A MATTER WORTH DISCUSSING

Questioning Swedish narcotics policy does not usually further ones
political career. But now there is a remarkable exception.

The countrys new Minister of Justice is not only known for his raw tackles
on the football field and his deep commitment to refugee issues. He is also
an open critic of the changes in narcotics policy during the 1980's and the
subsequent intensive repression of drug abusers.

In the periodical 'Liberal Debatt', nr 7/98 he wrote: "Sweden is conducting
an extremely harsh criminal policy against those who abuse drugs.
Consumption of narcotics has been illegal since 1988 and since 1993 has
carried a prison sentence. Criminalisation has not resulted in a reduction
in abuse and is more to be seen as a result of political opportunism.

No drug addict stops abusing heroin because he risks prosecution. It is
therefore a completely meaningless reform. (...) The present narcotics
policy has instead resulted in Swedens 20,000 heavy drug abusers being
excluded from society".

At the end of the article, just to make sure he will never become Minister
of Justice, he says: "Laila Freivalds and Gun Hellsvik have been engaged in
a kind of duel over who stands for the most restrictive criminal policy".

It is far from sure that Minister Bodstrom will conduct a policy in keeping
with the values he advocated as a lawyer. But it is anyway interesting that
we have a Minister of Justice who has an intellectually open view of the
present narcotics policy.

There is much that indicates there is something wrong with the Swedish
understanding of what is meant by fighting drug abuse.

Today there is broad agreement that the greater the pressure society
applies to abusers, all the less 'ordinary people' will try drugs.

This has not proven to be true. Instead the general consumption of
narcotics has risen hand in hand with the toughening of penalties and the
criminalisation of all stages of drug use.

Neither has the recruitment of heavy abusers been affected by the
criminalisation of narcotics consumption. An European Union report this
week shows that we are at the same level as Holland and Germany in the
number of heavy drug abusers, that is, two of every thousand inhabitants.

An extensive study from the University of Amsterdam (Tim Boekhout van
Solinge - "The Swedish drug control system", 1997 shows the same thing.
There is no particularly strong connection between narcotics use and the
laws surrounding it. On the other hand, there is a direct connection
between drug use, tradition and geopolitical situation.

* The early Swedish use of amphetamine (it was a very common slimming aid
and stimulant from the 1930's onwards, available from the chemists) became
eventually an intoxicant in criminal subcultures. It is from here the heavy
abusers were recruited who formed the 1970's image of drug addicts.

* The cold war isolated Sweden from parts of the international narcotics
trade. Now that Sweden no longer has a closed border with the Eastern
Block, drug use is rising.

If the situation is now as the Minister of Justice writes and a number of
foreign reports show, perhaps there is reason to question the
criminalisation of drug use, that is to say, criminalisation of societies
most vulnerable and rejected. Drug addicts in Sweden die at a higher rate
than in many other countries.

Lawyer Bodstrom has raised the question of wether mortality and
marginalisation is too high a price to pay. I am unsure of it myself, but I
am sure there is value in Minister Bostrom continuing to ask.