First, President Rodrigo Chaves did so, proposing the decriminalization of marijuana in his 100-day speech. Then, Representative Ariel Robles of the Frente Amplio (Broad Front) proposed it, advocating for personal cultivation. At one point, there was even talk of settling the debate in a referendum.
This summarizes the most recent attempts to move toward decriminalizing marijuana and expanding its use permits. The problem is that all ideas have ended up buried. Political debate and local review have played their part, but added to this is the legal factor, especially external.
At the end of last year, when the constitutionality of the issue was consulted in the Fourth Chamber to put it to a referendum, the full court of judges ruled it unfeasible. They then pointed out the idea’s friction with some international mechanisms.
Added to this was the progress of the Frente Amplio proposal in Congress. Although the Legal Affairs Committee ultimately archived the case, the Attorney General’s Office was asked for its opinion during its debate.
In report PGR-OJ-070-2025, the body reiterated its substantive observations regarding the potential authorization of marijuana: international treaties differentiate regulations based on the plant’s use.
“The proposal could contradict the international instruments Costa Rica has signed, which allow the use of cannabis for certain medical and scientific purposes, but not its recreational production and consumption,” they argue. The report concludes that, in addition to the content of the regulations, the obstacle lies in the scope Costa Rica grants to international law.
“Legislators must take into consideration that this bill could compromise our country’s commitments to combating drugs. This could raise questions about its constitutionality, since Article 7 of the Political Constitution establishes that international treaties take precedence over national laws,” they summarize.
But what do international treaties say?
Both the Constitutional Court’s ruling and the PGR’s opinion list similar international instruments. Regarding marijuana, these are:
1. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1961
“This Convention also establishes that States Parties must adopt legislative and administrative measures to limit the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution, trade, use, and possession of narcotic drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes,” explains the Attorney General’s Office.
It makes direct reference to cannabis.
2. Vienna Convention on Psychotropic Substances
This convention divides different substances into several lists based on their effects, addiction, and uses. In recent years, cannabis’s medical uses have been recognized. However, controls are still suggested, such as:
The use of marijuana is limited to strictly controlled scientific and medical purposes.
Manufacture, trade, and possession are subject to special licensing or prior authorization.
A maximum amount allowed per person must be established.
Records must be kept under medical and scientific supervision.
3. UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
This requires countries to “cooperate to prevent illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances at the international level, adopting legislative and administrative measures to harmonize their laws with international treaties.”
In addition, it establishes that all acts of drug production, logistics, and marketing should be considered crimes. It adds a specific note on cannabis, regulating its possession and even the possession of production equipment.
In the end: science vs. individual rights
Beyond the review of international standards, the Attorney General’s study also includes observations on how to interpret the issue of marijuana from a local legal perspective. In this regard, they highlight that changes have occurred in regulations, but these do not obviate the repressive factor.
“Taking into account several factors such as scientific and medical advances in recent decades, combined with a better understanding of the plant species from which drugs are traditionally obtained—such as cannabis, its varieties, and derivatives—the aforementioned international instruments have enabled greater openness to authorizing its use for medical and scientific purposes, or at least the assessment of that possibility,” they point out.
Law 10113 is cited as an example, which in 2022 authorized medical cannabis and hemp for industrial use in Costa Rica. In contrast, other applications of marijuana, where legal control does exist, remain regulated.
This includes Law 8204, which “exclusively criminally punishes the production, distribution, and sale of cannabis. However, it does not consider consumption a crime, but rather an illness or disease that requires treatment and rehabilitation.”
A final note is made about the autonomy of individuals. While the latest bill sought to address production as a personal matter, it is emphasized that regulations are still in force even in this private sphere.
“The right to personality, which the bill supports, is related to the right of individuals to express themselves according to their wishes, as long as it does not violate public order regulations or contravene the aforementioned international treaties,” they concluded.
