 Thanks so much for joining us for this side event. It's really exciting to be here today. So the side event today is being organized by the Norwegian Association for Humane Drug Policy, FHN, the International Drug Policy Consortium, IDPC, Rio, and the governments of Iceland, Norway, and Denmark. So thank you so much for your support. My name is Marie Nuget, I'm the Head of Research and Communications at the International Drug Policy Consortium, where a global network of NGOs and our objective is to promote drug policies that advance social justice and human rights. So we've seen over the past few years at CND, for those of you who have been coming for a long time, that there's still a number of countries that continue to resist the consideration of human rights when we talk about drug policies. Many drug policies worldwide continue to be very punitive in nature with law enforcement practices that often disproportionately affect specific groups, including women, the gender and non-conforming groups, people living in poverty, people from specific ethnic communities. The disproportionate impact of criminal justice responses also fill our prisons, which are already overcrowded, and obviously there's an ongoing lack of availability and access to life-saving services, including health and social services, but also and more particularly, harm reduction and treatment services for people who use drugs. So in this context, this side event will actually be focusing on Nordic countries in particular, and we chose to highlight drug policies in Nordic countries because countries in the region share a very specific social welfare and economic policy model. The Nordic welfare model is built on the idea that you need to ensure positive health outcome for all, and they also share a very common respect for democracy, the rule of law, equality, and human rights. But in the area of drug policy, Nordic countries are very much focused on fairly punitive approaches and a drug-free society as a core objective, and this approach, unfortunately, has been really primarily focused on introduction, criminalization, and including for drug use. But very positively, what we've seen in the past few years is a shift in the public discourse, and a debate that's really advancing in terms of health and human rights. And there's been unprecedented debates and initiatives, including on the decriminalization of drug use and possession in the Parliaments of Iceland, Denmark, and Norway, and Cannabis Law Reform in Finland. So it's in this context that we're holding this side event today. It's actually a follow-up to a side event that we organized last year at the CND, which focused particularly on decriminalization in the region, and for those who are interested, it's actually on YouTube, so we can share the link maybe at the end of this event. But yeah, so the objective here today is really to discuss how human rights are reflected in Nordic drug policies, and we also want to highlight some of the key initiatives and options for reform in the region. So we've got an awesome panel with us today, so I'm feeling really privileged to chair this event. And so without further ado, I'm going to present our first speaker, who is Eivind Degrenes, the advisor at the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution, and he's going to present a study that has just been published on human rights and drug policy in Norway. So please speak within the mic. Thank you so much, and thank you for inviting me to this event. It's very good to be here in Vienna. So my name is Eivind Degrenes. As you said, I'm an advisor at the Norwegian NHRI, and we're an independent public body that works to promote and protect human rights in Norway. And last year, we released a report on drug use in human rights, and the backdrop for our report was that, while human rights have maybe come more to the forefront in public forest such as these internationally and also nationally in Norway, there have been few reports analyzing concrete existing public policies through human rights lens in Norway. And I would also say maybe in other countries, but we haven't looked at that. So the purpose of our report is to raise awareness of what human rights obligations that the state have in the field of illegal drugs and assess how these obligations are implemented in the Norwegian context. And just to say that, our report can be found on our website, which is nhri.no, where you also can find an English summary. And we address human rights issues within several areas. I will just briefly go through them here and you can read more online. One of them is the criminalization of use and possession of drugs for personal use and human rights aspects related to this. So we have looked at international obligations in relevant human rights conventions, as well as obligations under the three International Drug Control Convention. And our conclusion is that there is currently not a human rights obligation to decriminalize such actions. However, neither is there an obligation to under international law or human rights law, as we see it, to criminalize such actions. So this leaves a lot of leeway to politicians in this area. But that being said, this is an area that is under current change and human rights are to be interpreted dynamically. So recent practice from the European Court of Human Rights show that criminal legal actions against personal use of drugs in certain areas can constitute an interference on the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. And this means that certain types of sanctions, if they're disproportionately burdensome, in certain cases may constitute a violation of the right to privacy. But this of course depends on what case we're talking about. So last, I also want to mention that there are several international human rights bodies which recommend decriminalization, probably a lot of you here know, in order to better implement the right to health and children's rights. And while these recommendations are not binding under international law, they are nevertheless reflect professional assessments by international bodies on how to better safeguard human rights. So the second area that we have looked into is the use of coercive measures by police in minor drug cases. So last year in Norway, there was a report that came out by the investigation that was made by the director of public prosecution, which revealed several instances of coercive measures in minor drug cases that were not in accordance with criminal procedure requirements. And the use of coercive measures, which are contrary to the law can violate the right to privacy under article eight of European Convention of Human Rights, and that's why this is definitely a human rights issue. So this looks like it has improved recently, but it's important to follow up this and see whether or not this will continue to be improved or if there are certain challenges relating to this. We also looked at health and care services for people using drugs. This may be, we've found several areas where there's room for concern. One is when it comes to protection against violence, where our conclusion is that the current measures to protect people using drugs from violence in Norway are not sufficiently compliant with a number of human rights obligations, including under the Istanbul Convention. We also have looked at control measures in opioid substitution therapy. Examples of these control measures are urine samples taken under supervision and a regular physical attendance for distribution of medicines. This, of course, is a big and complicated issue. I can't go into the details and it's unclear whether such control measures do constitute an interference in the European Convention on Human Rights, but assuming this, we have pointed to some areas which may be problematic in relation to the right to privacy. We've also looked at health and care services for adults with simultaneous drug problems and mental disorders. And our conclusion is that current services for these adults challenge the right to the highest attainable standard of health. And lastly, within health and care services, we've also looked at health and care services for children using drugs. We know that Article 33 of the CRC requires children to, states, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. And this article, the core of this article is that it places a duty to prevent the use of illegal drugs among children and to provide adequate treatment and harm reduction services. And we've pointed out three areas of concern in this area. One is drug tests and drug contacts. Another is health and care services for children with simultaneous drug problems and mental disorders and also services for children in child welfare institutions. I'm not going into detail on these issues right now, but this is something that you can read on our report online. So the last main area that we've looked at is legal protection against discrimination because as probably as being talked about a lot here in Vienna, and I'm also going to an event right after this on stigma. So stigma is definitely probably something that you're discussing a lot here. And in making our report, something that came up a lot in our consulting was that people using drugs are a very stigmatized group in society. And this brought us to question what is the status of the legal protection against discrimination for people using drugs, both in international law and in national law. So in international human rights law, there is little practice on this issue, which may be surprising, but nevertheless, that's the status. But we've looked at practice from the committee on economic, social and cultural rights, and looking at practice from the committee and their general comments, you could say that certain forms of drug addiction can be interpreted to have a legal protection against discrimination under other status in the convention. And in Norway, we've also looked at existing legislation where our conclusion is that people suffering from drug addiction have some protection against discrimination in national legislation, but there is question to ask whether this existing legal protection is effective enough and whether it covers all groups that should have a legal protection against discrimination. So that is our report as quickly as I can go through it. And we think that, of course, while we've seen a lot of positive development in Norway in recent years when it comes to human rights in the drug field, that's also important to know and to state. Our focus has been on what challenges remain. So that is kind of our mandate, and that's kind of also the focus of our report. And we think that there are several challenges which this report focus on that still remain also in Norway and Nordic countries when it comes to implementation of human rights. And we hope that this can be a contribution to more work and improved implementation of human rights in the field of drugs in Norway. And we also hope, of course, that other Nordic countries will make similar assessments of their policies because I think it's important to take international human rights standards and implement them on a national standard. And I also want to say, lastly that of course there are many viewpoints when it comes to how societies should meet drug use. And this is probably a lot of heated discussions here in the Vienna and among policymakers and civil society and so forth. And, but it's important to note that no matter what solutions are chosen, it's important that fundamental human rights are always followed because you do not lose your rights when you start using drugs. So that's what I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Raven, for your great presentation and a fantastic report. Just a couple of points. In terms of the international standards, I encourage you all to have a look at the international guidelines on human rights and drug policy. There was an event yesterday where we presented the guidelines and they're really great framework to see what are the obligations on international law and how they apply to national drug policies. And you mentioned the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They're going to write a general comment on drug policies. It's the first UN treaty body that does that, which is really exciting. So I hope that you can actually submit a contribution to that based on the report. So it'd be really great to understand the Norwegian model and how that interacts with economic, social and cultural rights. So Erin's gonna have to leave with us because he's actually presenting at another side event at the same time on stigma. So is there any burning questions for him before he has to leave? Could you talk about, you talked about the rights of the international rights of children. Could you extrapolate that to pregnancy? So the rights of the unborn child. And then could you, you talked about provision of services to persons with mental health disorders and substance use, which can be the majority. I always say to people, show me the person with severe substance use that doesn't have a mental health disorder. And we know that in most jurisdictions, those services are pushed backwards and forwards between one service and the other. Mental health will say, well, we're not set up to take alchohol and drugs and alchohol and drugs versus vice. And it goes back and forwards. And thirdly, how is the international obligations compromised by the involvement of criminal justice system? Thanks. Thank you. I'll start with rights of the unborn child. As far as I understand, that's not something that we've looked at in our report. And article 33 of the convention relates to born children. So as far as I can understand, that article is not something that's, unborn children is not covered under that article. When it comes to, as you say, simultaneous people with simultaneous drug addiction and mental illnesses, it's, of course, this is, as I understood what you were saying, there's kind of silos where you maybe get treatment for mental health. The issue is that you, mental health services focus only on mental health. And then when it comes to treatment for drug addiction, that is a separate field. And that's something that's also came up a lot in our consultations that we have with civil society and so forth that people and organizations were focusing on the fact that you don't get a whole holistic approach to treatment. And that also can have sides to human rights, of course, because when it comes to the treatment that is offered, the obligations of state, the obligations of state is not, it's the whole state, it's not, you can't look at it separately. So yeah, when it comes to whether or not human rights and how human rights can be compromised or not by drug control, that's a big issue. I don't think I will have kind of the timeframe for answering that question right now. I think what I said in terms of criminalization and what the human rights obligations are currently is kind of what we've looked into in terms of drug control and criminalization. As I said, there isn't necessarily strict obligation to decriminalize as we can see it, reading at practice from UN Convention, UN committees and European Court of Human Rights. But this is, of course, maybe changing. There may be more case law coming up that we don't know about. So this is, as I said, a dynamic issue. And of course, then you also have recommendations from the High Commissioner for Human Rights, other bodies that recommend how this should be implemented. So it's hard to give a definitive answer on that, that's a big question. You have to run. Thank you so much for being here. For those who haven't, feel free to go like these two seats here and then a bit of space there. Okay, so we're now gonna turn to our next speaker, who is Haldra Moghensen from the Parliament of Iceland, and she is going to talk to us a little bit about the initiatives in Iceland right now in Parliament. You have the floor. Thank you. I'm gonna go a little bit broader than that too, because there's been a shift in thinking about the issues of drug use, a normal shift in the past few years, especially in Iceland, where in just a couple of years, the support for decriminalizing drug use has doubled, so going from 30% of public support in 2019 to 60% in 2021. The change in direction for drug policy in Iceland, I feel is now like for the first time tangible. I think it's even inevitable, and a lot of this change has to do with both on the side of the city, where we have pirates who really brought kind of the conversation about harm reduction into the conversation for the first time, and then we won't take all of the credit for the pirate party, which I'm a member of, but also a former Minister of Health. During this time, I was actually chairing the Parliamentary Welfare Committee. She brought forth a policy about supervised injection sites, and it was interesting because at the time, the Welfare Committee came to the conclusion because the police were telling us that this is impossible, we can't do this. You're asking us basically to turn our other cheek and look past a criminal act, and so the Welfare Committee said, we have to decriminalize to make these injection sites possible. And after a conversation where I realized that the Health Minister at that time wasn't going to bring forth legislation to decriminalize, I decided to, and I feel that now the conversation around this and the support has grown, and I don't think that we can ignore this call anymore. And it has a lot to do with our understanding of what addiction is. And I believe that understanding what addiction is is the key to understanding what truly works to reduce problematic drug use, but it's also the key to understanding how much harm our current policy is causing. Our current policy is not based on evidence. And as a politician, as a lawmaker, we have to make sure that we are putting in evidence-based policy, otherwise we're just harming people. So when looking at what the evidence tells us about addiction, I personally looked to Gapur Matei, who is one of the world's leading experts in the subject, and he says that addiction is not a choice that anybody makes, it is not a moral failure, it is not an ethical lapse, it's not a weakness of character, and it's not a failure of will, which is how our society depicts addiction. It's not an inherited brain disease, which is how the medical tendency is to see it. What is actually happening is it is a response to human suffering. And this isn't just Gapur Matei's opinion, it is what the scientific and research literature is telling us, that addiction actually, rather than being a disease or an individual choice or the result of chemical hooks, addiction is an attempt to escape overwhelming suffering, even if the escape only lasts for a short amount of time. It's in the nature of human beings to escape suffering. A person with back pain is prescribed pain medication, and this is just normal, this is, of course, they seek out pain medication. But when an individual is suffering from the pain of traumatic events, which have never been processed, treated, or even acknowledged as valid in many cases, when they turn to self-medication to dull their pain, we punish them by taking away their medication, we stigmatize them, we humiliate them, we find them, and we even sometimes imprison them. Society seeks to help this person by branding them as a criminal, marginalizing them, telling them that they're broken, that there's something wrong with them. They're denied access to what they need most, which is love, warmth, understanding, recognition, connection. They need social connection and we alienate them. This is the harm that we're doing. If we consider this approach, if we really think about it, it's a grossly inhumane way to approach an individual who wishes for nothing more than to relieve themselves of suffering. So this is the fundamental harm and wrong that we're doing in our policy right now. So instead of helping people, we wage a war on them. The war on drugs and Iceland is alive and kicking still. It has a long history, like in most other countries, it got serious in the 60s and 70s. Since then, in Iceland, there's been a strict policy of fear mongering, criminalization and punishment, policy derived from the US, and based on this idea that we can somehow build a drug-free world by banning all possession and handling of drugs, by manufacturing a panic about the dangers of drugs, and then punishing everyone involved, regardless of whether they are users, sellers, producers, or importers. And over the last few years, things have been changing for the better, which is great, but it's happening too slowly. The concept of harm reduction has gained widespread attention, but these underlying ideas that have fueled our current approach, they're still present. And I think we should pause for a while and think about this idea of building a drug-free world because this has been the driving force behind the war on drugs, and it is a fantasy. We will never have a drug-free world. Drugs have been in our culture as far back as we remember, and not just in human culture. I doubt you will find an animal species that is not drawn toward intoxication of some kind, an altered state of consciousness. These chemicals are all around us in nature, and they're actually in us. They're in our brains. They're part of who we are. It is ridiculous to think that we can build a drug-free world. 90% of people who use a drug, the overwhelming majority, are not harmed by it. Only around 10% of drug users have a problem with their substance use. If we want to ensure human rights protection in our drug policy, that's where our focus should be. How do we reduce harm to drug users and help the 10% who are suffering? What we're doing now, it isn't working. During this era of prohibition and punishment, drug use has increased steadily, and the frequency and severity of drug-related problems, they have risen dramatically, and this is what we should be looking at, drug-related problems, not drug use, per se, not at those individuals who don't have a problem with their drug use. But I actually, if I have time, I actually don't think our drug policy alone is the culprit, and I'm gonna challenge a little bit our underlying ideology because it's not that long ago that Western society suddenly became convinced that the driving force in modern society should be grounded in a system where individuals compete for limited resources, where one man's death is another man's bread, so to say. One loses and another wins, where we are in fact not a society, but merely a group of individuals responsible only for ourselves. The problem with this ideology of individualism that permeates our society is that it is not grounded in reality. It's like our drug policy, it's nonsense. It is completely at odds with everything we know about human nature. We are social species that relies on cooperation to survive and thrive. Human beings have survived and evolved as a group because we learn to communicate and work together. We're safer together. Alone, we are in danger, so it's deeply rooted in our nature to seek out our group, our tribe. And yet we have never been as divided and disconnected. We've never been as lonely as we are in modern society, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that a growing number of people are suffering in these conditions. It shouldn't come as a surprise that we are seeing a growth in depression, anxiety, and problematic drug use. These things are all connected. But instead of facing the fact that so many people are suffering because of how our society is organized, we continue treating the symptoms rather than the root. So enforcing prohibition globally costs an estimated $100 billion a year. People, that's insane. This means that we're spending around a trillion dollars worldwide every 10 years. I hope my math is correct. A mind-boggling amount of resources. I mean, those are just numbers that it's unfathomable to even think about. We're looking at a multi-trillion dollar, decades-long war that has caused unimaginable suffering that echoes on through generations. This is generational trauma that we're creating. Trillions of dollars used to wage a war against our most vulnerable and marginalized populations. And as a side effect, we've created a huge criminal market, rampant with violence. The human cost is beyond what I can put into words. So let's imagine for a while that this money had instead been invested in social measures to reduce poverty and deprivation if it had been used to build diverse social and economic support systems to meet the various needs of families, individuals, and children with the goal of preventing trauma and reducing human suffering. If it had been used to design treatments based on the integration of trauma and the integration into society, meeting individuals where they are on their terms and providing them with the means to heal and connect with society, then perhaps we could pride ourselves on being a society that puts human rights at the forefront because we have the resources. God knows we have the resources. We're spending them. We just need to funnel them or invest them in the right places. Thank you. I wish we had that many members of parliament as inspiring as you are. But we're gonna go to another member of parliament who's actually as inspiring as you are. So this is Nana Gottfriedsen. So we've been in touch for a very, very long time since she was still a member of Street Lawyer which is an amazing NGO. You are still, which is amazing. Okay, fantastic. And she's also a member of parliament in Denmark. So, Nana, you got the floor. So good to be here. Fellow, delegates, colleagues, allies, sisters and brothers in the world, wait, drug policy, reform, family, also among people here. It's amazing to see you. Thank you for inviting me. And yes, I have been a Street Lawyer and I'm still a Street Lawyer. I've been that for 25 years. Doing outreach, harm reduction based street lawyering, mainly for people who use drugs. And yeah, I'm also now a member of the parliament but I'm not a politician. I'm a Street Lawyer on the streets and I try to develop now a new discipline of street lawyering also within the parliament because I think it's needed. The changes we have managed to get through in Denmark, we have seen progress. They have not happened because of politicians. They have happened because we pushed and fought so hard for it from civil society, from bottom up. And my hope is that we will see progress from politicians as well in the years to come. I'm not a politician. We talk about Denmark and the Nordic countries as countries, we call them welfare states. We have universal healthcare systems. People who use drugs are included. They have treatment rights and they have patients' rights, but the reality is different. We see people denied essential medicine. We see people denied being admitted to hospitals or denied what they need when they are dependent on opioids, for example. They are denied withdrawal treatments in hospitals when they actually need to be admitted because of infections and other illnesses and they are not admitted long enough. Maybe only for a few hours. We see young people die from infections as if this was 100 years ago before the invention of penicillin. It only happens to people using drugs and it's really, really bad. So on the paper, welfare state universal healthcare system, but in reality, it's quite different. We have also had this progress, at least on the paper. You can call it a mini decriminalization in Denmark in 2007, and that means that users should not be punished for when they are in procession for just small amounts of drugs. 16 years later, they are still punished. They are not able, the law is so complex that people who use drugs cannot claim it, cannot plead it, and even so complex that police officers obviously do not know or understand the law. We need really clear laws when it comes to this complex issue. Despite the progress, despite all that, people are still denied the rights in Denmark. So treatment guarantees since 2003 is not enough. Many decriminalization is not enough. People still die in large numbers. Despite these drug consumption rooms since 2012, we have the same high mortality rate. We should really, really, really consider what to do. Something needs to be done. And I'm actually here with hope because I have to be hopeful to be able to stand through and lose so many good people at a very early age. But if you look into the basis of the government, written basis, we are now talking about dignity for the most vulnerable people. We are talking about changing policies and laws and also attitudes and views when it comes to our most vulnerable members of society. As a street lawyer, I have for many years said that prohibition is a disaster. It is a disaster. And I am also saying it now as a member of the parliament, prohibition is a disaster. We should have known because history taught us. We talk about the criminalized drugs as controlled substances. We are not in control when even our kids and youngsters can buy so-called controlled drugs everywhere. We are not in control. What we have is a complete loss of control. And people who use drugs are paying the very, very high price and we do also as a societies as a whole. We need to step up. We need to be guided by human rights, by clear directions from the UN. We need to start with dignity. That's it for now. I'm going to listen to Arielle. Thanks, Nana. Our fourth and final inspiring speaker is Arielle. I've also known him for many, many years and he's done an amazing work in Norway. So he works for the Norwegian Association for Human Drug Policy. So Arielle, you've got the floor. You're probably going to update us on what's happening in Norway. Yes, we have to be guided by human rights and we have to be guided by drug user representatives. And I'm glad to say that in the context of human rights in Nordic drug policy, Norway is heading in the right direction and now even faster than ever before. Even though the report from the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution clearly shows that even the country that prides itself on being a human rights champion has room for improvement. I think it's a strength for any country to be able to have itself scrutinized on human rights. And I hope more institutes on human rights in other countries will follow this example. As some of you might remember, a conservative government suggested a drug policy reform with decriminalization in 2021. It was to advance social justice and human rights. And please remember that decriminalization of drug use is strongly supported by the entire United Nations system through the UN common position on drugs. The Norwegian society was still not ready for it. So the parliament turned the suggestion down but the discussion is still going strong and it has so happened so much in the aftermath of this that it is really amazing. The courts first started to reduce penalties in drug cases, changing sentences from months in prison to a few weeks suspended sentence. The Supreme Court then decided that those with substance use disorders shall no longer receive punishment for their own personal use. Personal use allows for five grams of heroin, amphetamine or cocaine and for cannabis the limit is set to 15 grams. In one tried case even a recreational user was let off with probation for 10 grams of amphetamine due to personal circumstances. So I must say that the Norwegian society has really started taking consideration to the well-being of the people to whom this applies rather than blindly punishing them for the sake of the society. In some ways the court system is now leading up to an even more humane drug policy than the previous government suggested. The attorney general has since instructed the police that if a person suspected to be in possession of drugs for their own use is addicted to drugs this person shall no longer be stopped, searched or arrested. If they are in doubt as to whether the person is addicted to drugs then the benefit of the doubt must be given to that person. There has been a historic drop in reported drug offenses after this and it seems as if the police now have reduced, if not stopped, their search and strip practice as well as bringing people in for drug testing to see if they are under the influence. During this extensive development the current government is planning a new drug reform that they call prevention and treatment reform. But one issue that the current government really seem to take into consideration is the principle of proportionality. What is a proportional reaction? And this is a key issue but at the same time we are seeing some troubling signals from some of our neighboring areas. Sweden, where the police response to drug use is being scaled up. Sentencing is becoming harsher and there's also a political rhetoric blaming users for the violence and even terrorism that is happening due to drug crime. We have even seen this political abdication of responsibility many times before throughout history and we know the results. More stigma, more damage and less positive health outcomes. We hope that this will end because there are alternatives. And I think that the development in Norway can be of inspiration for us all and maybe especially for the Nordic countries because seeing that the police have now stopped at least reduced their following and arresting people for suspicion of drug influence or possession, we have a unique possibility to find other ways to react to drug use. In the lead up to the decriminalization reform, a Norwegian committee did extensive research for a year, international research and they found that criminalizing drug use does not prevent drug use. It just creates problems. It is actively counterproductive and that was very surprising to many. Now I think we owe each other an extensive research on whether the police should prioritize drug use because since the police have taken two steps back, it has opened for social workers to take those two steps forward. They have the right expertise, the right tools and then the police can prioritize serious drug crimes, even such crime that, serious crime, sorry, even such crime that traumatizes people and creates the kind of trouble a lot of people use drugs to be able to bear with. Also, during the year that the police have taken two steps back, they have seized a larger quantity of drugs than in many, many years. Actually, they have increased the amount of seizures to almost twice the average of the last decade. It is also time to acknowledge that drug users have a particular vulnerability to being exposed to crime and that they must be protected. The police should change practice from criminalization to behavior regulation. They should ensure that drug users are just as protected from crime as anyone else. We want drug users to have the same protection of the law that everyone else can take for granted. A couple of weeks back, a local police officer said to me, you know, I think there are other professions that can do drug prevention work much better than us in the police and I think he's very right. When we look into, sorry, what your authorities have taken into account, what the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution had taken into account, into consideration, and what the discussion mainly is about, it's about the follow-up after arrest. But why arrest someone for drug use at all? What we are missing is a concrete discussion about police work and priorities in all stories about oppression and human rights violation throughout history. Police control instead of police protection is at the center of these stories. We therefore need, I think it is wrong to talk about de-stigmatization, human rights violation without this perspective. Thank you. So I hope you're all inspired to decriminalize all drug use and possession and all related activities now when you go back to your countries. So we're almost out of time, but I hope we can have five minutes of grace to ask some questions or make some comments for amazing speakers since they're here. Coming from the UK, politicians often move me to tears but for very different reasons. I would just like to say thank you to you both for standing up for our community. No, I know from the Danish Drug Use and Movement, Jürgen would want me to thank you for all the work you've done for our community over the years, really. And thank you now for taking this to the next level because I think we've all realized for a long time this is a political struggle. It's not just a health struggle. It's a political struggle for our rights. Thank you very much. Well, I've got the curiosity because you call yourself, I'm from Italy. I work in London. I'm not aware, if not vaguely, of the Nordic country experience on this specific field. And I'm puzzled by how come Swedish are in the Nordic country as well? Why this is a massive split between the lot who has been speaking here in Iceland, Norway and Sweden? Why Sweden is actually in this meeting hanging up with Indonesian prohibitionist fanatics? That's bizarre. So, because I know that drugs are very much to be understood, I'm a doctor but I'm not fanatic, medicalizer. I believe that drugs have to be understood and they're used in the framework, in the context with a lot different features. Pain is the most important, but not only that, there is also recreational use, a lot of features. How come in this important issue that falls in directly or indirectly so many people such a cultural gap between Sweden and the other Nordica? Is anybody in answer? So, we're going to take one last question. Please make it very, very short because we're short on time and I want to make sure that the panelists have time to answer. Yeah, look, I agree. It's lovely to hear politicians speaking. It's, I agree with you that treatment needs to be compassionate, non-punitive, it's community responsibility. We were certainly trained and DSM will tell us that drug use is a chronic relapsing disorder. The reality is I've never bought into that. I just believe that our treatment services aren't geared up enough to be able to effectively provide what's required to prevent relapse. And I tell my medical students that all the time, much to their horror and disgust. But you talked about in Sweden about identifying services and you talked about the psychosocial services that are required. But we also need to remember that in chronic use, you get neurobiological changes and we need to address those neuro, so don't forget about the medicine term. Neurobiological changes, the reason why we have methadone, the reason why we have peprenorphine, we need to look at ways of reinstating that system. So we have genetic issues in there too. So we've got to be careful not to refine our definition of the causal nature of drug use down to two simplistic things. We need to look at what's the basic causes of all these things and get in there and treat the whole lot together. Thank you. All right, so Nona, do you want to start? Yeah, I think we need a whole session about that next year. But if I hadn't shortened down because I wanted to listen to my spiritual twin brother, Aril, I would have mentioned that during the 25 years with the street lawyering in Copenhagen, I have also served a lot of people from my neighbor country. And what they say is they describe themselves as refugees, drug policy refugees. And I've never get to talk to politicians or government officials from my neighbor country. But I had hoped they had answered your question in here. Maybe they're not here, but I would really, really like to listen to you. What is your response to what these people are telling me? So I'm here for the whole week, please tell me. Yeah, I think it's an interesting question with the cultural gap between Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries right now. And I think perhaps I don't know what the correct answer is, but I can say what I think maybe it might be that they're dealing with because drug policy, the history of drug policy, drug policy has always been used to reel in difficult minority groups. I don't know, maybe not using the right words, but it has always been a way of dealing with or attacking because drug policy, the punishment is always the minority groups that get punished. I mean, we know that there's so many people using recreational drugs. You know, if you have a suit and tie and you make an okay income, then the police aren't coming to your house. So maybe this is why Sweden is going this way. I think it's incredibly unfortunate that they are. I'm quite thankful that in Iceland I really feel like, I mean, there's such grassroot movements and we've had so many people who have gotten into harm reduction now. And because of the public discourse, we have a health minister now who's been trying to put forth a decriminalization bill that he keeps stalling because the police are like, we don't want it. Obviously, that's all they know how to do. You know, I don't think that they're the correct people maybe to make this decision. Yeah, but regarding the causes of addiction, from I'm guessing you're a medical doctor, the causes of addiction, you're speaking about this, yeah. Of course, there are many aspects to it and of course the bodily aspect to it is a part of it. It's just what the research is telling us is it's a small part of it and the largest part of it is a social, it's a social problem and we're not addressing the social problem and if we don't do that, then we'll never get to the root of it. Thank you so much, Alit. Since we've taken so much time, I want to thank you fantastic panelists and you, Marie, for leading our third meeting this year in such a brilliant way. Thank you all for coming. And just a very big thank to John Mellis for bringing us all together and Ysvan for filming. So this is actually being filmed so you'll be able to review it and share it after the event has taken place. Thanks everyone for coming. Have a lovely day.