认知自由与南非裸盖菇犯罪的合宪性

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW
Sebastian William Foster
{"title":"认知自由与南非裸盖菇犯罪的合宪性","authors":"Sebastian William Foster","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2023.2202875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The principle of cognitive liberty is assessed as a ground for challenging the constitutionality of the criminalisation of psilocybin mushrooms. To do so, s 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, is analysed, determining that s 12(2) is not a numerus clausa and is capable of enforcing further protections and/or entitlements, such as cognitive liberty. Further, it is suggested that the interpretation of s 12(2)(b) offers protection to both body and mind, and as such, also protecting the cognitive liberty right. Having established that the Constitution protects the right afforded by the principle cognitive liberty, it is deduced that the current criminalisation of psilocybin mushrooms – a means through which an individual may exercise their cognitive liberty rights – in terms of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and Medicines and Related Substances Act, conflict with the rights established in s 12 of the Constitution. A s 36 limitation of rights analysis is presented, detailing that the criminalisation of psilocybin mushrooms is not justifiable when the nature and importance of the limited right are weighed against the importance and purpose of the criminalisation. As such, this article concludes that the current criminalising legislation is not justifiable.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive liberty and the constitutionality of criminalising psilocybin mushrooms in South Africa\",\"authors\":\"Sebastian William Foster\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02587203.2023.2202875\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The principle of cognitive liberty is assessed as a ground for challenging the constitutionality of the criminalisation of psilocybin mushrooms. To do so, s 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, is analysed, determining that s 12(2) is not a numerus clausa and is capable of enforcing further protections and/or entitlements, such as cognitive liberty. Further, it is suggested that the interpretation of s 12(2)(b) offers protection to both body and mind, and as such, also protecting the cognitive liberty right. Having established that the Constitution protects the right afforded by the principle cognitive liberty, it is deduced that the current criminalisation of psilocybin mushrooms – a means through which an individual may exercise their cognitive liberty rights – in terms of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and Medicines and Related Substances Act, conflict with the rights established in s 12 of the Constitution. A s 36 limitation of rights analysis is presented, detailing that the criminalisation of psilocybin mushrooms is not justifiable when the nature and importance of the limited right are weighed against the importance and purpose of the criminalisation. As such, this article concludes that the current criminalising legislation is not justifiable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2023.2202875\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2023.2202875","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:认知自由原则被评估为挑战裸盖菇素定罪的合宪性的基础。为此,对1996年《南非共和国宪法》第12条进行了分析,确定第12(2)条不是多项条款,能够强制执行进一步的保护和/或权利,例如认知自由。此外,有人建议,对第12条第2款(b)项的解释既保护了身体也保护了精神,因此也保护了认知自由权。在确定《宪法》保护认知自由原则所提供的权利之后,可以推断,根据《毒品和毒品贩运法》和《药品和相关物质法》,目前将裸盖菇定为刑事犯罪——个人可以通过这种手段行使其认知自由权利——与《宪法》第12条规定的权利相冲突。提出了第36条权利限制分析,详细说明,当将有限权利的性质和重要性与定罪的重要性和目的进行权衡时,将psilocybin蘑菇定为刑事犯罪是不合理的。因此,本文的结论是,目前的刑事立法是不合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cognitive liberty and the constitutionality of criminalising psilocybin mushrooms in South Africa
Abstract The principle of cognitive liberty is assessed as a ground for challenging the constitutionality of the criminalisation of psilocybin mushrooms. To do so, s 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, is analysed, determining that s 12(2) is not a numerus clausa and is capable of enforcing further protections and/or entitlements, such as cognitive liberty. Further, it is suggested that the interpretation of s 12(2)(b) offers protection to both body and mind, and as such, also protecting the cognitive liberty right. Having established that the Constitution protects the right afforded by the principle cognitive liberty, it is deduced that the current criminalisation of psilocybin mushrooms – a means through which an individual may exercise their cognitive liberty rights – in terms of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and Medicines and Related Substances Act, conflict with the rights established in s 12 of the Constitution. A s 36 limitation of rights analysis is presented, detailing that the criminalisation of psilocybin mushrooms is not justifiable when the nature and importance of the limited right are weighed against the importance and purpose of the criminalisation. As such, this article concludes that the current criminalising legislation is not justifiable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
77.80%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信