Questioning the unquestionable:

A normative study of the values, argumentation, and logic of the Swedish policy

By: Alexander Carmler

Supervisor: Dr. Simon Birnbaum Södertörn University | School of Social Sciences Master’s dissertation 30 credits Spring semester 2021 (Political Science, Master’s Programme)

Abstract

Sweden’s still invokes the ideas of zero-tolerance and prohibition despite the high reported number of drug-related deaths and arrest rates for using in in the latest years. To reach knowledge about why prohibition of illegal drugs has remained such a strong staple of Swedish politics for the latest 60 years, this study asks questions about which ideas and arguments constituting the Swedish drug policy, examines the logical coherence of these, and proposes an alternative policy route which aims to mitigate the shortcomings of the current policy. The drug policy field is extensive and studies from different nations show that drug policies that move away from prohibitionist ideas have succeeded in both reducing drug-related mortality rates and reducing the stigma that is attached to either using or abusing psychoactive drugs. Because of an identified unclarity of why the prohibitionary ideas in Sweden have remained despite recent developments, this study aims to fill a gap in existing research by normatively analyzing the ideas in the policy. Since these ideas have great importance in restrictions of individual liberty and public health considerations, knowledge about them is essential to create because liberty and public health are fundamental aspects in any democratic society. The research endeavor performs an internal validity check as the methodological approach to check the internal logic and arguments of the policy and uses a theory of liberty to shed light on the trade-offs between liberty and public health. What is discovered is that the Swedish drug policy builds on inconsistent arguments and incoherent logic and has a moralizing intent that allows for restrictions on individual liberty to reach a utopian vision of a drug-free society. Also, this study shows that it is possible to create a policy that can mitigate the harms caused by the current by adhering to the principle that individual liberty should stretch as far as possible when no harm is caused to another. The implications of this are that it will be harder to justify the zero-tolerance approach in the future and that future policy must look to other policy approaches rather than build policy on assumptions based on outdated moralism.

Carmler Contents 2

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 4 2. Research problem and guiding research questions ...... 8 2.1 Research questions...... 9 3. Previous Research ...... 11 4. Material ...... 14 5. Method ...... 16 6. Theory ...... 19 7. Operationalization ...... 23 8. A note on intersubjectivity ...... 27 9. Analysis: The Swedish drug policy ...... 29 9.1 Legal aspects ...... 29 9.2 History ...... 30 9.3 Question 1: What are the values, logic, and value-hierarchy within the Swedish drug policy? ...... 34 9.4 Question 2: Is the argumentation behind the Swedish drug policy logically coherent? ...... 41 9.5 Question 3: What is needed to provide a policy alternative that is more logically coherent and eliminates identifiable harms and injustices of the current drug policy? ...... 48 9.5.1 A desirable policy ...... 49 9.5.2 A viable policy ...... 51 9.5.3 An achievable policy ...... 53 10. Conclusions ...... 56 11. Discussion and future research ...... 59 References...... 62

Carmler Acknowledgements 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my family for the support given in education throughout my life. Hedvig for all the support and love you provide. Also, thank you to all my friends who always support me and have been missed and thought about dearly while I have been locked up in my writing room. Special thanks to Dr. Simon Birnbaum who has been my guide throughout the process and whom I could not have done this without.

Carmler Introduction 4

1. Introduction

Psychoactive drugs such as or have been used by human beings since ancient times to medicate, get recreationally intoxicated, but also to attain spiritual and cultural understanding, there is even evidence that suggests that they might have inspired initial human religious experiences (Merlin, 2003, p.295). A controversial idea to consider for sure, but interesting insight into the longevity of human use of psychoactive drugs. The modern use of psychoactive substances falls on a wide spectrum, religious, medical, cultural, or recreational, but the modern-day application of these substances is generally not so closely intertwined with the ritualistic or religious use as in ancient times (Merlin, 2003, p.296). A widely held political conception during the latter part of the 20th century has been that certain drugs, generally all identifiable except and , are so harmful to the fabric of society that they need to be banned, and the users of these drugs ostracized from ‘regular’ society. For instance, the aptly named “”-campaign, implemented globally and spearheaded by the federal government of the U.S.A since the Nixon Administration 1971, an administration which declared drug abuse as “public enemy number one” (Nixon, 1971). The global “war” on drugs can be seen as an attempt at forcefully reducing and consumption in the and worldwide. This war-on-drugs-rhetoric became most salient during the latter half of the 20th century, however prohibitionist attitudes to consumption can be traced back to the formal prohibition of Alcohol and other intoxicants under Islamic Sharia law stemming from passages of the Quran dating back to the 7th century (Michalak & Trocki, 2006). Most prevalent as a political idea in the 20th and 21st century, psychoactive drug prohibition is not an inherently American, or Western imagining, as may be thought when only looking at a latter couple of centuries. Around 500 years after Siam (Current Thailand) first prohibited the smoking of Opium, the first state law in America prohibited it (Windle, 2013, p.1194). Thus, the question of how to deal with drug use has been on the minds of rulers and politicians throughout history.

In contemporary politics, ideas fall on a spectrum ranging from libertarian views considering drug use to be an issue only concerning the individuals using them, not to be regulated whatsoever by the state, to extremists on the other side such as President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte which administration has enabled law enforcement to be able to shoot suspected drug users and drug dealers on sight, or if they are ‘spared’ thrown in overcrowded

Carmler Introduction 5 prisons with “disgraceful conditions” (Ghiabi, 2018, pp.209-210). Regardless of where on this spectrum drug policy ideas fall, extreme means such as in the case of the Philippines are arguably not fitting in a state claiming to respect a contemporary understanding of human rights and leaving the issue out of politics altogether cannot arguably be seen as a reasonable stance from governments due to the negative consequences drug use can have on individuals and society. Generally, drug policy and drug laws have the effect of producing violence from the state, due to the enforcement of the law by the state carrying the monopoly on violence, towards those labeled as addicts and criminal organizations dealing drugs, organizations which deal drugs because of the profits to be gained of the illegal substance, and in turn, these criminal organizations produce violence to maintain their highly profitable markets, a salient fact which is arguably one of the stronger arguments of enforcing certain drug laws to maintain public safety and liberty. The labeling of individuals using drugs as drug addicts is often caricatured by states to mean anyone using illegal drugs (Ghiabi, 2018, p.210), regardless of their rate of use or quantity of drugs used, but for example, in Portugal, distinctions are made between problematic- and non-problematic use (EMCDDA, 2015, p.14), whereas in Swedish policy, which will be the main focus of this dissertation, any use, as well as being under the influence of an illegal drug, is seen as problematic and a criminal offense (SFS 1968:64).

The focus of this dissertation on the ideas of the Swedish drug policy, where any use of an illegal substance is punishable by law (SFS 1968:64), is because of a perceived unclarity of the logic behind it. It is a policy worth studying closer because of the extreme drug-induced mortality rate in Sweden (EMCDDA, 2019) and the question of why a zero-tolerance policy remains in place when alternatives are available. But perhaps most importantly, the question of which ideas and arguments that the policy is based on and if they are logical and consistent. The ideas that lay the ground for the current policy will be investigated by an internal validity check looking at the internal consistency and logic of argumentation in policy (Badersten, 2004, p.215). Practically this will be done first by researching which ideas that come through and matter in the policy area, and second by applying a theory of liberty based on Mill (1864) to see what the implications are by approaching and investigating the field with a normative political theory of liberty as opposed to for example other political-, public health- or criminal theoretic perspectives. Further, the study will seek to investigate alternatives to the current policy based on a methodological framework by Wright (2010) together with Mill’s (1864) theory on liberty, to find a theoretical and empirical basis for

Carmler Introduction 6 constructing a new policy framework that is logically consistent and eliminates the harms identified in the current.

When discussing drugs in the Swedish context, the term “” is referring to all illicit psychoactive substances (Goldberg, 2004, p.552). A trait of the Swedish drug policy, what Goldberg (2004, p.552) calls “perhaps the key postulate” of it, is that people using psychoactive substances are considered to be chemically controlled in the manner of their individual willpower and ability to make rational decisions being suppressed by the biochemical properties of the drug they are using. Because of the view of the drug user as a passive object, reacting to the effects of the drugs they are using, rather than an active subject aiming to reach personal goals, the policy has been shaped with an effort to control drug users by forcing them not to use illicit drugs, instead of communicating with them, which is considered futile unless the individual is not using drugs, why treatment programs in Sweden traditionally have had it as a prerequisite to be drug-free to qualify (Goldberg, 2004, p.552). Legal psychoactive drugs in Sweden such as tobacco and alcohol are regulated by the state, in the case of alcohol what can be deemed as harm-reduction measures have influenced policy during the greater part of the 20th century because alcohol was seen as impossible to eliminate from society why harm-reduction policies regarding the use of it were seen as viable (Goldberg, 2004, p.553-554). Narcotics on the other hand are seen as much more dangerous than alcohol, and much more likely for individuals to become biochemically addicted and dependent to, why much effort has been made politically to create and enforce norms ensuring other psychoactive drugs are kept out of Swedish society (Goldberg, 2004, p.557). Comparatively, the evidence points to tobacco- and alcohol use having the potential of more physical harm and more risk for dependence than illegal drugs such as cannabis, LSD, or MDMA/Ecstacy, with and being the most harmful substances (Nutt et al., 2007, pp.1050-1052). When measuring which drugs are most harmful to individuals as well as harmful to others, alcohol is the most harmful drug when both categories are weighed together (Nutt et al., 2010, pp.1560-1561).

The idea that certain drugs needed to be kept out of the country was formed with the ideas that drugs were a danger for the individuals consuming them, as well as a threat to the fabric of society and the specific equity centered welfare state and ‘people’s home’ or ‘folkhem’, demanding diligent workers with self-control, therefore sobriety as an ideal was woven into the political vision of a better society (Goldberg, 2004, p.555). It is only of late where the

Carmler Introduction 7 zero-tolerance prohibitionist drug policy of Sweden has been questioned more publicly for several reasons such as the number of drug-induced deaths being relatively high in a European context (EMCDDA, 2019), and debate around the ethics and logic of the policy has emerged. Also, around the world policies of and legalization have been implemented in many countries and territories such as Portugal, where the use of all drugs is decriminalized and where the evidence points to a reduction of problematic use (Hughes & Stevens, 2010, p.999). Or more recently the state of Colorado, U.S.A, where the legalization of cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes has, as of the time of writing this, arguably not yet caused the fabric of society to crumble. Rather it is “highly likely” that legalization has had a positive effect on local and state resources (Zambiasi & Stillman, 2020, p.678), which in turn could be used for treatment measures or other purposes. As times change and international alternatives for drug policy shed light on different ways to deal with this difficult, controversial, and for many highly personal issues, Sweden’s zero-tolerance approach, and especially the ideas that lie behind it, becomes an interesting area to be studied normatively. Since there is a perceived unclarity of the logic behind why ideas about criminalization of intoxication, limiting individual liberty to benefit the people’s health, zero-tolerance and equating use with abuse take precedent in the drug policy. It is with these intriguing insights from the policy that is and has been, in Sweden and the practical application of other policy modes in other nations, that this dissertation will seek to examine the values and arguments behind the current drug policy of Sweden and investigate if it is possible to provide an alternative drug policy for Sweden.

Carmler Research problem and research questions 8

2. Research problem and guiding research questions

Sweden’s drug-induced mortality rate was 92 deaths per million in 2017, almost five times the European average of just above 20 deaths per million (EMCDDA, 2019). Important to note is the supposed wide margin for error in comparing countries, as the statistics above are dealing with a highly stigmatized phenomenon, and there being systematic under-reporting in some countries (EMCDDA, 2019). However, with the case of Sweden being an outlier, this acts as one motivator for this study as it begins with asking the question of why the Swedish traditionalist policy path of prohibition regarding narcotic drugs has remained entrenched. In a nation where the standard of living is comparatively high, ranking high on quantitative measuring indexes regarding the standard of living, quality of life, health, and income- as well as other inequalities (UNDP, 2020), one might find it odd that the drug-induced mortality rate is so comparatively high. Not only can this be considered as strange regarding the extensive welfare state in Sweden with universal coverage, but policy-wise as well where Sweden continues to follow a zero-tolerance, prohibitionist policy regarding psychoactive drugs where alternatives in other nations have yielded positive results when it comes to reducing mortality. Not only is the drug-induced mortality rate high, but the number of reported offenses due to personal use of drugs has increased by 39 percent in the latest decade, with almost half of the around 120.000 reported drug offenses being in the category of personal use in 2020 (BRÅ, 2021). This is intriguing not only because of the perceived mortality problem and the expected capacity of the welfare state to handle such a problem but because nearly 60.000 individuals were prosecuted with having an illegal drug in their body, an act that is rare to be a criminal offense in other democratic countries (SVT, 2020). Perhaps what is most perplexing in this specific policy is that Sweden continues on the same policy route when there is evidence suggesting that zero-tolerance policies may not minimize consumption (Caulkins, 1993, p.473) and that harm reduction policies, aiming at limiting the damage caused to individuals and society by psychoactive drug use by not viewing those using as legal subjects to be prosecuted, can be successful in minimizing harm to the users themselves and others (Tucker, 1999). In addition to this, when other Nordic countries such as Iceland (Pearson, 2021) propose decriminalizing personal drug use by adults, and in Norway, the decriminalization of the personal use of psychoactive drugs has been lifted in parliament during 2021 (SVT, 2021), Swedish prohibition remains. Important to note as well is that when government officials are asked about possible policy changes, as when Minister

Carmler Research problem and research questions 9 for Health and Social Affairs Lena Hallengren (Social Democrat) was asked by the media about a suggestion from the Public Health Agency of Sweden to investigate the ban on using drugs, there is an unwillingness to even engage in a discussion about the suggestion as the quote below highlights:

“How important is it to listen to what the Public Health Agency says? – I think you’re posing that question in a loosely formulated way, it obviously depends entirely on what you’re aiming for.” –Minister for Health and Social Affairs Lena Hallengren (Social Democrat). (SVT, 2020)

We will get back to the aspect of the public- and political climate of discussing the policy later, since it is an interesting theoretical aspect.

2.1 Research questions

So why has Sweden not attempted changes to its policy in the light of other European countries such as Portugal, The , Iceland, and Spain, amongst others, where the change from prohibition regarding narcotic drugs to different policies of legalization or decriminalization have taken place? What is the rationale for maintaining the current policy as the drug-induced mortality rate is at such a comparatively high level? And most importantly, what is the logic behind the policy and the ideas and values that make it up. In boiling this down as research questions for this study, we will ask the following:

1. What are the values, logic, and value-hierarchy within the Swedish drug policy? 2. Is the argumentation behind the Swedish drug policy logically coherent? 3. What is needed to provide a policy alternative that is more logically coherent and eliminates identifiable harms and injustices of the current drug policy?

Liberty as a normative concept has different interpretations, therefore it is necessary to disclaim that Mill’s (1864) theory of liberty is used not because it should be taken as absolute truth. Rather, it is used because of the importance it holds in the political science tradition and the theoretical usefulness of it as it cuts to the core of where one individual’s liberty ends and the next begins, what this dissertation considers the fundamental question in drug policy

Carmler Research problem and research questions 10 because of drug policies inherent demarcation of how far an individual’s freedom to their own body extends and the restrictions that are placed upon it based on other values. It is the theoretical and practical tensions between the two sides of the ‘liberty coin’ that lie at the heart of the issue, which we will return to later.

In critically analyzing the case of Sweden with these guiding research questions, this study aims to use the field of normative political science to create knowledge about the logic behind the ideas and values constituting the Swedish drug policy, and normatively, i.e., based on Mill’s (1864) theory of liberty, develop certain policy suggestions which are logically coherent as well as desirable, viable, and achievable in the Swedish context. By approaching the issue with the help of these research questions and this aim, the study will also seek to provide a basis for future work to continually question and think critically about the ideas that form this policy issue, and other side issues surrounding the policy. Contributing to a tradition of scientific courage in examining controversial questions such as this, that are not only questions about liberty and inherent logics of policy but in this case actual life and death. Thus, in lifting this controversial issue out of the characteristics of dogmatic stigmatization and entrenchment and providing for constructive criticism of ideas and values based on a normative method and normative principles, the study can also inform future political science, policy makers, and suggest future policy alternatives.

Carmler Previous research 11

3. Previous Research

The academic field of drug policy contains a wide berth of literature within several different scientific areas such as political-, criminal-, health- sociological-, and economical science, to name a few. Although drug policy can be interpreted as simply the government’s regulation of substances, insights from for example health studies can help to illuminate the study of political ideas, and vice versa. It is with this open approach, although written in-, and focused within the discipline of normative political science, that this study does not shy away from drawing lessons from other academic subjects when they have implications on politics and political ideas. As such, a brief overview of the research field is presented here.

Around the start of the 20th century, drugs and drug use became studied more frequently by governments, and as early as 1894 the British studied the “marijuana problem” in India. The Indian Drugs Commission Report (1894), suggested that cannabis should be regulated and taxed rather than prohibited due to both political and practical reasons, the political being that the use of cannabis was a widely accepted cultural practice, a concern that users would turn to more harmful drugs such as alcohol or opium, as well as a concern for individual liberty based on Mill’s (1864, p.10) harm principle insisting that governments cannot stop individuals because they are only harming themselves, the practical reasons were tied to the fact that cannabis grew wild, increasing the likelihood of prohibition creating an illicit market (Hall, 2019, pp. 1681-1682). Although the study was wide and impressive in size, it has been noted that the British commissioners could have had a conflict of interest due to them being paid employees of the Government of India, interested in the revenue from regulation (Mills, 2009, In: Hall, 2019, p.1681). Moving further into the 20th century and to the United States, The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs (Brecher & eds., 1972) is arguably a book that provides a fundamental and comprehensive introduction to the subject of drugs and the drug issue in society and politics. In the report, which is so vast it is difficult providing for complete coverage here, conclusions drawn include inefficiency of prohibition due to price raises attracting more entrepreneurs to the black market and false confidence that nothing more needs to be done in the issue except for passing new laws and hiring more narcotics agents, sensationalist anti-drug campaigns being ineffective and counterproductive, also the intent to deter people from using drugs by policy has made policies as damaging as possible when loss of employment, expulsion from school, and exclusion from society has

Carmler Previous research 12 been the effect, rather than seek to minimize the damage done by drugs (Brecher & eds., 1972, pp.521-527).

More recent studies such as Cohen’s (1993), which delve more into the ideology of drug prohibition in the United States and identifies three misunderstandings behind it. First, it is a mistake to assume a simplistic causal connection between drug use and poverty, abuse can aggravate a harsh situation for an individual, but a harsh situation can also be a source of abuse. Second, it is faulty to assume that states can outlaw the desire for drugs, and mitigation of negative effects should instead be the approach. Third, and what Cohen (1993) calls probably the most fundamental mistake of all, is the misunderstanding that certain drugs can be controlled by humans and others not, drug use of illegal drugs become equated with abuse, and false generalizations based on problematic users together with prejudice become “truth” (Cohen, 1993). As with Cohen (1993), a large part of the more modern academic literature deals with the issue at a somewhat pragmatic level, freer to explore ideas such as harm reduction, decriminalization, or legalization without the ideological shackles of contemporary mainstream politics. Within economics, studies such as Clark (2003, pp.24-29) show that one can predict with the help of a model that legalization of certain drugs, in this case, cannabis and cocaine, when offered at a price low enough to stamp out the illegal market, could have the potential to raise social welfare. Within contemporary political science, many studies around drug policy have defined issues with drug prohibition and looked at how policy can be shifted. For example, Scherlen (2012, p.67, 72) combines theories of policy termination and prospect theory to explain the longevity of the drug war, with conclusions that U.S politicians prefer a status quo to the risks of policy termination when opinion and public framing about drugs are negative, even when a policy is an apparent failure. Monaghan (2008) studied the Labor government which assumed power in the U.K in 1997 and investigated the party’s signaling intent to implement evidence-based policies and the actual outcome of the drug legislation policy becoming evidence-based only in part, where the evidence used is cherry-picked “in line with the policy preferences of powerful individuals and groups” (pp. 148-149). Ritter (2009) shows how regulatory theory can offer other policy modes than prevention and law enforcement such as strong consumer movements having “potential to significantly reduce the harms from illicit drug use” (p. 268). Another one of Ritter’s (2009, p.269) conclusions is that a feature of illicit drug policy scholarship is an absence of a theoretical framework, motivating the use of regulatory theory

Carmler Previous research 13 in her case. We will keep this insight in mind as a theoretical framework will be presented later in this study, albeit not as institutionally oriented, rather normatively.

Normative research in the drug policy area remains scarce, however, studies are touching upon normative aspects in the research area. Christie, Groarke & Sweet (2007, p.55) examine ethics in the harm reduction debate and touch upon Mill’s (1864) harm principle and consider Mill’s (1864) view to have been that the state can interfere with an individual’s liberty if the individual’s drug use would lead to harmful consequences for society, but if an individual could use a substance without harming society no state intervention could be justified. Barrett (2010, pp.141-142) has examined the international drug control system and address the normative challenges human rights pose to the drug control system because of the higher risks of human rights abuses within it, abuses that are carried out by enforcing drug control treaties and challenged by human rights in international law and treaties.

Swedish drug policy in the scientific literature does not seem to be as widely studied as policies in other nations, although there are a few interesting examples. Unfortunately, few normative studies of the Swedish drug policy could be found in the research work for this study. Fortunately, this acts as another justification for performing a normative study on the ideas constituting the policy. Studies of the Swedish drug policy include Edman & Olsson (2014, pp.522-524) who examined the dominant concepts used to portray the Swedish drug problem finding that a social, non-medical, problem description has held, and still hold a strong place in Swedish policy with it being a basis for the paternalistic and coercive treatment of individual’s drug consumption. Goldberg (2021) looks at the theoretical basis of the Swedish drug policy model and find that it consists of a biochemical view of drugs considering individuals to lose control over behavior when using drugs, a stepping-stone hypothesis where experimental narcotic use is considered to lead individuals to lose control and use more potent drugs, and the presumption that non-medical narcotic use is abuse.

The delimited area of the Swedish drug policy is arguably normatively understudied which opens for normative political science to enter with new perspectives about the actual values and argumentation behind the policy to create new knowledge. How this will be performed will be addressed after the discussion about the material in the next chapter.

Carmler Material 14

4. Material

For this dissertation, the Swedish drug policy is seen as the application of the law surrounding narcotic drugs. However, since we are interested in the ideas, values, and argumentation that lie behind and have shaped the policy, there is a necessity to engage with material influencing the law as it stands. The first part in deducting the ideas behind the drug policy will be to look at the ideas that the government mediates today in its overarching ANDT-policy (Alcohol, Narcotics, Doping, and Tobacco). Within it, references to narcotic drugs will be looked at. Since the current ANDT-policy builds upon policies dating back roughly a decade, the first installation in what is called the ANDT-policy will also be screened for references to narcotic drugs since it arguably is the foundation for the contemporary way this policy issue is shaped. Since the references to narcotic drugs within these ANDT-policy statements are quite slim and only touch on the surface of what can be called a mediation of ideas and values and carry low levels of argumentation, these alone cannot be seen to represent the ideas of the drug policy. Since the drug policy of today builds on ideas dating back to the 1960s and the first implementation of the prohibition against narcotic drugs in the Narcotic Drugs Punishment Act (SFS 1968:64), what is of great interest for understanding these ideas would be the preparatory work behind its implementation (Prop. 1968:7). In this proposition values, ideas, and argumentation comes through in a manner that allows for a thorough examination of them.

An obvious objection to the idea of examining the drug policy of Sweden of today with documents from the government of the 1960s is that they are old and dated and that the ideas of old could have been replaced by new. It is a fair objection but in examining the field of the Swedish drug policy, prohibition of narcotic drugs has been implemented since the law changed in 1968 and the ideas that laid to the ground for prohibition then, are still being mediated by the government. Therefore, to attempt to grasp, understand, examine, and check the validity of these ideas it is a necessity to go back and examine the original proposal. Of course, if different ideas would emerge by looking at contemporary documents, these would be seen as more representative of the drug policy as it is. However, since little has arguably been changed in the argumentation and ideas surrounding narcotic drugs since the 1960s, except for the criminalization of being under the influence of narcotic drugs in 1988 (Prop. 1987/88:71), this preparatory work takes precedence when examining the ideas behind the

Carmler Material 15 policy and will therefore be the main focal point for the examination of the ideas constituting the Swedish drug policy.

Regarding the additional motive of creating an alternative for future policy, empirical sources will be examined to construct a policy framework that balances the idea of liberty as described by Mill (1864) with the criteria of desirability, viability, and achievability as described by Wright (2010). The empirical sources will be gathered by researching mainly academic articles that deal with the subject of drug policy, evidence from different policy applications in other countries, as well as theoretical and practical aspects of various ideas that could constitute a policy that values the evidence that exists from the concept of liberty.

Carmler Method 16

5. Method

Inspired by the framework developed by Eric Olin Wright in Envisioning Real Utopias (2010), this dissertation builds on lessons drawn from the field of what Wright (2010) calls emancipatory social science. Wright’s book deals specifically with how to implement successful ‘grand designs’ coming from a radical left socialist tradition and Wright mentions the “belief in the possibility of radical alternatives to existing institutions” (2010, p.6) as being an important factor in contemporary political life. There is a good argument to the idea that believing something can be done will serve as a foundation for many great innovations, technical as well as intellectual, many leaps forward were inspired by individuals with a belief in them being right based on the information they had even when in a minority and persecuted for said belief, think of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) who was sentenced for heresy by the church when suggesting the earth may not be in the center of the universe. The case of Galileo has inspired scientific thought in the way of being radical and never letting ideas be final, one should always be prepared to challenge one’s thoughts when provided with alternative perspectives and this is arguably true for social science in itself, one should not discard ideas that seem too far-fetched, rather attempt to understand their theoretical dimensions and work with them to see what knowledge might be useful for understanding and criticizing the policy, and what may not. However radical one could and should be in theory, simple belief in political change must only be considered a starting point for intellectual development, a way to spark interest and engage with an issue. Within political science, approaching a policy issue with a political scientific method must necessarily evolve out of this initial belief and be theoretically and methodologically stringent to create useful knowledge of good quality. It is with this caution in mind that this study defines the boundary of its aims to investigate the theoretical dimensions of-, and alternatives to, existing ideas in a single policy field by a single state, thereby not necessarily engaging in grand utopian visions but aiming at political scientific usefulness first by engaging with theory, method, and material, with an added real-world usefulness of the insights and results produced.

We have thus established that social- and political science can be used as an investigative tool to, on the one hand, examine existing political ideas and values, on the other hand also provide alternatives to them. In attempting to evaluate policies and provide alternatives to them, this will by necessity means that the study will have to deal with value issues, or

Carmler Method 17 normative issues, issues about what is right or wrong, and when formulating alternatives to existing policy suggest how they should be shaped. The issue of whether political science can, and should, deal with value issues provides for further argumentation because of the perceived dichotomy between science and values. Value systems or specific opinions do not have to be evidence-based to carry weight in the real world, normative political science on the other hand can approach this scientifically by the method used. The normative branch of political science can be justified as a method because of politics itself being a ‘value business, political scientists coming from an analytical perspective must then be able to argue for, or against, certain political measures based on a systematic and clarifying way of engaging with theory and empirical material (Badersten & Gustavsson, 2010, p.123). More specifically and situating this study in a normative-scientific tradition, a normative analysis can be made in the shape of a ‘given-that analysis’, or an ‘applied normative analysis’, that is not so much about forming a value-based opinion on a matter, rather as neutrally as possible problematizing around questions relating to how things should be based on a normative premise, the ‘given-that’-perspective (Badersten & Gustavsson, 2010, p. 126). For example, given that every human has the right to privacy, should drug use in the home be allowed? Or, given that every human has the right to not be influenced negatively by another person’s use of drugs, should drug users proven to infringe on other people’s liberty in some way be incarcerated or be dealt with other types of punishments, if so, which? Depending on the normative assumptions about liberty and privacy one starts from, the answers will most likely be different, but we will return to this subject later. An evolution-, or perhaps a subcategory, of a ‘given-that analysis’, is what Badersten & Gustavsson (2010) calls, freely translated, a ‘feasibility analysis’ which according to the authors can be thought of as a kind of evaluation analysis where different value statements can be tested to see if they are possible to practically realize given the circumstances (p.129). Both the given-that-perspective and the concept of feasibility analysis is encompassed in what Badersten (2004, p.215) calls an internal validity check which consists of two moments with specific questions:

1. An examination of the way the value that is studied is defined and specified.  Are the values that form the basis of the analysis clearly specified and clearly expressed?  Is the value-hierarchy that is established clearly defined?

Carmler Method 18

 Are the value conflicts, if present, presented in a clear, precise, and clarifying way? 2. An examination of the inner consistency of the argumentation as a whole.  Is the analysis argumentative whatsoever, i.e., are reasons provided for positions taken?  Is the argumentation logically coherent?  Is the argumentation consequently shaped and consistent in its parts or are there internal contradictions?  Are all stages of the argumentation included?  Are conclusions drawn clearly specified and do they follow logically to the premises given?  Are any of the premises undue?  Are the conclusions misguided in any respect?

(Badersten, 2004, p.215)

The internal validity check thus tests the values and ideas it is performed on. There can be no unclarities to what is being justified, how it is justified, what conclusions are drawn, and how the argumentation has reached said conclusions, according to Badersten (2004, p.215) it is basically about mediating intersubjectivity in the normative analysis, meaning that claims and reasoning about value issues can not only have private and arbitrary meaning.

Carmler Theory 19

6. Theory

Beginning with the concept of Wright’s (2010) emancipatory social science, Wright specifies that it “seeks to generate scientific knowledge relevant to the collective project of challenging various forms of human oppression” (p.7), it is a type of social science because of creating systematic scientific knowledge about the world, and emancipatory in the sense of having a “central moral purpose in the production of knowledge [which is] the elimination of oppression and the creation of the conditions for human flourishing” (p.7). It is noted by Wright (2010) that the idea of emancipation is rooted in the liberal, rights-based, value system but that the left has appropriated the term to cover a wider scope than individual freedom, adding ideals like equality and social justice as well (p.7). In this study, the central value that can serve as the ‘condition for human flourishing’ will be liberty. The reasoning for choosing liberty as the central theoretical value is not only based on that it represents the tensions between the free will of individuals to do as they please and the restraints of individual’s liberty by the political system they find themselves in, but also because of the arguable necessity of working with specifically Swedish conceptions of liberty in political science, this because of the somewhat unique combination of the concepts of equality and liberty, a strong state with strong individualism, that has emerged most evident in Sweden but also in other Nordic Countries (Blanc-Noel, 2013, p.36). Using liberty this way in the field of the Swedish drug policy is useful as an investigative lens used to entangle existing ideas and work with them in a way that both illustrates the dimensions of the policy area and characterizes how liberty is perceived in Swedish politics by analyzing ideas and lines of argumentation. Traditionally, and generally, liberty in a Swedish context is thought of in a manner that allows for restrictions of what could be considered individual rights for the better off of the community, for instance, state-run monopolies exist as harm-reduction measures such as the Systembolaget for alcoholic beverages, or Svenska Spel and ATG for the gambling market. The existence of these state-run monopolies can serve as an insight into the Swedish model and political regulation of substances and/or lifestyle choices where certain vices can exist, albeit regulated by the state. Where unwanted vices, such as psychoactive drugs, are strictly forbidden based on valuations made when implementing the policy of prohibition.

Carmler Theory 20

To specify liberty as a theoretical concept for this dissertation, we will turn to the core of the concept itself. John Stuart Mill (1864, p.7) understands Civil-, or Social Liberty as “[T]he nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.”. This conception is fundamental in understanding the tensions that exist between the well-being of society and individuals, and how different interpretations of where one’s liberty ends and the next begins can exist. Further, Mill described the “likings and dislikings of society”, or a powerful part of it, as historically being the main factor in determining the rules one should follow in a society under the law (1864, p.17). In his introductory remarks to the influential On Liberty (1859), Mill claims three basic liberties are necessary for individuality, which for Mill preludes the ultimate good he wants to attain via his utilitarian philosophy (Mill, 1864). Utilitarianism, as a philosophy that was politically important in the 19th century for breaking down feudal, remains intellectually, for modern politics utilitarianism is not a clear political philosophy that is relevant or useful for this dissertation, see the introductory chapter in Kymlicka’s Contemporary Political Philosophy (1995) for an excellent description of the conformist nature of modern utilitarianism. Even so, the thoughts on liberty Mill provides are arguable as vital and fundamental to an understanding of the concept as when they were written down. The same tensions between how free an individual is to pursue ideas or tastes and society’s exercise of power to limit certain practices are vivid in modern society, in Sweden and elsewhere. The three basic liberties then, according to Mill (1864, p.26-27), are as follows:

1. The liberty of thought and feeling, meaning freedom of opinion and sentiment on any subject, as well as the liberty of expressing and publishing said thoughts and feelings. 2. The liberty of tastes and pursuits, meaning the ability of the individual to shape one’s life as one wishes if it does not harm another, even if others consider the conduct to be “foolish, perverse, or wrong”. 3. The liberty of uniting, meaning freedom to unite for any purpose that does not involve bringing harm to another, if the persons uniting are of age, as well as not forced or deceived. (Mill, 1864)

These liberties are constituting pieces of a free society according to Mill (1864), and regardless of the form of government, no society can be completely free where they do not exist absolute and unqualified (Mill, 1864, p.27). Mill conceived these liberties as necessary

Carmler Theory 21 for individual enlightenment and self-fulfillment and his words have since they were published acted as guard dogs against powers within society aiming for more “power of society over the individual” (1864, p.29). The moral conviction of Mill’s views on liberty was arguably in many regards in reaction to the imposing of rules and structures on individuals by arbitrary rulers, whether aristocratic or political such, indeed as Mill states (1864, p. 29-30), some of the best and worst feelings of human nature lie at the bottom of imposing rules on others. It is arguably then the moral conviction of an understanding of individualistic liberty to provide the intellectual ground for political freedom from arbitrary influence as well as totalitarian and authoritarian ideas and ideologies.

From this theory on liberty, it is possible to extrapolate a theoretical framework of liberty suitable for this study. All three of the liberties described by Mill (1864) will serve as useful for a complete understanding of the policy field, but it is the second basic liberty that helps us unravel on a theoretical axis how valuations about individual liberty and harm are made and justified. The first liberty, let’s call it the free speech liberty, applies as a useful indicator of surveying the ideological landscape surrounding drug policy, who gets to make suggestions about policy and why, as well as who does not. The second liberty, which we can call the liberty of action, is, as we discussed above, the most salient since it deals in the demarcation of where one’s liberty to act comes up against other’s liberty to not be affected by the action of using said liberty. The third liberty, already aptly named the liberty of uniting, applies in the sense of looking at the possibilities of people to unite around a drug policy question that might fall outside of conformed beliefs.

The emancipatory aspect of this dissertation is because of its use of Mill more rooted in liberal rights theory than Wright (2010) is, but this also makes it useful for investigating the case of Sweden where the concept of liberty illuminates the analysis of the field of drug policy when looking at the demarcations of how far-reaching the individual liberty to pursue tastes extend, and where they might end up in conflict with other values. According to Wright (2010, p.7), any emancipatory social science will need to develop a systematic diagnosis and critique of the current state of the world, envision viable alternatives and understand the obstacles, possibilities, and dilemmas of transformation. To develop a diagnosis and critique, this study will need to investigate the arrangements within the current drug policy of Sweden that generate harm in the way of opposing the definition of freedom explained above. In envisioning viable alternatives to the current state of Swedish drug policy, this study will

Carmler Theory 22 draw further upon Wright’s (2010) framework in using the three criteria of desirability, viability, and achievability (p.13) to evaluate different alternatives. These three criteria will now be further operationalized to assist with answering our research questions with the help of this specific liberty approach.

Carmler Operationalization 23

7. Operationalization

To put forth a coherent and credible theory of possible alternatives to existing institutional frameworks that eliminate, or in Wright’s (2010, p.13) words “at least significantly mitigate the harms and injustices identified in the diagnosis and critique”, alternatives are advantageously evaluated in three different criteria according to Wright, these three criteria are also set in a kind of hierarchy where not all desirable alternatives can be viable, and vice versa (2010, pp.13-14). The first criterion is desirability, meaning the normatively grounded assumption about what should be. This criterion is normative in the sense of it being freed from the constraints that will be added to viability and achievability. Indeed, as Wright (2010, p. 14) reasons, these types of desirability-discussions seem “very thin” in the meaning that they emphasize the working out of abstract principles, rather than real-world institutional design. However, the theoretical grounding of what is desirable, in this study some type of liberty, do much in realizing and clarifying the theoretical ground of the current drug policy and a possible alternative to it, but less in transforming institutional frameworks or practical application of policy (Wright, 2010, p.14). The second criterion is viability, according to Wright (2010, p.14), this is touching on the emancipatory aspect of social science which we discussed earlier in the sense that it seeks proposals of viable alternatives to exiting institutional and social structures that, if they are implemented can create, “in a sustainable and robust manner” (p.14), the emancipatory consequences that were suggested in the policy proposal. As noted by Wright (2010, p.14), radical proposals to existing institutions can often have “perverse” unintended consequences, such as central planning of the economy which face both the information problem as described by Hayek (1945) and incentive problems. Further, the viability of a new institutional design with emancipatory aspects can depend heavily on both historical context and other side conditions, this entails that a viability discussion should include a consideration of the “conditions-of-possibility” for any design to operate well (Wright, 2010, p.15).

The discussion of viable alternatives undoubtedly leads to the question of their actual practical achievability in the real world, many different theoretical alternatives can be thought out but have little to no effect on a policy if they are not achievable (Wright, 2010, p.15), but before we turn to the concept of achievability Wright (2010, p.15-16) also makes the point that there is important to have a clear-headed and scientific understanding of the range of

Carmler Operationalization 24 viable alternatives because of the prospect of viable alternatives turning to achievable ones when future conditions expand the limits of what can be achieved and peoples beliefs change about what sort of alternatives are viable. Fatalism does pose a problem for political change according to Wright (2010, p.16), and in the light of this wishful thinking about how the future should be which might not lead to sufficient transformation of existing institutions or policies, rather new forms of tragic oppression, a scientific approach in necessary for the development of viable alternatives. Now we turn to the third criterion for a practical work of social change, here political change in the form of policy suggestion, that of achievability. According to Wright (2010, p.16), the central, and very difficult, the task of practical social change is developing coherent theories of achievable alternatives. It is difficult because of it also being vulnerable to wishful thinking as in the discussion about viability, but also because of the difficulties in predicting future conditions which will “affect the prospects of success of any long-term strategy” (Wright, 2010, p.16). Achievability, in the form of the possibility of implementing a said proposal of an alternative, depends on two kinds of processes according to Wright (2010, p.16-17). The first process is the consciously pursued strategies of change and the relative power of actors who either support or oppose what alternatives are in question, the balance of power of social actors either for or against will affect the “probability of ultimate success” in implementing alternative policy (Wright, 2010, p.16-17). The second process is whether or not the wide range of social conditions over time can sustain the proposed strategies of change, this “trajectory of conditions” depends in part on the “cumulative unintended effects of human action” but also on the “conscious strategies of actors to transform the conditions of their own actions” (Wright, 2010, p.17). Therefore, evaluating the achievability of an alternative will need to take into consideration the possibility of creating a coherent framework of the strategy suggested, as well as take into consideration the potential of mobilizing social forces that will support the suggested policy when the right conditions for change appear (Wright, 2010, p.17).

What we can then extrapolate from the framework of Wright (2010) to fit the purposes of this dissertation are the following indicators, that, of course, carries with them a responsibility of interpretation from the author:

Carmler Operationalization 25

1. Desirability:  A policy that to the widest extent respects the theory of liberty inspired by Mill (1864) and put forth in this dissertation, will be regarded as desirable.  A policy that can eliminate any logical fallacies of the current will be regarded as desirable.  A policy that fails to live up to the theory of liberty will not be considered as desirable. 2. Viability:  The policy which to the widest extent can be sustained over time and implement what is proposed based on the policy analysis will be deemed as most viable.  Policies will be evaluated with the conditions of possibility kept in mind, i.e., the historical context and cultural aspects which may make a policy more-, or less possible. 3. Achievability:  The policy’s probability of success will be evaluated by looking at the consciously pursued strategies of change and the relative power of actors who either support or oppose what alternatives are in question.  The policy’s ability to provide a coherent framework of change will be looked at as an indicator of its achievability.  The conditions for change will be taken into consideration, policies may be more- or less achievable at the moment or in the future depending on the social- and political environment.

These indicators will be used together with the concept of liberty to inform what could be done to evolve the Swedish drug policy. Of course, these indicators carry with them a responsibility of interpretation and correct application for them to be used as a valid tool for performing this study. Regarding the use of Mill’s (1864) theory of liberty as a theoretical framework for examining the values of the Swedish drug policy, it is motivated by a few considerations: the question if drug use is considered an individual- or societal health issue is illuminated well by the idea of liberty to pursue tastes vis-à-vis the harm that can be done to another person because of drug use, also there is a distinct idea of individual liberty concerning drug use described in official policy. It is stated that the Swedish view regarding

Carmler Operationalization 26 narcotic drugs is based on an ideological view that the use of narcotic drugs is damaging to the health and therefore should not exist in a society that cares about the health of its citizens (Socialdepartementet, 2016, p.5). Since it is thought that the use of certain drugs damages the health of individuals and society, restricting the liberty to use narcotic substances is seen as a ‘balanced’ approach to policy as compared to liberal views that were more prevalent before prohibition (Socialdepartementet, 2016, p.5). The general health, or ‘people’s health’, of the population is a value that often is referred to in official policy documents, and it is clearly stated that policy regarding people’s health is based on solidarity why restrictions of personal freedom can be accepted to protect the people’s health (Skr. 2015/16:86, p.29). It is these restrictions of personal freedom, or liberty, and the valuation between it and concepts such as harm and health that motivates the idea of using Mill (1864) as a theoretical framework because of the value conflict that arises in Swedish policy between individual liberty, potential harm to others, and people’s health.

Carmler A note on intersubjectivity 27

8. A note on intersubjectivity

To perform a normative analysis, it is essential to identify which values that the analysis aims to investigate, and it is the identification of these values that makes it possible to problematize and construct a rational argumentation in questions about how things should be (Badersten, 2006, p.73). To frame a normative analysis in a political scientific context the values aimed to investigate need to be specified and defined, with adherence to the idea of intersubjectivity. According to Badersten (2006, pp.74-75), it is by reaching the requirement of intersubjectivity that a certain endeavor can be called scientific. The meaning of intersubjectivity is that something is accessible knowledge-wise to more than one subject where the knowledge that is created needs to be understood by others than the author, knowledge with a common- or mutual ground: the knowledge needs to be understood by more than one person, as well as be generated by procedures and methods that are understood and are possible to be used by others (Badersten, 2006, p.75). Methodologically, to accomplish this Badersten (2004, p.215) states three requirements, one is reproducibility meaning that the argumentation can be followed and reconstructed by someone else than the author, the second is criticizability meaning that private value judgments cannot be allowed to form the normative analysis, the third is a general adherence to objectivity in the argumentation where only ideas or value claims that have significance on the question at hand are to be used.

Regarding this dissertation, intersubjectivity regarding the authors part in the process also requires that thought needs to be given to the way the study is affected by the authors own values or experiences in the formation of problem descriptions, choice of theory, valuation of material, and conclusions (Badersten, 2006, p.75). To check this work against arbitrary influence from personal values, thought has been given to structure it scientifically. The problem description arises from a particular societal problem regarding a comparatively high mortality rate due to drugs, as well as an unclarity behind the values and argumentation that have influenced the policy. Choosing Mill’s (1864) theory about liberty as a framework could be seen as an attempt by the author to value this certain principle over others and come to an easy conclusion arguing for liberal political principles, for instance: ‘if liberty is a value to adhere to, the conclusion must be that people should be able to inebriate without limitations’. However, choosing the theoretical framework has rather been based on its usefulness for

Carmler A note on intersubjectivity 28 looking into the values and argumentation of the drug policy. Prohibiting the use of narcotic drugs is a restriction of an individual’s liberty to use certain substances that are deemed as ‘too harmful’ for Swedish society concerning the general people’s health, following the conception that these drugs are more dangerous than the legal ones.

These valuations and arguments about how far liberty stretches and what could be considered as harm are encapsulated by Mill’s (1864) theory, motivating the use of it to answer the research questions. The main analytical material has been chosen by reviewing official documents to find those where values and argumentations are expressly stated, to fulfill the criteria of the method of the internal validity check. Other empirical sources have been selected based on the extensive research of books and academic papers. To avoid selection bias and cherry-picking, the empirical material used has been cross-referenced with other sources in the research process to avoid an unbalanced empirical presentation. Of course, the responsibility for this important task lies with the author, as with the responsibility to provide fair and objective conclusions. The success of these endeavors is welcome to be reviewed and criticized by any reader, as they should. The idea of testing normative principles by an internal validity check with adherence to intersubjectivity, allows us to find a credible normative political scientific grounding of the methodological framework this study will use.

Carmler Analysis 29

9. Analysis: The Swedish drug policy

In this section, the legal aspects and history of the Swedish drug policy will be examined in the first and second part, the third and fourth part will, based on Mill’s (1864) theory of liberty, perform an internal validity check of the theoretical dimensions of the current policy and pose a diagnosis and critique of the current policy and provide arguments for why the policy should be changed.

9.1 Legal aspects

Since the Swedish drug policy is the main area of focus in this dissertation, a legal overview will be shortly presented here for context. Not only are there ideas and political rhetoric that coincide with the “War on Drugs”-ideas, but Sweden is also often internationally painted as a case of successful and good drug policy (UNODC, 2007). The Swedish Penal Code states in §1 of the Narcotic Drugs Punishment Act (Narkotikastrafflagen) (SFS 1968:64) that it is a criminal offense to provide-, produce-, possess-, acquire-, process-, package-, transport-, store-, offer for sale-, connect buyers and sellers of-, use-, or handle what is labeled narcotic drugs. The penalty scale ranges from fine-inducing crimes to a maximum of ten years in jail for exceptionally serious offenses. For minor offenses, fines and jail time up to six months can be distributed, whereas the normal grade of criminal sentences come with penalties ranging from fines up to three years in jail. Offenses deemed as serious will carry a jail term ranging from two- up to seven years. In addition to fines and jail sentences, mandatory health care can be dealt with by the court together with one of the above-named fines or sentences (SFS 1968:64). The Narcotic Drugs Punishment Act (SFS 1968:64) also classifies substances regarded as narcotic drugs into five schedules, presented in a short version here:

1. Heroin, Cannabis, , Kat, LSD, MDMA/Ecstacy, and Ecstacy-derivates. These substances may only be brought into the country for certain medicinal or scientific research with approval from the Swedish Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket). 2. and similar synthetic substances with medical use, as well as Cocaine, , , GHB, and . These substances may only be

Carmler Analysis 30

brought into the country in an amount corresponding to at most five days of personal consumption, which must be proved. 3. and , which turn into Morphine when consumed. 4. , except for Flunitrazepam, , and other sedatives. These substances may only be brought into the country in an amount corresponding to at most three weeks of personal consumption, which must be proved. 5. , Imovane, and Stilnoct. The same rules apply for Schedule 5 as for Schedule 4 substances. (SFS 1968:64)

Drugs classed in Schedule 1 are usually not considered to have medical value. Drugs in Schedule 2-4 are considered to have medical use and require an import/export certificate for each instance of import or export. Drugs in Schedule 5 are narcotic drugs according to Swedish law but are not covered by international conventions (SFS 1968:64). This scheduling of drugs mainly concerns the legal handling of drugs (SFS 1968:64) but is important for this dissertation because it acts as an indication of how dangerous different drugs are considered to be by the state by the application of the law.

9.2 History

To understand the current state and the political environment around Sweden’s drug policy, a short historical background of drug regulation can be useful because prohibitionist attitudes have arguably influenced the Swedish culture and policymakers for a long time. The possession, sale, and use of what is termed narcotics is strictly forbidden in Sweden, and its restrictive drug policy, which has been somewhat untouchable in the past decades, is in a historical context following a tradition of prohibiting substance use that dates to the 17th century. Coffee, which is a central stimulating drug and very popular amongst contemporary Swedish citizens, was introduced to the nobility in the 17th century. Since coffee was an imported good, the Swedish parliament was fearful of too much Swedish money ending up in foreign coffers, and by 1756 the drinking, and importing of coffee was forbidden, a prohibition that continued to and fro until 1823 ( City Museum, 2013). By the 19th century, a strong temperance movement against alcohol had broken through. In 1860, a ban against making home-brewed alcoholic spirits was put in place and the prototype of the

Carmler Analysis 31 current state-run monopoly regulating the sale of alcohol (Systembolaget, formed 1955) was formed in 1865 in Gothenburg and was, therefore, termed the Gothenburg System although similar arrangements had existed in smaller towns across the country such as Falun and Jönköping earlier. Since 1870, all legal profits from the sale of alcohol within the country’s borders have indirectly gone to the state via state-run monopolies (Centre for Business History, 2021).

At the beginning of the 20th century, Doctor Ivan Bratt was a central figure in the alcohol policy and was convinced that access to alcohol needed to be controlled and limited, and any remaining private for-profit businesses such as wine merchants needed to disappear. He founded the Stockholm System in 1913 and the following years, every citizen who was allowed to consume alcohol, effectively male members of the upper class or with prominent occupations, were given a booklet called the Motbok, effectively controlling and rationing the number of alcoholic beverages that could be purchased. Even though strict rationing of alcohol was put in place via the Motbok, the temperance movement which had gained ground by then advanced further demands to forbid alcohol entirely. It even sparked the first referendum in Sweden in 1922 regarding total prohibition where the nay-vote barely won with 51%. The Motbok was not scrapped until 1955 when Systembolaget was formed by a merger of all regional monopolies and Swedes over the age of 21 could purchase alcohol without rationing (Centre for Business History, 2021). The to-be-or-not-to-be issue of alcohol in Swedish society provides insight into the salience of the regulatory tradition regarding said substance and how regulation has been approached earlier but also to the prevalence of a temperance culture that could affect attitudes toward other drugs as well.

The banning of other psychoactive drugs, labeled narcotics, was not a factor in Swedish policy until 1923 when processed opium was first targeted as a substance to be banned. By 1930, the trade of other substances such as Koka leaves, the plant from which cocaine is derived, cannabis, and other derivates of opium, were banned as well. By this time, legislators introduced the term of illegal possession, which made possession of anything regarded as a narcotic substance a crime that could be punished by fines. This evolved into prison sentences for certain circumstances regarding drug-related crime in 1933 (Narkotikaproblemet, 1967). Between 1948-1958, only 12 prosecutions regarding narcotics took place according to the Swedish Medicinal Board. Even so, the Medicinal Board stated that drug-related crime was more serious than what the statistics pointed to

Carmler Analysis 32

(Narkotikaproblemet, 1967). A harsher line against the use of narcotics was implemented in the 1960s where, in the preparatory work for the narcotics act of 1962 (Kungl. Maj:ts prop. 184/1962, p 212), the head of the department stated that any and all measures must be taken to stifle the use of narcotics. One of those measures being the implementation of imprisonment as the normal-grade punishment for drug-related crimes (Narkotikaproblemet, 1967). With the narcotics act of 1962 (Kungl. Maj:ts prop. 184/1962) coming into force, most substances deemed narcotics were banned, and this led to the growth of illegal trade and black markets in Sweden, substituting for the previously legal sales of substances via doctors and pharmacies (Boekhout, 1997 p. 40).

When considering the tighter restrictions being put in place at the time, there was an experiment that lasted between 1965-1967 where doctors could prescribe methadone, morphine, and amphetamine to addicts. In the experiment, the patients could themselves decide how much of the substances they would need and, in practice, self-prescribe. This led to substances being spread to people that did not take part in the experiment and when a 17- year-old girl tragically overdosed and died from drugs supplied by the experiment in April 1967, the project and its ‘liberal ideas’ was scrapped, much because of the influence of one of, if not the most significant proponent in Sweden of harsh prohibition, psychiatrist (1921-1988) (Boekhout, 1997, pp. 41-43) (Goldberg, 2004, p.558). Bejerot was a psychiatrist and is widely considered to be the ‘founding father’ of modern Swedish drug policy, with his role being transformed from what was first considered an extremist in a marginal position, to that of great influence, criticizing the ‘liberal agenda’ of non- prohibitionist attitudes toward drugs influencing Swedish society (Boekhout, 1997, p. 45). In the years 1965-1970, Bejerot conducted a study into the relationship between drug use and drug policy. Bejerot was the supervisory medical officer at the detention center in Stockholm and focused his studies on the occurrence of injection marks found on the arms of people arrested and in custody. Bejerot believed that drug use had an epidemic and contagious character and that society’s answer to this was to pursue a restrictive drug policy containing both preventative and therapeutic methods (Boekhout, 1997, p. 44). In his evaluation of the experiment between 1965-1967, Bejerot observed an increasing percentage of intravenous users among those arrested, concluding that his hypothesis regarding the epidemic societal spread of drugs was confirmed (Bejerot, 1977, pp.101-102).

Carmler Analysis 33

Bejerot’s influence on the Swedish drug policy from 1960 and onward can arguably not be overstated. A foundational part of the main theoretical aspects of Swedish drug policy is the epidemic hypothesis which was built upon conclusions from the Stockholm experiment described above, and according to Bejerot (1977, pp.101-102), the Stockholm experiment either caused a drug epidemic or at least led to a significant increase in drug use. These lines of argumentation and conclusions reappear throughout modern Swedish drug policy history from 1960 until today, where the current Social Democratic/Green government still proclaims the vision of a society free from narcotics, referring to the “People’s Health” and welfare (Prop. 2020/21:132, pp.83-84). The policy was not only influenced in theory by Bejerot but the same terms regarding the spread of drugs in society as an epidemic have been used by influential politicians and parliamentary parties (Edman, 2013, p.465). Bejerot was arguably influenced by utopian socialist ideals in his ideas of how politics should deal with the issue of drugs and addiction, directly pointing to the restrictive drug policies of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China as sources of inspiration for the Swedish left (Bejerot, 1969, p.14). During the 20th century, Swedish politics was heavily dominated by the Social Democratic Party, and when Bejerot’s ideas gained ground with policymakers in the 1960s, policymaking was based on these ideas of prohibition and done in the framework of the Social Democratic project of the welfare state (Edman, 2013, p.466).

Carmler Analysis 34

9.3 Question 1: What are the values, logic, and value-hierarchy within the Swedish drug policy?

In this section, we will aim to unravel the ideas that lie behind the current drug policy of Sweden by fairly attempting to discover the argumentation that lies behind it.

Between the years 2016-2020, the Swedish Government has had a renewed strategy for drug policy defined within the overarching ANDT-policy: alcohol, narcotics, doping, and tobacco (Skr. 2015/16:86, p.1). The overarching ANDT-policy was adopted as a bill (Prop. 2010/11:47) by the Riksdag (Parliament) in 2011 with the overall goal of “a society free from drugs and doping, reduced medical and social harm caused by alcohol and a reduction in tobacco use” (Skr. 2015/16:86, p.4). According to the Government, limiting the use of tobacco, the damages done by alcohol, and working for a narcotic- and doping-free society has for a long time been important goals in the public health policies of Sweden (Skr. 2015/16:86, p.6). The Government defines public health as an umbrella term for the state of health of the entire population, and that public health should be as good- and as equally distributed as possible (Skr. 2015/16:86, p.6). The ANDT-policy concerning narcotic drugs, with the goal of a society free from narcotic drugs, is stated as having a balanced and restrictive line since the 1970s and as having a strong and wide political support (Skr. 2015/16:86, p.10). The view on narcotic drugs in Sweden is based on “the knowledge that the use of narcotic drugs is damaging to the health and therefore should not occur in a society that protects the health of its citizens” (Skr. 2015/16:86, p.10). It is further addressed that the distancing from narcotic drugs is an important preventative aspect to prevent people from trying or becoming addicted to drugs (Skr. 2015/16:86, p.10). Also, it is stated that the means to reach health and welfare is to control and fight “all illegal production, trade, sale and use of narcotic drugs”, with a referral to UN-conventions that are also seen as having the purpose to reach health and welfare and as guides for the national drug policy (Skr. 2015/16:86, p.10).

This governmental declaration of the ANDT-policy is arguably somewhat thin and going a bit deeper to find the logic behind declarations such as “the knowledge that narcotic drugs are damaging to the health…”, the importance of distancing from drugs publicly, the importance of preventative measures, why the use of drugs should be illegal, connections between a restrictive policy and a society free from drugs, as well as the general connection between

Carmler Analysis 35 drugs, health, and welfare (Skr. 2015/16:86, p. 10). Going back to the first proposition of the new ANDT-strategy in 2010, it is stated that the policy builds upon a:

“…vision of a society where all people should have the prerequisites to grow up and live without risk to be harmed because of one’s one or other’s use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, doping agents or tobacco” (Prop. 2010/11:47)

A zero-tolerance against narcotic drugs is further declared as a view or value attributed to society as a whole (Prop. 2010/11:47, p.24) and abuse of narcotics is claimed to lead to other criminal activities and a criminal lifestyle (p.27). Influencing attitudes and norms to the use of narcotic drugs are seen as important for creating acceptance for the restrictive policy-line (Prop. 2010/11:47, p.35). These points from the policy still lack a definite argumentation behind them, why it is still further necessary to dig a bit deeper. The narcotic drugs act of 1968 (SFS 1968:64) is still the basis for current legislation according to Proposition 2010/11:47 (p.65) and though amendments have been made, the most important being the criminalization of being under the influence (Prop. 1987/88:71) the illegality of narcotic drugs as a policy idea has been enforced since then. To understand the ideas that shape the policy, we must therefore look at the ideas that shaped the original legislation.

In the preparatory work for the Narcotic Drugs Punishment Act (SFS 1968:64), Proposition 1968:7, it is somewhat more clear which ideas have shaped the drug policy of Sweden. The proposition (Prop. 1968:7) is based on an identification that the abuse of narcotic drugs and other addictive substances had increased in society and bases its problem declaration on information gained from the Medicinal Board and other referral bodies from various parts of society: criminal care, police, social authorities, county boards, public investigations on penalties regarding drunkenness, amongst others (p.15-16). It states that what is common for all substances that might lead to addiction is addiction or the need to continue using substances, addiction is seen as the need to continue using a substance to attain desirable effects or prevent the onset of withdrawal symptoms, either physical or psychological (Prop. 1968:7, p.17). It is stated that temporary or transitory use of narcotic substances is often included in the term addiction and that the committee behind the proposition sees all non- medical use of narcotic drugs as addiction (Prop. 1968:7, p.18). It is addressed that the use of Cannabis has by some been considered to be a gateway to other types of addiction such as

Carmler Analysis 36 heroin addiction in the U.S.A (Prop, 1968:7, p.20). In the information provided by the police, the proposition refers to an investigation of the prevalence of needle marks in arrested people in Stockholm in April 1965 and declares that the following development in the following years is an epidemic that spreads in all ages (Prop. 1968:7, p.22). Looking at addiction in young people, material from the Stockholm Child Care Board is used as statistical data to show an increase in the use of narcotic drugs and a slight decrease in the use of alcohol, it is noted that a long-term and regular use of alcohol is needed for an individual to be classed as an alcohol addict, while one term use of narcotic drugs is classified as addiction (Prop. 1968:7, pp.23-24). The committee further states that the abuse of narcotic drugs is most prevalent in people who have difficulties adapting to society in general and that abuse is to a great extent combined with other social difficulties such as unemployment or prevalence of long periods of sick leave (Prop. 1968:7, pp.29-30). A clear argument for the registration of addicts is presented as needed for interfering when doctors wrongly prescribe substances and to limit the risks of creating and maintaining addiction since pharmacists and doctors have professional secrecy other ways to gain this information is considered to be needed (Prop. 1968:7, p.33). The registers of addicts at the Swedish National Police Board are seen as a tool for providing the police with information to meet their needs of crime investigation, investigative purposes, and statistical purposes (Prop. 1968:7, p.34).

In addressing the care question of addicts and addiction, it is stated that the treatment of people addicted to drugs is foremost a medical issue and in many cases, the misuse of drugs is temporary, even so, the countermeasures against the use of drugs will still be prevention- oriented (Prop. 1968:7, p.38). A rapid expansion of the resources distributed to care is stated as needed due to having the effect of rapidly deteriorating individual conditions and often permanent or life-threatening injuries, the environments surrounding abuse is seen as a threat to other’s future welfare due to the danger of spreading, as well as contributing to creating crime and social misconduct (Prop. 1968:7. p.40). In treatment, the aim is stated to be to persuade a patient to stop abuse and relapses, and what is considered a special problem is drug addicts that cannot be induced to a life without the substances they are using or adapt socially, in these cases the aim is to limit their personal suffering and prevent them spreading their addiction to others together with counteracting criminal behavior and other behavioral disorders (Prop. 1968:7, p.41).

Carmler Analysis 37

In opinions given from referral bodies, both the Swedish Prison and Probation Service and the Swedish Psychological Association pose critique against the proposition because of the lack of investigations of causal connections behind (Prop. 1968:7, p.52). In addressing the idea that certain substances, especially cannabis, would be so harmless that it could be considered to let them free, it is referred to the medical faculty at Uppsala [Hospital] that claims that it is a fact that mainly the Indian variant of cannabis has been proven to provoke psychotic reactions, however, the medical faculty at Lund [Hospital] states that little is known about how dangerous marijuana (cannabis) is and what the prevalence of addiction is in the rather large population using it (Prop. 1968:7, p.53).

The head of the department developing the proposition (1968:7) has a section of their own where some further ideas and argumentations appear. In it, it is stated that the increasing substance abuse needs to be combated with all might and that it is urgent that the measures proposed are taken as soon as possible (Prop. 1968:7, p.62). It is stated that for addiction treatment to be completely successful, treatment and finding out the causes behind the mental disorder (addiction) or social maladaptation is needed because of the possibly devastating social effects even using drugs by curiosity can have in losing work, housing, and creating conflicts with the family. To prevent any relapses and making the addict free from their addiction, society’s resources should be coordinated with a primary task of tracking down drug addicts and bringing them to disease insight (Prop. 1968:7, p.63). A salient cause of implementing the proposed stricter legislation is given to the ratification of The UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (UNSCND) (United Nations, 1961) that states in Article 36 that each part should, with due account to constitutional conditions, take necessary measures to make sure that cultivation, production, preparation, distribution, purchase, and sale of narcotic drugs should be criminal offenses (Prop. 1968:7, p.74). Further, it is stated that the question of whether certain substances should be banned, requires a consideration of the possible beneficial and harmful effects of the substances, Heroin, for example, is considered to have medical value as a painkiller but the potential of addiction is so high that it outweighs the benefit, where cannabis is considered to be possibly relatively less dangerous than most narcotic drugs allowed in Sweden but with no medical use. Therefore, a weighing of the benefits and harms regarding cannabis motivates prohibition, it is also not stated that allowing it is not possible due to the provisions of the UNSCND (Prop. 1968:7, p.80). Regarding the handling of addictive substances, increased penalties and criminalization are seen as helpful for increasing the effectiveness of the fight against drug abuse but

Carmler Analysis 38 implementing stricter legislation should not counteract care efforts or contribute to driving addicts to increased criminal activities (Prop. 1968:7, pp. 80-81). Regarding the question of possession of narcotic drugs should be a criminal offense, as long as Sweden has ratified the UNSCND, Sweden is considered obliged to have illegal possession of classical narcotic drugs criminalized, other substances such as LSD would theoretically not be considered in the need of criminalizing, but the serious consequences of an uncontrolled use does not make it reasonable not to criminalize it. The committee behind the proposition does not consider the argument that criminalization makes addicts withdraw from seeking care for fear of punishment to be valid, nor the argument that addiction is seen as a disease and that a penalty due to possession is a punishment for the disease. This is because of for example that serious sales offenses committed by addicts could in principle be free of penalty if possession is legal, the circumstances of an illness should therefore not exclude that the act of abuse or possession should be punishable. Even if it is seen of little importance if people in possession of small amounts of narcotic drugs are prosecuted, the police and public prosecutors have emphasized that it is possible to reach the large distributors of drugs by prosecuting people holding a small amount of drugs, restricting the possibility of examining the person holding the small amount would reduce the possibilities of gaining evidence against the larger dealers (Prop. 1968:7, p.85). Further, it is stated that if possession of small amounts of narcotic drugs would be acceptable, demarcation problems would arise. It is argued that if the amount of possession should decide the degree of the crime or small amounts in possession should be decriminalized, the dealers would only carry small amounts and for certain addicts, 1000 pills, for example, would be a small amount, for others 10. The opinion of the individual in possession of drugs that they would only be for personal use creates an uncertainty in the assessment, therefore any unauthorized possession should continue to be punishable (Prop. 1968:7, p.86). Making a legal demarcation between allowed and unallowed possession of small amounts of drugs is not considered to be possible by the Swedish Police Board (Prop. 1968:7, p.96). When the act of being under the influence of a narcotic drug became a criminal offense, it was referred to being important for society to dissociate from the use of narcotics and because of the possibilities to reach drug users to as wide of an extent as possible so that future use could be prevented (Prop. 1987:88: 71, pp.14- 18).

After going through the current policy statements, the Narcotic Drugs Punishment Act, and most importantly the proposition behind it, we will perform the first step of the internal

Carmler Analysis 39 validity check of the policy which is to consider if the values are clearly specified and expressed, if there is a clearly defined value-hierarchy and also look at value conflicts. The values and argumentations that lie behind the policy are summarized as the following:

- All non-medical use of narcotic drugs is addiction, regardless of if it is temporary or transitory - Controlling narcotic drugs is a means to reach public health and welfare - Society must avoid that individuals harm themselves or others because of the use of narcotic drugs - Anyone using narcotic drugs can become an addict - The damages that arise from addiction can harm both an individual and society - Public distancing from narcotic drugs is an important preventative aspect to prevent people from trying or becoming addicted to drugs - Use must be criminalized due to the importance of distancing from narcotic drugs by the state - Abuse of narcotics can lead to other criminal activities and a criminal lifestyle - Influencing attitudes and norms create acceptance for a restrictive policy-line - The use of certain relatively less dangerous drugs such as cannabis is a gateway to other, more dangerous types of addiction such as heroin addiction - The spread of drugs has an epidemic character - The police should keep registers of addicts to combat crime - The treatment of people addicted to drugs is foremost a medical issue - Even if the misuse of drugs is temporary, the countermeasures against the use of drugs should still be prevention-oriented - Addiction leads to rapidly deteriorating individual conditions and often permanent or life-threatening injuries - Drug addicts that cannot be induced to a life without the substances they are using or adapt socially should be approached with the target of limiting their personal suffering and prevent them from spreading their addiction to others - Using drugs by curiosity can have possibly devastating social effects - Society’s resources should be coordinated with a primary task of tracking down drug addicts and bringing them to disease insight - Sweden cannot pursue other policies than prohibition due to the UNSCND - If a drug has no medical use, prohibition is motivated

Carmler Analysis 40

- Criminalization is necessary because of the serious consequences of uncontrolled use - Criminalization does not make addicts withdraw from seeking care for fear of punishment - A penalty due to possession is not a punishment for the disease - It is possible to reach the large distributors of drugs by prosecuting people holding a small amount of drugs - Making exceptions for small amounts of personal use creates an uncertainty in the assessment of the act, therefore any unauthorized possession should continue to be punishable

Regarding the value-hierarchy, the health and welfare of citizens is the overarching value that encompasses the drug policy. Within that are included terms such as preventing harm, whether to individuals or society, preventing personal suffering, prohibition as important in counteracting addition, any use of narcotic drugs is addiction, drug use spreads in an epidemic fashion, criminalization being the only way to deal with narcotic drugs, amongst others. A clear hierarchy beyond the general health and welfare of the people cannot be attributed to the policy, rather the efforts such as limiting individual liberty with criminalization and the arguments behind it serve the purpose of attaining equal health and welfare. Protecting citizen’s health to a vast extent takes precedence in the policy and zero- tolerance of drug use follows this valuation, especially when looking at the criminalization of being under the influence. Looking at value conflicts, there is one inherent conflict that is considering addiction foremost a medical issue while at the same time justifying criminal penalties for any use or possession of an illegal drug. Also, there is a referral to the relative dangers of different drugs, some are admittedly seen as more dangerous than others, still, all use should be treated as equally dangerous to individuals and society.

Carmler Analysis 41

9.4 Question 2: Is the argumentation behind the Swedish drug policy logically coherent?

In this section, we will aim to answer the question above by continuing the internal validity check in the manner of examining the inner consistency of the argumentation. This includes looking at the reasons provided for positions taken, logical coherence, consistency, internal contradictions, stages of argumentation, conclusions drawn and their specification and logical adherence to the given premises, and if the conclusions are misguided in any respect. We will use Mill’s (1864) theory of liberty to shed light on different aspects of the policy.

Starting with the definition that all non-medical use of drugs is to be equated with addiction, it is logically coherent in terms of adhering to a restrictive policy-line, if the prohibition is seen as the only way to combat what is identified as a drug problem and shaping people’s opinions as important for maintaining said policy, use=abuse is a simple way of mediating the values that are inherent in the policy. What cannot be considered logically coherent is the premise itself, use and abuse are undoubtedly two different actions and behaviors, this can be illustrated by the practical way alcohol is regarded in Swedish society, it is legal because of that it is seen to be able to be used responsibly by adults, since no argumentation is provided to why narcotic drugs cannot be used in the same manner, the premise behind the argument does not follow a logical argumentation. Theoretically, we can illustrate this by Mill’s (1864, pp.28-29) view on liberty where an individual should be able to shape one’s life as one wishes as long as it does not harm another, even if others consider the conduct to be wrong. This can apply to drugs, of any sort, and why it would only apply to certain vices such as narcotic drugs is because of the view that the use of them is more dangerous and addictive than legal drugs, to individuals and society. The logic of the idea that narcotic drugs are more dangerous than legal drugs is based on lines of speculation beginning with that there is a high risk to become addicted even if an individual only uses a narcotic drug once, or rarely, when an individual becomes addicted, they are considered to be on a “slippery slope” to worsening social conditions in their life because of the properties of the narcotic drug causing the individual to shift focus from contributing to society to the addiction. Softer drugs as cannabis are considered a gateway to heavier drug use and therefore, they are seen as just as dangerous to the general welfare because of their ability to envelop the individual in an all- around addiction. We will get back to the issues in the gateway argumentation, but a clear

Carmler Analysis 42 valuation for societal safety is done along the lines of individual liberty<->societal harm. As illustrated by Mill (1864), as long as you do not harm another person you should be free to pursue tastes, there is a strong inclination in the Swedish drug policy to see the threat of society coming from drug use to be so extensive that all use is seen as harmful to other’s welfare. The welfare of society in total is undoubtedly valued more than the liberty to pursue tastes, although valuating the harm made to others in an individual’s act of pursuing a taste, here drug use, is included in an understanding of the harm principle, putting into practice a zero-tolerance approach to narcotic drugs in policy means that the society as a whole and the welfare state does, in this case, not accommodate for any deviance. Since it is illegal to carry a small amount of a drug for personal use, or simply being under the influence by it, a practice that does not directly cause harm to others, the harm principle is understood in Swedish policy as drug use=harm to others. Of course, no fair assessment of drug use would discount that drug use could be harmful to others, and often is when looking at addiction, but in the Swedish policy, there is no consideration to the idea that narcotic drug use can be performed by an adult individual without addiction and without direct harm to anyone but themselves, why being under the influence is criminalized, a far-reaching intervention in the personal sphere of an individual with the intent of reaching a society without drugs. As for indirect harm, if the individual using drugs buy them of persons affiliated with criminal organizations, which in turn use gained capital from selling drugs to threaten the safety of the society by increasing their violence capital in some manner, there is certainly harm to others being done by procuring drugs in this manner. However, the distinction between direct- and indirect harm is an important one. Indirect harm from drug use can be mitigated by other policing strategies than targeting an individual at the end of the supply chain from producer to user, there seems to be no clear logic behind the idea that punishing individuals, whether recreational users or addicts in need of care, will cause major setbacks for criminal organizations. Drug use by individuals has not disappeared during prohibition, it has just been seen as harm caused by individuals to society, with the goal of a society without drugs being a failure. Also, no consideration has been done by policymakers of the potential harms caused by society against an individual using drugs.

There is a clear and obvious imposing of a certain moralism in the Swedish drug policy. Since the welfare of society, seen ideally as one unitary society in the policy where drug use is considered dangerous to ‘healthy and productive citizens’, has such an importance in the policy, the argument of ‘we know that drugs are bad and therefore cannot be tolerated’

Carmler Analysis 43 cannot be considered as anything else than a form of moralism that justifies criminalization based on an arbitrary view of how a good citizen should be. The Swedish welfare state is extensive in its universal coverage and is a product of the ideas that the Social Democratic party has been able to mediate due to their long periods of being in government during the 20th and 21st centuries. The idea of universalism in the welfare state is still a key tenant in the Social Democratic Party and the party has been successful in not only building the welfare state but creating acceptance for it amongst the general population. When looking at the drug policy, there is always an overarching goal of securing welfare and health in citizens. However, in the case of criminalizing behavior such as drug use, the welfare state as it is set up becomes moralistic in the sense of valuing norms about health and productivity from a certain Social Democratic view of the productive worker as the ideal individual. Since drug use is considered to threaten the productivity and health of the worker it must be excluded from acceptable behavior. Of course, other parties have governed Sweden than the Social Democratic party since the beginning of prohibition, still, the value of society as a unitary body of healthy and productive workers, threatened by narcotic drugs, remains in policy regardless of the ideological differences in different governments. But how far should the state be able to go in securing the health and welfare of its citizens? As illustrated by the harm principle, it has been seen as viable to disregard the possibility that no direct harm must be caused to another by an individual using narcotic drugs. Still, it remains a certain conviction that drug use is not only frowned upon but seen as a threat to society. Of course, laws are used in controlling behaviors based on a certain moral understanding, in all societies. Even so, the moralistic aspect of the Swedish drug policy is arbitrary in the way that it is based on both false premises in the valuation of the dangers of narcotic drug use, as well as in the way that deviance from the norm, i.e., to not use psychoactive drugs other than alcohol and tobacco, must be criminalized to reach a good level of public health.

What is illustrated by the liberty concept concerning drugs is that the view of personal liberty to pursue tastes in Sweden only goes as far as the demarcations provided by the “knowledge” that narcotic drugs are damaging to the health, but if it is so, and it would not be out of order to consider that use could be damaging to health, why is this logic not attributed to alcohol and tobacco in the same manner? This is also an inherent logical fallacy of the health argument for prohibition. Also, since it is seen as important for society to protect the health of its citizens, the logic behind criminally punishing individuals for the use or possession of small amounts of narcotic drugs must be looked at further. If health and the lack of harm are

Carmler Analysis 44 important values, and we have established that it is theoretically possible by adults to use a psychoactive drug responsibly, for example, alcohol, harm comes not only from an individual to itself by using drugs but also from the state to the individual when it punishes use of drugs based on the arbitrary classification of certain substances, and where even one-time use or possession of a small amount is a criminal offense, with consequences of individuals being registered by the police and as an effect may having trouble to attain for example employment due to criminal records. Comparing illegal drug use with the use of alcohol in Sweden, alcohol is regulated by the state with the aim of harm-reduction, different logics apply for different substances. Also, following this view of harm, the harm to the individual because of the punishment could be worse than the harm done by the temporary use of a drug due to an individual being considered a criminal regardless of the gravity of the offense, simply being under the influence can cause an individual to carry a fine and a criminal record for years, making future employment difficult. The understanding of harm in the Swedish drug policy can therefore not be seen as following a coherent and consistent argumentation. No consideration is taken to the harm that may be caused to the individual by the state.

The limitations of an individual’s liberty to pursue tastes in Swedish policy are considered to be important as a way to keep drugs out of society whatsoever, but the logic of this must also be looked at. If the goal is to keep drugs out of society and having zero tolerance for drugs, the goal carries with it an inherent utopian ideal. The assumption that it is possible to exclude unwanted substances or behavior from society without far-reaching interventions is not logically coherent, in no democratic society has it ever been possible by legislation and normative influencing to remove unwanted drugs totally. Even though prohibition and strong norms against drugs have been prevalent in Sweden, narcotic drugs are still being sold and used, and today many people are losing their lives in drug-related deaths. And even if one considers prohibition to be a far-reaching intervention, if it is not enough to eradicate drugs from society altogether the logic behind claiming a zero-tolerance vision cannot be supported by maintaining the current policy. Only in a totalitarian society would it perhaps be possible to reach such a goal since humans have continued to use drugs throughout history, regardless of which society they have found themselves in. But even in totalitarian societies as we know of, illegal drugs are still being used by individuals. The logic of prohibition and the zero- tolerance vision can therefore not be seen as clear and consistent.

Carmler Analysis 45

The equating of all narcotic drugs under the same banner is an interesting line of argumentation to look at as well. The view of the use of what is relatively less dangerous drugs from an addiction perspective such as cannabis as a gateway to other, more dangerous types of addiction such as heroin addiction follows an unclear argumentation. The logic behind it is that by using these “softer” drugs, an individual encounters an environment where other drugs are prevalent and are therefore more likely to consume hard drugs. And there is a certain weight to the logic behind this, since all narcotic drugs are criminalized, to attain them individuals must approach a dealer which in many cases would have connections to criminal networks with the interest of selling harder drugs at a later stage due to the profits to be gained. The individual could therefore be proposed more addictive drugs after trying the “softer” ones. Despite this, two inherent logical fallacies could be attributed to this gateway theory. One is that, if we consider cannabis to be the main gateway for further drug use due to its prevalence, the identification of cannabis as a starting point for people using drugs is that if one look at drugs people uses for the first time as teenagers or young adults, cannabis is hardly the first one. Arguably, it is more likely that a person would use alcohol or tobacco in Sweden before any other psychoactive drug, though alcohol or tobacco are not considered gateway drugs in policy, the gateway-logic cannot be attributed to cannabis or other softer drugs arbitrarily if it is not attributed to these other substances. Second, if narcotic drugs are illegal most people do need to turn to a criminal market to get them because of the illegal status, if they for example could be prescribed in another manner, physicians and pharmacists would not follow the logic of the black market, just as the alcohol monopoly does not suggest that people should also buy cigarettes.

The criminalization of psychoactive drugs is seen as a necessity of following UN convictions, at the same time the importance of Sweden as an international actor promoting prohibitionist policies is deemed to be necessary to enforce the view of Swedish policy internationally. This is a type of circular reasoning that could be seen as a logical fallacy. Further, the necessity of following UN convictions has not limited other nations from attempting other policies such as decriminalization or legalization, the UN convictions can therefore not in themselves be attributed as a stop-gap for approaching a different policy. Also, a nation could theoretically work within the UN framework against smuggling and international organized crime without at the national level maintaining prohibition, it is not coherent to remove the responsibility of a policy area within the nation’s borders just because of an international convention, even if the convention states certain aspects which should be followed, governments still have

Carmler Analysis 46 sovereignty over their territory and can implement other policies within the framework of conventions, such as not consider being under the influence as a crime. Further, criminalizing the prevalence of a substance within an individual’s body at a certain moment sheds further light on the view of the liberty to pursue tastes, it is not criminal to be intoxicated by an illegal substance in many countries part of the UN, while it is in Sweden. The liberty to pursue tastes without harm to others is illustrated by this as being of a weaker degree in Sweden, than elsewhere.

A few more salient incoherent argumentations need to be addressed. The first is that criminalization would not make addicts withdraw from seeking care for fear of punishment. If an individual has taken too much of a substance, i.e., an overdose, and is experiencing unwanted symptoms, the perceived benefit of the individual to avoid a penalty could outweigh the perceived benefit of getting help from authorities. Also, if a penalty due to possession or use is not seen as a punishment for the disease, the argument is true that it is the possession or use that is punished, but in effect, the disease that is addiction is the de facto behavior that is being punished, if an individual is addicted to a substance, they will use it regardless of the penalties, therefore the punishment effectively becomes targeted toward the disease in the long term. If the use of narcotics is perceived by the Swedish state as immoral or wrong, the logic of prohibition could lead to this normative valuation having the effect to cause harm due to the interest of addicts in avoiding penalties and the repercussions of them. Also, the argument that it is not possible to make exceptions in the policy for small amounts of personal use, due to the uncertainty of the assessment of the act, i.e., how can the police know if the amount possessed is a small amount, a large amount for some can be a small amount for a person with addiction, why any unauthorized possession should be punishable. This is also not logical and coherent since it is undoubtedly possible to define within a drug policy exactly the amounts which could be considered a small amount and for personal use. No obstacles can be perceived to exist for testing any narcotic drug and evaluating how much a normal unit is, as is done with alcohol, then it would be possible to implement in a policy if, for example, 5, 10, 50, or 100 units would be considered within the limits of reasonability to possess for personal consumption and consider amounts over the limit as possession with intent for sale, which could be punishable. In this case, one would have the liberty to carry and use small amounts of narcotic drugs without the risk of penalties, while dealers could adapt to the situation and only carry smaller amounts, the drugs they sell would need to be stockpiled somewhere, where resources could be targeted at main suppliers instead of the

Carmler Analysis 47 individual users or middlemen, effectively creating a legal understanding of direct harm and indirect harm, not necessarily condoning either but acknowledging the indirect harm that is caused by an individual procuring drugs from a criminal organization and shifting the judicial attention to punishing drug dealers and smugglers, rather than recreational users or addicts with a disease.

The idea of liberty of an individual’s ability to pursue tastes and shape one’s life as one wishes as long as it does not harm another makes for an excellent theoretical tool when looking at the Swedish drug policy. It shows that the concept of liberty in Swedish drug policy is prevalent due to the policy’s focus on mitigating harm which is a central component of the concept. However, it also shows that it is overwhelmingly tilted at the idea of mitigating harm and does not take into consideration the other aspect of liberty to pursue tastes others consider to be wrong or immoral. Even if an argument is provided that individuals using drugs illegally obtain them, therefore feeding criminal organizations with resources, making other people less free and in danger of more harm, it is prohibition itself that creates the illegal market and opens up for criminal organizations to earn a profit. Without prohibition and with either decriminalizing narcotic drug use or provide legal ways to obtain at least “softer” drugs, it is arguably unlikely that the black market would be as prevalent as under prohibition, it also opens for the possibility of taxation which could be used as a means of investing in mitigating the harm attributed to drug use.

Carmler Analysis 48

9.5 Question 3: What is needed to provide a policy alternative that is more logically coherent and eliminates identifiable harms and injustices of the current drug policy?

To answer this question, several aspects will be needed to take into consideration. First, we will need to consider theoretical dimensions, but practical considerations based on empirical material will also be used as a basis for a policy because of possible insights from real-world experiences and results. The aim here is to focus on a logically coherent alternative that can eliminate what harms and injustices are present in the current policy. However, to achieve this the criterion of desirability, viability, and achievability will be used to provide an alternative that is not only logically coherent but credible as a real-world policy as well.

As we have identified by the internal value check of the current drug policy, the tilt toward the goal of mitigating societal harm eliminates the idea that the use of narcotic drugs could be included in an understanding of liberty to pursue tastes as according to Mill (1864). To construct a policy variant that seeks to eliminate identifiable harms and injustices of the current policy, we will consider at first balancing the concept of liberty which take into consideration both the idea of mitigating societal harm as well as the idea that an individual can have the liberty to pursue the conduct of using a narcotic drug(s?) even if we consider that behavior to be immoral or wrong. As guided by the harm principle, this liberty can only stretch so far in that the conduct cannot harm another. This balancing act of the concepts of liberty and harm can be illustrated as follows:

Current theoretical axis: Liberty to use narcotic drugs <------> Mitigating harm from the use of narcotic drugs (Current focus)

Balanced theoretical axis: Liberty to use narcotic drugs <---> Allowance of certain drug use when it does not harm other people

(Proposed shift in focus) <---> Mitigating harm from the use of narcotic drugs

Carmler Analysis 49

9.5.1 A desirable policy

This shift in theoretical focus within the drug policy, where the harm principle is understood in accordance with Mill’s (1864) definition, allows us to begin a discussion of what can be a desirable policy in line with the criterion for change provided by Wright (2010, pp.13-14). Considering liberty as defined by Mill (1864) to be the fundamental aspect of a more balanced policy, what needs to be included is that the criminalization regarding possession and use of narcotic drugs would need to change. However, policy change in this manner cannot simply be either criminalization or full legalization. Since the concept of liberty used here considers both personal liberty and its limitations, some demarcations are useful. Since what would be desirable with the liberty-premise would be that an individual should be free to pursue tastes, we would include narcotic drugs in this understanding. To what extent this could be allowed would be demarcated by when the user starts to harm other people. An essential component of the harm an individual’s drug use causes other people in the supply chain. It would be quite naïve to expect legalization in some manner to entirely wipe out the illegal drug market and stifle the profit criminal organizations make. However, with legalization and legal ways to obtain drugs, the state could create a legal market as in the case with alcohol and in effect take market shares from criminal organizations as well as creating an option for an individual struggling with addiction to not be dependent on criminal organizations. Legalizing the use of narcotic drugs for personal consumption would be in line with the idea of liberty and harm since the use allowed would only apply to the individual’s liberty, no harm to another can be invoked if the drugs are obtained legally.

The legal manner of obtaining drugs could be shaped in a variety of ways, pharmacies could be an option to make sure that educated professionals can inform the consumer of the dangers apparent in using any drug and control that the drug supplied is only done so in a quantity that is safe to consume for one individual only, but also with a quality that is safe to consume, i.e., the drugs supplied are not mixed with other drugs or other harmful substances. This method could be used for all or a selection of drugs. For instance, people using harder drugs such as heroin or cocaine could benefit from having the consultation of a medical professional when obtaining them with the goal of reducing the personal harm of their use. Hard drug use such as heroin which can be distributed intravenously, i.e., by injection, can be approached by a harm reduction perspective in the manner of providing supervised injection sites where the user can be provided with sterile needles, information, and supervision by

Carmler Analysis 50 medical staff, a method used in both Switzerland and Australia, amongst other countries. Regarding softer drugs such as cannabis there are many ways in which they are distributed in other countries, ‘coffeeshops’ in the Netherlands can be compared with a pub for cannabis where adults can purchase and consume cannabis recreationally under supervision, in Spain, there are ‘social clubs’ where adults can become members and purchase and consume cannabis either for medical or recreational purposes, in Canada where full legalization of cannabis has been introduced an individual can possess amounts equivalent to personal use in public but also grow up to four cannabis plants per household for personal use, which, when applied, effectively gives the individual the freedom to pursue tastes without participating in a market. Regarding other drugs that do not effectively grow on trees, the production of them is a chemical process and would need to be considered outside of the sphere of individual liberty because the dangers apparent in chemical production could be of harm to others when doing so without a license.

The harm that could be done to others must be an essential consideration in a desirable policy. So, at what point does drug use become harmful to others? It does arguably become harmful when an individual use drugs to the extent that they either themselves become addicted to the point where they start neglecting other pursuits in their life such as family connections, friendships, employment, love life, hobbies, or other interests, or when the individual use drugs in a self-harming purpose, as well as when people in their near surrounding become exposed to drugs unwillingly, for example when children are exposed to unresponsible drug use, whether alcohol, heroin, or cannabis, they can become negatively influenced. Of course, operating machinery or vehicles under the influence of drugs cannot be accepted, just as with alcohol, as there is an apparent risk of harm to others. Harm to others must also be considered when drugs are obtained illegally when legal alternatives are available, as with tobacco and alcohol purchasing from the black market can be considered indirect harm to others because of the profits gained by criminal organizations. If there are legal alternatives to obtain drugs for personal use, drug smuggling, illegal sales, and illegal production would still naturally be considered as harm to others.

With these considerations, what becomes desirable is a drug policy that legalizes the use and possession of drugs for personal consumption, as well as focuses health resources to helping people with problematic use rather than consider them as criminals. Government regulation would provide legal ways to obtain and use drugs together with information by licensed

Carmler Analysis 51 professionals aimed at harm reduction. Although this would present individuals with the liberty to pursue tastes, when identifiable harm to others can be identified the policy would consider the individual to perform a criminal act, and depending on the severity, criminalization is still necessary to various degrees. For example, if an employer notices that one of their employees fail to perform the tasks needed for their workplace due to their drug use, a simple warning with offers of medical- or therapeutic treatment can be a first step in helping the individual, with criminal charges only considered if they have endangered others in some manner such as for example operating machinery under the influence around colleagues. However, if an individual is a proven drug trafficker or produces or sells drugs outside of the scope of the hypothetical legal market, criminal punishments would be considered, especially when drugs have been sold to- or trafficked by minors.

9.5.2 A viable policy

Since we have based the understanding on what would be a desirable policy alternative on the idea that the policy should be balanced and take into consideration the liberty to pursue tastes as well as mitigating the harm done to others, it is necessary to move on to consider the second criterion for an alternative that mitigates the harm and injustices of the current drug policy: viability. Since the discussion about desirability is ‘unchained’ by practical considerations and builds upon a theoretical understanding of liberty, a viable alternative will consider how sustainable the new policy is, taking into consideration the historical context in Sweden which can determine the possibility of implementing a policy.

Let us begin with the historical context. As we have touched upon when looking at the history of drugs in Sweden, prohibitionary attitudes have been prevalent in Swedish society for a long time. To achieve a viable alternative in the Swedish context, this cannot be disregarded. This makes the case for full legalization, however desirable, harder to consider viable. However, if a new drug policy with the aim of mitigating the harms and injustices of the previous is constructed, it would be useful to look at how alcohol has been regulated in Sweden with the Systembolaget because of the sustainability of that regulatory entity. But also, because a proposed shift from the welfare state logic where the people’s health takes precedence over individual liberty to a policy that does value the liberty to pursue tastes would arguably be more possible if a drug market is regulated and controlled by the state since it is that way alcohol has been regulated. The success of the state-run alcohol market in

Carmler Analysis 52 its sustainability does not necessarily mean that it is possible to regulate other drugs in the same manner, although if there was to be a legal market of other drugs, a state-run monopoly would arguably be a more viable alternative than letting private entrepreneurs establish businesses where drugs are sold.

The idea of legalizing all drugs for personal use might seem impossible to implement in a state where zero-tolerance has been the guiding idea for so long. Other nations which have had prohibitionary policies in the past and changed them such as Portugal where the use- and possession of illicit drugs has been decriminalized (Hughes & Stevens, 2010, pp.999-1002), i.e., no criminal sanctions and optional administrative sanctions, showing that a policy change can be viable even though prohibition has been the norm earlier. As the drug policy of Portugal has opted for decriminalization rather than legalization, as discussed earlier as being a desirable alternative, decriminalization follows as being viable. Since Swedish drug prohibition still has strong political- and cultural norms regarding zero-tolerance, the case for drug legalization could be too far of a step to be taken in a policy change, and less viable than the prospect of decriminalization. In addition, decriminalizing personal use of drugs, together with decriminalizing possession of small amounts for personal use, still observes the idea of liberty to pursue tastes, even though one could argue that an individual does not have the liberty to pursue a taste if there is no legal way of doing so. Still, since the individual would not be considered a criminal, it is possible to argue that the individual would have as much liberty to pursue a personal use of drugs that is viable in the current political climate, a reinterpretation of the liberty that would be desirable, although a more pragmatic approach taken is arguably necessary due to the long political tradition of adherence to zero-tolerance ideas. It could also be seen as a way of minimizing the harms done to others because of drug use if the police and authorities shift focus and resources away from prosecuting individual consumers to earlier instances in the supply chain.

Decriminalizing possession of small amounts- and use of drugs can be considered a policy that has a large chance to be sustained over time. Considering the pragmatic approach of ensuring as much liberty as possible for the individual, decriminalization also supports the idea that personal use- and possession of small amounts of narcotic drugs ensure that an individual has the liberty to pursue tastes, while at the same time limiting the harm that can be done to others because of the amounts allowed being only for personal use so that eventual harm done to the individual or others is mitigated by the quantity allowed under the law.

Carmler Analysis 53

9.5.3 An achievable policy

Is a drug policy that considers liberty to pursue tastes when another person is not harmed achievable in Sweden? According to Wright (2010, pp.16-17), to evaluate this we must have a coherent framework for change, look at the actors which have the potential to mobilize in support or opposition to a new policy suggestion, as well as consider the conditions for change based on the social- and political environment.

To start with the coherent framework, we have provided a viable alternative in the previous part. The decriminalization of personal use of small quantities of narcotic drugs will not radically alter existing policies except for two main areas: (1) being under the influence of a drug will not be a criminal offense, and (2) possessing a quantity of the drug intended for personal use will not be either. Implementing these two aspects in future legislation is arguably not as massive of an overhaul of policy as legalization would be, where the main framework of the Narcotics law could be maintained for issues that are not considered to be within the limits of pursuing personal tastes such as smuggling and dealing which we have considered as being harmful to others. Identifying the main actors to be looked at who would be for or against such a proposal would start with the current government which, based on its current policy, can be said to be in opposition to it. And amongst the parliamentary parties, only the Left Party is in favor of decriminalizing using drugs (Vänsterpartiet, 2020), currently seating only 27 of the 349 MPs. Even so, officials from the Public Health Agency have stated that an investigation on the ban of using drugs and possession of small amounts should be initiated and refers to a lack of knowledge about the consequences of current legislation (Folkhälsomyndigheten, 2020, pp.23-24). In the Swedish context, this is arguably a surprising and unexpected statement considering the deep-rooted adherence to the ideas of zero-tolerance, a drug-free society, and addiction that has dominated the Swedish drug policy. Still, achieving policy change without a majority in parliament will not be possible. Even though firm results about the public opinion regarding drugs and their legal status remain hard to come by it would not be out of the limits of reasonability that most Swedish citizens have a negative attitude to legalization. Decriminalization on the other hand would in practice not entail legalization and be a possible future policy alternative which may not be possible with the current government due to it still being invested in the zero-tolerance approach. However, future governments, whether left or right, will have to deal with this

Carmler Analysis 54 issue in the future since it cannot arguably be possible to remain as entrenched as before considering the high mortality rate and the fact that almost half of the registered offenses are due to personal use only.

Even if the political situation makes the achievability of policy change under the current government difficult. The suggestion from the Public Health Agency to investigate current legislation and the fact that decriminalizing personal use and possession of small amounts can serve to remove the stigmatization of addicts, eliminate potential harm in seeking employment done to individuals using drugs recreationally, and free up resources to target more aggravated crimes does pose an attractive alternative to the drug policy which will arguably be harder to disregard by politicians over time. The ideas of zero-tolerance in the long run in the light of the obvious failing to do what was intended: to eliminate drugs from society, will be evaluated in the future, even if the evaluation does not start with policymakers there will arguably be critique posed at the values and argumentation in the drug policy by media and citizens which are affected by it. Of course, it is impossible by this paper to predict when a future political environment where policy change is achievable might appear. However, with the identification of the problems this paper has unraveled, the suggestion of policy change in neighboring countries, and with the intent from official authorities to advise the government to initiate a public investigation, it is not out of the question to consider that policy change may be achievable within the next decade. Even if there still is an unwillingness to engage with the issue politically, when decriminalization has been lifted in other countries and territories it has been both a viable and achievable alternative with success in both limiting the mortality rates in Portugal and respecting individual liberty to pursue tastes as in the Netherlands.

Thus, even though the idea of liberty to use narcotic drugs is controversial and not regarded as compatible with Swedish policy currently. Restricting individual liberty for the benefit of the people’s health has not been able to either reduce the number of people dying in drug- related deaths or attain the goal of a drug-free society. As time passes and if the zero- tolerance ideas will continue to fail in reaching the goals stated in the current policy, the achievability of implementing a policy of decriminalization will arguably become more plausible, even for political parties and leaders. To sum up, decriminalization is not achievable in the short-run (1-2 years), but in the long run, it will arguably be achievable

Carmler Analysis 55 considering the problems that exist and the lessons to be learned by evaluating how other countries have implemented it.

Carmler Conclusions 56

10. Conclusions

This dissertation aimed to find out the values and argumentation that constitute Sweden’s drug policy, and the logical coherence of these, by performing an internal validity check and applying a theoretical framework based on Mill’s (1864) theory of liberty. Also, to see if the liberty approach can identify what harms and injustices that appear and suggest a policy that would mitigate these. What has been discovered is that the Swedish drug policy considers narcotic drugs to be of such danger to the health and welfare of the people that they must be eliminated, the all-encompassing people’s health is valued to such an extent that the sphere of individual liberty is extensively limited since simply being under the influence or possessing a small amount of illegal drugs is a criminal offense. A far-reaching intervention in the individual’s liberty to their own body and to pursue tastes is uncommon in other democratic societies. The value conflict of considering addicts to be ill while at the same time criminalizing their disease is considered, but such value is attributed to the idea of zero- tolerance that criminalization is seen as a must to signal the official stance that all drug use is bad, except for alcohol and tobacco which the state allows and attribute a different logic to. This has created a unique case in Sweden where the moralizing intent of the policy becomes so apparent that it is a policy built on dogmatic assumptions rather than clear and logical argumentation.

The argumentations that lie behind the policy do not carry logical coherence and, in many cases, build on faulty argumentations. The idea that narcotic drugs cannot be used, only abused, follows a logic that is not coherent with the way legal drugs are addressed, without explaining where the knowledge that all illegal drugs are superior in their level of dangerousness. Narcotic drugs are seen as more dangerous than for example alcohol because of the risk of addiction being regarded as higher, but this is flawed reasoning as both alcohol and tobacco are most likely more, or at least as addictive and damaging substances for adults than for example another soft drug such as cannabis. The intent of reaching a drug-free society by prohibition has led to one of the highest drug mortality rates in Europe and half of the drug-related offenses being prosecuted being that of an individual being under the influence. The policy’s intent to create a drug-free society has undoubtedly failed and the restrictions of personal freedom have led to individual users being targeted to mitigate the use of drugs. The zero-tolerance argument is tied to the welfare state and is more interested in mediating the life of a ‘good citizen’ than dealing with the problems that might arise when

Carmler Conclusions 57 restricting liberty to pursue a taste. The productive and good citizen serves as a moralizing influence in this policy area where a false dichotomy between the good productive citizen and the dangerous drug user is posed. Simply considering a person being intoxicated by an illegal drug being a threat to the welfare and safety of society becomes moralizing because the same logic is not applied to legal drugs which have similar potential for abuse.

The idea of harm done by drugs also disregards the possible harm within the individual’s sphere and only considers harm applicable on a societal level. No consideration is taken in policy to the stigmatization and employment harm that could be caused to the individual by being prosecuted for carrying- or being under the influence of a small amount of illegal drugs. Harm is only valued in the context of society at large instead of looking at the individual perspective where the drug user is always considered a criminal, regardless of them not having the intent to harm another. Where the idea of zero-tolerance fulfills the purpose of signaling the idea that all illegal drug use is bad and unwanted, it is inherently a utopian ideal which arguably has never been attained, when considering contemporary circumstances with the prosecution of individuals for personal use being half of all drug- related crime and the mortality rates being very high, the logic of zero-tolerance has disproven itself. For addicts suffering a disease, they are de facto being criminally punished if caught. Even if the intent is to help them, what becomes salient when using the liberty approach is that an addict, or recreational user, can be caused harm by them avoiding seeking help when needed due to fear of punishment. If individual liberty was not restricted in the manner it is today, this harm could be avoided. This is especially important when looking at mortality rates, if no punishment was given to heroin users, they would arguably be more inclined to seek help from police officers or other public officials if they have problems related to their use such as overdosing.

Thus, we have seen that the restrictions of individual liberty have not been based on a coherent explanation as to why illegal drugs are inherently more dangerous than legal varieties, rather based on a moralizing attempt to create a ‘good citizen’. The disregard of individual liberty concerning possible harm makes a policy that claims to be balanced, but in its logical coherency fails to explain why potential harm to others is so important that liberty to pursue tastes must be excluded from citizen’s rights, except for the moralizing intent to signal which tastes that a citizen should pursue, and which they should not. The simplification of considering all psychoactive drugs except for tobacco and alcohol to be so

Carmler Conclusions 58 dangerous and addictive that they must be eliminated from society fails to provide a nuanced policy approach where drugs could be evaluated on a scale of danger, heroin is considered a schedule 1 drug just like cannabis. The argumentations that emerge in Swedish policy do not carry with them internal validity since they are based on an arbitrary view of which morals and tastes a citizen should have with references to societal cohesion and equality, rather than the logical coherence of the argumentation presented.

By using the theoretical framework of liberty and harm, it has also been established that it is possible to provide an alternative policy, decriminalization, which is desirable because it eliminates immediate harm and injustices due to the act of using and possessing a small amount of drugs being decriminalized. Even if legalization can be desirable due to the possibility of respecting liberty to pursue tastes and the possibility of regulating the market and taxation to mitigate harm, it can currently not be seen as viable. Decriminalization is viable due to the necessity of attempting policy change because of the arrest- and death rates tied to drug use. It is also considered to be achievable in the future because half of the drug- related crimes are due to personal use which ties up resources, the critical problem of the mortality rates, and the suggestion from authorities that the current legislation surrounding use and possession needs to be evaluated. This cannot be achievable in the short run, but as lessons from other drug policy implementations become more accessible and neighboring countries decriminalize, Sweden will have a harder time justifying vast restrictions of individual liberty and take into consideration decriminalization in the evolution of future policy.

Carmler Discussion 59

11. Discussion and future research

Sweden does not only suffer from the tragic effects of many lives lost because of drug-related incidents. Individuals are purposefully being targeted by the drug policy to achieve the unattainable goal of a drug-free society. The Swedish drug policy is not only in need of a change from moralistic principles to principles that respect the individual’s liberty to do things other consider to be wrong if no other is harmed, but also to move into the realm of evidence-based approaches. It is arguably rather ridiculous for a welfare state as Sweden to have such an unreasonable drug policy, referring to knowledge about the harms of narcotic drugs that have been conjured by ideological actors and moralists of the past and generally taken for granted in Sweden to this day. Since this question is so controversial and dissent from the state line has historically been completely disregarded as pushing a ‘liberal agenda’, the possibility of change has been low. However, it should arguably always be necessary for political science to engage with confirmed beliefs and investigate policies regardless of how the political consensus around them look, simple consensus around an issue does not entail that it follows a logical argumentation, or that the values invoked in said consensus are coherent with how values are invoked in other issues. There is a value to examining this drug policy due to the arguably dogmatic thinking it is built on. Pointing out incoherencies in the policy is not done to push a certain agenda, it is done to create knowledge about how values are used in politics and to come closer to an explanation to why they are arbitrarily applied to certain substances.

Based on the knowledge discovered in this dissertation, a liberalization of some sort could be useful to mitigate the harms caused by the current Swedish drug policy. However, not only to mitigate the harms and injustices that have been identified but to reach a policy that is rational and logically coherent. The first step to this would be to take into consideration the idea that individuals should have the liberty to pursue any taste that does not harm another directly and either legalize or decriminalize the possession- and use of small amounts of currently illegal drugs. This would allow drug users to live their lives without fear of state repression, free up police resources to target the suppliers in the black market, and begin to take addiction as a disease seriously. This dissertation has shown that it is possible to create knowledge about the politics of psychoactive drugs and provide an alternative to the current policy which is more logically coherent, as well as take into consideration recent evidence to

Carmler Discussion 60 avoid the moralizing aspects of the current policy. This combination of a normative study also taking into consideration empirical evidence is an approach that serves in examining this area quite well. This because politics is a value-business and the question of how far an individual’s liberty stretches is fundamental in democratic societies, also because it would arguably be irresponsible to look at what the evidence says about the dangers and harms of drugs and the regulatory modes for controlling them. Science is not adhering to principles in light of new evidence, this approach arguably shows that societal questions of life and death can be approached by a method that is grounded in normative reasoning and empirical knowledge, instead of straight ideological moralism. Regarding the field of political science, there has been a gap in examining the Swedish drug policy which this dissertation has just begun to fill. This study contributes to mapping the theoretical landscape of Swedish drug policy and unveils that the inherent values and ideas have such a low level of coherence and consistency and affect the overall level of individual liberty negatively in society. If restrictions of individual liberty can be so vast that the police can report an individual for simply being under the influence of a substance, what limits the state from infringing on the personal realm of individuals further in other questions as well? Drug use undoubtedly causes harm, but the restrictions of individual liberty in favor of public health aspects have created a situation where drug addicts are not seen as other citizens, and those using more dangerous drugs having a high risk of dying. More papers regarding this issue need to be written that not only examine the logic of prohibition but the logic of the ideas of legalization and decriminalization. What is important for future studies is also to examine further the effects that moralizing politics have on people and why there has been such a political consensus in the drug policy for such a long time. A political consensus culture such as the one encompassing the Swedish drug policy needs to be examined further. How does the consensus culture around this issue work, how does it affect politics and society, and how can political science create knowledge about this by using different theoretical- and methodological frameworks? This issue is arguably bound to be one of the most salient ones in Swedish politics in the 2020s and since there is such a gap in knowledge, any reader with an interest in this issue should find the scientific potential to be intriguing and hopefully inspired to further develop studies that look at politics as a value-business, and studies which seek to create knowledge about drug policy in Sweden, and around the world.

There must be a more rational political ground to occupy between sentencing addicts to death and giving out free heroin to school children. Of course, these extremes are exaggerated and

Carmler Discussion 61 only serve to point out that there is a need to be nuanced when examining or discussing this issue. More questions need to be asked by researchers on this topic. Questions must also need to be asked to politicians who can no longer disregard the dire need for policy change by deflecting questions as being loosely formulated or refer to the same moralizing arguments as before. In a welfare state with a standard of living most nations can only dream about, would such a complete policy failure be tolerated to stay untouched in another policy area? Arguably, it would not, and neither should this policy stay untouched if Swedish politicians are concerned about the welfare of people using and abusing drugs. Whether or not prohibition, legalization, decriminalization, or other possible policies are the way forward. The state should arguably not attempt to mold people in a certain way and stigmatize those who criticize that practice. Of course, certain morals will prevail in any given society but having room for values, morals, and practices that do not adhere to conformed beliefs, when they do not inflict harm on others, is a healthy democratic practice. Finally, political science can act to not only evaluate, but inform rational policies regarding drugs, and perhaps even more rational thinking in politics altogether. As long as there is a willingness to delve deep into the business of values with an open mind and a critical eye.

Carmler References 62

References

Badersten, B. 2004. Att studera det önskvärda: om värdeanalys och normativ metod. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, 106(3), p.207.

Badersten, B. 2006. Normativ Metod: Att Studera Det önskvärda. Uppl. 1:2. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Badersten, B. & Gustavsson, Jakob. 2010. Vad är statsvetenskap? : om undran inför politiken 1 uppl.., Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Barrett, D, 2010. Security, development and human rights: Normative, legal and policy challenges for the international drug control system. The International journal of drug policy, 21(2), pp.140–144.

Bejerot, N. 1969. Narkotikafrågan och samhället. Stockholm: Ordfront.

Bejerot, N. 1977. Narkotika och narkomani. Stockholm: Ordfront.

Blanc-NOEL, N. 2013. Resolving the dilemma between equality and liberty: the Swedish political system. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 4(1), pp.25–40.

Boekhout van Solinge, T. 1997. The Swedish Drug Control system: An in-depth review and analysis, Mets & Schilt.

Brecher, Edward M.; the editors of Consumer Reports (1972). Licit and illicit drugs : the Consumers Union report on narcotics, , , inhalants, , and marijuana -including , , and alcohol. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Brottsförebyggande Rådet (BRÅ), 2021. Narkotikabrott. Accessed via: https://bra.se/statistik/statistik-utifran-brottstyper/narkotikabrott.html [2021-05-14]

Caulkins, J.P. 1993. Zero-Tolerance Policies: Do They Inhibit or Stimulate Illicit Drug

Carmler References 63

Consumption? Management Science, 39(4), pp. 458–476.

Centre for Business History. 2020. Från Historien om Systembolaget, en sajt från Centrum för Näringslivshistoria. Ursprunget: Från bergsmän till Bratt. Accessed via: http://www.systembolagethistoria.se/Teman/Ursprunget/ [2021-03-01]

Christie, T., Groarke, L. & Sweet, W., 2007. Virtue ethics as an alternative to deontological and consequential reasoning in the harm reduction debate. The International journal of drug policy, 19(1), pp.52–58.

Clark, A. E. 2003. The Economics of Drug Legalization. CNRS and DELTA.

Cohen, P. 1993. Re-thinking drug control policy: Historical perspectives and conceptual tools. Paper presented at the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) Geneva, 7-8 July 1993, Palais des Nations, Symposium The crisis of social development in 1990's. Accessed via: http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen.rethinking.html [2021-04-14]

Edman, J. 2013. An ambiguous monolith - The Swedish drug issue as a political battleground 1965-1981. International Journal On Drug Policy, 24(5), pp.464–470.

Edman, J. & Olsson, B. 2014. The Swedish Drug Problem: Conceptual understanding and Problem Handling, 1839-2011. Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift: NAT, 31(5-6), pp.503– 526.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). 2015. European Drug Report 2015: Trends and Developments. Lisbon: EMCDDA.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). 2019. ‘Statistical Bulletin 2019 – overdose deaths’. Acessed via: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/stats2019/drd [2021- 02-17].

Folkhälsomyndigheten. 2020. Åtgärdsförslag för att förebygga användning samt medicinska och sociala skadeverkningar av narkotika.

Carmler References 64

Goldberg, T., 2004. The Evolution of Swedish Drug Policy. Journal of drug issues, 34(3), pp.551–576.

Goldberg, T. 2021. A path forward for Swedish drug policy? Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift: NAT, 38(2), pp.112–124.

Ghiabi, M., 2018. Spirit and being: interdisciplinary reflections on drugs across history and politics. Third world quarterly, 39(2), pp.207–217.

Hall, Wayne, 2019. The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893–1894. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 114(9), pp.1679–1682.

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of information in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-30.

Hughes, C.E. & Stevens, A., 2010. What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? The British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), pp.999–1022.

Kungl. Maj:ts prop. 184/1962 Kungl. Maj:ts proposition till riksdagen med förslag till läke medelsförordning.

Kungl. Maj:ts prop. 1968:7 Kungl. Maj:ts proposition till riksdagen med förslag till narkotikastrafflag, m. m.

Kymlicka, W., Bauhn, Per & Häggqvist, Sören, 1995. Modern politisk filosofi: en introduktion, Nora: Nya Doxa.

Merlin, M., 2003. Archaeological evidence for the tradition of psychoactive plant use in the old world. Economic Botany, 57(3), pp.295–323.

Michalak, L. & Trocki, K., 2006. Alcohol and Islam: an overview. Contemporary Drug Problems, 33(4), pp.523–562,521.

Carmler References 65

Mill, J.S. 1864. On Liberty. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green.

Monaghan, Mark, 2008. The evidence base in UK drug policy: the new rules of engagement. Policy and politics, 36(1), pp.145–150.

Narkotikaproblemet (1967). Del II: Kontrollsystemet. Betänkande avgivet av medicinalstyrelsens narkomanvårdskommitté (SOU 1967:41). Stockholm: Socialdepartementet.

Nixon, R., 1971. Special Message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control. Accessed via: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress- drug-abuse-prevention-and-control [2021-02-02].

Pearson, J. 2021. Icelandic Government Proposes Drug Decriminalisation ,Reykjavik Grapevine, January 21, 2021. [Online]. Available at https://grapevine.is/news/2021/01/21/icelandic-government-proposes-drug-legalisation/. [2021-02-18].

Prop. 1987/88:71. 1988. Proposition from the Government to the Parliament. Om ändringar i narkotikastrafflagen (1968:64).

Prop. 2010/11:47. Proposition from the Government to the Parliament. En samlad strategi för alkohol-, narkotika-, dopnings- och tobakspolitiken.

Prop. 2020/21:132. 2021. Proposition from the Government to the Parliament. A renewed strategy for policies regarding alcohol, narcotics, doping, tobacco and nicotine, including gambling 2021-2025.

Ritter, Alison, 2009. Illicit drugs policy through the lens of regulation. The International journal of drug policy, 21(4), pp.265–270.

Scherlen, Renee, 2012. The Never-Ending Drug War: Obstacles to Drug War Policy Termination. PS, political science & politics, 45(1), pp.67–73.

Carmler References 66

SFS 1968:64. Narkotikastrafflag.

Skr. 2015/16:86. En samlad strategi för alkohol-, narkotika-, dopnings- och tobakspolitiken 2016–2020.

Socialdepartementet. 2016. Svensk narkotikapolitik – en narkotikapolitik baserad på mänskliga rättigheter och jämlik hälsa.

Stockholm City Museum. 2013. Kaffeförbud. Accessed via: https://stockholmskallan.stockholm.se/post/29649 [2021-03-01]

SVT. 2020. Folkhälsomyndigheten: Utred förbudet att ta droger, SVT Nyheter. May 8, 2020. [Online]. Available at https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/folkhalsomyndigheten-utred- forbudet-att-ta-droger. [2021-02-18].

SVT. 2021. Så vill Norge förändra narkotikapolitiken. SVT Nyheter. February 12, 2021. [Online]. Available at https://www.svt.se/nyheter/snabbkollen/sa-vill-norge-forandra- narkotikapolitiken. [2021-02-18].

Tucker, J., 1999. From zero tolerance to harm reduction. National Forum, 79(4), pp.19–23.

UNDP, United Nations Development Programme, 2020. Human Development Report 2020: The next frontier, Human development and the Anthropocene. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020- report [2020-02-17].

United Nations. 1961. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

UNODC. 2007. Sweden’s successful drug policy: A review of the evidence.

Vänsterpartiet. 2020. En socialpolitik för människovärde. https://www.vansterpartiet.se/en- socialpolitik-for-manniskovarde/. [2021-03-05].

Windle, J., 2013. How the East Influenced Drug Prohibition. International history review, 35(5), pp.1185–1199.

Carmler References 67

Wright, E.O., 2010. Envisioning real utopias, London: Verso.

Zambiasi, D. & Stillman, S., 2020. THE POT RUSH: IS LEGALIZED MARIJUANA A POSITIVE LOCAL AMENITY? Economic Inquiry, 58(2), pp.667–679.

Image on front page, A Swedish pharmacy (1911) by Per Fredrik Röding is used under a creative commons licence without changes made to the original. Accessed via: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_swedish_pharmacy_in_1911.jpg