The goal of Swedish drug policy is “a drug free society”. By setting this objective, Sweden has assumed a unique position among European nations, adopting a total prohibition model and emphasising a restrictive approach. At the official level, Swedish policy has been presented as a success both in relation to t= he less restrictive policy previously followed in Sweden, and to the policies of other countries.

The drugs que= stion has once again become topical since levels of drug use have risen sharply following an earlier decline. The Government has appointed a special co-ordinator on drugs issues, who is now working under the banner “Mobilisation against drugs”. The Government is also expected to furnish a large amount of money for this mobilisation.

A number of academics and researchers have long been critical of various aspects of Swe= dish drug policy. At the same time, the debate surrounding this issue has been polarised and in a state of deadlock, which has made it very difficult for those with alternative viewpoints to make themselves heard. In the context = of the new and more open situation prevailing at the present time, some researchers wish here to present their views on Swedish drug policy. The authors are wholly responsible for their own sections of the text.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; = Ed.

Presentation of the authors

Mats Ekendahl Ph.D. works at the Department of Social Work at Stockholm Universit= y

Markus Heilig= is Associate Professor at the Karolinska Institutet and is head of the Research, Development and Education unit at the Uni= versity Hospital at Huddinge

Magnus Hörnqvist is a postgraduate research student at the Department of Criminology= at Stockholm University

Leif Lenke is Professor of criminology at Stockholm Universit= y

Börje Olsson is Professor of alcohol and drug policy at <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Stockholm Universit= y

Henrik Tham is Professor of criminology at Stockholm Universit= y

Dolf Tops Ph.D. works at the Department of Social Work at Lund University

Per Ole Träskman is Professor of penal law at Lund University

Drug policy and trends in problematic drug use in Sweden

Henrik Tham

Developments in the control system

Swedish drug policy has been successful in reducing levels of problematic drug use both over time and relative to that of other countries. This is the official picture presented in political statements, government inquiries, and the informational publications of public sector agencies. According to these official statements, Swedish drug policy is successful as a result of its restrictiveness. The term is used to refer to= an intensive policy agenda involving informational, treatment and control meas= ures across a broad front.

The success of drug policy has been questioned in relation to the resources devoted to informational campaigns and treatment programmes. These do not constitute the most controversial areas of drug po= licy however. Most of the criticism directed against the drug policy practised i= n Sweden = has been focused on the area of control, since here drug policy involves the use of sanctioning and compulsion. Police interventions, prison sanctions and compulsory treatment all constitute departures from the basic civil rights = and freedoms outlined in Sweden’s Constitution. Interventions of this kind against citizens, constituting as = they do exceptions to the freedoms and rights enjoyed by all, must therefore be specially authorised by law. Compulsory measures might be justified if they were to clearly reduce the risks for serious consequences that would otherw= ise affect the individual and society. The compulsory measures employed in the context of drug policy must therefore be assessed in relation to their effe= cts on problematic drug use and its consequences.

Since the end of the 1960s, there has been a substantial tightening of the control related aspects of drug policy. Table= au 1 presents important legislative changes that have taken place since the Drug Offences Act came into force in 1968. The area covered by the criminal law = has expanded throughout this period. In addition, the application of the law has been tightened successively. The number of police officers whose work is focused on drugs has increased (Figure 1), the number of persons sentenced = to a prison term for drug offences has risen (Figure 2) and the proportion of dr= ug users among those admitted to prisons has also increased (Figure 3).[1]

The years around 1980 constituted a watershed for Swedish drug policy. From this point, the objective became “a drug fr= ee Sweden&= #8221; and the focus of drug policy shifted from the manufacturer and the dealer to the individual drug user. The Prosecutor General introduced massive restrictions on the opportunities available to prosecutors to issue cautions rather than to prosecute for possessing drugs for personal use and the poli= ce began to focus special resources on street-level operations under the slogan “it’s going to be tough to be a drug abuser.” =

T= ableau 1. The evolution of drugs legislation

19= 68       &nb= sp;          Prison term for serious offences raised from 2 to max. 4 years

19= 69       &nb= sp;          Prison term for serious offences raised to max. 6 years

Telephone taps allowed in connection with seri= ous offences

19= 72       &nb= sp;          Prison term for serious offences raised to max. 10 years

19= 80       &nb= sp;          Tightening of praxis in relation to prosecutorial cautions

19= 81       &nb= sp;          Prison term for non-serious offences raised from 2 to max. 3 years =

Prison term for serious offences raised from m= in. 1 to min. 2 years

19= 82       &nb= sp;          Act on the Compulsory Treatment of Adult Drug Abusers

19= 83       &nb= sp;          Extension of area covered by penal law

19= 85       &nb= sp;          Prison term for minor drug offences raised to max. 6 months<= /p>
19= 88       &nb= sp;          Criminalis= ation of personal consumption, max. sanction fines

<= span lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-f= amily: "ITC Officina Sans Book";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB'>1989       &nb= sp;         Extension of Care of Young Persons Act in relation to drug abusers

19= 93       &nb= sp;          Prison term max. 6 months for personal consumption

19= 99       &nb= sp;          Extension of criminalisation of synthetic drugs
      &nb= sp;            =           Extension of Care of Young Persons Act in relation to drug abusers

Zero limit for drugs while driving

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

Figure 1. Number of police officers working with drug crime 1965-20= 01.

= &nb= sp; Figure 2. Persons sentenced to prison for drug offences 1975-2001

<= /i>

= Figur= e 3. Drug users in prison 1968-2002

Trends in drug use=

Any assessment of the effects of Swedish drug poli= cy must be based on a number of measures of drug use. It is possible by means = of such measures to study pattern changes and also to make comparisons with ot= her countries. The indicators of the extent of drug use employed in analyses of= the situation in Sweden are self-reported drug use among school pupils and nati= onal service conscripts, drug related illness and mortality, arrestees with need= le marks, estimates made by various public sector agencies of numbers of drug users, drug seizures made by the police and customs services, persons convi= cted[2] of drug offences and numbers of drug users in prison system institutions. These different indicators measure somewhat different things and are of varying reliability. The indicators that serve as direct measures of drug use may be regarded as more reliable than those that describe responses to drug use, s= uch as police and court data for example. In combination, however, the various measures may provide a rough picture of the relevant trends.

Since 1971, annual questionnaire surveys have been conducted among pupils in yea= r 9 (aged 15). Figure 4 presents trends in the proportion of girls and boys respectively who report having tried drugs, primarily cannabis.[3] T= he trend shows a gradual reduction in the numbers trying drugs during the 1970s and through the early 1980s, with these numbers bottoming out between the m= id 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. Thereafter there was a marked increas= e. Measuring drug use during the last month provides a rather more sophisticat= ed indicator than measures of ever having tried drugs. The trend shown by this indicator is more or less the same, however.

Figure 4. Proportion of youths in year nine who ha= ve used drugs 1971-2001,

by gender

Review of Swedish Drug Policy

*

<= /span>

2003

<= /span>

<= /span>

<= /span>

Ed. Henrik Tham

Foreword

Presentation of the authors

Drug policy and trends in problematic drug use in Sweden

Henrik Tham

T= ableau 1. The evolution of drugs legislation

= &nb= sp; Figure 2. Persons sentenced to prison for drug offences 1975-2001

<= /i>

= Figur= e 3. Drug users in prison 1968-2002

Trends in drug use=