Moilanen and Andersson: A myth that the world is moving towards legalization

11.03.2026 - There are other paths in drug policy than just harsh punishments or legalization. Accurate reforms can help people in addiction but at the same time resist commercial interests, write debaters.

In the Swedish drug debate, the claim is often repeated that Sweden is extreme, while the rest of the world is moving towards the legalization and decriminalization of drugs. It's a comfortable story for some, but it's not true.

The Drug Policy Centre’s new report "Drug Policy in Europe 2026" gives a different picture. Yes, some countries in Europe have taken steps towards legalization – with Germany being the most high-profile example, but even there they did not go as far as they first planned. The overall picture shows that a completely different development dominates – where drugs are still banned while people in addiction are met with care and support as the main reaction from society.

The United Kingdom is one example. The ten-year strategy "From Harm to Hope" focuses on prevention, treatment and targeted efforts against criminal networks – and explicitly states that decriminalization is rejected because it could increase its use. Under President Macron, France has prioritized efforts against drug trafficking, in parallel with support for people with addictions. Legalization? Decriminalization? Not relevant.

Italy under Prime Minister Meloni has rather tightened its legislation. In April 2025, the ban was extended to include industrial hemp with a low THC content – following concerns that products based on that type of cannabis created a grey area around cannabis sales for intoxication purposes.

In Germany, cannabis legalization was not at all what the government originally planned after facing resistance. Instead of a commercial market, it introduced limited home cultivation and non-profit cannabis clubs. The new government has signaled further restrictions, such as the extremely generous – and abused – system for prescribing cannabis on medical grounds. Slovenia has recently withdrawn a proposal for cannabis legalization.

Portugal, long held up as a model for decriminalization, today has a drug mortality rate that is 56 percent higher than the year before the reform. The head of the country's narcotics agency, which was involved in designing the 2001 reform, now says that "what we have today is not something to emulate".

If we look outside Europe, we see even clearer warning signs. Oregon decriminalized all drugs in 2020 – but recriminalized in 2024 after overt drug use and overdoses escalated. British Columbia announced at the beginning of the year that its attempts at decriminalization are ending. The state's premier, David Eby, has acknowledged in a statement that it was a mistake: "I was wrong about decriminalizing drugs and what effect it would have. It was not the right policy."

The most interesting thing is the development in countries that show that there is a third way – between extreme repression and legalization or decriminalization.

Norway opted out of decriminalization in 2021 but has now introduced a system where people with addiction receive care instead of punishment – while maintaining the ban on other uses. In the debate, reference was made to the preventive effects of the ban. Denmark has closed the cannabis­ sale on Pusher Street and has introduced stricter penalties for sales but exempts the most vulnerable from punishment for personal use.

In 2024, Estonia adopted a good Samaritan law that means that people who seek emergency help in the event of overdoses are not punished for minor drug possession. Latvia's interior minister has signaled support for the same line: "The goal is not to punish."

These examples show that it is not a question of choosing between harsh punishments and no consequences at all. It is about the right action for the right person at the right time.

Behind the legalization rhetoric are strong economic interests. The North American cannabis industry has established itself in Europe, using well-known strategies from the tobacco and alcohol industries. A central part of the strategy is to use "medical cannabis" as a door opener. By first establishing cannabis as medicine – often with significantly lower requirements for evidence than ordinary drugs – acceptance is built among the public and decision-makers. Then come the demands for broader legalization. The pattern has been repeated in state after state in the United States and is now visible in Europe. Of course, we should make use of the medical uses that also exist in cannabis, just as we do with other narcotic drugs, but the only reasonable thing is that it takes place within the same framework as all other drug management.

The Drug Policy Centre has previously put forward a number of reform ideas that can move us forward in the discussion. One is smarter sanctions – that society's reaction to minor drug offences is support and help if you have an established addiction, but where fines remain for others. Introducing a good Samaritan law, as many other countries have already done, is another. And we must realise that the basis is preventive work. The resources for local prevention work are a fraction of what they were just ten years ago – a major boost is needed here.

Legalization of cannabis is not about public health. It is about building a new market for an addictive substance. The image that the world is unequivocally moving towards the legalization of drugs is not a description of reality – it is a message that primarily serves the interests of the industry.

Peter Moilanen, Director of the Drug Policy Centre

Pierre Andersson, report author and policy advisor, Drug Policy Centre