After the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) last year by which it empowers the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks (Cofepris) to issue permits for the recreational consumption of marijuana, said instance denies licenses directly, as can be seen in requests for information.
On July 15, 2021, the resolution of the ministers was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF), which indicates that “the legal obstacle is removed so that the Ministry of Health, through the competent body, authorizes in the future activities related to self-consumption of marijuana.
The resolution added that as long as the Congress of the Union does not legislate on the subject, as has happened until now, the Federal Health Secretariat (SSA), through Cofepris, must issue authorizations for the acquisition, planting, cultivation, harvesting, preparation, possession and transportation of marijuana.
For this, it was specified that Cofepris should issue “the guidelines, modalities for the acquisition of the seed and take all the necessary measures to give rise to the protected right.”
requests
In this context, an individual asked the Federal Commission, through information request 330007922001953, to report on the number of requests for recreational consumption that he had received since July 15, 2021 —date of publication in the DOF of the resolution of the SCJN—until March 8, 2022.
In response, the institution stated that it had found “2,133 free writs where the petitioners request health authorization to carry out activities related to self-consumption of cannabis for recreational or recreational purposes, which are in the process of being evaluated. Of the requests entered in the period, neither accepted nor rejected requests were found”.
However, in a subsequent request for information, with a response date of April 4, and with folio 330007922002882, Cofepris revealed that it had denied authorizing the permits.
He explained that the Executive Directorate for the Regulation of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Drugs and Chemical Substances of Cofepris “with regard to recreational use denied authorizations in all cases, based on the normative portions of articles 235, last paragraph, 237, 245, section I, 247, last paragraph, and 248 of the General Health Law”.
In the same response, it was announced that there would be cases in litigation in the Judicial Power of the Federation, although it specified that no information could be given in this regard.
Through litigation and derived from petitions filed in 2021, 61 authorization letters had been granted until February 22, as stated in the application with folio: 330007922000051.
In the resolution published in the DOF, the last paragraph of article 235 was invalidated, as well as the last paragraph of 247, both of the General Health Law.
In this same SCJN document it was stated that “articles 237, 245, section I, and implicitly, 248 (which expressly refers to section I of article 245) were modified in the reform published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on June 19, 2017.
“The reform consisted of eliminating from the prohibition provided for in article 237 the reference to cannabis sativa, indica and American, as well as eliminating the implicit prohibition provided for in article 248, by eliminating THC from section I, of article 245 ”.
omitted to provide data
The Economist asked Cofepris, from November 19, 2021, to provide information on the permits granted for the planting, cultivation, harvesting, preparation, possession and transport of cannabis, as well as the number of permits for recreational consumption granted and denied. from July 15, 2021 to the most updated data available.
However, after the application period had passed, no response was received from Cofepris. On February 23 of this year, the INAI decided to urge the institution to respond to the requested information. As of yesterday, May 10, no response had been received.
“The same as before”
Specialists consulted regretted that Cofepris denies the permits and recognized that after the SCJN’s declaration of unconstitutionality, obtaining the permit through judicial resources remained the same.
“Achieving the declaration of unconstitutionality was an uphill battle and it was achieved, so we thought that the participation of the Court in this issue of cannabis had ended, but the truth is that no, there is a mechanism called a complaint for non-compliance with the general declaration of unconstitutionality, which is what we are experiencing right now,” said Víctor Gutiérrez, a lawyer for Mexico United Against Crime (MUCD).
The expert indicated that previously people seeking a permit had to make their request, wait for the denial and then process an amparo that granted the permit.
“Now the path is like this: you make the request, they give you the refusal, a complaint is filed for non-compliance with the declaration of unconstitutionality and permission is granted, it is more or less the same; the very wear and tear of people doing paperwork before a complex bureaucracy (…) is a sad scenario. It is the same as before the declaration, ”she added.
On the other hand, he indicated that just to process the appointment before the commission it is necessary to enter the portal between midnight and 1:00 in the morning to see the possibility of a place being released and obtaining a space a week later.
Before the pandemic, appointments were not required to go to Cofepris, today (…) and at all green traffic lights and the return to normality, appointments continue to be requested,” he said.
He added that consumer licenses have more obstacles than other procedures. “If you want to open a pharmacy you will get your appointment today” in Cofepris.
For his part, Vidal Llerenas, a former federal deputy who promoted marijuana legislation in Mexico, indicated that Cofepris is obliged to establish a mechanism to grant permits. However, so far it has not issued them.
“Then there is the issue of consumption. The SCJN established a scheme so that people can consume through self-production, but the permission of Cofepris is necessary in the Court’s scheme, ”he indicated.