10. 2 A society with or without drugs?


Sweden

In the first problem definition, the drug problem was depicted in
Sweden as an external threat to society. The availability of drugs was
the main problem. Intravenous use of amphetamines was a threatening
novelty that was linked to socially deviant groups. The indecisive
attitude to the use of cannabis was conditioned by a lack of knowledge
of the prevalence as well as the pharmacological effects of cannabis.
However, smoking hash was denominated as deviant behaviour so there
was reason to obstruct it. Two conflicting views have been identified on
the cause of the drug problem. One that singled out drugs and their
pharmacological properties as the cause of the drug problem and that
spread like a contagious disease (the epidemic) and one that held
social/psychological conditions liable for the emergence of the modern
drug problem that hit selectively (the symptom). The epidemic
metaphor was not used in bills but stubbornly repeated by MPs in the
Riksdag.
During the phase that preceded the second problem definition, a new
wave of cannabis abuse among socially well-adjusted populations was a
reason for concern. It was caused by a drug-glorifying youth culture but
and could be counteracted by stimulating a healthy, drug-free, youth
culture. Like the first definition, the situation was defined in terms of a
crisis. Furthermore, drug abuse was depicted as something un-Swedish.

An alien element that had entrenched the People's Home, which was
perceived as a failure for the Swedish welfare state. Creating a drug-
free society was proclaimed as the only legitimate goal for the drug
policy. The term "epidemic" had lost its power as a metaphor under the
second problem definition. One explanation for that is that the
proponents of the epidemic image of the problem had accomplished
most of their goals. A law on compulsory care of adult abusers was
enacted and the police acted against drug abusers. Furthermore, a drug
free society had been proclaimed as the only legitimate goal for the
drug policy.


The Netherlands

During the phase preceding the first problem definition, use of cannabis
was seen as part of a new youth culture. Some years later heroin use
had become the main problem and was linked to socially marginalised
subcultures. A policy to divide the market for cannabis from that for
drugs with an unacceptable risk could prevent diffusion of the latter.
This was in accordance with the idea that not all drug use and drugs
were equally dangerous. Consequently, the drug policy had to be
grounded on a judgement of the risks emanating from drug use.
In the second problem definition, the negative consequences of
heroin use for society and "nuisance" in particular were at the forefront
of attention. The cannabis problem had become subordinated to the
heroin problem. Normalisation and social integration of heroin users in
society was adopted as the goal for the drug policy. It was not addiction
as such that was the main problem but the behaviour of problematic
addicts.
The metaphor of epidemic was not used at all. Instead, it was
expected that problematic drug use would spread by and to socially
marginalised subcultures. The implied that the cause of the drug
problem was not blamed on external factors and there was no enemy
that threatened the nation. The existence of drugs had become a fact
that society had to cope with for an unforeseeable time. The goal for the
drug policy would be to reduce the harms of drug use to the individual
and society.

Comparison

A comparison of the drugs and the problem populations that were in
focus shows a switch from amphetamines to cannabis as the
problematic drug in Sweden and the risk groups in focus changed from
deviant populations to socially adjusted youth. In the Netherlands, a
switch from cannabis in (controllable) youth centres to (uncontrollable)
heroin users in the streets already occurred during the first definition
process. In the second definition, heroin was depicted as the main
problem. Cannabis use was hardly mentioned as a problem. The
problem population had changed from socially adjusted youth to
socially marginalised populations.
Another aspect of the problem definition needs to be addressed. In
the Netherlands, alleged adverse consequences of the action programme
against drugs for the individual user and society were included in
discussions from the very beginning of the definition process. In fact,
the ambition to separate the markets for cannabis from the markets for
other drugs was due to such considerations. In other words, public
measures could increase the risks of drug use. When such arguments
were put forward in Swedish discussions, they were rejected with the
argument that they implied an acceptance of drugs in society or broke
the unity that surrounded the principles of the problem definition.
Instead, all drug markets should be destroyed and drug abusers cured.
However, the social democratic government rejected demands for a
criminalisation of the use of drugs, put forward by conservative parties
and issue pressure groups like RNS and FMN, because it would
negatively influence the motivation of abusers to seek treatment. This in
fact was an argument based on an alleged negative side effect of drug-
policy measures. Especially after the second problem definition,
discussions about negative side effects of the drug policy for drug
abusers or the drug situation were brushed aside and labelled as drug
liberal ideas. The Dutch concept of integrated use or normalisation of
addicts would have been defined as liberal "blather" in Sweden and
would have ended outside the DOXA, in the same way as creating a
drug-free society would have been in the Netherlands. The point is that
such arguments were related to their potential to reach the overall goal
of the drug policy, the elimination of drugs in Swedish society and
minimising the risks of drug use in the Netherlands. However, because
the totally different goals for the drug policies the arguments were
equally different.
Another salient difference concerns the diversity of views among
policy makers. In Sweden, different opinions on the cause of the
problem and the action programme were allowed as long as they
supported the ultimate goal of the drug policy. Apart from a few
dissenters, there was no serious disagreement on the solution to the
problem. All political parties supported the model that was attractive by
its simplicity: cut off supplies, cure the abusers, and vaccinate the
people by information. Controversies on the right treatment methods
were left to the field itself. The controversies on methadone treatment
and later in the 1980s, needle exchange, were depoliticised by
transforming them into time-limited experiments enclosed by rigid
regulations.
In the Netherlands no simple solution was presented or adopted. The
problem was seen as too complicated, and the outcome of political
discussions was to be a compromise between advocates of a legalisation
of cannabis and those who rejected any distinction between hard and
soft drugs. Part of the compromise was to give priority to combating
trade in drugs with unacceptable risks (heroin) and to tolerate
possession for personal use and small-scale retail trade in cannabis.
There was large agreement that drug abuse was a social/medical
problem and not a matter for justice. In the Netherlands, experiments
were also used to avoid a yes or no decision. However, a salient feature
of the Dutch policy is that in fact it has been a long range of
experiments beyond the realm of the central government.

next