Auktoriteter som protesterar mot den förda narkotikapolitiken

Flera framstående personer har de senaste åren börjat uttala sig för en förändrad narkotikapolitik som rör sig bort från straff och repression som och närmar sig vård och "harm reduction" vilket måste ske genom att bruket av droger avkriminaliseras. Här uppmärksammas några av dom.

Global Commission on Drug Policy

The global war on drugs has failed. When the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs came into being 50 years ago, and when President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs 40 years ago, policymakers believed that harsh law enforcement action against those involved in drug production, distribution and use would lead to an ever-diminishing market in controlled drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis, and the eventual achievement of a ‘drug free world’. In practice, the global scale of illegal drug markets – largely controlled by organized crime – has grown dramatically over this period. While accurate estimates of global consumption across the entire 50-year period are not available, an analysis of the last 10 years alone shows a large and growing market.

In spite of the increasing evidence that current policies are not achieving their objectives, most policymaking bodies at the national and international level have tended to avoid open scrutiny or debate on alternatives. This lack of leadership on drug policy has prompted the establishment of our Commission, and leads us to our view that the time is now right for a serious, comprehensive and wide-ranging review of strategies to respond to the drug phenomenon. The starting point for this review is the recognition of the global drug problem as a set of interlinked health and social challenges to be managed, rather than a war to be won. Commission members have agreed on four core principles that should guide national and international drug policies and strategies, and have made eleven recommendations for action.
— Report Of The Global Commission On Drug Policy [1]

Global Commission on Drug Policy[2] föreslår i sin rapport "Report Of The Global Commission On Drug Policy" från 2011[1] bland annat:

  • Att det blir ett slut på kriminaliseringen och stigmatiseringen av personer som nyttjar droger men som inte skadar andra
  • Att regeringar uppmuntras att testa legalisering av droger, i första hand marijuana.
  • Att man utför skademinimerande åtgärder, exempelvis tillgång till rena sprutor.
  • Att kampanjer som riktar sig till unga med budskapen "säg nej till droger" eller "nolltolerans mot droger" slopas, i stället bör andra utbildningsmetoder användas.

Några personer som är eller har varit aktiva i Global Commission on Drug Policy:

Kofi Annan - f.d generalsekreterare för FN
Richard Branson - grundare av företagsgruppen Virgin Group.
Mario Vargas Llosa - Nobelpristagare i litteratur 2010
Aleksander Kwasniewski - f.d president för Polen
César Gaviria - f.d president för Colombia
Ernesto Zedillo - f.d president för Mexiko
Fernando Henrique Cardoso - f.d president för Brasilien
George Papandreou - f.d premiärminister för Grekland
Javier Solana - generalsekreterare 1999-2009 för Europeiska unionens råd och EU:s höga representant för GUSP ("EU:s utrikespolitiska talesman")
Jorge Sampaio - f.d president för Portugal
Louise Arbour - FN:s högkommissarie för mänskliga rättigheter 2004-2008.
Ricardo Lagos - f.d president för Chile
Ruth Dreifuss - f.d president för Schweiz
Thorvald Stoltenberg - f.d utrikesminister för Norge
Olusegun Obasanjo - f.d president för Nigeria

Se även:

CNN 2011-06-02: War on drugs has failed, report finds

DN 2011-06-03: Kofi Annan: Legalisera droger

Der Speigel 2016-03-25: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time To Legalize Drugs (av Kofi Annan)

2012 släppte Global Commission on Drug Policy dokumentärfilmen "Breaking the Taboo" om kriget mot droger:

Breaking the Taboo:

Fernando Henrique Cardoso - f.d president för Brasilien:

International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP)

International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP)[3] är en organisation för forskare, läkare och andra akademiker som vill verka för en förändrad narkotikapolitik, införandet av skademinimerande åtgärder och droginformationskampanjer värda namnet. Med hjälp av sitt vetenskapliga råd har man tagit fram flera rapporter[4] som kartlägger och med vetenskapliga metoder visar att förbudet mot droger fatalt har misslyckats och bidrar till problemet.

Bland dessa kan nämnas en rapport från 2015 som heter State Of The Evidence Cannabis Use And Regulation[5]. Den liknar ganska mycket Legaliseringsguidens avsnitt om cannabisforskning, där man tar död på myter om påstådda skadeverkningar.


Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)[6] är en icke vinstdrivande, internationell organisation för poliser, personal från rättsväsendet och myndigheter som är motståndare till kriget mot droger.

We believe that drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these drugs so valuable – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply. Driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children. Their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control.

History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.

We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer. We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families. We believe that in a regulated and controlled environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children. And we believe that by placing drug abuse in the hands of medical professionals instead of the criminal justice system, we will reduce rates of addiction and overdose deaths.
— LEAP - Why Legalize Drugs? [7]

If the "War On Drugs" has Failed, is Legalization the Answer?

Cops: Legalize Drugs to Save Our Lives

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Conservative Judge Says Legalize Drugs

Cop Says Legalizing Drugs Will Protect Kids from Gangs

Se fler videoklipp i LEAPS kanal på Youtube. Där finns många intervjuer med poliser, domare DEA-agenter m.m. som berättar varför dom tycker att kriget mot droger är fel.

122 tyska professorer

2014 rapporteras det att 122 tyska professorer skrivit på ett upprop[8] där man kritiserar den förda narkotikapolitiken och förordar en legalisering av cannabis.

Lorenz Böllinger, professor emeritus i straffrätt och kriminologi vid Universitetet i Bremen, som är talesman för gruppen är tydlig med vad han och kollegorna tycker om den nuvarande repressiva politiken:

"Marijuana consumers are being criminalized," Böllinger has criticized, because they are forced to buy the drug expensively off black market dealers. They could get involved with the wrong people, said Böllinger. "It can ruin young people's lives - and most of those who try weed are young people - if they are caught and the charge appears on their criminal record. They may have difficulty getting a job, or could be stripped off their driving license, etc. In short, it could send them off the rails."


Cannabis, he says, is only dangerous for people who have an inclination for addiction anyway. And if the drug were legal, he argues, there would be the option of educating young people about the risks of marijuana consumption - much like prevention campaigns about alcohol and cigarette consumption.
— Lorenz Böllinger till tidningen DW[9]

...there is no way Nixon's War on Drugs can be won. Drug use goes on regardless of crime enforcement. We have seen all sorts of studies, and the result is always the same: that business cycles of drug use exist entirely independently of statutory provisions.

So you're saying that drugs will always be used.

Drugs have always existed, and the longing for this kind of pleasure will always exist. You can't question or argue with that statement.

Are you not worried that consumption rates will rise?

There is good evidence that this is not the case. In countries like Portugal, Spain and Belgium this model has existed for ten years. In the Netherlands, cannabis has been freely available for 40 years with excellent results. Consumption hasn't increased – on the contrary, it has slightly decreased.

Are you aiming for full legalisation?

Yes, but not in a generalised way that will have us all buying drugs at Aldi soon. The idea is to get our point accross on the basis of expertise – with studies on specific regulatory models for each drug. For the least dangerous ones, like cannabis, we would make a rather extensive release, perhaps ensuring there were quantity limits or a registration process. When it comes to heroin or crystal meth, we would have to follow a stricter model.
— Lorenz Böllinger i tidningen Vice[10]

David Nutt

David Nutt är professor i neuropsykofarmakologi vid Imperial College i London. Han är även ledare för European Brain Council och har tidigare varit ledare för European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP), British Neuroscience Association och British Association of Psychopharmacology.

2007 publicerade David Nutt en kontroversiell studie om drogers farlighet i den vetenskapliga tidskriften The Lancet.[11] där alkohol ses som en av de farligaste drogerna och cannabis, LSD, svamp m.m. hamnar mycket längre ner.

2008 blev han ledare för Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD)[12] där han hade haft en post sedan 1998. ACMD utreder och lägger förslag angående hur narkotikapolitiken skall föras i England.

2009 publicerade han en artikel som jämför skadorna från MDMA med skadorna som ridsporten orsakar på samhället. Innehållet var mycket kontroversiellt:

In this article, I share experience of another harmful addiction I have called equasy to illustrate an approach that might lead to a more rational and broad-based assessment of relative drug harms. The dangers of equasy were revealed to me as a result of a recent clinical referral of a woman in her early 30’s who had suffered permanent brain damage as a result of equasy-induced brain damage. She had undergone severe personality change that made her more irritable and impulsive, with anxiety and loss of the ability to experience pleasure. There was also a degree of hypofrontality and behavioural disinhibition that had lead to many bad decisions in relationships with poor choice of partners and an unwanted pregnancy. She is unable to work and is unlikely ever to do so again, so the social costs of her brain damage are also very high.

So what was her addiction – what is equasy? It is an addiction that produces the release of adrenaline and endorphins and which is used by many millions of people in the UK including children and young people. The harmful consequences are well established – about 10 people a year die of it and many more suffer permanent neurological damage as had my patient. It has been estimated that there is a serious adverse event every 350 exposures and these are unpredictable, though more likely in experienced users who take more risks with equasy. It is also associated with over 100 road traffic accidents per year – often with deaths. Equasy leads to gatherings of users that often are associated with these groups engaging in violent conduct. Dependence, as defined by the need to continue to use, has been accepted by the courts in divorce settlements. Based on these harms, it seems likely that the ACMD would recommend control under the MDAct perhaps as a class A drug given it appears more harmful than ecstasy (See Table 1).

Have you worked out what equasy is yet? It stands for Equine Addiction Syndrome, a condition characterised by gaining pleasure from horses and being prepared to countenance the consequences especially the harms from falling off/under the horse. I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is such a dangerous activity. The data are quite startling – people die and are permanently damaged from falling – with neck and spine fracture leading to permanent spinal injury (Silver and Parry, 1991; Silver 2002). Head injury is four times more common though often less obvious and is the usual cause of death. In the USA, approximately 11,500 cases of traumatic head injury a year are due to riding (Thomas, et al., 2006), and we can presume a proportionate number in the UK. Personality change, reduced motor function and even early onset Parkinson’s disease are well recognised especially in rural clinical practices where horse riding is very common. In some shire counties, it has been estimated that riding causes more head injury than road traffic accidents. Violence is historically intimately associated with equasy – especially those who gather together in hunting groups; initially, this was interspecies aggression but latterly has become specific person to person violence between the pro and anti-hunt lobby groups.

Making riding illegal would completely prevent all these harms and would be, in practice, very easy to do – it is hard to use a horse in a clandestine manner or in the privacy of one’s own home! I suspect there would be little public or government support for such an option despite the banning of inter-species violence from equasy recently enacted in the Anti-Hunting bill. Indeed why should society want to control harmful sports at all? This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates –indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use.

There are many risky activities such as base jumping, climbing, bungee jumping, hang-gliding, motorcycling which have harms and risks equal to or worse than many illicit drugs. Of course, some people engage in so called ‘extreme’ sports specifically because they are dangerous. Horse riding is not one of these and most of those who engage in it do it for simple pleasure rather than from thrill seeking, almost certainly in complete ignorance of the risks involved. Other similarly dangerous yet fun activities are rugby, quad-biking and boxing. With the exception of boxing, which is outlawed in some European countries, sports are not illegal despite their undoubted harms.
— David Nutt - Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms[13]

Senare under 2009 så kritiserade David Nutt regeringen i Storbritannien för att den vägrade att lyda ACMD:s vetenskapliga råd att nedreglera MDMA från klass A. ACMD:s rapport om ecstasy baserades på en 12-månaders studie av 4000 akademiska avhandlingar och drog slutsatsen att ecstasy inte är lika farligt som andra droger i klass A, exempelvis heroin och kokain och skulle därmed omklassificeras till Klass B. David Nutt släppte även en lista över drogers farlighet[14] som skapade rubriker över hela världen [15]. Allt detta blev för mycket för inrikesministern Alan Johnson som sparkade David Nutt för att han arbetade mot den gällande policyn[16][12].

Efter den händelsen så valde flera andra medlemmar i ACMD:s råd att avgå. Man ansåg att om politikerna ska låta politisk korrekthet gå före vetenskapen så finns det ingen anledning att ha ett vetenskapligt råd. [17]

On November 10, 2009 three further members of the Council resigned following a meeting with Alan Johnson. They were: Dr John Marsden, Dr Ian Ragan and Dr Simon Campbell. A sixth member, Dr Polly Taylor, resigned in March 2010, shortly before the decision to make the legal high, mephedrone illegal. On April 1, 2010 Eric Carlin also resigned after the announcement that mephedrone would be made illegal, saying that the decision by the Home Secretary was "unduly based on media and political pressure". He also stated "We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour. As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."
— Wikipedia[12]

Numera leder David Nutt arbetet med DrugScience (Tidigare kallad "The Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs" (ISCD) ) som sprider information baserad på vetenskap istället för politisk korrekthet.

I sin roll som professor och forskningsledare så är han även med och studerar psykedeliska drogers medicinska effekter, exempel MDMA mot PTSD[18].

Nutt beskriver hur narkotikapolitiken utgör ett hinder för legitim forskning och har hindrat läkemedelsutvecklingen:

The outlawing of drugs such as cannabis, MDMA and LSD amounts to the “the worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Copernicus and Galileo”, the former Government drugs advisor Professor David Nutt has claimed.

...UN conventions on drugs in the 1960s and 1970s have delayed the development of “innovative treatments” for PTSD and depression by 30 years and also set back research into areas of neuroscience such as consciousness.

In a paper published today with two other scientists in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience, he said that drugs policy is being driven by “politics, not science”.


Applying for a Government licence can be costly and time-consuming and many scientists are put off by a culture of “repression” surrounding drug science, Professor Nutt said.

“The laws scare off funders and most scientists are scared because they think if they break the law, they might get arrested,”
— David nutt till tidningen The Independent[19]

Howard Marks Interviews David Nutt On The Dangers of Drugs & Drug Policy Reform (November, 2010)

Föreläsning på Karolinska Institutet 2013: Decision making about illegal drugs: time for science to take the lead

David Nutt förklarar i Newsnight varför vetenskapen bör styra drogpolicyn


Svenska auktoriteter

Professor Ted Goldberg (som för övrigt citeras flitigt i kapitlet om Svensk förbudspolitik), f.d narkotikageneralen och politikern Björn Fries, samt filosofen och mångsysslaren Alexander Bard har under lång tid deltagit i debatter och skrivit debattartiklar som beskriver ett missnöje med Sveriges narkotikapolitik. Dokumentären "Straff / Vård - En film om den svenska narkotikapolitiken" från stiftelsen "Glöm Aldrig William Petzäll" (2014) innehåller intervjuer som sammanfattar de tre samhällsdebattörernas åsikter och argument på ett mycket bra sätt.

Straff / Vård - En film om den svenska narkotikapolitiken:

Ron Paul

Ron Paul är en amerikanska representathus-delegat och har bl.a ställt upp som presidentkandidat 2012. Ron Paul har bl.a följande att säga om kriget mot droger:

Ron Paul on Nixon's drug war:

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky är professor i lingvistik och är en känd samhällsdebattör i USA. Han har i flera decennier kritiserat kriget mot droger.

...the United Nations tries to monitor the international drug trade, and their estimates are on the order of $400 to $500 billion -- half a trillion dollars a year -- in trade alone, which makes it higher than oil, something like 10 percent of the world trade. Where this money comes and goes to is mostly unknown, but general estimates are that maybe 60 percent of it passes through US banks. After that, a lot goes to offshore tax havens. It's so obscure that nobody monitors it, and nobody wants to. But the Commerce Department every year publishes figures on foreign direct investment -- where US investment is going -- and through the '90s the big excitement has been the "new emerging markets" like Latin America. And it turns out that a quarter of US foreign direct investment is going to Bermuda, another 15 percent to the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands, another 10 percent to Panama, and so on. Now, they're not building steel factories. The most benign interpretation is that it's just tax havens. And the less benign interpretation is that it's one way of passing illegal money into places where it will not be monitored. We really don't know, because it is not investigated. This is not the task of the Justice Department, which is to go after a black kid in the ghetto who has a joint in his pocket.
— Noam Chomsky, 1998[20]
Noam Chomsky - On Social Cleansing, the 'war on drugs', Marijuana and prohibition

Flera Nobelpristagare i ekonomi

Milton Friedman som fick Nobelpriset i ekonomi 1976 diskuterar förbudets nackdelar och drar paralleller till USA:s förbud mot alkohol under 20-talet och dess konsekvenser:

Milton Friedman - Why Drugs Should Be Legalized:

En rapport från London School of Economics and Political Science 2014[21] kritiserar den förda narkotikapolitiken och uppmanar FN att tänka om. Rapporten signeras av 4 nobelpristagare i ekonomi (år inom parentes); Professor Kenneth Arrow (1972), Professor Sir Christopher Pissarides (2010), Professor Thomas Schelling (2005), Professor Vernon Smith (2002).

Mark Haden

Mark Haden är ingen stor auktoritet men har jobbat 25 år som drogutbildare/drogföreläsare i Kanada och har gått från att vara förbudsförespråkare till att numera förespråka skademinimering och avkriminalisering. Se fler intressanta videoklipp på YouTube eller besök hans hemsida för mer information.

We have overemphasized the harms of drugs, we have neglected to mention the benefits of certain drugs and we have omitted mentioning the harms that drug prohibition causes...
— Mark Haden[22]
Mark Haden: A drug educator's apology:

A Public Health Approach to Illegal Drugs or How to end the drug war:


  1. 1,0 1,1 Report Of The Global Commission On Drug Policy (2011)
  2. Global Commission on Drug Policy
  3. ICSDP - International Centre for Science in Drug Policy
  4. ICSDP: Publications
  5. ICSDP: State Of The Evidence Cannabis Use And Regulation (ICSDP, 2015)
  6. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)
  7. LEAP - Why Legalize Drugs?
  8. Schildower Kreis
  9. 2014-04-10: Law professors demand cannabis legalization
  10. Vice 2014-04-15: Legal Experts Are Rebelling Against German Drug Laws
  11. Developing a rational scale for assessing the risks of drugs of potential misuse. (Nutt, 2007)
  12. 12,0 12,1 12,2 Wikipedia: Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
  13. Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms (Nutt, 2009)
  14. Estimating drug harms: a risky business? (Nutt, 2009)
  15. TT-REUTERS 2010-11-01: Forskare: Alkohol värre än heroin
  16. Wikipedia: David Nutt
  17. The Guardian 2009-11-02: David Nutt's sacking causes mass revolt against Alan Johnson
  18. Imperial College 2014-01-17: Study reveals how ecstasy acts on the brain and hints at therapeutic uses
  19. The Independent 2013-06-12: 'The worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Galileo': Scientists call for drugs to be legalised to allow proper study of their properties
  20. High Times 1998: The Drug War Industrial Complex
  21. Ending the Drug Wars - Report of the LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy
  22. The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition: Mark Haden: A Drug Educator’s Apology


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


Sidan ändrades senast 14 november 2019 klockan 13.15.
Den här sidan har visats 6 645 gånger.

Translate this page: