AROD has not heard from the police after a total of 200 grams of cannabis was sent in ten letters to those responsible for the Norwegian drug policy. Nevertheless, 200 grams of cannabis has been put on the scales of justice, and the need for legal development is obvious.
Corrupt politics
Since the Norwegian Criminal Law Commission's report in 2002, the professional basis for drug policy has become increasingly diluted. Several reports confirm the lack of a basis for punishment, but the government's policy remains characterized by the moral panic. The Director of Public Prosecutions must therefore emphasize principles that must weigh heavily if a liberal rule of law is to survive, and the Committee for conduct, integrity, and conflict of interest in law enforcement's focus on a conflict between administrative law and rights law, where the latter has been de-prioritized, reveals a systemic problem.
To the extent that rights law has been de-prioritized, drug policy has a problem with human rights, and AROD has shown the link to the arbitrary persecution of earlier times. The Director of Public Prosecutions has a leadership responsibility to ensure law and order, and unless legal proceedings are prepared, the next step will be a permanent outlet for cannabis in Oslo.
Safe supply
For protection against the criminal market, AROD will provide quality-proof goods and safe surroundings and defend the ground in principle. AROD intends to offer a small piece of Norway, as the Constitution provides, and not give up until Norway has clarified how the prohibition fulfils a legitimate purpose when more and more states regulate cannabis to protect public health.
To the extent that a regulated market is better than a criminal market, the prohibition cannot fulfil a legitimate purpose, and AROD's questions to the Minister of Justice
summarizes the constitutional terrain for drug policy. They also show that the Supreme Court;s safeguarding of rights does not satisfy the requirements for impartial and competent treatment, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been asked to ensure legal protection. This is done through a dignified legal process where the drug policy’s connection to the arbitrary persecution of the past can be documented. The documentary Moving a Nation
Forward shows how, for 60 years, Norway has continued drug prohibition on failing premises, and the court's proceedings are based on the information that comes to light. To the extent that the prosecution, the government, or the Ministry of Justice have objections, the witness box will clarify whether the prohibition withstands a rights analysis, but the claims are so well documented that instructions and guidelines dictate that those responsible for punishment must testify.
The case against prohibition
The testimony of leaders will clarify the legal landscape associated with drug policy, and the questions to the Minister of Justice are a minimum of what must be answered for
punishment to continue.
These questions indicate that the Storting, the Government and the Ministry of Justice have neglected their professional responsibility for drug policy for 20 years, and the Director of Public Prosecutions is expected to side with the Constitution. This means that the prosecution recognizes (1) the connection between the drug policy and
the arbitrary persecution of the past, (2) that the integrity of the professional field and the government requires a thorough review, and (3) that the Minister of Justice's response to questions determines the weight of the constitution and whether the Accountability Act is applied.
The defense has 3-20 witnesses, depending on the opposing views that are stated. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister must testify in any case, and to the extent that the government or the Ministry of Justice do not acknowledge the connection to past arbitrary persecution, the defense will summon more experts. It could be as much as 22 days in court, but last year the Norwegian state set aside 60 days in court to try a group of drug offenders, and ARODs court case will decide the most important
constitutional question of the post-war period.
Truth and reconciliation
That being the case, neither the Government, the Ministry of Justice, nor the Director of Public Prosecutions should oppose the protection of rights. If all agencies support an end to the hunt for scapegoats, the number of court days can be reduced to five, and an independent, impartial, and competent court can remedy a national trauma by delivering a verdict in favor of the defense.
Such a judgment will mark that public panic no longer rules, give the persecuted groups an effective legal remedy, and become a cornerstone for building integrity in the legal system. It will give the Storting, the government and the Justice department a basis to deal with significant shortcomings and pave the way for a truth and reconciliation commission. It is hard to imagine that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not recognize a responsibility to end the increasing uncertainty. It is difficult to believe that the Director will
allow the rule of law to falter, and it is impossible that the Director does not appreciate the importance of acting sooner rather than later. Let us therefore hope that Norwegian activists will get their day in court before Oslo gets its first cannabis café.
