I said at the beginning that the only good argument for a ban should be that legalization, even under a good regulatory system, would lead to an increase in consumption, and that this increase should have some magnitude. I hope that the reader, if she is still involved, will agree that this must be completely rejected in the case of heroin, where such a regulated and legal trade effect must not be found, quite the contrary. I am in favour of legalization, but it is not that difficult to see where the interests of the police lie and why. The drug reform proposed in 2018 provided that users should avoid penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs, i.e. the decriminalization of use and possession. This was not a proposal for legalization, but an exemption from penalties for small amounts. You can read more about the difference between legalization and decriminalization and more details on the drug reform proposal below. Although many people use the terms interchangeably, decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing. Like most prohibitionists, Hauglie and Tveten begin their argument for a total ban with the harmful effects and costs associated with drug abuse. It can be interesting to discuss in itself, and it is a purely academic complex field.

What is important in this context, however, as most people should be able to agree relatively easily, is that a discussion of how various currently banned harmful substances is only relevant to the extent that legalization leads to an increase in use. Another factor that may require special treatment: Tveten looks at statistics on drug-related deaths. He notes that after decriminalization, Portugal first experienced a decline, then an increase almost back to the initial level. Now, Portugal is not an example that I would like to highlight; So the country introduced the decriminalization of use, not the actual legal trade, and then you lose most of the positive effects that legalization can have on the drug market. In the United States, we see that the commercial cannabis market is reflected on the one hand in marketing, branding and the development of new products for new target groups and, on the other hand, in political advocacy in the form of trade associations, campaign contributions and lobbying to influence market regulation. In U.S. states where cannabis is legal for medical purposes, a wide range of cannabis edibles have emerged, from cakes and candies to soft drinks and tea. Recent statistics have now emerged where definitions of what are considered drug-related deaths are more harmonised across countries. Here the figures for Portugal are much lower; One measure shows the same trend (at about one-tenth of Norway`s level and not about the same level), while another measure shows a downward trend in recent years, also at a level well below Norway`s. Internationally, we also see that there is a powerful lobby working towards the legalization of cannabis and other drugs. The organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) reported during the 2014 U.S. midterm elections that supporters of legalization were very savvy.

The cannabis legalization wing in Alaska, Oregon and Washington D.C. spent about $9,000,000, while the legalization department spent $400,000. The only place where opposing forces could raise money near the legalization movement was Florida. This is where the legalization proposal was made, a proposal that had previously been considered a “fait accompli.” Many are unsure of the difference between decriminalization and legalization of drugs. Legalisation means that the use, purchase, sale and storage of drugs become legal and covered by specific legislation. Again, there are many possible models – from strict regulations to full liberation (free market). Legalization will open a legal market for the purchase, manufacture and sale of one or more illicit drugs. Legalization requires new laws such as age limits, laws on who can sell, etc.

Legalization would therefore be a much broader change than decriminalization. In summary, let`s be generous with prohibition advocates and, contrary to research, assume that the number of people using illegal drugs would increase by 20% with legalization, which is at the upper end of what all the studies have found. We have seen that illicit drugs are the only drug found in perhaps seven per cent of blood samples from car deaths; But let us also give it crucial importance in half of the cases where there are also other substances, so that we reach 13 per cent. A 20 percent increase would then lead to a 2.6 percent increase in the number of fatal accidents, or a cost, as Tveten puts it, of about NOK 728 million (which is actually inaccurate, as fatal accidents ultimately account for a smaller proportion of accidents and costs), far from NOK 28 billion. which is the only figure, which Tveten indicated. We must then subtract all other causal relationships: would some of the accidents still have occurred because of risky behaviour in terms of gender, age and personality and not because of substance use? Hundreds of millions more have to be deducted, and the increase in fatalities continues to decrease from about five a year to three, two or one, according to studies in this area. And even this figure, that is, before taking into account the fact that, in particular, such an increase in cannabis consumption could just as easily lead to a decrease in the number of alcohol-related road accidents, which could bring the whole calculation at most. Incidentally, this point generally applies to the discussion of observed harms associated with drugs: heavy drug users often have a number of complicated problems that precede drug abuse. If you want to talk about the consequences of legalization, it is really important that the chicken or the egg came first.