Rapporter som föreslår en reglerad narkotikapolitik

Här följer ett urval av stora och betydelsefulla rapporter som föreslår en mer tillåtande narkotikapolitik eller belyser problemet med den nuvarande förbudspolitiken.

1943: La Guardia-kommitténs rapport (USA)

La Guardia-kommittén bildades 1939 av New Yorks borgmästare Fiorello La Guardia. New Yorks medicinska akademi framställde deras rapport som publicerades 1943[1]. Den granskar cannabisens effekter på samhället och kommer fram till några intressanta slutsatser:

  • Marihuana is used extensively in the Borough of Manhattan but the problem is not as acute as it is reported to be in other sections of the United States.
  • The introduction of marihuana into this area is recent as compared to other localities.
  • The cost of marihuana is low and therefore within the purchasing power of most persons.
  • The distribution and use of marihuana is centered in Harlem.
  • The majority of marihuana smokers are Negroes and Latin-Americans.
  • The consensus among marihuana smokers is that the use of the drug creates a definite feeling of adequacy.
  • The practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word.
  • The sale and distribution of marihuana is not under the control of any single organized group.
  • The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking.
  • Marihuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes.
  • Marihuana smoking is not widespread among school children.
  • Juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice of smoking marihuana.
  • The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded.

Man finner alltså inget bevis för inkörsportsteorin och menar att problemen inte är speciellt stora, speciellt inte på det sättet som målades upp av Harry Anslinger som medverkade till den repressiva lagstiftning och stod bakom förföljelsen av cannabisanvändarna i USA. Vidare så drar man några slutsatser om cannabis effekter på individen:

Under the influence of marihuana changes in personality as shown by alterations in test performance are slight. They are not statistically significant and indicate only tendencies or trends. Moreover, the drug effect is not always in proportion to the amount taken, nor are the changes consistently in one direction. In many instances the effect of small doses (2 cc.) or of marihuana cigarettes is the opposite of the effect of larger doses (5 cc.) (2)

(2) While sufficient experimentation has not been made to validate the finding, it should be noted that the personality changes produced by 2 cc. or marihuana cigarettes are almost always in agreement in contrast to the changes resulting from the ingestion of 5 cc. The 2 cc. Dosage apparently more nearly approximates the amount a person would take if left to his own devices.

The personality changes observed when the subject is under the influence of 2 cc. of marihuana or marihuana cigarettes demonstrate that the subject experiences some reduction in drive, less objectivity in evaluating situations, less aggression, more self-confidence and a generally more favorable attitude toward himself. These reactions can be ascribed to two main causes, namely, an increased feeling of relaxation and disinhibition and increased self-confidence. As the drug relaxes the subject, the restraints which he normally imposes on himself are loosened and he talks more freely than he does in his undrugged state. Things which under ordinary circumstances he would not speak about are now given expression. Metaphysical problems which in the undrugged state he would be unwilling to discuss, sexual ideas he would ordinarily hesitate to mention, jokes without point, are all part of the oral stream released by the marihuana.
— The LaGuardia Committee Report on Marihuana: Summary And Discussion[2]

1972: National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (USA)

I samband med att den amerikanska narkotikalagstiftningen "Controlled Substances Act" debatterades 1970 så fanns det olika syner på huruvida cannabis skulle klassas under grupp 1, den mest restriktiva klassningen, eller ej. Regeringen Nixon stod för den repressiva sidan. En kommission hade sammansatts för att kunna samla in och presentera fakta inför beslutsprocessen, ledaren var guvernören Raymond P. Shafer, därav det mer populära namnet "The Shafer Commission". Man intervjuade hundratals personer, allt från myndighetsföreträdare, politiker och domare till doktorer och andra experter. Rapporten med titeln "Marijuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding"[3] lägger fram en grundlig argumentation för att cannabis inte är speciellt farligt och att man borde satsa på skademinimerande åtgärder istället för fängelse. Som mest skulle cannabis kunna ge böter.

Några citat från rapporten:

No significant physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities could be attributed solely to their marihuana smoking.

...

Most users, young and old, demonstrate an average or above-average degree of social functioning,academic achievement, and job performance.

...

In sum, the weight of the evidence is that marihuana does not cause violent or aggressive behavior; if anything marihuana serves to inhibit the expression of such behavior.

...

Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety.

...

Marihuana’s relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it.

...

In short marihuana is not generally viewed by participants in the criminal justice community as a major contributing influence in the commission of delinquent or criminal acts.

...

The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance.

...

society should seek to discourage use, while concentrating its attention on the prevention and treatment of heavy and very heavy use. The Commission feels that the criminalization of possession of marihuana for personal use is socially self-defeating as a means of achieving this objective

...

Considering the range of social concerns in contemporary America, marihuana does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high. We would deemphasize marihuana as a problem.
— Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding[3]

Trots det tydliga budskapet så nådde inte meddelandet fram till presidenten Richard Nixons logiska sinne. Han var totalt låst i sin övertygelse om att man skulle sätta dit knarkarna, ju hårdare desto bättre. Han försökte under tiden kommissionen arbetade att påverka Shafer och menade att det var viktigt att slutresultatet skulle visa rätt budskap. När det inte lyckades och rapporten var ett faktum så beslutade han sig ändå för att gå vidare med sin egen ståndpunkt och inledde senare kriget mot droger[4][5][6].

1989: Research Advisory Panel (USA)

1989 så släpptes en rapport från en panel som på uppdrag av Kaliforniens delstats-justitieminister hade undersökt narkotikaproblemet och möjliga lösningar. I rapporten uppmanar man politikerna att genomföra en dekriminalisering av narkotikalagarna. Man anser att förbudet mot cannabis inte kan uppehållas av lagen för att bruket är för utbrett bland folket. Istället föreslår man några grundläggande ändringar:

För det första så måste man börja göra skillnad mellan olika droger baserat på skadorna från den enskilda drogen, lagliga som olagliga. Olika droger skapar olika former av sociala problem och fysiska skador, man kan inte klumpa ihop alla till en enda grupp. Man behöver även skilja mellan olika administreringsformer eftersom skadorna är annorlunda, exempelvis är kokainhydroklorid som sniffas mindre skadligt än kokainfribas som röks (crack).

Man måste även separera drogens effekter från den associerade kriminella aktiviteten. Man måste sluta se samhällsproblemen som orsakas av droger som någonting som orsakas av drogens farmakologi. Att drogen leder till brott. Snarare är det den olagliga statusen som orsakar kriminaliteten.

The heroin user who is "coasting" after an injection is not given to violent activity. Yet those same heroin users, driven by their compulsion, will, in their efforts to maintain a supply of this drug, resort to income generating criminal activities. These may be as minor as panhandling, may lead only to property and drug trafficking crime or, the personality of the user permitting, result in violent crime. Above the individual user is a stratum of heroin purveyors who operate as organized criminal activity and who will, the need in their opinion requiring, resort to the most violent acts. Obviously, to burden the individual user with the onus of organized criminal activity carried out by people who are rarely users themselves can lead to control of the problem only if the consumers are totally removed from the streets. This has not been accomplished even in the face of horrendous penalties, including briefly, in New York State under the so-called Rockefeller plan, the death penalty.

With a drug like marijuana, which enjoys popular approval in the face of legal prohibition, the associated criminal activity is regarded as nominal. And in the face of a refusal by a significant fraction of the population to support the laws against marijuana, it will be impossible to control the market in marijuana. Indeed, although the huge illegal market for imported marijuana may add significantly to our negative balance of payments, that market is not associated with drive-by killings or other devastating criminal activity.
— Twentieth Annual Report Of The Research Advisory Panel (1989)[7]

Bland dom direkta åtgärderna så vill man bl.a ta bort straffet för innehav av kanyler för att stoppa spridningen av AIDS.

När det gäller cannabis så vill man tillåta odling (och därmed konsumtion) för eget bruk:

Allow cultivation of marijuana for personal use. Insofar as damage to the individual and society is concerned, the quantitatively most important drugs are alcohol and nicotine in the form of cigarettes. There remains, then, as the other quantitatively important drug, marijuana, which has become, for a large fraction of the population, a social drug comparable in pattern and approaching that of alcohol in extent of usage.

Marijuana is a disinhibiting drug used socially to relieve anxiety and as such has many liabilities in common with alcohol. We acknowledge that marijuana is not without Its effect on the individual user and would not suggest any change that carried a significant risk of increasing the use of marijuana. We resist the use of the word "legalization" in relation to any drug, including marijuana. On the other hand, an objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to the individual and to society than are alcohol and cigarettes, the other social drugs mentioned above. A further consideration in forming a reaction to the wide use of marijuana is that it is a source of conflict between generations and of disrespect for the law.

Equally important is the economic and, to some extent, criminal activity associated with the marketplace of marijuana. At the moment, we are adding millions to our trade deficit, off of the books to be sure, by our purchases of marijuana in Columbia, Mexico, Thailand, and elsewhere. Yet, thanks to a previous action of the California Legislature, the product of this illegal activity may be possessed and used by the citizen with the possibility of only minor sanctions.
— Twentieth Annual Report Of The Research Advisory Panel[7]

2008: The Global Cannabis Commision, Beckley Foundation (Bok)

"Cannabis Policy - Moving beyond stalemate" är en stor rapport, släppt i bokform 2008[8] som författats av flera välkända cannabisforskare.

Man går igenom den nuvarande vetenskapliga förståelsen av cannabis skador och faror och jämför även dessa med andra droger. Man noterar flera negativa effekter från cannabis men få som är allvarliga. Man summerar även dagens politik och dess effekter och konstaterar att den är misslyckad. Man går sedan igenom olika alternativa former av narkotikapolitik och föreslår fler åtgärder för att förändra den nuvarande förbudspolitiken:

Current cannabis policies may do some good, but there is a dearth of evidence in support of that claim. They clearly do harm to the many individuals who are arrested, they abridge individual autonomy and they are often applied unjustly. The enforcement of cannabis prohibition is also costly. The task is to devise policies that do better, taking all these aspects into account. We recognize the importance of the constraints imposedon policy by popular opinion, which usually supports a retention of prohibition.

The principal aim of a cannabis control system should be to minimize any harms from cannabis use. In our view this means grudgingly allowing use and attempting to channel such use into less harmful patterns (e.g. by delaying onset of use until early adulthood, encouraging all users to avoid substantial daily use, driving a car after using, and smoking cannabis mixed with tobacco).

Under the current international control regime, the cannabis policy options available to governments are arguably limited to varying the severity of penalties for use. Given that more than minimal enforcement of prohibitions seems to do little to reduce use, the principal policy concern should be to minimize the adverse consequences of prohibition.

If a nation chooses to use the criminal law for controlling cannabis use, there is no justification for incarcerating an individual for a cannabis possession or use offense, nor for creating a criminal conviction. Retaining a criminal law on possession on the books as a handy tool for discretionary police use tends to result in discriminatory application of the law against the disadvantaged. Police should give very low priority to enforcing laws against cannabis use or possession.

A better option, the acceptability of which is more questionable under the international conventions, is to process violations administratively outside the criminal justice system. Fines should be low, and alternative sanctions such as referral to education or counseling should not be onerous, reflecting the proportionality principle.

Setting the international conventions aside:

The international drug control regime should be changed to allow a state to adopt, implement and evaluate its own cannabis regime within its borders. This would require changes in the existing conventions, or the adoption of a new pre-emptive convention.

In the absence of such changes, a state can act on its own by denouncing the conventions and re-acceding with reservations, or by simply ignoring at least some provisions of the conventions.

Any regime which makes cannabis legally available should involve state licensing or state operation of entities producing, wholesaling and retailing the drug (as is true in many jurisdictions for alcoholic beverages). The state should, either directly or through regulation, control potency and quality, assure reasonably high prices and control access and availability in general and particularly to youth.

The state should ensure that appropriate information is available and actively conveyed to users about the harms of cannabis use. Advertising and promotion should be banned or stringently limited to the extent possible.

The impacts of any changes, including any unintended adverse effects, should be closely monitored, and there should be the possibility for prompt and considered revision if the policy increased harm.
— Cannabis Policy - Moving beyond stalemate[8]

2006-2013: Transform Drug Policy Foundation (England)

Transform Drug Policy Foundation har släppt ett antal rapporter som fokuserar på dels den förda politiken och hur den har misslyckats och dels hur man ska rätta till problemet genom att införa en mer tillåtande politik. Huvudbudskapet är att man vill att politiken skall vara evidensbaserad, dvs bygga på vetenskapliga fakta istället för känsloargument.

I rapporten "A Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs"[9] från 2009 så räknar man på kostnaden av förbudet i England och jämför med kostnaden för en mer tillåtande narkotikapolitik. Man räknar med olika scenarion där prevalensen antingen ökar, är oförändrad eller minskar och kommer i alla fallen fram till att man skulle spara stora pengar på att reglera narkotikamarknaden.

Observera att uträkningen endast gäller droger i Klass A (heroin och kokain).

Overall, the total costs of prohibition in England and Wales in 2003/04 are estimated to have been £16.785 billion and the total benefit across the 4 scenarios (50% fall in use, no change in use, 50% increase in use, 100% increase in use) are estimated to have been –£309m, £0m, £309m or £618m and so the net cost is estimated to have been £17.094bn, £16.785bn, £16.476bn, £16.167bn

The total cost of regulated drugs markets in England and Wales in 2003/04 across the 4 scenarios would have been £3.151bn, £5.951bn, £8.752bn or £11.551bn per year and, with benefits remaining un-costed in this analysis, these figures also represent the net cost.

The conclusion on this analysis is therefore that regulating the drugs market is a dramatically more cost effective policy than prohibition and that moving from prohibition to regulated drugs markets in England and Wales would provide a net saving to tax payers, victims of crime, communities, the criminal justice system and drug users of somewhere within the range of, for the four scenarios; £13.943 bn, £10.834 bn, £7.724 bn, £4.616 bn.

...

The net annual benefit of a move from prohibition to legal state regulation and control of drug markets would be:

  • Scenario A: 50% fall in use, net benefit £13.943 billion
  • Scenario B: No change in use, net benefit £10.834 billion
  • Scenario C: 50% increase in use, net benefit £7.724 billion
  • Scenario D: 100% increase in use, net benefit £4.616 billion

So even in the highly unlikely event of heroin and cocaine use increasing 100%, the net benefit of a move to regulation and control remains substantial. The economic benefits of regulation identified are also of a magnitude to suggest that even with significant margins of error we can assume that legally regulated markets would deliver substantial net savings to the Treasury and wider society.
— A Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs (2009)[9]

Rapporten "After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation"[10] från 2009 är en mycket genomgående presentation om olika metoder man kan välja för en reglering av drogmarknaden, hur det skulle fungera i praktiken för olika droger och vilka typer av kontroller man behöver införa.

Gällande regleringen av cannabis så listar man flera möjliga krav och kontrollåtgärder:

  • Kontrollerad potens med fastslagna min/max-gränser
  • Kontrollerad kvalitet avseende kontamineringar i form av bekämpningsmedel, gödningsmedel, mögel m.m.
  • Cannabis avsedd för oral konsumtion skall säljas i standardiserade doser
  • Butiker som säljer cannabis kan bidra till att upplysa om farorna med tobak då denna drogen ofta blandas med cannabis
  • Fixerade priser eller min/max-pris med skattesatser baserade på vikt eller potens, starkare cannabis kan ha högre skattesats
  • Lägre priser än den illegala marknaden
  • Förpackningarna ska vara förseglade för att förhindra manipulering, komma i barnsäkra behållare och märkas med innehåll, potens, bäst-före-datum, hälsovarningar, ursprung etc.
  • Reglering av reklam liknande alkohol och tobak
  • Reglering av hur butiker får marknadsföra sig med skyltar och reklam i fönster m.m.
  • Butikers placering bestäms av myndigheterna för att undvika att de hamnar nära skolor m.m.
  • Krav på licens för att tillåta försäljning liknande alkoholutskänkningstillståndet. Kan även innehålla krav på utbildning av försäljare
  • Reglerad försäljning för att undvika att de som redan är påverkade får i sig mer samt maxgränser för hur mycket man får köpa.
  • Försäljare hjälper till med skademinimering i form av utdelning av gratis broschyrer med hälsoinformation, guider till ansvarsfullt bruk m.m.
  • Reglerade öppettider för butiker.
  • Ålderskontroll med ID-kort precis som för köp av alkohol och tobak.
  • Rökförbud på vissa platser, liknande förbudet mot tobaksrökning på restauranger.

Rapporten "After the War on Drugs: Options for Control"[11] från 2004 går mer kortfattat igenom hur kriget mot droger har misslyckats och hur man bör gå vidare genom att reglera narkotikamarknaden.

Rapporten "After the War on Drugs: Tools for the Debate"[12] från 2007 är tänkt att vara en guide för alla som vill debattera för en mer tillåtande narkotikapolitik. Den listar alla argument och motargument, förklarar vilka argument som är viktigast att framhålla. Allt blandas med citat och liknelser med hur reglering fungerar med andra droger och produkter. Samtidigt är det en rapport som på punkt efter punkt effektivt punkterar alla argument från förbudsförespråkare och bör läsas av alla som har en osäker ståndpunkt i drogfrågan.

Rapporten "How to Regulate Cannabis: A Practical Guide"[13] från 2013 kan ses som en uppföljning till "After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation". Man går igenom olika metoder för att reglera produktionen och försäljningen av cannabis, listar för och nackdelar och ger rekommendationer för att åstadkomma en effektiv narkotikapolitik som minimerar skadorna på individen och samhället.

2009: Drugs And Democracy: Toward A Paradigm Shift (Latinamerika)

"Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy" som består av diverse intellektuella personer samt flera f.d presidenter från Latinamerika släppte 2009 rapporten "Drugs And Democracy: Toward A Paradigm Shift: Statement by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy"[14] där man yttrar sitt missnöje över hur USA:s narkotikapolitik har fått förödande konsekvenser för länderna. Man anser att kriget mot droger är ett misslyckande. Sedan drar man upp riktlinjerna för vilka förändringar som behöver genomföras för att förbättra situationen:

1. Change the status of addicts from drug buyers in the illegal market to that of patients cared for in the public health system

2. Evaluate from a public health standpoint and on the basis of the most advanced medical science the convenience of decriminalizing the possession of cannabis for personal use

3. Reduce consumption through campaigns of information and prevention that can be understood and accepted by young people, who account for the largest contingent of users.

4. Redirect repressive strategies to the unrelenting fight against organized crime

5. Reframe the strategies of repression against the cultivation of illicit drugs
— Drugs And Democracy: Toward A Paradigm Shift[14]

2011-2014: Global Commission on Drug Policy (Globalt samarbete)

Organisationen Global Commission on Drug Policy beskrivs mer detaljerat i kapitlet om Auktoriteter som protesterar mot den förda narkotikapolitiken. I korthet är det många expresidenter, ministrar och FN-auktoriteter som fått nog med kriget mot droger och nu tydligt uppmanar världens regeringar att överväga dekriminalisering och harm reduction. Deras rapport "Global Commission on Drug Policy Report" från 2011[15] sammanfattas här:

Our principles and recommendations can be summarized as follows:

End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.

Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens. This recommendation applies especially to cannabis, but we also encourage other experiments in decriminalization and legal regulation that can accomplish these objectives and provide models for others.

...

Begin the transformation of the global drug prohibition regime. Replace drug policies and strategies driven by ideology and political convenience with fiscally responsible policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights – and adopt appropriate criteria for their evaluation. Review the scheduling of drugs that has resulted in obvious anomalies like the flawed categorization of cannabis, coca leaf and MDMA. Ensure that the international conventions are interpreted and/or revised to accommodate robust experimentation with harm reduction, decriminalization and legal regulatory policies.

Break the taboo on debate and reform. The time for action is now.
— Global Commission on Drug Policy Report[15]

Man tar upp flera punkter där man kräver förändring:

1. Break the taboo. Pursue an open debate and promote policies that effectively reduce consumption, and that prevent and reduce har related to drug use and drug control policies. Increase investment in research and analysis into the impact of different policies and programs.

2. Replace the criminalization and punishment of people who use drugs with the offer of health and treatment services to those who need them.

3. Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (with cannabis, for example) that are designed to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens

4. Establish better metrics, indicators and goals to measure progress.

5. Challenge, rather than reinforce, common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.

6. Countries that continue to invest mostly in a law enforcement approach (despite the evidence) should focus their repressive actions on violent organized crime and drug traffickers, in order to reduce the harms associated with the illicit drug market.

7. Promote alternative sentences for small-scale and first-time drug dealers.

8. Invest more resources in evidence-based prevention, with a special focus on youth

9. Offer a wide and easily accessible range of options for treatment and care for drug dependence, including substitution and heroin-assisted treatment, with special attention to those most at risk, including those in prisons and other custodial settings.

10.The United Nations system must provide leadership in the reform of global drug policy. This means promoting an effective approach based on evidence, supporting countries to develop drug policies that suit their context and meet their needs, and ensuring coherence among various UN agencies, policies and conventions.

11. Act urgently: the war on drugs has failed, and policies need to change now.
— Global Commission on Drug Policy Report[15]

2014 släppte gruppen en uppföljande rapport kallad "Taking Control: Pathways To Drug Policies That Work"[16]. Åter igen ges rekommendationen till världens ledare att ändra narkotikapolitiken. Man går igenom varför det nuvarande globala kriget mot droger har misslyckats och vad man kan göra för att vända utvecklingen. Metoderna som förespråkas är naturligtvis lättade lagar och inriktning på harm reduction. Ett par citat:

Stop criminalizing people for drug use and possession – and stop imposing “compulsory treatment” on people whose only offense is drug use or possession. Criminalization of drug use and possession has little to no impact on levels of drug use in an open society. Such policies do, however, encourage high risk behaviours such as unsafe injecting, deter people in need of drug treatment from seeking it, divert law enforcement resources from focusing on serious criminality, reduce personal and government funds that might otherwise be available for positive investment in people’s lives, and burden millions with the long-lasting negative consequences of a criminal conviction. Using the criminal justice system to force people arrested for drug possession into ‘treatment’ often does more harm than good. Far better is ensuring the availability of diverse supportive ser vices in communities. This recommendation, it should be noted, requires no reform of international drug control treaties.

...

Allow and encourage diverse experiments in legally regulating markets in currently illicit drugs, beginning with but not limited to cannabis, coca leaf and certain novel psychoactive substances.Much can be learned from successes and failures in regulating alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs and other products and activities that pose health and other risks to individuals and societies. New experiments are needed in allowing legal but restricted access to drugs that are now only available illegally. This should include the expansion of heroin-assisted treatment for some long-term dependent users, which has proven so effective in Europe and Canada. Ultimately the most effective way to reduce the extensive harms of the global drug prohibition regime and advance the goals of public health and safety is to get drugs under control through responsible legal regulation.
— Taking Control: Pathways To Drug Policies That Work[16]

2012: The UK Drug Policy Commission (England)

En oberoende utredning av den engelska narkotikapolitiken förespråkar bland annat dekriminalisering, harm reduction. Man går t.o.m så långt att man förespråkar att odling av cannabis för personligt bruk tillåts:

We suggest making a clear distinction between the overall goals of drug policy and the tools to deliver it. Rather than starting with the traditional distinction between prevention, treatment and enforcement, it may be more effective to consider drug policy in terms of two higher level challenges.

First, we need to look at how society and government can enable and support individuals to behave responsibly. This means tackling underlying causes of drug use, providing the information and skills necessary for people to make sensible choices about drug use, and ensuring that where drug use does occur, it is undertaken in a way that minimises the harm to the user and others.

Second, we should focus on how society and government can enable and promote recovery from entrenched drug problems, whether for individuals or in communities. Then we can see how the practical tools of prevention, treatment and enforcement can help deliver this as well as how it links into wider social policy through the various supporting institutions, professional interests and social and economic programmes.

What we mean by ‘responsible behaviour’ is that an individual should seek to behave in ways that allow them to achieve their potential and contribute positively to their families and communities and also to avoid incurring harm to other people in general. Behaving responsibly and limiting harm and damage to oneself and others are two sides of the same coin

...

As part of efforts to encourage responsible behaviour, and our society’s response to it, we cannot ignore the fact that a small but significant segment of the population will experiment with drugs, and that some of them will continue to use drugs, even if they know about the risks. So we do not believe that pursuing the goal of encouraging responsible behaviour requires the prevention of all drug use in every circumstance. This is not to say that we consider drug use to be desirable. Just like with gambling or eating junk food, there are some moderately selfish or risky behaviours that free societies accept will occur and seek to limit to the least damaging manifestations, rather than to prevent entirely. Drug policy needs to focus on ensuring that any drug use occurs in ways that pose lower risks of harm to others and to users. The bar should be set particularly high for children and young people given their physiological vulnerability to harm from drugs and because they are less able to make rational decisions about their own wellbeing.
— A Fresh Approach to Drugs: the final report of the UK Drug Policy Commission[17]

I korthet listas följande områden som kan förbättras:

Supporting responsible behaviour
  • Tackle structural problems that increase risk of drug problems
  • Develop and evaluate early interventions to help families and communities build resilience to drug problems alongside other problems
  • Provide evidence-based prevention programmes to support less risky choices
  • Promote interventions which reduce the harms of drug use
  • Involve local communities in law enforcement and assess its impacts

Stimulating and promoting recovery from drug dependence

  • Tackle stigma towards people with drug problems and their families
  • Make the criminal justice system more focused on recovery
  • Provide greater support to families of people with drug problems
  • Continue to develop treatment systems, mutual aid networks and communities that support those recovering from drug dependence

The laws on drug production, supply and possession

  • Review the process for classifying controlled drugs
  • Reduce sanctions for drug possession
  • Address production and supply
  • Review penalties for all drug offences
  • Establish consistency in controls over all psychoactive drugs

Improving structures and processes for how we make and implement drug policy

  • Introduce independent decision-making on drug harms
  • Improve research and policy analysis
  • Move the political lead for drug policy
  • Create a cross-party political forum to progress dialogue about future policy
  • Evaluate local approaches
    — A Fresh Approach to Drugs: the final report of the UK Drug Policy Commission[17]

2013: British Medical Association (England)

Den brittiska läkarorganisationen British Medical Association (BMA) uppmanar i en rapport från 2013[18] att man snarast skall anta en skademinimerande politik:

Delaying initiation and minimising the use of illicit drugs
  • Current prevention strategies aim to reduce drug use by influencing attitudes and behaviour, in order to prevent or delay the initiation of drug use.
  • Primary prevention aims to avert or delay initial use, while secondary prevention aims to minimise the harms in those already using drugs. Secondary prevention interventions, such as harm-prevention strategies, are yet to receive much in the way of attention.
  • There is no clear evidence that drug education and prevention strategies have an effect on reducing total drug use in the UK. Drug treatment programmes are more cost effective.
  • All schools in the UK are required to have a drug education programme. These programmes improve young people’s knowledge about drug use, and have a small impact, notably in delaying the onset of use.
  • There is evidence that most pupils recall the content of their drug-education lessons and report that it helps them to make decisions about what to do if offered drugs. Those who had taken drugs said lessons helped them understand why people take drugs and that not as many people as they thought take drugs.
  • Programmes that also address classroom behaviour management have been shown to reduce lifetime drug use in boys but not girls in the USA.
  • Drug testing in schools does not appear to affect the use of illicit drugs; random testing in schools may have a negative effect.
  • There is insufficient research on interventions outside the school setting to prevent drug use to provide evidence on their effectiveness.
  • The use of mass media can improve knowledge but is not effective at reducing illicit drug use; social marketing may be a useful way of increasing the efficacy of mass media campaigns.
  • Selective prevention strategies target at-risk groups and often address multiple and complex risk factors. There is conflicting evidence about their efficacy in reducing drug use among vulnerable groups, and there is a risk that they further stigmatise already marginalised individuals. The age range 11 to 13 years has been identified as a crucial period for effective intervention.
  • Groups that are most susceptible to drug harm should be identified. Taking action on preventing the underlying causes of drug harm rather than preventing drug harm directly may be more effective.
    — British Medical Association (2013)[18]

2013: All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform (England)

Engelska parlamentet sammanställde 2011 en grupp med medlemmar från olika partier som skulle titta på drogpolicyn, speciellt inriktad på problemet med nya legala droger. Gruppen "All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform" (APPG)[19] samlade in information från 31 experter och organisationer, däribland polisorganisationer och organisationer som arbetar med kontrollen av droger.

Deras rapport som släpptes 2013[20] lägger fram ett förslag där man vill legalisera lätta droger. Man kommer med påståenden som att många droger är säkrare än tobak och alkohol och man vill ha en marknad med beprövade äldre droger istället för nya droger med okända effekter. Man ser tydligt problemet med att nya droger bara blir värre riskmässigt. Man menar också att en utveckling av politiken till en liknande Sveriges (förstörandelagen) inte är att föredra för att den, på samma sätt som illegala droger, gör att marknaden till ännu större grad kommer att drivas under jord och fortsätter hanteras av kriminella. Man vill istället se en politik liknande den som införts i Nya Zeeland där nya droger regleras med åldersgränser och kvalitetskrav/tester[21].

Man tar ställning för en politik som går ut på harm reduction och dekriminalisering. Det är dock ingen total legalisering av alla droger man förespråkar, man betonar att vissa tyngre droger fortfarande skall vara illegala, även om straffen för små kvantiteter bör försvinna. Man får inte veta exakt vilka droger som föreslås bli helt lagliga men noterar att David Nutts farlighetsbedömningsdiagram[22] finns med i rapporten. Det kan även röra sig om att låta nya droger som inte har allvarliga bieffekter fortsätta vara lagliga.

David Cameron menar att dagens drogpolitik fungerar bra[23](tala om att ha skygglappar) men den vice premiärministern Nick Clegg har tidigare visat sitt stöd för en översyn av drogpolitiken[24][25], vilket nu även APPG efterfrågar.

The greatest risk to young people from new psychoactive substances derives from the absence of reliable information about the contents and strength of each new substance and its effects both short and long term. The name of the substance may tell a user little about its contents, and the contents may change from week to week. The more substances are banned the more are created and the greater the uncertainties for consumers. Over time consumers will be criminalised for using these drugs as the Temporary Class Drug Orders expire and the full provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act apply. We anticipate that, due to the paucity of information available, rarely if ever will a ban be lifted.

...

If we are to minimise the harms, appropriate controls are necessary. A clear conclusion from this work, however, has been that banning drug use does not materially affect the overall level of demand for drugs. Drug policies which criminalise young people generate higher levels of unemployment, homelessness and relationship problems, and cost the taxpayer considerable sums.

...

By making more readily available less harmful and pure substances, labelled to inform the user about the ingredients, risks and strength of the substance, young people would be encouraged to avoid the unknown and therefore more dangerous alternatives
— Towards a Safer Drug Policy: Challenges and Opportunities arising from ‘legal highs’[20]

Se även:

The Guardian 2013-01-14: Make legal highs available for sale, government urged

The Guardian 2013-01-14: Decriminalise drugs – it would reduce the level of harm in Britain

BBC 2013-01-14: Decriminalise drugs, inquiry by cross-party peers says

Beckley foundation: Report from cross-party Parliamentary Group calls for radical drug policy reform

2013: The Drug Problem In The Americas (Latinamerika)

Den panamerikanska samarbetsorganisationen OAS (Organization of American States) släppte 2013 en rapport som går igenom narkotikaproblemet med fokus på Latinamerika. Där odlas många olika droger och smugglingen till övriga världen omsätter gigantiska summor och göder den kriminella världen som blivit en mycket stor maktfaktor.

För att stävja utvecklingen så har många presidenter och expresidenter från dessa stater i flera år uttalat sin önskan om att använda effekterna från en legalisering eller dekriminalisering för att skifta fokus från straff till vård för brukare och för att kunna minska polisen, tullen och ibland militärens kostnader för att skifta fokus till att bekämpa kartellerna.

Man har kommit närmare och närmare ett gemensamt uttalande och ett politiskt skifte. Rapporten är lite speciell då den inte direkt förordar ett visst vägval, men beskriver från en objektiv synvinkel hur olika politiska vägar skulle få olika resultat och menar att man måste ha en väldigt flexibel syn för att komma till rätta med problemet.

Den första delen består av en djupgående analys och definition av drogproblemet: The Drug Problem In The Americas

Public policies devised over the past several decades to address the drug is-sue in the Hemisphere have not proved sufficiently flexible to draw in the new evidence needed to make them more effective, to detect undesired costs and damages, and to embrace recent economic and cultural changes. We need to develop and generate additional methods, evidence, analysis, and evaluation, to learn from both successes and failures, to adapt standards to the needs and characteristics of each specific environment, and to take into account the net impact in terms of costs and benefits of applying particular policies in a given country and society as well as for all our countries and societies.

Greater flexibility could lead to the possibility of amending domestic legisla-tion or promoting changes to international law.

a) Drastic or dramatic changes to domestic law would not appear to be advis-able. Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to assess existing signals and trends that lean toward the decriminalization or legalization of the produc-tion, sale, and use of marijuana. Sooner or later decisions in this area will need to be taken.

b) On the other hand, our report finds no significant support, in any coun-try, for the decriminalization or legalization of the trafficking of other illicit drugs.

c) With respect to United Nations conventions, changes could result from the possibility that the current system for controlling narcotics and psycho-tropic substances may become more flexible, thereby allowing parties to explore drug policy options that take into consideration their own specific practices and traditions
— The Drug Problem In The Americas[26]

Den andra delen beskriver hur utvecklingen kommer att se ut i framtiden med olika scenarion: Cenarios For The Drug Problem In The Americas 2013 – 2025

Den tredje delen innehåller summerande punkter: Highlights From The Oas Report On The Drug Problem In The Americas

*The decriminalization of drug use should be considered on the same basis as any public health strategy. An addict is a chronically ill person who should not be punished for his addiction butadequately treated. While it is not possible to radically change the treatment of addicts overnight, at least transitional methods should be begun, such as drug courts, substantive reduction of sentences and rehabilitation. Measures thatrestrict freedom are antagonistic to this approach and should only be used if the addict’s life is at risk or when their behavior poses a risk to society.
  • Greater flexibility could lead to accepting the possibility of changes in national legislation or to fostering changes in international law. In the field of national legislation existing signs and trends point toward the decriminalization or legalization of the production, sale and consumption of marijuana. There does not appear to be significant support, in any country, for the decriminalization or legalization of the trafficking of other illegal drugs.
  • At the level of the United Nations conventions, changes will arise from the possibility that the current system ofcontrol of narcotic and psychotropic substances could become more flexibleand allow countries to collectively explore policy options on drugs, taking into consideration the needs, behaviors and particular traditions of each.
    — Highlights From The Oas Report On The Drug Problem In The Americas[27]

2014: Transnational Institute och Global Drug Policy Observatory (Globalt samarbete)

Transnational Institute och Global Drug Policy Observatory publicerar rapporten "The Rise And Decline Of Cannabis Prohibition - The history of cannabis in The UN drug control system and options for reform" 2014[28]

Man går igenom historian bakom förbudet mot cannabis i detalj och beskriver hur narkotikapolitiken evolverat i världen sedan FN:s narkotikakonventioner infördes. Man konstaterar att det nu inte är frågan om, utan snarare när FN måste modernisera sin narkotikakonvention och anpassa sig till en värld där fler och fler länder har insett att förbudet ställer till med mer problem än drogen.

There are good reasons to question the treaty-imposed prohibition model for cannabis control. The original inclusion of cannabis within the current international framework is the result of questionable procedures and dubious evidence. Furthermore, no review that meets currently accepted standards and scientific knowledge has ever taken place. Added to this, implementing the prohibitive model has not proven to have had any effect on reducing the extent of the market. Rather it has imposed heavy burdens on criminal justice systems, produced profoundly negative social and public health impacts, and created criminal markets supporting organized crime, violence and corruption. For all these reasons, multiple forms of soft defection, non-compliance, decriminalization and de facto regulation have persisted in countries where traditional use is widespread, and have since blossomed around the world to almost every nation or territory where cannabis has become popular in the past half century.

Decades of doubts, soft defections, legal hypocrisy and policy experimentation have now reached the point where de jure legal regulation of the whole cannabis market is gaining political acceptability, even if it violates certain outdated elements of the UN conventions. Tensions between countries seeking more flexibility and the UN drug control system and its specialized agencies, as well as with countries strongly in favour of defending the status quo, are likely to further increase. This seems inevitable because the trend towards cannabis regulation appears irreversible and is rapidly gaining more support across the Americas, as well as among many local authorities in Europe that have to face the difficulties and consequences of implementing current control mechanisms.

....

The current policy trend towards legal regulation of the cannabis market as a more promising model for protecting people’s health and safety has changed the drug policy landscape and the terms of the debate. The question facing the international community today is no longer whether or not there is a need to reassess and modernize the UN drug control system, but rather when and how to do it.
— The Rise And Decline Of Cannabis Prohibition - The history of cannabis in The UN drug control system and options for reform[28]

2014: London School of Economics and Political Science (Globalt samarbete)

LSE (London School of Economics and Political Science) rapport "Ending the Drug Wars"[29] från 2014 är framtagen av expertgrupp med professorer, narkotikaexperter och utrikespolitiskt sakkunniga[30], den har dessutom signerats av fyra nobelpristagare i ekonomi samt ett flertal andra professorer.

Man uppmanar FN att ändra sin syn på bekämpningen av narkotika eftersom den inte är ekonomiskt effektiv och skapar lidande och onödiga skador för medlemsländerna. Man analyserar politiken hur ett ekonomiskt perspektiv där man bland annat granskar mordstatistiken för producent- och transit-länder och beräknar kriget mot narkotikans olika kostnader för samhället och individen. Mordstatistiken skjuter i höjden, fler personer sätts i fängelse, fler får HIV, kriminella gynnas och korruptionen ökar, friheten för normala civila människor som varken knarkar eller begår andra drogrelaterade brott försämras och hela nationer skadas av förbudet:

It is time to end the ‘war on drugs’ and massively redirect resources towards effective evidence-based policies underpinned by rigorous economic analysis. The pursuit of a militarised and enforcement-led global ‘war on drugs’ strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage. These include mass incarceration in the US, highly repressive policies in Asia, vast corruption and political destabilisation in Afghanistan and West Africa, immense violence in Latin America, an HIV epidemic in Russia, an acute global shortage of pain medication and the propagation of systematic human rights abuses around the world.

The strategy has failed based on its own terms. Evidence shows that drug prices have been declining while purity has been increasing. This has been despite drastic increases in global enforcement spending. Continuing to spend vast resources on punitive enforcement-led policies, generally at the expense of proven public health policies, can no longer be justified.

The United Nations has for too long tried to enforce a repressive, ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. It must now take the lead in advocating a new cooperative international framework based on the fundamental acceptance that different policies will work for different countries and regions.

This new global drug strategy should be based on principles of public health, harm reduction, illicit market impact reduction, expanded access to essential medicines, minimisation of problematic consumption, rigorously monitored regulatory experimentation and an unwavering commitment to principles of human rights
— Ending the Drug Wars - Report of the LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy[29]

Al Jazeera intervjuar projektets koordinator John Collins:

2016: Public health and international drug policy (Globalt samarbete)

Den medicinska tidskriften Lancet och Johns Hopkins-universitetet publicerar 2016 den gemensamma rapporten "Public health and international drug policy"[31] som är författad/underskriven av ett stort antal professorer och läkare som kritiserar att vetenskapen har för liten roll i utformandet av en fungerande drogpolicy.

Man visar hur de nuvarande droglagarna skapar mer problem än de löser, bl.a genom smittsamma sjukdomar och onödiga fängelsestraff för människor som använder illegala droger. Man tar även upp den positiva utvecklingen i länder och stater där man satsat på skademinimerande åtgärder istället för straff och förbud. Man förordar den formen av satsningar på hälsoåtgärder samt dekriminalisering av eget bruk och innehav.

The goal of prohibiting all use, possession, production and trafficking of illicit drugs is the basis of many of our national drug laws, but these policies are based on ideas about drug use and drug dependence that are not scientifically grounded

...

The global ‘war on drugs’ has harmed public health, human rights and development. It’s time for us to rethink our approach to global drug policies, and put scientific evidence and public health at the heart of drug policy discussions
— Chris Beyrer, MD, professor i epidemiologi vid Johns Hopkins-universitetet[32]

Se även:

Science Daily 2016-03-24: Experts call for global drug policy reform as evidence shows 'war on drugs' has harmed public health, human rights

Källor

  1. The La Guardia Committee Report: The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York. (1944)
  2. The LaGuardia Committee Report on Marihuana: Summary And Discussion
  3. 3,0 3,1 The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse: Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding
  4. Consortium News: Nixon's Vengeful War on Marijuana
  5. Nixon Tapes Show Roots of Marijuana Prohibition: Misinformation, Culture Wars and Prejudice (CSDP, 2002)
  6. Wikipedia: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
  7. 7,0 7,1 Twentieth Annual Report Of The Research Advisory Panel (1989)
  8. 8,0 8,1 Cannabis Policy - Moving beyond stalemate (Room, Hall, Reuter, Fischer, Lenton, 2010) finns även som pdf-version
  9. 9,0 9,1 A Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2009)
  10. After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2009)
  11. After the War on Drugs: Options for Control (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2004)
  12. After the War on Drugs: Tools for the Debate (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2007)
  13. How to Regulate Cannabis: A Practical Guide (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2013)
  14. 14,0 14,1 Drugs And Democracy: Toward A Paradigm Shift: Statement by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy
  15. 15,0 15,1 15,2 Global Commission on Drug Policy Report (2011)
  16. 16,0 16,1 Taking Control: Pathways To Drug Policies That Work (2014) (pdf-version)
  17. 17,0 17,1 A Fresh Approach to Drugs: the final report of the UK Drug Policy Commission (2012)
  18. 18,0 18,1 British Medical Association: Drugs of dependence - The role of medical professionals (2013)
  19. All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform
  20. 20,0 20,1 Towards a Safer Drug Policy: Challenges and Opportunities arising from ‘legal highs’
  21. Se Genomgång av länder med en tillåtande narkotikapolitik (avsnittet om Nya Zeeland)
  22. se kapitlet Alkoholjämförelsen
  23. The Telegraph 2013-01-14: Downing Street rejects calls to decriminalise drugs
  24. BBC 2012-12-14: Nick Clegg calls for drugs law review
  25. The Guardian 2012-12-14: Nick Clegg and David Cameron clash over drug law reforms
  26. The Drug Problem In The Americas (2013)
  27. Highlights From The Oas Report On The Drug Problem In The Americas (2013)
  28. 28,0 28,1 The Rise And Decline Of Cannabis Prohibition - The history of cannabis in The UN drug control system and options for reform (Transnational Institute och Global Drug Policy Observatory, 2014) pdf-version
  29. 29,0 29,1 Ending the Drug Wars - Report of the LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy
  30. The Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy
  31. Public health and international drug policy (The Lancet Commission & Johns Hopkins University, 2016)
  32. John Hopkins University 2016-03-24: Leading Global Health Commission Calls for Reform of Drug Policies Worldwide

Navigering

Detta är bara en liten del av Legaliseringsguiden. Klicka på länken eller använd rullistan nedan för att läsa mer om narkotikapolitiken, argumenten för en dekriminalisering & legalisering, genomgångar av cannabis påstådda skadeverkningar, medicinska användningsområden och mycket mera. Det går även att ladda ner hela guiden som pdf.

 

Sidan ändrades senast 25 mars 2016 klockan 07.36.
Den här sidan har visats 5 001 gånger.

Translate this page: