Arguments to legalize weed often have a criminal-justice component. Some advocates maintain that outlawing marijuana results in unnecessary or excessive jail time for those who violate the law; the deputy director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws noted in U.S. News & World Report in 2012 that U.S. law enforcement had made over 22 million arrests for marijuana violations since 1965. The drug-policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in the same publication that the U.S. marijuana market provides Mexican drug cartels with approximately $1.5 billion a year. These arguments resonate beyond the United States; Uruguayan President Jose Mujica, who supported the legalization of marijuana in his country in 2013, cited the importance of disempowering drug traffickers. Others point out the inconsistency of prohibiting the use of marijuana while allowing alcohol and tobacco, despite the former arguably carrying no greater health risks than the latter. Still others reference the revenue that regulation of the marijuana market could bring to governments.

SMART decided to take a different tack, according to Andres Aguinaco, one of the group’s lawyers. In October, Aguinaco told Fusion that SMART’s strategy was “different from the overall legalization debate [in Mexico], which focuses on drug-war death tolls and disappearances.” Instead, “we’re arguing that the government is infringing on the constitutional doctrine of the free development of personality.”

This argument is fleshed out in a court document posted to SMART’s website, wherein the group makes the case that using marijuana is just one way for individuals to differentiate themselves from the rest of society, and that since the Mexican constitution protects the individual’s right to be unique and independent, the state cannot infringe upon that right when the consequences of marijuana consumption—be they positive or negative—only affect the individual who chooses to use the drug. “The imposition of a single standard of healthy living is not admissible in a liberal state, which bases its existence on the recognition of human uniqueness and independence,” the plaintiffs contended. Or, as Aguinaco explained to Fusion, “The state cannot prohibit you from eating a bunch of tacos because it’s bad for your health.”

Evidently, this argument was ultimately persuasive; Justice Olga Sanchez, voting in favor of the ruling, said, “This court recognized the reach of personal freedom.” Still, the Supreme Court’s decision does not legalize marijuana throughout Mexico. Far from it: The ruling only applies to the four plaintiffs, who are now, incredibly, the only people in a country of 125 million who can legally get high off pot. In order for marijuana to become legal, the Supreme Court would have to deliver similar rulings at least four more times—the process by which same-sex marriage was legalized in Mexico earlier this year, according to The Washington Post. The national legislature could also legalize marijuana of its own accord, if legislators so choose.