[6][7] The public defender argued consumption didn't constitute a crime, but the recourse was denied by the state attorney, and the case was brought to the Supreme Court on the federal level.

[7] In 2015, opening the case as rapporteur, minister Gilmar Mendes cast the initial vote in favor of decriminalization of possession of drugs for personal use.

[2] That is, Toffoli's position, previously considered a dissenting vote (as well as a "third interpretation"), was clarified to be an agreement with the rapporteur that the personal use of drugs does not constitute a crime (while still being illegal).

[2] Toffoli further considers that a strictly quantity-based distinction for personal use and trafficking might not be sufficient to deal with current issues of prejudice, but didn't offer an alternative.

[2] Fux and Lúcia followed Toffoli's reasoning that the law is not unconstitutional, but that it already doesn't criminalize possession or personal use, but instead considers them administrative illicit acts.

[2] Lúcia, on the other hand, argues that, while Congress doesn't pass legislation regulating a quantity distinguishing drug users and traffickers, the Supreme Court should determine the criteria.

[2] The rapporteur, minister Gilmar Mendes, emphasized that the Court is not legalizing any narcotics, and that personal drug use, even if not criminalized, will remain an illicit act – meaning it will still be punished, although not by prison time.

[3] The ministers decided that acquiring, storing, transporting or carrying cannabis for personal use does not constitute a crime, although it remains illegal, punishable by warnings on the negative effects of drug use and/or participation on socioeducational programs.