Projekt stanowiska Sejmu w sprawie o sygn. akt SK 55/13

When examining the constitutionality of the contested Article 62 para. 1 and Article 63 para. 1 of the Preventing Drug Addiction Act, the author assumed that those provisions do not directly interfere with the freedom of religious practice. Therefore, such provisions to the extent that they relate to cannabis other than fiber hemp, are not incompatible with Article 53 para. 1 and para. 2 of the Constitution. It was also considered that the contested provisions do not apply to the medical use of narcotic drugs and can not be assessed in the context of Article 68 of the Constitution. Moreover, it was noted that the objectives of the prohibitions set forth in the challenged provisions can be considered justified by the guarantee of healthcare derived from the Constitution, indicating the usefulness of the contested regulation because of the general requirements of prevention and the duty of adequate protection of constitutional values. It is also claimed that restriction of access to medicinal products cannot be regarded as inconsistent with the prohibition of degrading treatment, which means that the above mentioned provisions are in conformity with Article 40 of the Constitution.