Content of the initiative

We propose to introduce legislation to repeal the illegality of cannabis and replace it with:

- The use, possession, personal cultivation, manufacture and sale of cannabis shall be permitted subject to age limits.
- Establish a regulatory regime for the manufacture and sale of cannabis that is equivalent to that for other intoxicants, learning from the experience of the states and provinces that have already legalized cannabis. The aim of regulation is to minimise harm to individuals and society, as in the case of alcohol and tobacco legislation.
- Impose a tax on cannabis to compensate for the harm it causes to society.
- Clearly define the difference between intoxicating cannabis and non-intoxicating cannabis, i.e. hemp, so that farmers who grow hemp can operate in their sector.
- Removal of cannabis use labels and criminal records and similar labels for minor cultivation and sales.

Justification
OBJECTIVES

The legalisation of cannabis has two main objectives:
1) To end the harm caused by prohibition.
2) To build a sustainable regulatory system that protects and promotes human rights and public health, reduces crime, corruption and violence, and protects children and young people.


HOW THE CANNABIS LAW FAILS

All substance use has adverse effects. Some intoxicants are more harmful than others, but all harms are increased if they are allowed to exist in a completely unregulated market, whether illegal or legal.

Tobacco was once promoted as a stylish health product. However, tobacco is dangerous to health and the nicotine it contains is highly addictive. Tobacco's unregulated nature led to increased use, addiction and disease. However, with strong regulation and education, tobacco use and harms have declined. Tobacco taxation generates more than €1 billion in revenue for the government each year.

Under the Alcohol Prohibition Act, the share of consumption of spirits increased, health problems increased and criminals became richer. Since the repeal of the Prohibition Act, Finland has developed a healthier alcohol culture, people are drinking milder drinks in smaller quantities, illegal alcohol production has stopped and the state receives around €1.5 billion in tax revenue from alcohol every year. Today, it would be politically almost impossible to create a prohibition law for alcohol, because although alcohol is a harmful substance, its moderate consumption is considered to be a matter of individual freedom.

As cannabis is illegal, it is sold on the illegal market in a completely unregulated way. This lack of regulation causes a great deal of harm. Prohibition is often justified on the grounds that it would prevent many of the harms associated with cannabis, but many of these harms are caused by prohibition itself, not by cannabis, as these arguments point out. The harms from cannabis use per se are estimated to be less severe than those from tobacco and alcohol, and cannabis is estimated to be less addictive than caffeine in coffee [1].

The aim of cannabis prohibition has been to reduce harm by reducing use. However, it does not reduce use. As cannabis use increases, prohibition makes cannabis a more harmful drug for individuals and society. Prohibition therefore completely fails in its objective and at the same time creates new unnecessary and humanly serious harms.


A CANNABIS LAW WOULD WORK BETTER

Regulating cannabis would create the means to prevent its use and harms, and remove the dangers and problems created by illegality that unnecessarily harm people.

These regulatory measures would reduce cannabis use and harms:
- an age limit on sales and a harm tax
- control and monitoring of products
- control and monitoring of the use of cannabis, control and control of the use of cannabis, and the location of points of sale.
- marketing restrictions [2]
These measures have reduced smoking and alcohol consumption [3] and their harms.

There is no evidence of the feared adverse effects of cannabis legalisation, such as increased underage use or drunk driving, in legalised states in the United States [4].

PROHIBITION IS UNJUST

When the Parliament debated the citizens' initiative on the decriminalisation of cannabis in 2020-2022, Professor Kimmo Nuotio pointed out that "in a system that emphasises individual freedom and self-determination, the ordinary person cannot be required to remain drug-free under threat of punishment" and that "the current protective regulation is neither compatible with a drug policy based on fundamental and human rights nor in line with established criminalisation principles" [5].

The prohibition of cannabis raises many other justice and human rights concerns. The illegality of cannabis creates other criminality around it, which undermines the enjoyment of human rights. It also exposes vulnerable groups, such as the poor and ethnic minorities, to police and judicial arbitrariness, especially in poorer and more unstable countries. For these and many other reasons, UN experts are calling for an end to the global 'war on drugs' [6].

The anti-cannabis movement was propagandised into a drug war in the United States in the 1960s as a politically motivated attack on ethnic minorities and political opposition - stigmatised and condemned as criminals under the pretext of cannabis use. This injustice and ugly shadow of racism continues to this day, particularly in the form of disproportionately harsh sentences for racialised populations. Legalising cannabis is one way of eliminating oppression of groups of people globally and increasing justice, equality and stability.

Finland is not free of these problems, although our situation is better in this respect than that of the United States, the home of cannabis prohibition. In order for Finland to set an example of reason and take a constructive stance, it must first end its own prohibition. The United States has already begun to dismantle its own.


PROHIBITION INCREASES THE AVAILABILITY OF INTOXICANTS TO MINORS

No substance is suitable for use by minors. It is important to tackle the use of cannabis by young people, as the health effects are greater if use starts at a young age, while the brain is still developing. However, neither prohibition nor decriminalisation will help to prevent underage drug use: it is easier for young people to get illegal drugs than to get help for their substance abuse problems. It may be easier for a minor to buy cannabis than alcohol, for example, because there are no age limits for street or internet dealers. The stigma of illegality is also a barrier to getting more help.

Legalising and regulating cannabis can achieve results in tackling underage cannabis use, as it allows for age verification of sales. Furthermore, cannabis legalisation has not increased the use of cannabis by young people in the US [7]. Recent evaluations have found no evidence of potential undesirable effects of cannabis legalisation, such as increased underage use or drunk driving [8].


PROHIBITION INCREASES THE INTOXICATING PROPERTIES AND DANGERS OF CANNABIS

For decades, cannabis producers have been developing stronger and more concentrated cannabis [9], because under prohibition it is easier to conceal concentrates and the strong ones can be sold in smaller quantities. This is why, for example, during alcohol prohibition in Finland, the average alcohol sold was much stronger. This is the iron law of prohibition, that intoxicants always get stronger during it.

More intoxicating cannabis has a higher THC content. THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main intoxicating ingredient in cannabis. Higher THC levels can increase the risk of psychosis [10,11], especially if use starts at a young age. Higher THC levels are also often associated with lower CBD levels [12]. CBD, or cannabidiol, is one of the non-intoxicating constituents of cannabis that may reduce the psychoactive effect of THC and the risk of psychosis [13].

Restrictions and taxation may favour less harmful concentrations of THC and CBD, and labelling and directions for use would reduce public health harm. Illegally manufactured and sold intoxicants pose a health risk as they may contain additional ingredients or other contaminants that can result in varying degrees of adverse health effects or even death.

Synthetic cannabinoids are a product of prohibition: in many countries, a new substance is legal until otherwise regulated [14]. A new substance can therefore be legal to sell, undetectable by a drug dog, and a small amount of an extremely potent substance is easy to hide and smuggle. Synthetic cannabinoids have become very dangerous on the illicit market and, unlike cannabis, can be fatal in overdose [15]. Drug-related deaths are evidence of the failure of drug policy.

PROHIBITION LAW INCREASES INEQUALITY AND ARBITRARINESS

The current punitive prohibitionist approach has increased substance abuse and marginalised people. The impact of this policy hits hardest on areas and groups of people at risk of accumulating life problems.

In Finland, most of the illicit drug use crimes concern cannabis [16]. Under current legislation, a record of a use offence remains in the police information system for five years [17]. A record of use is particularly detrimental to the future of young people and can be exclusionary, for example by preventing them from accessing education or employment. It can also encourage the excluded person to engage in illegal drug dealing to secure their livelihood.

Most people who use cannabis do not get caught. However, the risk of getting caught is unequal. The likelihood of being caught, fined or registered may depend on a person's background or socio-economic factors such as income level, neighbourhood or skin colour. In a quiet, single-family neighbourhood, you are less likely to be caught than in a low-income apartment block, where police are often needed to deal with the disturbances caused by other drugs. The effects of prohibition and legal sanctions are unevenly distributed.

Regulating cannabis is one way to prevent exclusion. At the same time, the economic growth and funding for public services that regulation and taxation would bring would compensate the disadvantaged for the problems caused by failed drug policies.

The illegality of cannabis raises the threshold for reporting its use. For example, when seeking mental health services, it is important to be open about substance abuse so that it can be taken into account. However, even in the health sector, there is no constructive attitude to illegal drugs or intoxicants in terms of treatment: it is commonplace to require a clean drug test result from a patient seeking therapy as a condition for access to treatment, which delays the start of treatment by several weeks due to the slow elimination of cannabis breakdown products, even though the intoxicating effect wears off within 24 hours. Moderate cannabis use can also be a barrier to the granting of rehabilitation psychotherapy by the Kela [18]. Even admitting to cannabis use may prevent access to mental health services, even if the reason for the use is the lack of a better treatment for the mental health problem than self-medication [19].

The exclusionary effect of cannabis use and criminal records and the threshold for seeking treatment is a problem that is particularly acute when other more dangerous drugs than cannabis are involved. Access to treatment is crucial for problematic use of hazardous and addictive substances. That is why we need to break down the barriers to good treatment and treatment counselling. The Cannabis Prohibition Act is one important threshold.


THE "GATEWAY THEORY" IS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION, NOT FOR IT.

According to THL experts, there is no research evidence [20] for the so-called gateway theory, i.e. the assumption that cannabis leads to the use of other "stronger" drugs. Many different studies that have looked for evidence for the gateway theory have failed to find it [21]. Other studies have suspected other causes, such as the status of cannabis as an illicit drug, which exposes clients to other illicit drugs [22].

The link between cannabis and more potent illicit drugs is due to the illicit nature of cannabis: when cannabis is purchased through illicit networks, routes to other illicit drugs are created. The repeal of the prohibition law will prevent this situation by shifting the street trade to legal outlets, where only legal, regulated drugs are sold with instructions for use, and where the buyer is not offered other drugs at the same time.

Even if cannabis use increases the use of stronger drugs, which the research does not support, cannabis prohibition is not an effective way to break the alleged link, as prohibition has not reduced cannabis use [23].

PROHIBITION LAW HAMPERS THE USE OF MEDICINES

The medicinal use of cannabis is legal in Finland. However, even for people who critically need it to treat their illness, obtaining a prescription has been made more difficult:
- Kela has ruled that medical cannabis will not be replaced by the prescription drug voucher that comes with the income support decision.
- In Finland, medicinal cannabis is considered to be outside the scope of normal reimbursement, even though the European Parliament in a resolution in 2019 called for cannabis-based medicines to be reimbursed through the health insurance system in the Member States [24].
- Kela and Valvira have been interpreted as putting pressure on doctors to stop prescribing cannabis to patients [25], although the European Parliament has called on Member States not to interfere with doctors' free professional discretion in writing cannabis prescriptions [24].

Legalising cannabis will make it easier to prescribe medical cannabis by reducing the stigma of illegality among doctors and public officials. If patients who need medical cannabis cannot obtain it legally, they are effectively forced to become criminals. However, the cannabis available on the street often does not match the product they need due to a lack of regulation and quality control of the product. Growing cannabis for medicinal purposes is interpreted as a drug offence, punishable by up to two years in prison. There is no ethical justification for punishing the sick. Legalising and regulating cannabis would ease the plight of patients.

The 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which is the basis of the Prohibition Act, begins like this:
"The Contracting Parties, conscious of their responsibility for the health and welfare of mankind, recognizing that the medical use of narcotic drugs is constantly necessary for the relief of pain and suffering and that appropriate measures must be taken to ensure the supply of narcotic drugs for this purpose, ..." [26]. The poor availability of medical cannabis is therefore not only inhumane, but also contrary to Finland's own drug legislation.


PROHIBITION WASTES POLICE TIME AND INCREASES CORRUPTION

Legalising cannabis would free up police resources to fight harmful crime. Police seize tens of thousands of cannabis plants every year; in 2020, a total of 470 kilos of cannabis for sale as intoxicants in 1,075 separate seizures and 19,300 plants in 1,135 seizures [27]. The police devote considerable resources to finding out where cannabis plants are being grown, and to other work related to prohibition, such as eradication.

Police and judicial action has no deterrent effect on the availability of cannabis, as it did under alcohol prohibition. Despite prohibition, use is increasing and with it the proceeds of organised crime, increasing the power of criminal organisations. By taking the cannabis market away from criminals, criminal organisations can be weakened.

There is a lot of money to be made from selling illegal drugs. These revenues are used, for example, to bribe public officials. For example, corruption cases have been uncovered in the Helsinki drug police. Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in Finland and the world, so repealing the prohibition law would significantly reduce the income of criminals, and thus also corruption in society.


PROHIBITION CAUSES ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

When the production and sale of cannabis is outside state regulation, so are the environmental and climate impacts of the activity. The production and consumption of cannabis is a reality that is not regulated or taxed at all under prohibition or decriminalisation (illegal but not punishable). At the same time, emissions cannot be measured or regulated.

However, cannabis production can be a significant source of emissions: in Colorado, USA, illegal cannabis production under prohibition is estimated to be more polluting than legal production [28]. Hidden growers have to replace sunlight with electric light and are discouraged from sending waste for proper treatment, which has to be hidden in the wild. Under the prohibition law, producers do not necessarily follow any environmental protection regulations.

In order to solve the climate crisis, no source of emissions can be exempted from regulation and taxation, including cannabis production.

CANNABIS BRINGS JOBS AND TAX REVENUE

Bringing the production and sale of cannabis into a regulated market would create many jobs across Finland. In Colorado, which is about the size of Finland, the legal cannabis market employs more than 40 000 people [29]. Regulating cannabis would increase employment and tax revenue, and reduce government spending on unemployment and income support. It is an excellent way to stimulate the economy.

If our neighbours did not legalise cannabis, intoxicated tourism could boost the income of entrepreneurs in the restaurant, hotel and cultural sectors. Tourists who use cannabis too much are not as much of a nuisance as those who overindulge in alcohol, for example: cannabis does not make people violent and rowdy like alcohol, but rather peaceful and hungry. Overdoses would not result in death, only nausea and stupor.

In Finland, there are already shops selling non-intoxicating cannabis products such as seeds, oil and flowers. These domestic entrepreneurs employ people and pay taxes on their activities. The current prohibition law hampers their business in many ways, even though it is perfectly legal.


HEMP AND CANNABIS BOOST AGRICULTURE

The legalisation of cannabis will bring a new harvest to agriculture. The new source of income is advantageous for the countries at the forefront of cannabis legalisation, as it does not necessarily require government subsidies. Growing cannabis could revitalise the stunted economies of withered rural communities. This is why the MTK is also in favour of cannabis cultivation [30].

The prohibition law unnecessarily hampers hemp farmers. Finland's zero tolerance for THC makes it difficult to grow hemp, because all hemp plants (i.e. cannabis plants) contain some THC, even if they are not intoxicating.

Hemp has up to thousands of different uses, from biofuel to hempcrete [31]. It can be used to make food, cosmetics, fabric, paper, packaging cushioning, insulation, car interiors, and it sequesters a lot of carbon from the atmosphere [32].


REGULATION IS BETTER THAN DECRIMINALISATION

Decriminalisation of cannabis, as proposed to Parliament in a previous citizens' initiative, would be a necessary but not sustainable solution. Decriminalisation could sane and rationalise attitudes. It would remove many of the displacing effects of prohibition. However, it would not be a significant improvement, as it would not allow for the regulation and taxation of production and sales.

Although decriminalisation would reduce the problems caused by prohibition, it would not necessarily slow down the current growth in use. Easier access to substance abuse services will reduce heroin use [33], but this is not necessarily the case for cannabis. The cannabis debate is plagued by the dilemma of lumping all illegal drugs together. Measures to reduce heroin problems in Portugal may not be effective for cannabis problems in Finland.

The vast majority of cannabis users use in moderation, so it is not life-destroying. Help should be available, but many people do not need it because of cannabis. The debate on the need for treatment and the prevention of harm must be kept down to earth and within the bounds of honesty. After all, we did not trade alcohol prohibition for blurring the line between illegality and legality, with moderate users being directed to detoxification treatment they do not need and prevented from getting the treatment they need. When the Finnish Prohibition Act was repealed and the new Liquor Act was passed in 1932, many state alcohol outlets opened on the day the Act came into force.

LEGALISATION OF CANNABIS MOVES FORWARD

Around half a billion people live in a place where cannabis is legal. They will soon be joined by more than 80 million Germans. At the time of writing, the use of cannabis as a substance is legal in the Netherlands, the Australian capital, Spain, South Africa, Georgia, Canada, Malta, Mexico, Uruguay, Thailand and the 19 states and capitals of the United States and all Native American reservations.

The EU Drugs Policy, published in June 2021, emphasises the human rights dimension and the need for states to seek policy alternatives to punishment [34]. Malta was the first EU country to legalise cannabis. The Netherlands and Spain allow limited sale and use of cannabis, although it is mostly illegal. The governments of Luxembourg and Germany are planning to legalise cannabis during this government term.

In the United States, the home of prohibition, only 9% of the population supports cannabis prohibition [35]. The popularity of cannabis prohibition wanes when it is discovered that it is not what people have been scared into believing for decades. In Finland, too, support for repealing cannabis prohibition is soaring. There are now even cannabis-themed cooking programmes in Finland.

The legalisation of the cannabis trade has been opposed on the basis of international drug conventions, but the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which is the basis of the Prohibition Act, allows legalisation and imposes one condition in Article 28: an agency must be set up to control the trade [36].

It is now known that the legalisation of cannabis best serves the aim of the Drugs Convention, which is to guarantee and promote the health and well-being of mankind. Legalisation of cannabis is not a radical idea, but the mainstream of liberal human rights-based policies based on scientific evidence.



SUMMARY

This initiative makes a comprehensive case for why Finland too should replace cannabis prohibition with regulation. Drug regulation must be based on scientific evidence.

Prohibition did not bring us a cannabis-free world. Regulation will not bring us a world free from the harms of cannabis, but it can minimise the harms and offset the costs.

Regulation will not get rid of all problem use, but it can reduce it. Regulation will not destroy the illegal market completely, but it will replace it, reducing professional crime, corruption and pollution, and creating a new industry.

Regulation will minimise the harm to individuals and society caused by cannabis use and eliminate the harm caused by current prohibition.

It is time to act, as many other countries have already done. Repeal the harmful prohibition law, which is based on lies, and start regulating cannabis comprehensively.