There are a hardly a legaliseringstilhenger who recognize themselves in Øystein Schjetnes characteristics when he claims that we react with "rage and panic" because he calls for adequate rusinformasjon in the school. We have every reason to want to know more about drugs in school. But Schjetne want more scare tactics, among other things, whether reformbevegelsens subjects.
When Schjetne says that "a prohibition against drugs must be given legitimacy by the fact that the state takes the task of continuously to inform about the background for the law", we will remind that the approach already has been tried with the result that the young have lost confidence in the adult's information, especially when it comes to cannabis. Today, they look to other substances, and the same tillitsproblemet consists.
To inform about the real the background for the law, will hardly serve Schjetnes case. The over 100-year-old forbudspolitikken built namely on the prejudice against chinese people, african-americans and mexicans, who were associated with, respectively, opium, cannabis and cocaine.
the Ban was introduced by the white men because hardworking immigrants were popular in the labour market and because these substances apparently got the men to persuade themselves that they were just as good as white men, and made them so bold that they dared to look at white women.
It must have been painfully . But we doubt that spreading this message is the way to go to build up respect for a prohibition that more and more gjennomskuer in the day. We think neither do the prohibitions against cohabitation, sex between men, or abortion would have been increasing the turnout of that one repeated their ideological basis with the higher volume when they lovgivningene went towards the end.What was the goal in ruspolitikken again? Debate
But it is symptomatic that forbudspolitikkens advocates must blame it on someone else: When the use increases, as we see today with cannabis and MDMA, it is of course not something wrong with the ban. Then there must be someone who has sent "the wrong signals"; or be not alarmed enough, or been integritetskrenkende enough.
Instead, there is a call for more control, stigma and coercion. The attitude has given the Uk some of the strictest penalties for drug-related offences and created systematic violations of the human right to privacy.
Schjetne strongly warns to offer the testing of drugs at festivals, because it according to him is about to put the stamp of approval on illegal drugs and send the wrong signals (again). It falls on its urimelighet to make responsible health care provider for, to tell the young that the substances are safe. No health care provider would ever formulated.
To offer "pilletesting" is about to raise awareness of young people about the types of drugs can be counterfeits and about to get in a position to talk with them about the risks of use of illicit drugs.
No places where one operates with such testing is it detected any increase in use, and many refrain from using the substances for these calls.
most of The actions that today saves lives and reduces damage in stoffavhengige, such as the distribution of clean syringes and opioid substitution treatment (f.ex. methadone), has been introduced only after many years of battles against the claims that this would facilitate use and drug problems. Even professionals have over the years warned against the "signaleffekten" to tolerate the use of drugs.
the Fight for harm reduction is still, among other things, in the question of whether we should prescribe diamorfin (heroin) to those who are addicted; if we are to offer legal alternatives for those who are addicted to stimulants (such as amphetamine) or benzodiazepines (such as valium); whether we should allow the smoking of heroin in addition to drug consumption rooms; and whether we should allow rusmiddeltesting festivals.
What about forbudspolitikken was never introduced? In a legal market would substances been subject to quality control in all stages. Sold by responsible people in safe outlets. They would come with the declaration and the package insert about possible side effects, precautions, and safe dosage. The force would have been smooth, and the funds had never been mixed with lugubre additives. They would rather did not contain bacteria, molds, grains of sand or other contaminations in mushroom culture.
If you got an unwanted reaction, one could take with the gasket to the emergency room or hospital, which would be known at once what they should do to help. Which user would you know what to look for in yourself and your friends. You be able to make you experience with doseringer, and certain just how large the doses you should take for it to be comfortable and not too much.
instead, it produced substances in the day of the crime and on its way to the consumer mixed the out with everything from washing powder and ormemiddel, lead and glass to increase the weight. They have uncertain strength, and often contains not even the drug you think you are buying. In the united STATES die in the tens of thousands because the heroin is mixed with fentanyl. In Norway, we have had 35 deaths from PMMA, a falsification of MDMA. New synthetic drugs are discovered weekly; and the doctors do not know what the patients have taken.
Look at harm reduction in the bird's-eye view, one understands that it really is all about reducing the damage of forbudspolitikken: Rusmiddeltesting festivals to save lives because the prohibition has given us unsafe drugs; clean injecting equipment and reduces the smitterisikoen, after that the ban has been infection to explode. Legally methadone or heroin promises the users out of the drug trafficking, crimes for profit and sex work – that they were doing because the prohibition provides high prices.
Multiple locations to be implemented straffeamnesti for those who call for assistance for overdoses, because straffetrusselen makes people afraid to ask for help. And why dies no one of heroin, which is administered in heroinklinikker, when thousands die of it illegal? The answers to several questions such is there for everyone to dig in. It is namely not only rusmiddelbruken itself that kills people and fills the community with crime, it is primarily the prohibition and criminalization that make – and all the regulations they make impossible.
the latter is an active choice to refuse those who use these substances safety and health, and provides at the same time an unnecessarily large burden on the health care system. Schjetne is one of those who is supporter of to do rusmiddelbruken more dangerous through prohibition and then deny the users a minimum of security through rusmiddeltesting. It is time to take distance from the kind of instruments in folkehelsens name.10 commandments for a successful rusreform Debate