Generally speaking there is a large consensus in Sweden on the unacceptability of drugs. In 1977 the goal of the drug-free society was adopted by a large majority in Parliament. Today there is still a cross-party consensus that the restrictive drug policy is necessary to keep the drug problem in Sweden within acceptable proportions. Moreover, it is thought that the restrictive policy has resulted in a drug problem that is smaller in magnitude than is the case in many other Western countries.
The role of public opinion is central to understanding the attitude of the different political parties. Opinion polls show that a large majority of the people subscribe to a restrictive drug policy. The same polls indicate that drugs are perceived as one of societys main social problems. The moral panic surrounding drugs is such, that no political party dares to speak out against any measures that may appear to move in the direction of a more liberal drug policy. Supporting the restrictive policy, or even asking for more restrictive measures to curb the increase in the drug problem are essential for a political party to win votes. Saying the contrary, to back a more liberal approach, is not an option for a political party and would almost mean its political death. It has already been pointed out that anti-drug pressure groups have been the driving forces behind influencing public opinion, and through them the political parties. It has also been shown that besides the social movements, the media have also contributed to the drug scare that exists today and the defining of drugs as a major social problem.
The situation that has arisen seems an almost uncontrollable one, in which the original objective, namely keeping the drug problem small, has been surpassed. The concept of the drug-free society has come to represent more than just to get rid of drugs; it has become a national project in the sense that it has come to symbolise the protection of what is typically Swedish. As Tham has pointed out, the struggle against drugs is so strong and widespread that it has come to serve as the tool to strengthen a threatened national identity. 70 Previously, Tham, Nils Christie and Kettil Bruun have made similar analyses. Their thesis is that within Nordic societies drugs are highly appropriate enemies, in the sense that they have been defined as the ideal social problem, in other words a scapegoat on which other social problems can be blamed.71 Of course, a necessary precondition for this situation to exist is that the target has gained a special status: ôThe moral panic raging over certain drugs would not have been conceived of without the image that has been built up around certain drugs as representing the most overwhelming danger for our societies in general and for our youth population in particular.
Since the fight against drugs has been given this status as a national project, meaning that the drug-free society now serves a higher goal than only to keep the drug problem within acceptable boundaries, the basic tenets of the restrictive drug policy are no longer questioned. As a matter of fact, is has become almost impossible to have a serious, rational debate on drugs and the applied drug policy in Sweden. For example, speaking in a dispassionate way about drugs is not possible; the official dogma requires it is only possible to speak in very negative terms about drugs. Saying for example, that the health hazards of some illicit drugs like cannabis are not very serious, or saying that some people use drugs simply for pleasure is, in the context, entirely not done and actually impossible. Any insinuation may result in being called a drug liberal, a qualification which is the most powerful weapon one can use in a drug discussion to paralyse the opponent. The whole situation leads the British Sweden-watcher Arthur Gould, who specialises in social policy and is not a drugs policy expert, to astonishment:
The restrictive discourse that has gripped the official Swedish mentality has taken on a paranoid dimension. What began as the idea of one association and its guru, Nils Bejerot, has become the dogmatic ideology of the whole political system. What started as a reasoned alternative to liberal ideas has become the basis for fanatic intolerance, so much that the academics and administrators who question, let alone, criticise, the official line, are dismissed as traitors or capitulators. The American, Ted Goldberg, who has lived in Sweden for three decades, made a similar remark: In Sweden, anyone who questions the Swedish model runs the risk of personal attack. Critics are threatened, scorned, risk losing their job, etc. Sometimes the attacks are extended to a critics family. The way the Swedish drug policy model is being praised and defended in Sweden, has gained a near religious dimension. As Gould point out, policies of legalisation and decriminalisation which in other countries can be discussed, are attacked with McCarthyite intolerance. In essence, the drug policy debates in Sweden should be seen in black and white terms: if youre not with us, youre against us.
During the many discussions with people working in the field of drugs in Sweden the dogmatic character of the situation became very apparent. Under the current circumstances it is impossible to criticise or question even some aspects of the official line. In private, policy makers and civil servants will confess not to subscribe to the Swedish success in pursuing the drug-free society. Others will point out the other side of the picture, for example the increasingly repressive measures that are taken in the name of the drug-free society. Moreover, some people that have been interviewed, admitted knowing that cannabis is not as dangerous as it is officially stated. It is however, impossible to make one of these remarks or criticisms in public. In that respect, the internal controlling mechanisms of the official drug policy dogma are an important explanation for the broad consensus on the drug policy as it come across externally. For scientists, the situation is a delicate and difficult one to work in. For example, by only questioning some aspects of the Swedish drug policy model and its alleged success, a scientist can run the risk of being (fiercely) attacked, either by popular movements or by government officials. Without having any interest in taking these standpoints but just having the desire to carry out serious and rational research, a scientist can be accused of irresponsible behaviour or even treason. Gould mentions two leading researchers who dared to suggest that the link between a restrictive policy and the small size of a countrys drug problem was not proven, aprominent civil servant castigated their work as deficient, misleading, and speculative. In the long run, a critical stance can have repercussions.
Since the label drug liberal is sufficient to render a critic powerless, someone who has acquired this stigma, is placed in a somewhat marginalised position. This can lead to a peripheral position or even exclusion from government committees and other posts, and some kind of marginalisation with regard to the decision makers, government officials, and fund suppliers.
In this climate, scientists have to make a choice. One can chose the uneasy road by staying loyal to ones academic convictions. One is almost certain that this attitude will not lead to prestige, and it may imply risks for ones future career if one criticises too severely. To make this choice, one needs to be either brave or one needs to be in a comfortable position already, like having a stable, unassailable professorship that is independent from government funding. A second, much more easy and rewarding option for a scientist is to toe the official line and to do research that is more or less in line with official policy. This option definitely leads to much more prestige and one is more likely asked to become a member of commissions and boards, and to make presentations at meetings. In line with the honour one gets in fighting the social problem drugs, as described by Nils Christie & Kettil Bruun in Den gode fiende (The Ideal Enemy), scientific research into the dangers of drugs, or research showing the positive effect of law enforcement measures on the development of drug use, are typical subjects by which one can earn credit and enjoy prestige. Finally,
the third possibility scientists have is to chose another field to work in, a field that is not so politicised or politically sensitive, and affected by ideologies; in other words, a field that enables one to have open, rational, and critical discussions, and a job where one does not run the risk of being personally attacked for the professional position one takes.
On the surface there exists in Sweden a large consensus on the restrictive
drug policy. The only voices that sometimes oppose the official line, are foreign commentators, the client-organisation RFHL and some scientists, especially criminologists. The fact that it is especially criminologists that make comments in this respect, is because a parallel can be made with criminality. Since criminality will always exist and can never be completely eliminated, the question criminologists pose is how much effort can a society invest in fighting crime, without infringing basic civil rights and sliding towards a totalitarian system.
The pursuit of a drug-free society has developed in such a way that the goal seems to justify almost all means. Not only are, in a very paternalistic way, drug-scare messages being employed to prevent people from taking drugs, more importantly the State now has the ability to intervene strongly into the private lives of its citizens, as is indicated by the urine tests that are applied to people who are suspected of being under the influence of drugs. Although there are exceptions, few people ask the question what is the price that has to be paid for this policy.
A possible reason can be that, to a certain extent, Swedes are familiar with the fact that the Swedish State intervenes in the private lives of people. In the Swedish welfare state model, an important role is attributed to the State as a social engineer, making sure the large majority of the people can live a decent life. In some cases, far-reaching measures are considered necessary for the sake of the public good. For example, HIV-positives or people having Aids can be incarcerated in special sections of hospitals if their behaviour is considered to present a risk to society. In international circles of people working in the field of Aids, Sweden is often criticised and attacked for its policy in this regard. In Sweden however, one does not hear these criticisms very much. One possible reason is that Sweden does not have a strong tradition of liberalism. As Tham points out, this relative absence of a strong civil liberty tradition might be seemed a more general trademark of Sweden, which has a long tradition of a
strong State. During the 19th century when liberalism developed in Europes cities, Sweden was a poor and basically agrarian society without a strong urban culture. The absence of a strong urban culture also explains why an urban liberal culture did not develop.
Since Sweden has become member of the EU, it has quickly gained a reputation
being one of the leading countries opposed to any drug liberalisation initiatives. The way this is done by Swedes, for example in EU meetings in Brussels and the European Parliament, sometimes leaves a strange impression on other nationals. This holds true not only for government officials and politicians, but even more for militants like Torgny Pettersson who is working both for European Cities against Drugs (ECAD) and the Hassela Nordic Network (HNN).
When the Swedish drug policy is criticised by foreigners, something very deep and fundamental seems to be being touched. Whereas Swedes are usually rational and calm, when drugs are discussed, rationality seems very distant and emotions get the upper hand, which in the Swedish context and in the light of their debating culture is very unusual. A foreigner criticising Swedish drug policy can trigger violent reactions. One gets the impression this criticism is interpreted as an attack on something profund and very Swedish, which almost automatically leads to a nationalistic sense of oneness. Possible explanations for these kind of reactions can be found in what was mentioned previously, namely the broader, symbolic function the drug policy has within Swedish society, as shown by Tham, and before him by Christie & Bruun.
In this respect one should also take into consideration the magnitude of the Swedish drug education programmes and their impact. The massive drug education programmes start in the primary schools and regularly recur throughout the school curriculum. Without exaggeration, this opinion forming could be described as a process of indoctrination. Considering the magnitude of these programmes, the contents of them have gradually become something so indisputable and conclusive that one incorporates them into ones own value system. Because the ideas have become part of ones inner life, there is hardly any possibility of putting things into perspective or looking upon them in a rational fashion. Attacking or questioning these basic tenets, can then trigger violent reactions. In this perspective, a comparison can be made with democracy. Most people in Western societies do not question the concept of democracy since the virtues of the political model have been so internalised one
no longer questions its principles; it is something one simply takes for granted. Questioning the concept of democracy, can lead to reactions that are similar to criticism of Swedish drug policy.
Källa The Swedish drug control policy. An in-depth review and analysis. av CEDRO.
