Users need care, not fines
In Rio de Janeiro, a city council voted to fine those caught using illegal drugs in public spaces, advancing a measure its author frames as educational deterrence. The proposal passed swiftly and without public hearings, drawing immediate resistance from addiction specialists and city officials who question both its legal foundation and its capacity to address what they regard as a health crisis rather than a moral failing. The vote surfaces a tension as old as modern governance itself: whether punishment or care is the more humane — and effective — response to human suffering.
- A 30-10 council vote pushed forward a R$400 public drug-use fine before a single public hearing had been held, signaling speed over deliberation.
- Addiction experts and the city's own anti-drug secretary were blindsided by the vote, warning the fine has no precedent of success anywhere in the world.
- Legal scholars and municipal officials challenge whether Rio even holds the authority to impose such a penalty outside federal drug law and civil code.
- Left-wing councilors argue that without adequate treatment infrastructure — street clinics described as 'very precarious' — punishment only deepens vulnerability.
- The bill returns for a final vote next Thursday, carrying unresolved questions of legality, efficacy, and the city's fundamental philosophy toward addiction.
Rio de Janeiro's city council voted Thursday to impose a 400-real fine on anyone caught using illegal drugs in public, passing 30 to 10 without ever holding a public hearing. The bill's author, neurologist and PSL councilman Dr. Rogério Amorim, frames the measure as pedagogical — a signal to young people and their parents about the dangers of addiction. Repeat violations would carry doubling fines; minors' parents would be billed in their place; those unable to pay could perform six months of community service. Homeless individuals are explicitly exempted and directed toward treatment instead.
The proposal leaves significant practical gaps. It does not specify how agents would confirm a substance is illegal on the spot — Amorim suggests suspects would be taken to a police station for forensic testing before any fine is issued. But the deeper objections came from experts who were never consulted. Alexandre Machado Duque, a chemical dependency specialist and former member of Brazil's National Anti-Drug Council, said he knows of no successful model for this approach anywhere in the world, and doubts the city holds legal authority under civil law to regulate the matter at all. Rio's own municipal secretary of social assistance said she was unaware the bill was even being debated.
Physician and PSOL councilman Paulo Pinheiro, among the ten who voted against, argued that punishment without treatment infrastructure is not policy — it is abandonment. The ten dissenting votes came entirely from left-wing councilors favoring harm reduction and care over criminalization. The bill now faces a final debate next Thursday, where its legal standing and its vision of addiction — as moral failure or public health crisis — will be tested once more.
Rio de Janeiro's city council voted Thursday afternoon to impose a 400-real fine on anyone caught using illegal drugs in public spaces. The measure passed 30 to 10, moving forward despite having never been discussed in a public hearing. Dr. Rogério Amorim, a neurologist and right-wing councilman from the PSL party, authored the proposal. He argues the fine serves a pedagogical purpose—a way to educate young people and alert their parents to the dangers of addiction. For repeat offenders, the fine would double with each violation. Minors caught using drugs would see their parents or guardians billed instead. Those unable to pay could perform six months of community service with nonprofits designated by the city. The proposal explicitly exempts homeless people, directing them toward treatment programs rather than fines.
The text of the bill, however, leaves crucial questions unanswered. It does not explain how municipal agents would verify that a substance found on someone is actually an illegal drug. Amorim's response is straightforward: the person would be taken to a police station, where forensic testing would confirm the substance, and only then would the fine be issued. He frames this as offering solutions to public officials independent of existing criminal penalties. "I am a father of two children, ages five and eleven, and I know the danger drugs represent," Amorim said. "I recognize that drugs are a public health problem. But the fine can be a way to educate young people and alert parents."
Experts in addiction and public health pushed back immediately. Alexandre Machado Duque, a former member of Brazil's National Anti-Drug Council and a specialist in chemical dependency at PUC-Rio, expressed skepticism on two fronts: whether the fine would actually prevent addiction, and whether the city has legal authority to impose it. "Users need care, not fines," Duque said. "I don't know of successful experiences with this strategy anywhere in the world. I'm even surprised this proposal was voted on without experts being consulted. And I have doubts about its legality. Civil law does not give the city any authority to regulate this matter." Laura Carneiro, Rio's municipal secretary of social assistance and president of the Municipal Anti-Drug Council, said she was unaware the bill was even being debated. She echoed the legal concerns and stressed that fines, regardless of amount, will not solve the underlying problem. "Dependent users should be treated, referred to harm reduction programs and therapeutic communities," she said.
Paulo Pinheiro, a physician and PSOL councilman, voted against the measure. His objection centered on the absence of adequate treatment infrastructure. "A citizen cannot simply be fined," Pinheiro said. "Instead of being punished, the citizen should have proper structures to be treated in public institutions in the city. But the structure offered—street clinics, for example—is very precarious." The ten votes against the proposal came entirely from left-wing councilors: members of the PT and PSOL parties who favor prevention and harm reduction approaches over criminalization.
The bill now returns for final debate next Thursday. Its path forward remains uncertain. Beyond the substantive disagreement over drug policy, the measure faces potential legal challenges. Neither the federal drug code nor Rio's municipal authority clearly permits the city to fine drug users independently of criminal prosecution. Amorim's proposal attempts to create a parallel administrative penalty system, but legal scholars and city officials question whether that authority exists. The debate also reflects a deeper divide in Rio's politics: one camp sees drug use as a criminal and moral problem requiring deterrence; the other views it as a health crisis requiring treatment and support. For now, the proposal has cleared its first hurdle, but the controversy is far from settled.
Citas Notables
Users need care, not fines. I don't know of successful experiences with this strategy anywhere in the world.— Alexandre Machado Duque, former member of Brazil's National Anti-Drug Council
Fines, regardless of amount, will not solve the problem. Dependent users should be treated and referred to harm reduction programs and therapeutic communities.— Laura Carneiro, Rio's municipal secretary of social assistance
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would a fine for drug use on the street actually work as prevention? What's the theory?
Amorim believes it's educational—that the fine itself sends a message to young people and their parents about consequences. But that assumes people struggling with addiction are making rational cost-benefit calculations. Most addiction specialists say that's not how dependency works.
So the experts think this is just punishment dressed up as prevention?
Essentially, yes. They're saying if someone is using drugs in public, they likely need treatment, not a fine. A fine might actually push them further into informal economies or away from seeking help.
The bill didn't go through public hearings. Why does that matter?
It suggests the process was rushed. Experts in addiction and city officials who work on this daily weren't consulted. That's a red flag when you're making policy that affects vulnerable people.
What about the legal question? Can Rio even do this?
That's the real obstacle. The city's authority to fine drug users independently of criminal law is unclear. Civil law doesn't explicitly grant municipalities that power. It might get challenged in court before it ever gets enforced.
If it passes, who actually pays the fine?
If you're an adult, you do. If you're a minor, your parents do. And if you can't pay, you work six months in community service. But homeless people are exempt—they'd be sent to treatment instead, which is interesting because it suggests the author knows fines don't work for the most vulnerable.
So the real question is whether this becomes law or gets struck down?
That's one question. The bigger one is whether Rio will actually invest in the treatment infrastructure that experts say actually works. A fine is easy to implement. Treatment is expensive and requires sustained commitment.