DRUG WARS AND THE OPEN OR CLOSED SOCIETY

In 1984 Nils Christie and Kettil Bruun published the book "The Good Enemy".
In it they describe how a powerless group of drug addicts were singled out
as enemies by a society in need of scapegoats. The war on drugs and drug
users was presented as a ritual and collective purification process in
which society drove out evil symbolised by drug addicts. Fourteen years
later the war continues with unabated enthusiasm, although, judging from
available statistics, without any success.

The authors, Christie and Bruun, limit themselves in their description of
the drug war to drug users, but they are not the only ones who have been
defined as enemies. The other enemies are dissenters in the drug-political
debate. They seem to constitute nearly as great a threat to society as the
actual drug addicts. Dissenters are regarded as traitors to the well being
of the nation, sometimes they are decried as advocates of the devil.

In war, descriptions of the enemy must be simplified and derogatory so that
hate and the will to fight can be mobilised. There is no room for nuances,
everything is either black or white, good or evil. Drug addicts are
described as "drug fixated crime machines" while dissenters are maligned as
"drug liberals" or "the apologists of legalisation". In the political
debate surrounding Swedish narcotics policy the war is ever present: "Are
you for or against the Swedish model? Are you with us or against us? Are
you friend or enemy?"

Politically Correct

A body of politically correct perceptions has developed around drug
questions. The politically correct perception is built upon a moral order
where narcotics are singled out as the evil drugs and where the lifestyle
of drug users is seen as a threat to conventional society. From a
scientific perspective we can see that cigarettes and alcohol are a much
greater threat to health than narcotics. However, the politically correct
position is not built upon knowledge and rational argument, but upon
morality and dogma.

There are many risks involved in not identifying with the politically
correct position in narcotics policy. For politicians it means reduced
credibility and less votes. Civil servants in national and local government
risk losing their jobs or seeing their careers go down the drain if they
express ideas contrary to the official policy. In the same way the careers
and subsidies of researchers are threatened if they publish reports or
articles that contain criticism of the politically correct position.

Vaccination Campaign

The authorities often speak of the importance of "vaccinating" young people
and parents against drug misuse. According to available statistics, this
vaccination has not been particularly successful, at least not in the way
that was intended. The vaccination campaign has however "succeeded" in
another area. It has got politicians and officials to think nearly
identically in a very complicated and composite question. In the name of
the drug war, the controlled society has been imprinted into its citizens
and made them resistant to their own freedom of thought. This resistance
can result in an unwillingness to know of other models than the self
proclaimed
sucessful Swedish model of limiting abuse and treating addicts.

Is the drug wars threat to freedom of thought and expression a sign that we
are distancing ourselves from what Carl Popper called the open society? In
the open society it is permitted to publicly propose and to criticize
proposals for solutions to social problems. Open and critical discussion
then lays the ground for the implementation of reforms. Open and critical
discussion is also necessary for citizens to control authority. But in
order for public discussions to take place, says Popper, there must be
institutions that guarantee freedom of thought, speech and demonstration as
well as there being a certain level of education.

The Closed Society

What happens to democracy and open and critical discussion when
researchers, politicians and officials are silenced? According to the
newspaper Kommun- Aktuellt, civil servants dare not criticize their
employers or side with the 'wrong' opinions. They are scared of losing
their jobs. Is the drug war an indication that we are moving towards a more
closed society where there is no room for doubt or critical opinion?

The closed society is characterised by a magical and irrational clinging to
traditions and habits instead of a rationally guided and critical
questioning. But Popper warns us that the more we try to surpress
rationality and truth and instead strive for the ideals of the closed
society, all the easier it is to create inquisitions and secret police. In
this context it can be mentioned that Swedens own 'Drug Czar', Widar
Andersson, has written a document together with K-A Westerberg where he
says that "Limits should be placed on the freedom of speech of those who
covertly or overtly spread drug propaganda". But who is it in the end who
profits from the supression of open and free discussion of narcotics
questions? One thing is sure, it doesn't favour the clients.

In sociology it is said that the old political opposites of left and right,
capitalism and communism have been dissolved and that we need new oppposits
and areas of contention if history is not to end. The open or closed
society where pluralism is opposed to fundamentalism is such a new pair of
opposites. The German sociologist Sebastian Scheerer wonders if not the
drug war is the cultural arena for that developing conflict. So at a basic
level the drug war is about what sort of society we are to have - a
pluralistic and open society or a fundamentalist and closed.