Consultation response to the Rush enforcement committee from the Association for Human
narkotikapolitikk (Here in pdf)
The Association for Humane Drug Policy (FHR) is a user organisation in the field of substance abuse.
A democratic member organisation that acts as a mouthpiece for, and fights for
the rights of drug users.
We thank you for the invitation to submit a consultation response. At the same time, we would like to add that we
think it’s a little strange that the consultation bodies are to respond to a legal mandate set by the
government, which still appears unprocessed by the Rush Enforcement Committee.
In any case, we would urge the committee not to follow up on this mandate. The premise
for the mandate is contrary to the available knowledge and looks more like a political
looks more like a political commission than a study of an evidence base that the committee
that the committee can use as a basis for its recommendations. The mandate is also based on a
and exaggerated belief that the police should prioritise uncovering and
prevent use. As if such police control actually scares people away from using
drugs, so it has a general preventive effect.
As stated in the background to the assignment to the Rush Enforcement Committee, the
In the spring of 2022, the Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that the Storting, in its consideration of Prop.
92 L (2020-2021) unanimously expressed that it is not appropriate to penalise
addicts for dealing with drugs for their own use. And that this
that this should henceforth generally lead to a waiver of sentencing, cf. section 61 of the Penal Code
(Which deals with emphasising whether the imposition of a sentence will act as an unreasonable
unreasonable additional burden for the offender, nor does the purpose and effects of the
the purpose and effects of the penalty otherwise indicate that a sanction should be imposed).
In our opinion, the government should have been inspired by the Supreme Court’s
starting point, i.e. this unanimity in the Storting. On the other hand, they write in
that the overall framework for the assignment is that the committee shall take
that the use and possession of small amounts of narcotics for personal use should continue to be
use should continue to be a criminal offence, and that this should also apply to people
considered “addicts”. But then “addicts” in general should not
not be subject to tangible criminal sanctions.
This recommendation may contribute to the police continuing the practice of arresting and
seizure of opioids, for example, an American research report from March 2023
shows that this leads to an increase in overdose deaths and many other unfortunate
consequences, while the intention has been the opposite(1).
It may be useful to make some considerations about what underlies
that a unanimous parliament has come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to penalise
appropriate to penalise drug addicts for dealing drugs for their own use.
own use.
For a long time, it was people in more or less well-known drug environments who were primarily the victims
of the zero vision that reigned. Drug users were criminalised, those with
extensive use were treated as bad guys/gangsters and
multi-criminalised. Many police officers made a career out of the fight against drugs
the fight against drugs, and for a long time they were premise suppliers for developing
practices that violated human rights.
This led to widespread despair in the population about the
life situations many people with substance abuse challenges live under, about the lack of
the lack of effect of the prevailing policy, and over the high overdose rates.
A harm reduction organisation was set up that provides services to
prevent harm that mainly arises as a result of prohibition and criminalisation
and an apparatus for legal heroin substitution.
For the past ten years, the Norwegian Parliament has had a national overdose strategy that also
involves measures that were previously unthinkable. The requirement to be drug-free in order to
get help is outdated.
Hence the title of the overdose strategy: “Of course it’s possible to become drug-free, but
but you have to survive first.”
In 2004, drug addiction became a politically recognised disease. Based on a
biopsychological perspective that emphasises its complexity. The following was introduced
interdisciplinary specialised treatment of substance abuse disorders in the public health service.
The majority of those who develop what is known as substance dependence primarily have
primarily have underlying causes for their disorders. The extensive
substance use is more a symptom of serious challenges in their lives,
rather than the substance use being the problem in itself. Hence the interdisciplinary
approach.
Despite this development, there has long been a consensus in the Norwegian
Parliament to maintain the penalty line. But then the view on drugs has changed
changed rapidly in recent years. The Storting has adopted legislative amendments that entail
decriminalisation, five parliamentary parties want decriminalisation and a unanimous
unanimous parliament has stated that it is inappropriate to penalise “addicts”.
“addicts”.
This recommendation by the Storting, which the Supreme Court has taken as its starting point, has
the Supreme Court has taken as its starting point, has not meant that only people with so-called
but also people who have used substances in connection with other life challenges.
other challenges in life. And with a flexible understanding of the threshold values.
Consideration for the people in question, with their widely differing challenges or
challenges or burdens in life are finally being emphasised in the legal system, and so should
the government should do, and the committee should contribute to this.
The realisation that forms the basis of the unanimous recommendation in the Storting,
is that, despite all other developments in the field, the criminal justice system creates extensive
problems. It stands in the way of better success with the serious challenges,
it hinders preventive activities, it prevents people from being in a position to receive help
to receive help and contributes to those with extensive substance abuse challenges
live 15-20 years shorter than the rest of the population.
This mandate will in no way address these challenges.
It is not only those with a so-called drug addiction who are at risk of dying from
overdose. Or only those who have extensive or harmful use. It’s not just
only those who face serious challenges in life or who are stigmatised and pushed into
into marginalisation.
Drug dependency is neither a concrete entity nor a constant condition.
Introducing this as a legal concept would be highly stigmatising and
involve a reversal of the development of knowledge in the field. And it would also
would be an unfortunate way of following up on the realisation and intent behind this
unanimity.
Those who alleviate life with substance use, regardless of how extensive,
to maintain their functions and persevere in life after abuse,
abuse, neglect, accident or during a life crisis, should neither be penalised nor legally
should neither be penalised nor legally characterised as incipiently drug dependent, drug dependent or
heavily drug dependent.
People who cannot take advantage of existing healthcare services for their
challenges, but take mushrooms (with psilocybin) in the hope of getting a therapeutic
therapeutic effect that can help them out of their addiction, at least with the
underlying problems, should neither be penalised nor simply defined as addicts.
as drug addicts.
Those who have ADHD, but who have not received any assessment and certainly not any
medical treatment with legal amphetamines and therefore use amphetamines illegally,
or those who use drugs to cope with other mental illnesses should neither be penalised
neither be penalised nor simply defined as drug addicts.
Those who have become drug dependent after being prescribed opioid painkillers
benzodiazepines, so-called iatrogenic addiction, who lose their medication
medication when the doctor realises that an addiction has occurred, should neither be
should neither be penalised nor legally defined as addicts if they use other
opioids or benzodiazepines to avoid withdrawal.
Those who have previously undergone substance abuse treatment, or otherwise recovered
overcome serious addiction challenges and are now using cannabis to keep their
challenges in check, should neither be penalised nor legally defined
as a drug addict.
The list of examples could be long, the point is that the unanimity in the
in the National Assembly, which represents an important change of direction, points to the fact that
rather than the police are best at prevention and that it should be facilitated to
the situation of the individual and take human considerations into account rather than
rather than introducing a legal definition of the term drug addict and defining people
like this in order for them to avoid punishment.
The issue of self-incrimination is also an important point that speaks against
legalise the concept of drug addiction. It can lead to someone
to be understood as a drug addict in order to avoid punishment, with all the
consequences this can have. And you can risk being penalised for what you say, if
if the police or others do not conclude that they consider the person to be
drug addict. Or you run the risk that the police may consider that
the substance use that took place up to when the addiction is considered to have arisen,
is a criminal offence. We do not see how anyone can be protected against this.
Based on this and under the current conditions, we would rather recommend
that an assessment be made of whether the municipal counselling units for addicts
can be given new functions. They were initially intended to be an alternative to punishment. Now they are
they are now part of the criminal justice system. This means that municipal social workers in
social workers are, in principle, responsible for carrying out sentences. Albeit a less tangible reaction,
this poses a dilemma. It can nevertheless be very noticeable because some
units are organised in such a way that it can end up in patient records and stick with them
for life. It’s scandalous.
Our suggestion is that these units are investigated for other functions. Such as an
assessment function, where the life situation of the person who is found to be using or
for use or possession for personal use and is ordered to attend, is mapped and those at the units can
report back to the criminal justice system that the person has been advised to seek some type of
some type of assistance, help or follow-up. If the legal system on such a
can take the case out of the criminal justice system, this will contribute to better compliance
compliance with the intention behind the Storting’s recommendation, as we interpret it.
Young people
Since young people are specifically mentioned in the committee’s mandate, we feel it is
necessary to say something specific about this. And then seen in the context of
statements from the Role Understanding Committee and the police management, and with reference to the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Role Understanding Committee (RFSU) was a committee appointed by the Ministry of Justice to
investigate any role mixing between the police and the private drug policy
the private drug policy association Norsk Narkotikapolitiforening, which is now called Norsk
Norwegian Drug Prevention Association, submitted its report in June 2023. THE RFSU
concludes(2):
“That there has not been an adequate distinction between the role as a police officer and the role as a member of
NN(P)F.”
“It becomes a democratic problem and a rule of law problem when police practice and
and police policy are developed by enthusiasts in a private organisation, rather than being anchored and governed by
responsible police management centrally and locally.”
“The committee’s review has left the impression that there is a particular need for further
research on the reasons for and effects of preventive measures. Since prevention is
intended to replace more invasive punishment, there may be a tendency to overlook the fact that
that preventive measures in themselves can be invasive, and to make too few demands on the measures’
effect and consequences“.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 33:
“States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative,
administrative, social and educational measures, to protect the child from the illicit use
use of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, as defined in the relevant international
international treaties, and to prevent children from being used in the illicit production
and trafficking in such substances.”
If you read the travaux préparatoires of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, you will see that “appropriate measures”
means that the interventions and measures taken to protect children and adolescents
against the illicit use of narcotic drugs must be evidence-based, which
cannot be said to be evidence-based, which is not the case for any of the current police
are. There has long been a feeling that they work, and the idea is certainly a good one,
but the review of the knowledge surrounding this casts serious doubt on their effectiveness.
Given that the measures and sanctions used by the police are of a very
invasive nature, we believe that there should be a solid knowledge base in favour
in favour of this, before we expose potentially vulnerable young people to these
to these measures.
The fact that it is now being proposed that the police’s criminal procedural tools for dealing with young people
with young people is something we regard as very unfortunate and worrying. It is contrary to both
Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and with RFSU’s recommendations
that care must be taken to ensure that preventive measures are not more invasive than
the punishment itself.
We see no reason why the authorities’ work against traffickers and distributors
legitimise vulnerable young people being stripped naked, subjected to physical
searched, have their mobile phones searched, have their homes searched and, to put it bluntly
sacrificed in the hunt.
This raises major ethical dilemmas that we do not feel the government has
sufficient awareness around. Firstly, the young people are subjected to very invasive,
traumatising and integrity-infringing measures by the authorities, then
then they risk having to answer to other players in the substance abuse market
who are caught as a result of the invasive investigations, which could
pose a significant health and safety risk.
Following the Director of Public Prosecutions’ circular of 9 April 2021, so-called user cases have fallen
considerably. At the same time, seizures of large quantities of drugs have increased to
double the average for the last ten years. There is every reason to believe that this
that this is because the authorities have prioritised serious drug crime over
hunting down individual users.
Kristin Elnæs and Pål Meland, Head of Section and Senior Advisor in the police’s
the police’s intelligence section, recently attended the Norwegian Drug and Alcohol Association’s conference
(October 2023) and said the following:(3)
“The police have probably done a lot in the past, and with the very best of intentions, but which now
perhaps it’s clear that it’s not the police who should take that responsibility, it’s perhaps other agencies
that are better than us at it.”
“We recognise that substance abuse prevention is the responsibility of many sectors and that the police are only one of many
actors who have a stake in this field and it is perhaps not the police who have the main shares
in this area.”,
“Some officials have been out and said that “now we have no means, we have lost the authorisation
to search”. We don’t agree with that, we have many tools, but what is important is that we are now
from the criminal case track to the help track linked to substance abuse among young people.”
“We must consider the best interests of the child and proportionality, so that the preventive
preventative measures from becoming more invasive than criminal proceedings.”
and
“The police have done a lot of work based on experience, but now realise that we also need to work even more
knowledge-based“.
Nevertheless, the Rush Enforcement Committee is tasked with investigating the possibilities for the police to
to do more of what the police themselves recognise is not evidence-based, and
that a number of other organisations point out is not evidence-based, at the
at the expense of vulnerable young people. Young people who very much deserve to be
by a police force that safeguards their integrity and associated vulnerability by
have familiarised themselves sufficiently with the knowledge we have about the harmfulness of
of substance abuse, the development of addiction and the complex reasons behind it.
The Norwegian Psychological Association has previously stated that: “Research shows that punishment and
“Research shows that punishment and sanctioning are counterproductive and lead to stigma and exclusion, especially for young people. The chance
for problematic use or addiction increases and the desired deterrent effect fails to materialise.
“It also lays a poor foundation for rehabilitation and recovery(4).”
The Norwegian Association of Psychologists argues here that punishment and sanctioning are
counterproductive, especially for young people. The use of invasive measures and the
and the consequences this will have for the young person may also make the job of those
who are supposed to help even more difficult. As experience shows that it creates bitterness,
distrust and pushes young people further away from both the support system and
the rest of society.
There are many far less invasive ways to “uncover” young people’s use of
substance use, which health and social care professionals can, for example, solve by
the use of relationships, confidentiality and respectful dialogue as methods.
These are approaches that do not offend, create distrust or push
youth away, but which on the contrary create trust and bring the youth
closer to the support system and society. Approaches that take into account the knowledge
that there are often complex underlying reasons why young people use substances.
use intoxicants. As a result, they can often be particularly vulnerable in relation to how we
how we as a society both meet and understand drug use. In short: You can’t make
these young people to behave better by making them feel worse.
Young people who have experienced serious life stresses such as violence, abuse,
violence, abuse, bullying, exclusion and poverty are up to ten times more likely to
to use illegal drugs(5).
There is a high probability that these are the young people encountered by the police(6).
In relation to those young people who experiment with drugs, without there
there are not necessarily any underlying reasons for this, the use of invasive
coercive measures and a possible threat from others in the drug market can impose
the young person’s life to such an extent that the risk of escalation of the
substance use will be present.
A twin study from the UK suggests that young people who come into contact with the
with the criminal justice system early in life increases the risk of crime later in life. Possibly because it
can often be perceived as a serious life burden for the individual(7).
According to section 6, second paragraph of the Police Act, the police shall: “not use stronger means unless
weaker means must be assumed to be inadequate or inappropriate, or without such
have been tried in vain“. We therefore recommend that the committee investigate how
police can meet young people relationally and in dialogue, as these are means that are
both appropriate and sufficient enough to uncover the young person’s
youth’s possible substance use.
We recognise that the police encounter young people involved in worrying
substance use in their daily work and we believe that the police should have a role in relation to
these young people, but that this role must at all times be characterised by the
knowledge we have about how best to prevent and protect young people from
young people from substance abuse challenges.
1: Bradley Ray, et al. 27 June 2023: Spatiotemporal Analysis Exploring The Effect of
Law Enforcement DrugMarket Disruptions on Overdose.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ref/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307291
2: Magnussen, A-M et al. 11.01.2023. Police and role understanding: The relationship between
the police and the Norwegian Narcotics Police Association.
https://www.regjeringen.no/…/politi-og…/id2958426/
3: K. Elnæs, P. Meland. “The role of the police in drug prevention work” presented at
Rusfeltets Hovedorganisasjons conference: “Livet og rus”, Oslo, Norway. 2023.
4: Sømhovd & Vedvik 2020, 23.11. Supports the proposed substance abuse reform. psykologforeningen.no.
https://www.psykologforeningen.no/foreningen/aktuelt/aktuelt/stoetter-den-foreslaatte-rusreformen
5: Dube, SR et al. 2003. Childhood Abuse, Neglect, and Household Dysfunction and
the Risk of Illicit Drug Use: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study.
researchgate.net. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8109355_Childhood_Abuse_Neglect_and_Household_Dysfunction_and_the_Risk_of_Illicit_Drug_Use_The_Adverse_Childhood_Experiences_Study.
6: Pedersen, W. “We need to talk more about cannabis”. Aftenposten. 2019:
https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk/i/RR4grO/vi-maa-snakke-mer-om-cannabis-willy-pedersen
7: Motz RT et al. 2019, 29.12. Does contact with the justice system deter or promote
future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12236
