey, done between June and September 2015, was conducted by the Strategos-junior enterprise of the graduate students in political science at the University of Brasilia (UNB),-experienced in polls in the National Congress. 200 members and 34 Senators participated in the survey. The general analysis of the data, however, shows no drift too large between the opinions collected between deputies and senators, enough to build a generic map of the positioning of the National Congress on the topic.

According to the research, which was published in 2016, by drug policy platform so members as Senators consider themselves knowledgeable about the drug policy. Most of the parliamentarians of the two houses is considered to have a very in-depth knowledge on the topic.

As legislators on the assessment on the current policy on Drugs, in the Chamber of Deputies there was a more critical assessment: more than two-thirds of the members to consider "bad" or "bad".  Most Senators consider drug policy "regular." As well as in the Chamber of Deputies, the positive assessment was also a minority in the Senate, setting up a negative evaluation of drug policy in Congress.

Surprisingly, the criminalization of drug user-provided for in the current brazilian criminal legislation – was not advocated by the majority of congressmen. Asked if the drug user should be criminalized, the vast majority of representatives answered no. Among the senators, the criminalization of drug user had even less support. On the more conservative profile presented by Congressmen in other responses, it is possible that the negative rating that question is explained by an understanding that the use of drugs is not criminalised in Brazil, because the possession of drugs for use people is punishable by restriction of freedom. In other words, it is possible that the defence of part of the congressmen would be maintaining the current law. In both houses, a large number of parliamentarians not justified your opinion for non-criminalization of drug user, ranging from a quarter of the total, in the Chamber, and a fifth, in the Senate. Among those who presented some justification – the proportion of parliamentarians who did not respond overcame 20% – the most outstanding argument is based on the design of the user as a victim or a patient who needs support-and not punishment. With much less indications, however, it was also argued that the State hold back the traffic (and not use) and that drug policy is guided by the field of public health — and not in the penal system. It is worth mentioning that in the House, a considerable number – about 12% – justified the defence of no criminalisation of drug user for not believing in third practice related damages.

The parliamentarians were asked directly about issues related to marijuana, the most consumed illicit drug in Brazil and in the world. The majority of members proved reticent after being questioned about the possibility of regulating the production and sale of this drug, making it therefore lawful.

Fit-out two points. The very term "legalization" was not used in the questionnaire, which may have increased the recruitment of parliamentarians to the "bench" in favour of the order of prohibition of marijuana. Other data, also detected in other questions, is the significant proportion of parliamentarians who did not answer: 21% in the House and 41% in the Senate.

Membership of the parliamentary medical or therapeutic use permission of marijuana was, as expected, much bigger than the established for the regulation of general use. This approval, however, reached a level surprising: almost half of Deputies supports all the therapeutic uses of marijuana.

In the Senate, the context was more favourable and reached almost all of the senators. This support is expressive and demonstrates a great deal of sympathy of parliamentarians to this specific aspect of the regulation of marijuana, possibly aware of the articulation of the movement claiming the authorization of use of the CBD. Added to that were receptive to the use of the CBD (cannabidiol, one of the active ingredients of marijuana with more consolidated therapeutic application in the medical literature), friendly members to the therapeutic use of marijuana reached a loose majority of more than 80% of the Camera.

The parliamentarians of the two houses were largely in favour of a more active posture of Brazil in the international debate on drug policy. The proportion of senators in favour of Brazilian activism in international debate about drugs was slightly lower than that found in the Chamber.

To identify which aspects of drug policy are seen as important for the parliamentarians, was presented with a list of State actions to which participants were asked to assign a scale of one to five, with 1 (one) to 5 (priority and nothing five) to very top priority. In response, four aspects were considered very priority for the vast majority of members: investment in treatment for dependents, education for prevention of problematic use, increased penalties for drug dealers and the investment in social policies for drug users. The consensus among the members was not observed only on the question about the repression against users, considered look nothing or little priority for 43% of the respondents.

In this sequence of questions, deputies and Senators don't have kept a similar pattern of responses, although, in General, there are some points in common. In the case of the Board, the regulation of the production and trade of cannabis, in order to raise taxes, was the assertion more widely rejected. The reverse side, the specific treatment of the policies for each type of drug has generated more controversy, splitting the House.

The statement that adults should have the right to use drugs, even though this practice requires them risks, was overwhelmingly rejected in the Senate and in the Chamber. Curious to note that equivalent sentences for small and big traffickers, although it has not received the support of the majority, had significant approval: 31% 38% in the Chamber and the Senate.

Two topics were driven in both legislative houses, in different proportions: the regulation of the production and sale of marijuana to tax collections and State accountability for the treatment of drug addiction. It should be noted, once again, the relevant percentages – 17% of Deputies and 9% of senators-who demonstrated some agreement with the right to use drugs for adults, forming a group of minority lawmakers, but stable, which rejects the current model prohibitionist drug policy.

The majority of members and Senators believes that the State must invest in public network-SUS (unified Health System)-but also in private clinics and therapeutic communities. In the House, 16% advocated only the care and treatment by SUS, proportion, chosen by only 6% of the senators. Support for priority on the private network was small, reaching 8% in the House and 6% in the Senate. 86% of members were in favour 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 data of the survey on the perception of parliamentarians about drug policy. The first is that the majority of Congress has a more conservative and resistant to changes in drug policy, defending, including increased penalties for crimes related to it. On this point, it is important to remember that resistance to reform of the current model is not exclusive of the legislative power. Just to quote one example, a survey by the Association of judges of Brazil (AMB) with Brazilian judges of all branches and instances, rose more than 70% of them is conducive to increased penalties for drug trafficking, similar to the percentage that goes to question the congressmen.

The second conclusion, more optimistic, shows that there is a support among congressmen to change misguided points of the current model, such as the criminalization of users, for example. There is also a provision to change drug policy-specific points, such as the use of marijuana for therapeutic purposes, which had significant support from the majority of the two legislative houses.

Source: http://pbpd.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Pesquisa-Congresso-Nacional-2.pdf