The
Swedish Drug Control System
Part
1
Evan
Thomas
ref:
July 98 Heroinsight
The Swedish experience is sometimes suggested as
a model for Australia to follow to control illicit
drug use. The recently published Drug Precipice
by Athol Moffitt, John Malouf and Craig Thompson
makes recommendations based on the Swedish model.
It is useful therefore to examine the Swedish experience,
the historical background and cultural factors which
influenced the Swedish people to adopt their system,
and the current outcome.
Tim Boekhout van Solinge, a Dutchman, is the author
of an in-depth review and analysis entitled "The
Swedish Drug Control System". The Centre for
Drug Research, University of Amsterdam has instituted
a number of similar studies which have included
France, Germany, the US, Belgium, as well as Sweden.
To quote from the foreword by Peter D.A. Cohen,
Ph.D.:
Closer
economic relationships with the rest of Europe have
led some Swedes to fear that the cultural influence
of Europe will also increase; and some see the urban
or cosmopolitan cultures as incompatible with Swedish
norms and morals. Such concerns sometimes make it
appear that the strict Swedish drug control system
is rooted more in myth and orthodoxy than in scientific
evidence and reasoning.
Dr Cohen and the author believe that most countries'
drug laws develop in culturally and historically
specific ways shaped by other public concerns, social
policies and legal systems. Sweden is certainly
no exception.
Modern Sweden is a rich country with a highly developed
social welfare policy. Social democracy has played
a key role in the transition from a poor rural country
to its current state.
The benefits brought by the welfare state explain
why the people believe that Social Democrat "social
engineering" can solve most problems, and why
they possess a positive attitude towards the State
and the "system".
Despite the virtues of modern Sweden, many Swedes
still come across as having a provincial mentality.
Swedish social values are strongly conformist; there
is little room for deviance.
Racially, Sweden is a very homogenous country. Non-European
migration has only become significant in the late
1980s. Drugs were something strange and unknown
to a people positioned on the outskirts of Europe,
and were treated as a deviant social phenomenon,
and a threat.
Amphetamine
Use
Around 1965 the drug most widely used was cannabis;
second were amphetamines; heroin was hardly used
at all. Sweden is unique among Western countries
in that amphetamines are the most widely used hard
drugs, only Japan and Korea have comparable histories.
The reasons which may explain this situation go
back to the Second World War during which Sweden
was neutral. Exports of iron ore to Germany enriched
Sweden whilst most other countries in Europe became
impoverished.
Amphetamines were prescribed for people with obesity
in the 1940s and 1950s, and they were sold over
the counter as popular stimulants (pep pills) before
1939. The number of users was estimated to be 200,000
in 1943, 3% of the population. After they were made
available only on prescription in 1959, registered
sales declined dramatically. However, the number
of regular and addicted users increased, supplied
from other countries and local illegal production.
The black market was estimated to be 40 million
tablets per year in 1968.
A criminal sub-culture within which it was common
to inject amphetamines was considered by the general
public to be deviant.
Liberalisation
Drug Precipice claims that Sweden "after initially
beefing up laws to tackle rising drug use in the
1960s, the Swedish government bowed to pressure
groups and liberalised drug laws, with worse results".
The so-called liberalisation was in fact a small,
completely unscientific trial with no controls,
which was so badly managed that there was a leakage
of prescribed drugs outside the trial. In April
1965 the trial commenced with ten patients who were
prescribed narcotics. By 1967 100 patients were
being prescribed primarily amphetamines, but also
methadone and morphine. Halfway through the project,
nine of the ten physicians involved had abandoned
the trial because of public criticism, and in April
1067, the experiment was terminated. During the
trial four million doses of amphetamines and 600,000
doses of opiates were prescribed to 120 patients.
This trial became a watershed in influencing public
opinion, and the foundation was laid for the restrictive
policy as it is today.
A policy psychiatrist, Nils Bejerot, studied the
trial and other statistics collected from police
sources and concluded that the `permissive' period
had a triggering effect on the spread of intravenous
drug use. Few members of the Swedish or the international
scientific community share this view. Notwithstanding
this, Bejerot's conclusions are still widely accepted
by the government and people of Sweden. The rise
in intravenous drug use in Sweden during this period
was common to most European countries and the Western
world.
Penalties
In 1968 the Narcotics Drug Act defined the penalties
for illicit drug use and possession thus (hard and
soft drugs were not differentiated)
-
Minor
offences (50gm cannabis; .4gm heroin): a fine
-
Normal
offences (2kg cannabis; 25gm heroin): a fine
or 2 years gaol
-
Major
offences (+2kg cannabis; +25gm heroin): up to
4 years gaol
Despite the static level of drug offences, the law
became increasingly repressive after 1968; the maximum
sentence was increased to 10 years, and sedatives
and tranquillisers were included.
In 1977 Parliament decided to aim for a `drug-free'
society. New guidelines issued in 1980 reduced the
minimum allowable possession for cannabis to one
joint and one dose of amphetamines. Possession of
any quantity of heroin, cocaine or morphine was
an offence. Registered drug offences rose from 22,500
in 1979 to 68,000 in 1982. The minimum sentence
for a major drug offence was increased to 2 years.
The penalties under the Narcotics Drug Act were
further increased in the 1980s. Minor drug offences
could lead to goal, which was mandatory for `normal'
offences. Drug use was criminalised, and in 1993,
drug use was made punishable by a maximum sentence
of 6 months. Urine tests were introduced. In the
1980s, drugs became a political issue and both major
political groups under the influence of pressure
groups demanding a tougher stance on drugs adopted
tougher policies. In the 1960s and the 1970s, the
priorities of police were concentrated on the supply
side; in the 1980s, the emphasis was put on street
dealers and drug users. The former had been a secondary
target and leniency was extended towards the latter.
Van Solinge believes it is relevant to consider
Swedish alcohol policy and to observe parallels
in a society that believes government intervention
can solve social problems.
