Daniel Marçal: “It is illogical and inhumane to prohibit the use of the most versatile plant known”

Daniel Marçal achieved the feat of, with just 23 signatures, put the Assembly of the Republic (AR) to discuss whether or not self-cultivation of cannabis for personal use is an “inalienable human right”. Its reasoning, with 280 pages, will be analyzed today, at 14 pm, at the Health Committee, where Daniel will have the opportunity to explain to the deputies why access to cannabis is a fundamental right and its prohibition is unconstitutional.

The 1st petitioner guarantees that he spent two years preparing the entire text that supports the petition, including more than 40 pages of bibliography. “Cannabis: Foundations for the solution of a social problem”  is a 280 page document, of which only 40 are references and bibliography.

CannaReporter interviewed Daniel Marçal, to better understand his journey and how he got to Parliament.

Born in Porto and an activist since high school, Daniel has always been concerned about the environment and sustainable development, which led him to found SOP (Salvando O Planeta) and, later, to study Environmental Engineering at the University of Aveiro. . He finished his degree in the UK, worked as an environmental consultant in Italy and returned to Portugal to do a Masters in Environmental Chemistry at the Faculty of Pharmacy of the University of Porto.

He then worked in environmental management and water quality, in England, and went to Colorado, in the United States of America, to produce aquaponics systems for the production of various plants, including cannabis. On his return to Portugal, in 2016, he was manager of an ornamental plant export company, but life changed his ways. The family's health problems, especially his father's, demanded a lot of him and his time and Daniel became unemployed. He decided, then, to dedicate himself body and soul to this petition. It took two years to complete the document that the AR will assess today.

What led you to make this petition and what is the main objective in taking it to Parliament?

There are two fundamental reasons. First, the fact that I lived in Colorado in the year of legalization and the following years and observed all the social and scientific dynamics around the plant and the indisputable advantages that this brought to patients, consumers and society in general. When I returned to Portugal, talking about it openly, he was ostracized and called a “drugged”, making the “drug apology”, and I found myself in a situation of exclusion, largely due to this. Second, the fact that my father was diagnosed with colon cancer and was advised by the doctor who accompanied him to undergo a treatment with cannabis oil, classifying all the information I provided as “dangerous” and “very far to be proven”. But what turned out to be dangerous was the "treatment" she advised... the evidence of the efficiency of cannabinoids in reducing and eliminating tumors is piling up and today it is indisputable to say that cannabinoids (THC included) are effective in the treatment and prevention of diseases. oncological diseases. As such, I was disgusted by the doctor's arrogance and lack of knowledge and even more by the result of the supposed treatment. The persecution to which I was subjected, along with my father's episode, the obvious lack of information and knowledge of people in general and even among activists and health professionals, led to the writing of the document. It is a gift to Portuguese society, which I offered in exchange for the contempt and suffering I went through.

In legislative terms, how do you justify the right to grow cannabis for any purpose as a fundamental right? 

I can summarize, but the answer is the petition itself, with its 280 pages, hundreds of references and a detailed analysis of the unconstitutionality of the current law. Basically, the right to health and well-being, equality, the preservation of cultural and environmental heritage, as well as economic development, are fundamental rights of citizenship, which are enshrined in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. The right to health and well-being is also enshrined in the Universal Charter of Human Rights, to which Portugal is a signatory. Now, the production and consumption of cannabis represents, for millions of people, a source of pleasure and well-being, for others it is an absolute clinical necessity, for culture it represents the revival of a very important part of history, which was simply eliminated from the General Culture. For the environment, it represents the solution to numerous problems and an ecological alternative to hundreds, or even thousands, of currently problematic products, for animal and human food, it is a super food with a positive environmental impact…

What advantages are there in self-cultivation?

Self-cultivation allows equal access to an essential good for many people. It is scandalous to think that - and this is just one among thousands of examples - a Multiple Sclerosis patient has to pay a real fortune and go through "a thousand and one" processes, just to be able to alleviate the symptoms of the disease, when he could do it in a different way. almost free of charge at home. For general consumers, clinical or recreational, as well as for food, self-cultivation allows cheap access to a product that is otherwise speculatively expensive. Self-cultivation also allows a choice and selection of plant varieties adapted to the needs (or pathology) of each one or to the use that people want to make of them, without having to be rich or criminals.

What needs to change in Portuguese law to guarantee access to cannabis? If self-cultivation is approved, should a plant limit be established?

Basically, the law needs a radical change. In my view, neither the number of plants nor the species should be limited, since, depending on the use, a consumer may need to have hundreds of plants. For example, someone who has the clinical need to consume one gram of oil per day will need about 100 grams of dried flowers for each day of treatment, which involves dozens of plants. On the other hand, someone who wants to consume food, such as juices, butter or cakes, for example, also needs a large amount of flowers or seeds, which, depending on the size, would require one plant (at least) per day. It seems absurd to me to limit the number of vines that each citizen can have, just as it would be absurd to limit citizens to certain grape varieties. The grapes that the vines produce can be eaten without having to be turned into wine or brandy… well, with cannabis it’s the same thing: we can eat the plant raw without having any psychotropic effect and there are thousands of different varieties for preferences and needs. many different. We are talking about a plant like the others, but with a unique potential. It cannot be prohibited, it is illogical and inhumane to prohibit and restrict the use of the most versatile plant known in the world.
_________________________________________________________________