Like many other countries, Finland is debating whether or not to legalize cannabis. Potential tax income is debated against public health risks. Using cannabis for anything other than medical reasons is now prohibited throughout the nation. In spite of this, an estimated 100,000 Finns consume cannabis each month, and the number has increased recently.
An initiative by a citizen
Finland’s Parliament will hear a citizen’s motion to legalize cannabis in the spring. It received more than 50,000 signatures by the end of the previous year, indicating strong public support and interest.
The initiative suggests allowing age-restricted cannabis use, possession, personal cultivation, manufacture, and sales in Finland. It also recommends creating a legal framework for the cultivation and distribution of cannabis in order to reduce harm to people and the community.
Possibilities and issues
The debate over the legalization of cannabis in Finland is complex. The proposal seeks to regulate certain aspects of cannabis with age restrictions in response to a noticeable increase in cannabis usage that prompted a citizen’s effort for legalization. Experts advise against negative consequences, especially for children, while proponents highlight possible tax income and damage mitigation techniques. The Finnish government continues to oppose legalization and decriminalization in spite of these arguments, underscoring the difficulties in resolving this divisive topic.
Expert Kim Kannussaari of the Finnish Association for Substance Abuse Prevention (EHYT) emphasizes the detrimental consequences of long-term cannabis use on one’s health. Long-term use can cause mental health problems and decrease cognitive performance, especially in young people. Smoking cannabis can also have a negative impact on lung health.
Examining the advantages of legalizing cannabis
Proponent of legalizing cannabis in Finland Coel Thomas lists a number of possible advantages. Legalization might result in large tax payouts that could be used for medical expenses. He contends that the existing restriction denies the state significant revenue and employment prospects while providing handsome profits for criminal organizations.In the early years after legalization, the cannabis business also boosts the economy and adds jobs.
According to Thomas, legalization would make harm reduction initiatives easier than they are on the existing black market. He compares the current state of prohibition to the failed attempts at alcohol prohibition in the past, yet he acknowledges that there may be health risks.He makes it clear that decriminalization alone is insufficient. Regulation and legalization are necessary for an all-encompassing strategy.
Opposition from the government
Decriminalization as well as legalization are opposed by the Finnish government. Thomas agrees that it is unlikely that Parliament will enact the citizen’s initiative. He points to fruitful discussions in other nations to support his contention that increased public dialogue is required to change lawmakers’ viewpoints.
In conclusion, Finland must make a difficult choice over the legalization of cannabis by balancing its economic advantages with its worries about public health. Open communication and evidence-based policymaking are essential in resolving this issue, even though the future is still unclear.
ion and decriminalisation. Thomas acknowledges the unlikelihood of Parliament adopting the citizen’s initiative as law. He believes that more public discourse is necessary to shift policymakers’ perspectives, citing successful debates in other countries.
In conclusion, Finland faces a complex decision regarding cannabis legalisation, weighing economic benefits against public health concerns. While the path forward remains uncertain, open dialogue and evidence-based policymaking are crucial in navigating this issue.