Cannabisbruk og forbudsstrategien

8/6/2019 Cannabisbruk og forbudsstrategien

1/6

1

Hva sier fagmiljene

om cannabisbrukog forbudsstrategien?Bjrn Hjelmerud, Juli 2009.

Shafer-kommisjonens rapport

Shafer-kommisjonens rapport er et typisk eksempel p hva som skjer nr du ber en ekspertgruppestudere cannabisbruken i samfunnet og de virkemidlene vi benytter for begrense det.Kommisjonen fikk navnet "The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse" og innledet sittarbeid i 1970 p oppdrag av davrende president i USA, Richard Nixon. Konklusjonene ble presentert i1972 under tittelen "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding".Hensikten med kommisjonens arbeid var kartlegge utbredelsen, bruken og virkningene av cannabis,

cannabisbrukens forhold til andre fenomener i samtiden, og effektiviteten av de lover som skulle forhindreslik bruk. Kommisjonen satte igang med en mlrettet innsamling og evaluering av fakta rundtcannabisbruk og dets virkning p individ og samfunn, for skille myter fra virkeligheten. Og det man fantvar ikke helt det oppdragsgiveren nsket hre.

Sitatene nedenfor viser den ubehagelige sannhet:"Scientific evidence has clearly demonstrated that marihuana is not a narcotic drug, and the lawshould properly reflect this fact.""Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actualimpact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish thosewho use it "

Kommisjonens rapport forandret ikke presidentens eller kongressens holdning til cannabis og frte ikke til

noen endring i narkotikabekjempelsen. Konklusjonene, rdene og forslagene til kommisjonen ble i sinhelhet ignorert til fordel for en intensivert krig mot cannabis og cannabisbrukere. Man kan selvflgeligsprre seg hvorfor man nedsetter en arbeidsgruppe for avdekke sannheten, for deretter ignorere detde kommer fram til. Det er nrliggende tro at man faktisk forventet f bekreftet sin oppfatning avcannabis som et farlig stoff. Kanskje forventet man ogs f bekreftet at forbud og straff var en effektivmte bekjempe det p. Uansett velger man alts i ettertid ignorere alt det ekspertisen p omrdetmtte ha si om saken.

Andre rapporter om cannabisbruk og rusbekjempelse.

Shafer rapporten er kun ett eksempel i rekken av ekspertuttalelser som har blitt ignorert nr de kommerfram til feil sannhet. Det at forbudslinjen i ruspolitikken er feil vei g understrekes ogs av denamerikanske Wickersham rapporten p alkoholforbudet fra 1930. Gang p gang blir det sltt fast av

eksperter innen medisin, juss, sosiologi, osv at moderat cannabisbruk er lite skadelig for individet selv ogsamfunnet som helhet. Forbudslinjen i ruspolitikken blir ogs hver gang bedmt som lite effektiv og rsaktil mange alvorlige samfunnsproblemer. Mange av disse rapportene er blitt bestilt av folkevalgterepresentanter eller andre deler av statsapparatet og i ettertid glemt.

Etter ha lest gjennom disse rapportene og sammenlignet det med hva ruspolitikken ble i etterkant, trerdet frem et tydelig mnster.

Ekspertenes konklusjoner og rd blir ignorert hver gang. Staten/politikerne/avholdsorganisasjonene fortsetter bruke de samme "sannhetene" for

forsvare forbudet, som nettop har blitt avslrt som myter og oppspinn av ekspertene. Istedet for akseptere det faktum at forbudslinjen er bevist vre ineffektiv og skadelig, trappes

narkokrigen opp. De uakseptable rapportene blir forskt gjemt eller glemt.


2/6

2

N i 2009 ser det ut som at historien skal gjenta seg med vr egen straffelovkommisjon.Gi politikerne beskjed om at vi ikke lenger aksepterer at vre argumenter besvares med tommefraser!

1894 (Storbritania)

Indian Hemp Drugs Commission ReportPhysical, Mental, and Moral Effects of Marijuana-"Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that theexcessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use produces practically no il l effects."

1930 (USA)

The Wickersham Commission ReportReport on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws of the United States-"Alcohol use declined during the first two or three years of Prohibition (a trend that had begun beforeProhibition started) but rose every year thereafter. There was, in particular, an increase in the use ofdistilled liquors. There was also evidence of increased alcohol use and addiction among minors."

1944 (USA)

The LaGuardia Committee ReportMayor's Committee on Marihuana, The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York-"The practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word."

-"The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction, and no effort is made to

create a market for those narcotics by stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking."


3/6

3

1961 (USA)

Drug Addiction: Crime or Disease? Joint Committee of the American Bar Association and theAmerican Medical Association on Narcotic Drugs

-"Drug addiction is primarily a problem for the physician rather than the policeman, and it should not benecessary for anyone to violate the criminal law solely because he is addicted to drugs."

1968 (Storbritania)

The Wootton ReportAdvisory Committee on Drug Dependence, Cannabis-"There is no evidence that in Western society serious physical dangers are directly associated with thesmoking of cannabis."

-"It can clearly be argued on the world picture that cannabis use does not lead to heroin addiction."

-"The evidence of a link with violent crime is far stronger with alcohol than with the smoking of cannabis."

-"There is no evidence that this activity ... is producing in otherwise normal people conditions ofdependence or psychosis, requiring medical treatment."

1970 (Canada)

The Le Dain ReportCanadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs-Many users of cannabis exhibit high ethical standards, apart from their wilful violation of the drug laws.This aspect of the case against cannabis appears to reduce itself upon closer examination to disapprovalof the attitudes and values of cannabis users, and particularly their attitude towards conventionalstandards of behaviour and morality.

-For significant numbers of users who make the law relatively ineffective as a means of controllingdemand, the law does not have moral authority. Its stigmatization has no effect on their conduct.

-There is no doubt that the criminal law prohibition of distribution encourages the development of an illicitmarket, where, as in the case of cannabis, there is a significant demand for the product. This is aninherent cost of the prohibition of distribution. It means that a certain number of people will be encouragedto engage in the crime of trafficking and to make a profit from it.


4/6

4

1972 (USA)

Dealing with Drug AbuseA Report to the Ford Foundation

-It is now widely recognized that drug education, to succeed with increasingly sophisticated youngaudiences, must be accurate, factual, and consistent with the listener's own experiences or observations.

-We believe that the individual and social harm caused by imposing criminal sanctions on drug users faroutstrips the benefits of this approach. Handling drug users as criminals has created widespreaddisrespect for the drug laws, has resulted in selective enforcement, has possibly done more to encouragethan to discourage illegal drug use, has undercut bona fide efforts to explain the important differencesamong various drugs in the physical and mental damage they cause, and has deterred drug abusers fromseeking necessary help.

1973 (USA)Drug Use in America: Problem in PerspectiveUS National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse

-Cannabis should be removed from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), since this drug doesnot pose the same social and public health problems associated with the opiates and coca leaf products.

-The unauthorized possession of any controlled substance except marihuana for personal use shouldremain a prohibited act. The primary purpose of the possession laws should be detection of those personswho would benefit by treatment or prevention services, rather than criminal punishment.

-The government should not support programs which compel persons to undergo drug testing, except inlimited situations.

1979 (Canada)Cannabis Control Policy: A Discussion PaperCanadian Government - Health Protection Branch Department of National Health and Welfare-Given our empirical understanding of both the effects of cannabis and the adverse consequences thatflow from applying a counterproductive possessory sanction, it appears, on balance, that essentially thesame measure of public health protection can be attained through a less comprehensive and injurious useof the criminal law.

1980 (USA)

The Facts About Drug AbuseThe Drug Abuse Council-Treatment for drug dependence should be available chiefly because people need help, rather than as acrime control or behaviour control method.

-Legislative efforts to decriminalize at both state and federal levels the possession of small amounts of

marijuana for personal use should continue.


5/6

5

1982 (USA)

An Analysis of Marijuana Policy Committee on Substance Abuse and Habitual Behavior, Commission on Behavioral and Social

Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy of Science-Alienation from the rule of law in democratic society may be the most serious cost of current marijuanalaws. The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse was concerned that young people who seeno rational basis for the legal distinction between alcohol and marijuana may become cynical about

America's political institutions and democratic process.

1994 (Australia)

Legislative Options for CannabisAustralian Government-Australian society experiences more harm, we conclude, from maintaining the prohibition policy than itexperiences from the use of the drug.

1996(Australia)

Drugs and our CommunityReport of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council, Melbourne: Victorian GovernmentUse and possession of a small quantity of marijuana should no longer be anoffence. Small quantity should be defined as no more than 25 grams.

Cultivation of up to five cannabis plants per household for personal use shouldno longer be an offence.

2002 (Norge)

Den Norske straffelovkommisjonenFlertallet i kommisjonen (Coward, Hauge og Sulland) gr inn for avkriminalisere bruk av narkotika, ogerverv og besittelse av narkotika til eget bruk. Forslaget til flertallet innebrer at legemiddelloven 24frste ledd, frste handlingsalternativ om besittelse og bruk av narkotika oppheves, og at viderefringenav straffeloven 1902 162 frste ledd ikke omfatter erverv og besittelse av narkotikatil eget bruk, jf. 25-1.Sammenfatningsvis gir flertallet flgende begrunnelse for sitt standpunkt-For det frste vises det til at skadeflgeprinsippet tilsier en avkriminalisering, idet de direkteskadevirkningene ved bruk av narkotiske stoffer utelukkende rammer brukerne.-Dernest fremholder flertallet at p samme mte som ved bruk av alkohol, tobakk, sniffestoffer mv., brogs bruk av narkotika vre straffritt. Slik bruk br bekjempes med andre midler enn strafferettslige.

Sitert fra Ot.prp.nr 22 (2008-2009)Om lov om endringer i straffeloven 20. mai 2005 nr. 28 (siste delproposisjon sluttfring av spesiell delog tilpasning av annen lovgivning)


6/6

6

Dette er bare et utvalg av serise studier om dette temaet og mye er utelatt pga plasshensyn. finneuavhengige studier som vurderer forbudet mot cannabis som effektivt og gunstig er en mye strreutfordring, men jeg tar gjerne imot tips om slike hvis de finnes, p [email protected]

Kilderhttp://www.druglibrary.org/toc.htm

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/jd/dok/regpubl/otprp/2008-2009/otprp-nr-22-2008-2009-/4/2/2.html?id=540333

http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/2138594/PDFS/OTP200820090022000DDDPDFS.pdf

http://books.google.no/books?id=DzXZD8xGJ8IC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=%22The+National+Commission+on+Marihuana+and+Drug+Abuse%22&source=bl&ots=55sS28pwCc&sig=R7HKd17LdDfeXN-NzHhSymxBNLM&hl=no&ei=vadmSpy2GIPW-QaPluVS&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Marihuana_and_Drug_Abuse

Cannabisbruk og forbudsstrategien

Documents

Transcript of Cannabisbruk og forbudsstrategien