A new article reveals how Brazilian states are discreetly but rapidly building a robust legal framework for cannabis legislation. The movement focused on access to plant-based medicines contrasts sharply with the request to postpone the deadline for delivering cultivation regulations by the federal government.

Lawyer Mauricio Barroso Júnior's study analyzed 20 laws, including state and district laws, approved from 2016 to 2024. Following the research, Santa Catarina and Bahia also approved state cannabis laws.

The research mapped a great normative diversity and a notable change in the political profile of the cause's advocates. The qualitative-quantitative study reveals that the movement has gained exponential strength. After the pioneering initiative of the Federal District in 2016, the pace accelerated with four new laws in 2022 and a peak of thirteen in 2023, showing the growing commitment of the legislative assemblies. The research did not analyze the functionality of the laws.

A Mosaic of Laws

The study highlights that there is no single model. The laws vary drastically in scope, creating a true regulatory mosaic throughout the country. Piauí, for example, has comprehensive legislation, being the only one to foresee the three main forms of access: supply by the Unified Health System (SUS), distribution via associations, and permission for domestic cultivation - linked to federal or judicial authorization.

Most laws, 17 out of 20, guarantee access via SUS. However, Alagoas, Paraíba, and Pernambuco focused on association and partnership models, without providing for direct dispensing by the public system.

Views on plant use also differ. Maranhão has the most comprehensive law, including medicinal, veterinary, scientific, educational, industrial, and cultivation uses. The Maranhão law innovates by including family, quilombola, and traditional agriculture with agroecological practices. In contrast, laws from the Federal District, Mato Grosso do Sul, and Roraima are more restrictive, focusing on just one purpose.

Barroso Júnior cites Maranhão as an example advancing the reparation agenda. "The text deals with hemp and its products applied to quilombola agriculture, indigenous agriculture," he explains. However, the researcher makes a caveat. "In the part of the document about free access, everything is vetoed. Several articles were cut from the final law," he explains.

For the lawyer, the analysis raises questions about the intention behind cannabis legislation. "I understand that these regulations had to come with a purpose of reparation because the economic power and potency of the cannabis market are indisputable," he states.

The Advantage of State Legislation

While states advance, national regulation for cultivation remains in limbo. The federal government asked the STJ for an additional 180 days to submit a proposal, while DNA Soluções, an entity part of the project, suggests a "regulatory sandbox".

In this vacuum, states that have already legislated are ahead. According to Barroso Júnior, these laws do not clash with the Union but complement it. "What are the States doing? They are bringing a complementary normative," he says. For the lawyer, this creates immediate legal support. "That state that, through a court decision, manages to apply its law, gets ahead."

The researcher concludes that the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) cannot ignore this state reality. "Anvisa cannot fail to look at the laws that are already being enacted in the states. And it has to connect with these existing regulations."

Right-wing Takes Center Stage in Cannabis Laws

Perhaps the most surprising data from the research is the breaking of a paradigm. Contrary to the common belief that the cannabis issue would be exclusive to the progressive field, the study reveals that political right-wing has been the main driving force behind these laws.

Although the proposal of projects was close - eight from the right, seven from the left, and five from the center - the approval by governors revealed a disparity. Right-wing governors sanctioned 13 of the laws, while left-wing and center governors sanctioned four and three, respectively. All proposals came from the Legislative Power, with no direct initiative from the state Executive.

"I think the right-wing legislator's pen is different from the left-wing legislator's ink," points out Mauricio Barroso Júnior. "I think they are different ways of thinking about the patient and the population," he concludes.