Rusreform
The Norwegian Paradox in Drug Policy
Paradigms
In the 1960s, two American archaeologists were in eastern Turkey searching for relics of the Neolithic era. When they unearthed some artifacts, they thought they were Roman or Byzantian relics due to the high level of sophistication of the items. The artifacts from the neolithic ‘new stone age’ they were trying to find couldn’t possibly be so refined, and thus the archeologists, dismissed them as irrelevant to their research.
This turned out to be a wrongful assumption that must have haunted the nameless Americans decades later. When German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt returned to the site some 30 years after them, he recognized the significance of what they had so disastrously overlooked: the remains of Göbekli Tepe. This temple soon revolutionized our understanding of prehistory. The Stone Age structure with many precisely erected pillars and refined artwork contradicted the prevailing belief of that time that only agricultural societies could create complex monuments. In a striking example of paradigmatic blindness, the original archaeologists couldn’t see beyond the assumptions that comprised their scientific worldview.
Today, we like to think that our perspective is more flexible. After all, we live in the information age with internet fora providing many hundreds of opinions and viewpoints on an immense number of topics. Although technology has progressed, and single websites contain more information than one can read in a lifetime, our minds have not necessarily improved nor have they become less susceptible to paradigmatic blindness. We still fall prey to our biases with astounding velocity and frequency, and we rarely step outside the confines of the familiar narratives we have grown accustomed to, be it out of pride, laziness, groupthink, or any other of the plethora of psychological pitfalls that befalls us humans.
The 2021 movie Don’t Look Up highlights this affliction of humankind very well. The movie with A-listers Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence is an allegory of modern society as it ridicules the apathy and partisanship that surrounds urgent global issues like climate change. In the plot, a comet shoots toward Earth, and although scientists warn the public, many ignore or downplay the event as they are trapped in a limited belief system — a flawed paradigm — that fails to reflect reality and carries potentially dire consequences.
In both the U.S. and Europe, polarized perspectives and rigid belief systems, as ridiculed in the satirical film, have increasingly become commonplace in the last decades. In Europe for instance, farmers protest for their right to continue with practices harming the environment, like dairy and beef farms. Their opponents lambast them for it, often ridiculing or ignoring the fact that these farmers are just trying to feed their families and their countries and keep a multi-generational business alive. In the United States, political partisanship has reached extreme levels. Supporters of incumbent president Donald Trump exhibit a blind and cultish loyalty to the president, ignoring evidence that does not fit their paradigm and rationalizing behaviour that would otherwise lead to cognitive dissonance. Meanwhile, his opponents, including President Biden, often showed no understanding of the worldview of these voters who feel unheard and forgotten, reciprocally referring to them as ‘garbage’ for example, and thus deepening divisions. Across the board, the lack of understanding of others’ viewpoints exacerbates the social separation.
Our worldview tends to be defined by the deluge of our socio-cultural surroundings. Just as fish cannot conceive of a world outside the water they swim in, many find it hard to even begin to imagine why people would prioritize eating meat from beef farms above the welfare of the people still yet to live on our planet, or why people would vote on Donald Trump. Doing so requires open-mindedness and a willingness to question the frameworks shaping our understanding. If we hope to effectively address the urgent issues of our time we must find ways to leap beyond the boundaries of our convictions which steer our actions so unyieldingly.
Norwegian Drug Policy
In Norway, otherwise renowned for its progressivism and open-mindedness, the drug policy has long since been defined by somewhat backward and close-minded paradigmatic thinking. Norway historically adopted a punitive stance toward drug use, treating users as criminals. In recent years they have tried and tested a tolerance policy where the use of drugs was decriminalized, but to no avail. Now, when Norway’s opioid related deaths are among the highest in Europe (European Drug Report 2024, 2024), the government aims to make all use of drugs criminal again, except for those who have developed dependencies, and alcohol of course..
Whether this is the right approach remains to be seen, a success story in this regard comes from Switzerland (Wolf & Herzig, 2019), where decriminalization and destigmatization were a foundational part of the success. It is not difficult to imagine that inducing more shame in the abuser can prevent them from wanting to seek the offered help, thus increasing drug-related deaths. This, I would argue, is exemplary of a lack of understanding of other people’s struggles and rigid paradigmatic thinking where drugs are bad and banning is good. However, significant problems stem from alcohol and opioid-related deaths as well as cocaine-related criminal activities. Since a more lenient approach coincided with an increase in these factors, wanting to impose a zero-tolerance system seems logical. But let’s not overlook its true nature: a fear-driven, visceral reaction propelled by rigid and narrow-minded thinking.
An undeniable example of this is that the use of cocaine, along with cannabis and psilocybin will be criminalized as if they are equally harmful. Although we must acknowledge that the war on drugs has largely failed, and in many parts of Latin America, criminal organizations reign free precisely because of the criminalization of cocaine, it often has hazardous health and societal effects. Legalization is likely fraught with challenges that are of such nature they could easily do more harm than good for a relatively small country with relatively open borders, like Norway. Criminalizing the drug could therefore do two things. In the first place, it can help protect public health by reducing cocaine use and abuse. In the second place, it reduces the demand that fuels cartel violence in Latin America and in Europe and thus the complicity of Norwegian users in these crimes.
The case for criminalization of cannabis use is much more difficult to make. People don’t overdose, and legalization and taxation could reduce crime and make budgets available to help people with addiction issues. However, it is indeed likely damaging to the developing brain, and anyone who has been around avid young weed smokers knows it can rob youth of their energy, passion, and general keenness for life. Perhaps a legal age limit of 23 or 25 is something a more open-minded and progressive government could propose. Nevertheless, I do not aim to make a case for legalization of cannabis, because I do see the value of protecting youth from making irreversible mistakes. In this respect, the numbers seem to be in favour of the government as the relative number of cannabis users remains below the continent’s average and about half as much as in the Netherlands where personal use of the drug has been decriminalized for decades now.
Get Daan’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Having mentioned this, you will agree with me that it is absurd that both cocaine and cannabis are classified as a Schedule 1 drug as if they are in the same league of potential societal harm. Particularly because the legalisation of cannabis is proven to be correlated with a decline in the use of the much more lethal opioids (Shah et al., 2019) as well as the sales of beer (Mital et al., 2024). Opioids form the main causes of drug-related deaths in Norway; in 2022 341 people died from it (Oslo University Hospital, 2023). And last year alone, 450 people died from alcohol induced causes (Folkehelseinstituttet, 2024). Cannabis related deaths do not even show up on the registers, although the drug is related to increased likelihood for traffic incidents (Khiabani et al., 2007). If criminalizing helps at all, it should be the case that allowing for cannabis use and minimal possession can help people steer away from the bottle, or cross the Rubicon and try something like heroin. Where it can be considered a good thing that drugs like cocaine and cannabis are avoided and used limited respectively, I would argue that one Schedule 1 drug is not consumed enough!
Grouping cannabis with heroin and cocaine is, in my view, a clear sign of a government trapped in a narrow-minded socio-cultural paradigm, fostering unnecessary chastisement, stigmatization, and repression. Adding psilocybin ‘magic’ mushrooms to Schedule 1 only reinforces this approach. Despite the fact that the potential for psilocybin-related harm to society is virtually non-existent, under Norwegian law, magic mushrooms are considered as dangerous as heroin and cocaine. Even though there is plenty of scientific evidence of its relative safety and potential therapeutic benefits. Psilocybin has shown very promising potential in treating addiction and depression, among other things (Martinez, 2022). It can help consumers break from negatively held worldviews as it can reveal vantage points that can help challenge deeply entrenched, limiting beliefs. Just as our individual worldviews often limit us from seeing broader liberating perspectives, so do Norwegian drug laws limit freedom of consciousness.
Psilocybin
When the Netherlands banned psilocybin mushrooms in 2008, after a rare incident where a tourist reportedly died under their influence, a government report found the substance to be low-risk, making the ban excessive. In typical Dutch fashion, the sale of psilocybin-containing truffles, identical in effect to mushrooms, continued legally. These “magic truffles” have since proven largely safe, with most incidents involving tourists who ignore basic safety guidelines, such as avoiding mixed substances and unfamiliar environments (RIVM, 2007). There are no documented cases of psilocybin overdoses, potentially due to the fact that an overdose would reportedly require consuming the lofty amount of approximately 10 kg of mushrooms (Kopra et al., 2022). In Australia, a country with a population over 4 times as much as Norway, about 0.5 people died yearly because of the consequences of magic mushroom consumption (Darke et al., 2024), a far cry from the alcohol or opioid related deaths. In Norway, a country that continually proofs it highly values individual freedom, it seems repressive for the government to restrict fully grown adults from experiencing altered states of consciousness that, when used responsibly, pose minimal risk and offer numerous benefits. Especially as a potential tool in the renewed fight against drug abuse and addiction. Much like the American archaeologists, the Norwegian leadership fails to see the individual trees for the forest that has taken root in their minds. Only this time it is not our understanding of the past that is at stake, it is the lives and well-being of all Norwegians who suffer abuse and dependency issues.
The fact that the government wants to battle addiction, by criminalizing a substance that has proven to be effective in fighting the affliction, is a likely consequence of a distorted worldview. When reading on the effects of psilocybin, one would think that politicians who would have firsthand experience with the substance, would never impose such restrictive laws. They would be able to experience that it can be an incredibly powerful medicine that allows them to leap outside the single worldview they have known until then. This experience is a shortcut to seeing and thinking about issues from an entirely different vantage point, which can help them free the yoke of the sociocultural normative framework that limits us all to various extents. Psilocybin consumption will not only reveal the senselessness of permitting alcohol while banning a similarly accessible mushroom, but it will also highlight the absurdity of making blanket assumptions about very different substances. Normalizing psilocybin use can help us step away from a culture where alcohol is the main social lubricant and a leading cause of death and household destruction. It can also help Norway overcome the social fissure that runs through its communities, reconnect, and effectively approach the challenges the country faces. It can help do away with self-inflicted repression and challenge current paradigms where things are taboo without good reason. Whether in policymaking or personal belief systems, it can help us recognise the limits of our convictions and open the door to progress, empathy, and understanding. By taking this leap, Norway can continue to lead the world as a progressive forward-thinking country that is frequently found in the vanguard when it comes to tackling the struggles that define our time.
Darke, S., Duflou, J., Peacock, A., Farrell, M., Hall, W., & Lappin, J. (2024). A retrospective study of the characteristics and toxicology of cases of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)‐ and psilocybin‐related death in Australia. Addiction, 119(9), 1564–1571. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16518
European Drug Report 2024. (2024). European Union Drugs Agency. Retrieved November 8, 2024, from https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/european-drug-report/2024/drug-induced-deaths_en
Folkehelseinstituttet. (2024, May 30). Dødsårsaker i Norge i 2023. Retrieved November 8, 2024, from https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2024/dodsarsaker-i-norge-i-2023/
Khiabani, H. Z., Christophersen, A. S., & Mørland, J. (2007). Cannabisbruk påvirker kjøreferdighetene. Tidsskrift for Den Norske Legeforening. https://tidsskriftet.no/2007/03/oversiktsartikkel/cannabisbruk-pavirker-kjoreferdighetene
Kopra, E. I., Ferris, J. A., Winstock, A. R., Young, A. H., & Rucker, J. J. (2022). Adverse experiences resulting in emergency medical treatment seeking following the use of magic mushrooms. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 36(8), 965–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811221084063
Martinez, M. (2022, February 15). Psilocybin treatment for major depression effective for up to a year for most patients, study shows. Johns Hopkins Medicine. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/2022/02/psilocybin-treatment-for-major-depression-effective-for-up-to-a-year-for-most-patients-study-shows
Mital, S., Bishop, L., Bugden, S., Grootendorst, P., & Nguyen, H. V. (2024). Association Between Non-Medical Cannabis Legalization and Alcohol Sales: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Canada. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 111137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.111137
Oslo University Hospital. (2023, February). Drug overdoses. Retrieved November 8, 2024, from https://www.ous-research.no/home/suho/Overdoses/22209
RIVM. (2007). Risicoschatting van psilocine en psilocybine bevattende paddenstoelen (paddo’s) 2007. In RIVM. Retrieved November 8, 2024, from https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/cam_paddo_advies.pdf
Shah, A., Hayes, C. J., Lakkad, M., & Martin, B. C. (2019). Impact of medical marijuana legalization on opioid use, chronic opioid use, and high-risk opioid use. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34(8), 1419–1426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4782-2
Wolf, M., & Herzig, M. (2019). Inside Switzerland’s Radical Drug Policy Innovation. © 2005–2024. Retrieved November 8, 2024, from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/inside_switzerlands_radical_drug_policy_innovation
