6th NordAN drug network meeting, December 5, 2024

Peter Moilanen, Narkotikapolitiskt Center, Sweden

Peter Moilanen's presentation focused on global and European developments in drug policy, with an emphasis on cannabis legalization trends. He began by explaining the dynamic and evolving nature of drug policy, likening it to a "moving target" as policies shift rapidly across regions. Peter highlighted the polarized approaches to cannabis regulation, with some countries legalizing cannabis while others maintain or even strengthen prohibitionist measures.

He provided an overview of the legal landscape, noting that cannabis legalization in Europe has been influenced by North American models, where several U.S. states and Canada have already legalized cannabis. However, European efforts differ significantly in scope and intent. Countries like Malta and Luxembourg have limited their legalization efforts to non-commercial activities, such as home-growing and cannabis clubs, while larger nations like Germany have initiated pilot programs for controlled cannabis sales.

Peter discussed challenges associated with legalization, citing examples from the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany. In the Netherlands, despite the longstanding tolerance of cannabis sales in coffee shops, the backdoor supply chain remains tied to illegal production, leading to criminal activity. Switzerland’s trials with regulated cannabis sales aim to improve public health outcomes by controlling THC levels and imposing age restrictions, but early evaluations show mixed results, with users dissatisfied with product limitations.

He pointed to broader international trends, including North America, where cannabis legalization has not met key objectives such as reducing youth usage or eliminating illegal markets. Similarly, Thailand's de facto cannabis legalization has faced public and political scrutiny, prompting discussions about re-criminalization. Peter emphasized that not all states in the U.S. are moving toward legalization; recent referendums in some states rejected cannabis legalization.

The presentation also covered decriminalization efforts, highlighting the case of Portugal. Initially celebrated for its sharp reduction in drug-related deaths after decriminalization in 2001, the country now faces rising mortality rates attributed to funding cuts for treatment and harm reduction programs. He stressed that successful decriminalization depends on comprehensive support systems rather than policy changes alone.

In his conclusion, Peter addressed the opposition to cannabis legalization in various European countries, including France and the UK, which continue to emphasize strict prohibition. He also mentioned new prevention-focused initiatives, which advocates for integrating preventive measures into drug policy.

Takeaway points:

• Cannabis legalization is rapidly evolving globally, but its implementation varies widely, often falling short of public health and safety goals.

• Successful drug decriminalization relies heavily on adequate funding for treatment, harm reduction, and prevention measures, as demonstrated by Portugal’s challenges.

• While some countries move toward legalization, others, like France and Japan, are reinforcing prohibitionist policies, highlighting global divisions in drug policy.

​​​Stig Erik Sørheim, Actis, Norway 

Stig Erik Sørheim provided a comprehensive analysis of Norway's recent debates and controversies surrounding drug policy reform, particularly focusing on the failed attempts at decriminalization. He began by outlining the historical backdrop, noting that the prior government had proposed shifting minor drug offenses from the justice sector to the health sector. While avoiding the term "decriminalization" initially, the proposed reform effectively sought to end punitive measures for drug use and possession. The establishment of a commission to draft implementation guidelines signified that the government had largely committed to this direction.

The commission recommended decriminalization, proposing that drug use remain illegal but without sanctions. Stig Erik highlighted the unprecedented nature of this approach, questioning the practical enforcement of laws that lack consequences. Critics raised concerns over the potential for increased drug use, diminished follow-up for youth, and challenges for law enforcement in prioritizing drug offenses under limited resources.

The political climate proved decisive in the reform's failure. The coalition government, lacking majority support, faced resistance from both the Progress Party and the Labour Party. Despite the rejection, Stig Erik noted a parliamentary consensus that individuals with substance use disorders should receive help rather than punishment. This led to the establishment of local drug advisory bodies, though their utilization has been minimal, raising questions about their efficacy and public perception of drug policy.

Stig Erik delved into the legal and operational ambiguities following the reform's rejection. A letter from higher prosecuting authorities in 2021 clarified that minor drug offenses were not serious crimes, limiting the use of forceful measures like searches and tests by police. This shift created significant tensions, with critics accusing police of operating illegally under previous practices. The ensuing public and political outcry sparked demands for resignations and compensation for alleged violations.

Despite the legislative stalemate, Stig Erik observed notable shifts in police and judicial practices. Police, deterred by potential legal repercussions, became less inclined to intervene in minor drug offenses. Courts adopted lenient sentencing for individuals with substance use disorders, reflecting a growing emphasis on health-oriented approaches. These developments, while unofficial, have effectively led to a de facto decriminalization, further complicating the legal landscape.

Recent political changes have further muddled the situation. The current government has proposed a prevention and treatment reform, with a second phase addressing legal issues expected next year. Stig Erik predicted that these reforms might align with recommendations from a newly established commission tasked with defining substance use disorders and reassessing proportionality in police actions. However, resistance from reform advocates and political divisions within the government cast uncertainty on the reform's future.

Stig Erik concluded by reflecting on the broader implications of Norway’s drug policy debates. He noted concerning trends, such as rising drug use among young adults and an increase in drug-related deaths, particularly from prescription medications. These challenges underscore the urgency for clear and effective policies. Nevertheless, he emphasized that the ongoing political and societal tensions make it difficult to predict the trajectory of Norway’s drug policy.

Takeaway points:

• Norway’s drug policy reform efforts have stalled, yet de facto decriminalization has emerged through shifts in policing and judicial practices.

• The lack of consensus on proportionality and enforcement has left local authorities and law enforcement uncertain about their roles in drug prevention.

• Rising drug use and related deaths highlight the critical need for clear, evidence-based policies that balance public health and legal enforcement.