control and welfare in danish drug policy - Journal of Drug Issues

HOUBORGand other educational institutions (Manniche & Høgh, 1967, 1968; Manniche & Wolf,1969; Ulff-Møller, 1969; Kontaktudvalget, 1970; Ulff-Møller, 1971; Manniche,Holstein, & Boolsen, 1972a; 1972b). The majority of this research was based onsociological theories of social deviance, specifically theories on social learning(Becker, 1953; Ulff-Møller & Jørgensen, 1971) and theories on the disseminationof innovations in a population (Holstein, 1972). These surveys focused on how druguse became a meaningful social activity for young people and the social contextin which this occurred, not simply the immediate social context, but also the moregeneral social and cultural contexts. The research therefore focused on trends inthe number of young people who came into contact with illegal drugs, how manyprogressed from experimenting with illegal drugs to regular use, the social contextfor contact with and use of drugs, and last but not least, attitudes toward illegal drugsamong users and non-users. A national survey in 1968 showed that one fifth of therespondents had been offered drugs and one in ten had tried drugs, but only one ina hundred was a regular user (Ulff-Møller, 1969; Ulff-Møller & Jørgensen, 1972).When the survey was repeated in 1970, four out of ten had been offered cannabisand one fourth had tried or was using cannabis. The number of regular users hadtherefore risen from 1% in 1968 to 4% in 1970 (Ulff-Møller, 1971; Ulff-Møller &Jørgensen, 1972). The surveys showed that drugs were being distributed throughnormal social relations and not through subcultures, and that drug use was becomingan increasingly acceptable social activity among young people. In 1968, 56% ofthe respondents in the school surveys supported prohibition of cannabis, whereasin 1970 the figure was only 36% (Ulff-Møller & Jørgensen, 1972). Research aswell as the image constructed by the media therefore revealed that more and moreyoung people were coming into contact with illegal drugs, that the drugs were partof their normal social environment and that drug use was becoming an increasinglyacceptable social activity.Generally, one can conclude that the phenomenon development ofdrug use after the first offer [of drugs] seems to function and couldbe classified as an ordinary, normal social phenomenon and notas a socially deviant phenomenon, …. (Ulff-Møller & Jørgensen,1972, p. 88)The use of illegal drugs was no longer associated with a particular deviant andmarginalized subculture. It was becoming a normal social phenomenon among youngpeople in Denmark. Drug use had become a youth phenomenon and was associatedwith a dissemination of elements of the new youth culture from a small group inCopenhagen to the rest of the population. In the public debate and discussions amongexperts and politicians, though less in terms of research, the social conditions forthe spread of drug use were also seen as a symptom of more general changes in788 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

CONTROL AND WELFARE IN DANISH DRUG POLICYinstitutions. This meant that as subjects of Government, drug users were defined asnormal social citizens of the welfare state and no longer as deviant criminals. Withreference to the literature on Dutch drug policy (Leuw, 1991; Grapendaal, & Nelen,1995) one could say that the demand aspect of the drug problem was “normalized,”as it became a social problem that was no different to other social problems.FROM WELFARE TO CONTROLIn 2000, sensational reports on the widespread use of ecstasy among youngpeople, particularly at party venues, and reports on deaths attributed to ecstasy,once again made illegal drug use an important public issue. These sensationalistreports were underscored by surveys that revealed a large increase in illegal druguse generally among young people in Denmark during the 1990s (Hibell et al.,2000; Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2000). The surveys showed that cannabis was still byfar the most popular drug, but also revealed a trend toward the increased use ofstimulants. The new drug problem became part of a more general concern aboutthe use of intoxicating substances among young people in Denmark, as Europeansurveys showed that young people in Denmark consumed more alcohol and starteddrinking alcohol earlier than young people in any other country (Hibell et al., 1997;2000). An image of “a new culture of intoxication” (Measham & Brain, 2005)among young people began to take shape that constituted a new drug problem(Balvig, Holmberg, & Sørensen, 2005; Ege, 2003; Gundelach & Järvinen, 2006;Østergaard, 2007). In 1999, the National Board of Health commissioned a qualitativestudy of experiences and attitudes toward drugs among young people in Denmark(Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2000) and in 2000, the Board conducted a series of regionalhearings to gather information about changes among young people on the drugscene. Both the hearings and the evaluation reported a more liberal attitude towardillegal drugs among young people. This more liberal attitude meant that illegaldrug use was becoming an integral part of the youth culture as such. The hearingsand evaluation also reported that illegal drug use was particularly associated withthe night-time party scene where distinctions between legal and illegal drugs werebeginning to fade and drugs were becoming intoxicating consumer goods.Consumption has become more common: Young people do not lookat drug use as an isolated phenomenon among socially marginalizedyoung people, nor as a trend that is “only” practiced in avant-gardetechno and hip-hop environments. Consumption of synthetic drugshas become modern and acceptable by the broad mainstreamof young people who enjoy a fast-paced youth existence full ofexperiences. [ . . . ] [T]he way young people use illegal drugs hascome to resemble the alcohol culture: it is acted out in public inFALL 2010791

HOUBORGAt the presentation, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice described theplan as a policy of zero tolerance toward what was seen as widespread illegal druguse among young people. The Minister of Justice stated:The Government wants to send a hard and strict signal that we donot tolerate drugs. Therefore, young people should not be let offwith a warning if they are apprehended with even small amountsof drugs. Instead they will receive an immediate fine. (Politiken20.10.2003)In 2004, the Government presented a bill to re-penalize possession for personalconsumption. The ecstasy report from the Chiefs of Police played an important role aspart of the background material for the bill. The Government therefore appropriatedthe arguments presented by the Chiefs of Police that de-penalization had not workedgiven the high prevalence of drug use among young people in Denmark, particularlywith regard to cannabis.History has shown that this practice [de-penalization] has not beensufficiently effective to restrain abuse of illegal euphoriant drugs.Research shows that young people in Denmark abuse cannabis toa larger extent than young people in other countries, for example.(The Office of the Folketing Hansard, 2003–2004, p. 6313).The Government also agreed with the Chiefs of Police that parts of the Danishpopulation had a permissive attitude toward the use of illegal drugs and that therewas a need to make the public accept more responsibility. In the parliamentarydebate, the Minister of Justice expressed this point as follows:The Government is serious when it says that the fight against drugsis to be intensified, and that changing the opinion in the populationis necessary, so as citizens we can all become more attentive and dowhat we can, particularly to avoid young people becoming part ofthe [drug] environment . . . (The Office of the Folketing Hansard,2003–2004, p. 7659)According to the Government, de-penalization had removed responsibilityfor controlling drug use from individuals and families. In this way, the change indrug policy came to reflect a more general trend within a number of policy areasin the 1990s and 2000s toward what was seen as giving individuals, families, andcommunities more responsibility. This has been the case particularly since 2001,when the Prime Minister of the new liberal 5 -conservative Government declared acultural war on what he saw as cultural relativism and a nomenclature of expertsdominated by ideas from the left of the political spectrum and ideas from the youthculture of the 1960s (Lykkeberg, 2008). 6 This trend has been most visible in the areaof penal policy partly as penal sanctions have been one instrument used to make the794 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

CONTROL AND WELFARE IN DANISH DRUG POLICYDanes more responsible. Within penal policy, a number of tough-on-crime initiativesand new criminalizations were introduced in the 1990s and 2000s (Balvig, 2004;Nielsen, 2006). In light of these changes in the political culture in Denmark, it ishardly surprising that possession of illegal drugs for personal consumption wouldbe re-penalized in 2004. The policy of de-penalization was an obvious example of awelfare approach to crime control from which the new penal policy was distancingitself. The use of illegal drugs was no longer seen as a symptom of more fundamentalsocial and cultural factors to be addressed through welfare and cultural policies, butas an individual choice by consumers. The fact that consuming illegal drugs wasbecoming increasingly common caused partly by a permissive welfare policy thathad removed responsibility from individuals and families and weakened formal andinformal control as well as self-restraint. In the parliamentary debate on the newlegislation, it was explicitly described as part of the new penal policy by membersof the ruling coalition.Then there is a third point, which is that now, and this is badly needed, as ageneral rule, a fine is issued to those found in possession of hash or ecstasy or thelike, no matter whether it is half a gram or two grams, and no matter whether it is forpersonal consumption or not. The law is the law, and the law should be respected.This is the way to build any proper society. It really has been utterly grotesque thatfor many years the legislation has clearly said that it is a criminal offence to smokehash, and yet those who use drugs have been told: yes, yes, you are not allowedto do it. And next time they do it: yes, yes, you are not allowed to do it. This isreally the same kind of laxness we have had toward juvenile delinquents for manyyears with charges dropped time after time. (The Office of the Folketing Hansard,2003–2004, p. 7651).In 2007, the construction of drug users as rational and self-responsible actorswas underscored when fines for possession of illegal drugs were raised. In 2004, theminimum fine was set at EUR 67 (for possession of up to 10 gr. cannabis) whichwas raised to EUR 269 in 2007. The Minister of Justice claimed that 18, 989 7 casesfor violating the Law on Euphoriant Substances in 2005 showed that a significantnumber of young people were still using illegal drugs. The Minister therefore wantedto increase fines to improve the deterrent effect.Illegal possession of euphoria-inducing drugs must be considered a criminaloffence that should have clear and noticeable consequences, even if the drug isonly for personal consumption. This, in the opinion of the Ministry, is not reflectedsufficiently in the existing level of fines. The punishment metered out shouldtherefore clarify that possession of illegal drugs for personal consumption is notacceptable. A more noticeable sanction will also hopefully contribute toward keepingparticularly young people from using illegal drugs. (Justice Department, 2007, p. 15f)FALL 2010795

HOUBORGThis policy was to remove any idea of normal, social —or recreational—druguse. The conception of drug use in the 1960s as a normal social phenomenon amongyoung people as a consequence of societal conditions that should be addressedprimarily through the welfare state, disappeared. From that point, any use of illegaldrugs was by definition an “abuse” (Matza & Morgan, 1995). The drug user wasno longer defined as a welfare subject, but a criminal offender, and following thetrend in penal policy—(not just in Denmark [Garland, 2001; Simon, 2007])—thecriminal offender was perceived as a rational actor who would either be deterredby punishment or would have to bear the cost of offending. In this way, the costs ofthe drug problem were redistributed from the collective to the individual.There was, however, one important exception to punishment for possession ofillegal drugs. While the majority of the population was considered to be amenableto economic and/or moral interpellation by the new drug policy, a small sectionof users were considered unable to act as rational and moral actors. This was thecategory of people with addiction problems. In 2007, when Parliament raised thelevel of fines, this possible exemption of economically deprived drug addicts waswritten into the letter of the law:Warnings can generally not be issued unless social conditionsmake it relevant to issue a warning, and possession of the drug is aconsequence of strong addiction caused by long-term and persistentabuse of illegal drugs. (Thomas Reuters Professional, 2007, p. 1)In this way, a well-known distinction between drug abusers and drug addictswas written into Danish drug legislation (Matza & Morgan, 1995). The distinctionwas based on whether individuals were attributed the will and the capability to actas law-abiding and moral subjects. On the one hand, drug abusers are consideredto be able, but not willing to act as morally accountable subjects, but instead abusethe community for the benefit of satisfying their egoistic desires. On the other hand,drug addicts may be willing, but unable to refrain from transgressing the legal andmoral order. The new legislation deleted the space between abuse, addiction andnormal social use of illegal drugs created in the 1960s, which had defined drugs asa “normal” social problem to be addressed by the welfare system. Striking a balancebetween control and welfare was now left at the discretion of the legal system, onthe basis of guidelines prepared by the Attorney General (Schmidt, 2008).DANISH DRUG POLICY—STILL AN AMBIVALENT BALANCE BETWEEN REPRESSION AND WELFAREIn the 1950s, a new drug problem emerged in Denmark, and the subsequentchanges in Danish drug policy made a distinction between drug addicts and thenew drug abusers in the vice districts of Copenhagen. This new drug problem wasperceived as a result of anomic conditions during and immediately after the SecondWorld War. The new abusers of illegal drugs constituted a limited population of796 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

CONTROL AND WELFARE IN DANISH DRUG POLICYsocially deprived and deviant people that was perceived in terms of social pathology,which was responded to through criminalization, while the ‘old’ medicine addictsremained the object of medical treatment. In the 1960s, a new drug problem onceagain led to a change in drug policy. This time, the spread of drug use as a normalsocial activity among young people rather than (just) a deviant social activityled to a redefinition of illegal drug use as a welfare problem. Drug use was nowconsidered to be one of many symptoms of general social and cultural changeaffecting the entire population. As with many other consequences of the societaltransformation, drug demand should be addressed through a reformed welfare state,which should make the population more resilient against various ‘social events’.On the other hand, drug supply was to be addressed through increased criminalsanctions. In the 2000s, drug use once again appeared to become a normal socialactivity among young people. However, unlike during the 1960s, when drug demandwas constituted as a welfare problem, the drug policy of the 2000s constituted it asa criminal problem. As in the 1960s, drug demand was seen as a consequence ofsocial change. Now, though, change was perceived in terms of the development ofa consumer society and an undermining of moral responsibility by the welfare stateand its de-penalization of illegal possession of drugs for personal consumption. Inorder to change the behavior of the young drug consumers and re-moralize societyagainst drugs, the Government decided to re-penalize possession of illegal drugsfor personal consumption. Whereas the drug policy since the 1960s differentiatedbetween the supply and demand sides of the drug problem and applied differentmeasures to each side, the new drug policy allows the legal system to determine ineach individual case who should be criminalized and who should not.This development should be seen within the context of the development ofDanish drug policy more generally. During the late 1990s, Danish drug treatmentsaw a substantial addition of new resources following an intense debate that beganin the early 1990s when the number of drug-related deaths increased rapidly. Theresult was an almost tripling of persons in drug treatment in Denmark from 1996to 2006 (Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2009). In 2003, an amendment to the Danish sociallegislation obliged the social authorities responsible for providing drug treatmentto initiate treatment within 14 days after a person has requested treatment. This hasimproved the possibilities for drug users to realize their social right to treatment.The role to be played by harm reduction has been central to the debate about Danishdrug policy since the early 1990s. In 2003, the Government presented an actionplan for Danish drug policy that stated its adherence to the central position thatharm reduction has had in Danish drug policy since the mid-1980s with easy accessto clean syringes and relatively low threshold methadone treatment (Regeringen,2003). Yet, it also stated that harm reduction should always be subordinated to whatFALL 2010797

HOUBORGit referred to as, “the fundamental prohibition against all non-medical use of illegaldrugs.” This meant that some harm reduction measures such as safe injection roomscould not be accepted, as they would undermine this prohibition. In 2007, however,the Government was forced to accept the introduction of substitution treatment withheroin for a relatively small number of drug users.In a European context, the legislative changes bring Danish drug policy closerto the mainstream of drug policies of the member states of the European Union andaway from the minority of countries that have more liberal drug policies, such as theNetherlands, Germany, and Portugal (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs andDrug Addiction [EMCDDA], 2005). Whereas other countries seem to be movingtoward less punitive drug policies by making sanctions less severe and puttingmore emphasis on welfare and treatment, Denmark has moved toward a morepunitive drug policy while prioritizing treatment. In this way, Danish drug policyhas come to resemble the drug policy of the majority of European countries, whichemphasizes that the use and possession of illegal drugs should remain illegal andsubject to sanctions, while allowing more scope for welfare and treatment in theState’s response to illegal drugs. While drug use in many countries for many yearshas been responded to as a crime, this was not the dominant approach in Denmarkfor 35 years.As in the 1950s, Danish drug policy in the 2000s once again operates with twocategories of drug users: drug abusers who willfully break the law, and drug addictswho may not willfully break the law. The middle ground between abuse and addictionof normal social use of illegal drugs has disappeared. The new drug policy has,to a larger extent, redistributed the costs of the drug problem from society to theindividual, and tipped the balance of control and welfare toward a clearer emphasison control. In this way, today, drug use in Denmark is more than before ‘governedthrough crime’ (2007), rather than through welfare.NOTES1. By 1953, 300 persons had been registered (Home Office, 1953, p. 66)2. In this way, the development of the Danish drug problem resembles thedevelopment of the drug problem in other countries (Glanz, 1994; Mold,2004;Stimson & Oppenheimer, 1982).3. This was partly a response to the rapid development of the new drug problem,and partly in order to align Danish legislation with the drug legislation inother Nordic countries (Folketingstidende, 1968, appendix A, 2846). The newlegislation was made by adding a new section on aggravated violations of thedrug legislation to the penal code (Section 191).4. The idea of normalization has become a governing image in Danish drug policy.In 2004, a White Paper on the future organization of the police in Denmark798 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

CONTROL AND WELFARE IN DANISH DRUG POLICYcontained the following paragraphs about the normalization of drug use amongyoung people:In the field of drugs in recent years, a trend toward ‘normalization’has been revealed in which large groups of young people practice“recreational use” of e.g. ecstasy, speed and cocaine at weekends.This trend is visible all over the country —also among so-calledsocially integrated young people. (Justitsministeriet, 2005, p. 15)5. Liberal is not used in the American sense of the word.6. The tendency toward more control and punishment and less welfare in penalpolicy began under the former Government led by the Social Democrats, andit should be mentioned that the Social Democrats also supported the new druglegislation.7. The number of cases had risen from 9549 in 2004. Naturally, this near doublingof the number of cases was attributed to the new zero-tolerance policy.REFERENCESAndersen, B. R.1971 Den nye socialreform. In O. Gade-Lorentzen, Henningensen, K., & Kruse,A-M. (Eds.), Socialpolitik, socialmedicin, socialpædagogik. København:Hans Reitzels forlag.Andersen, H.1965 Euforiserende stoffer. Politiet, Februar.Andersen, H.1970 Stofbrugere i de københavnske fængsler 1/7-1965 - 1/7-1969. København:Vestre Hospital og Sociologisk Institut, Københavns Universitet.Asmussen, V., & Jepsen, J.2007 Dansk narkotika-kontrolpolitik—aktuelt og historisk. In J. Sejer Pedersen(Ed.), Ret og Samfund 2007. København: Frydenlund.Balvig, F.2004 When law and order returned to Denmark. Journal of Scandinavian Studiesin Criminology and Crime Prevention, 5, 167–187.Balvig, F., Holmberg, L., & Sørensen, A.-S.2005 Ringstedforsøget. Livsstil og forebyggelse i lokalsamfundet. København:Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.Becker, H. S.1953 Becoming a marihuana user. The American Journal of Sociology, 59(3),235–242.Benoit, E.2003 Not just a matter of criminal justice: States, institutions, and NorthAmerican drug policy. Sociological Forum, 18(2), 269–294.FALL 2010799

HOUBORGBrydensholt1972 Narcotics and Punishment. [Narkotika og straf] Copenhagen:Juristforbundets Forlag.Cohen, P.1997 Crack in the Netherlands. Effective social policy is effective drug policy.In C. Reinarman & H. G. Levine (Eds), Crack in America. Demon Drugsand Social Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press, 214–224.Ege, P.2003 Hvorfor stiger unges forbrug af stoffer? Psykiatri information, 10(4), 12–14.Ellermann, M., & Jersild, J.1953 Bilag 2. Praktiske erfaringer vedrørende eufomanien i Storkøbenhavn.In Indenrigsministeret (Ed.), Betænkning om misbrug af euforiserendestoffer. København.European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)2005 Illicit Drug Use in the EU: Legislative Approaches. Lisbon: EuropeanMonitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.Garland, D.2001 The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society.Oxford: Claradon.Glanz, A.1994 The fall and rise of the general practitioner. In J. Strang & M. Gossop(Eds.), Heroin Addiction and Drug Policy. The British System. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 151–166.Grapendaal, M. L. E., & Nelen, H.1995 A world of opportunities. Lifestyle and economic behavior of heroinaddicts in Amsterdam. Albany: State University of New York Press.Gundelach, P., & Järvinen, M.2006 De danske europarekordindehavere. In P. Gundelach & M. Järvinen (Eds.),Unge, fester og alkohol. København: Akademisk Forlag, 11–26.Haastrup, S.1970 Hospitalsindlagte unge med medicinmisbrug. Ugeskrift for læger, 132(28),1327–1331.Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., Morgan, M., & Narusk, A.1997 The 1995 ESPAD Report. Stokholm: The European School Survey Projecton Alcohol and Other Drugs.Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., Morgan, M., & Narusk, A.2000 The 1999 Espad Report. Stokholm: The European School Survey Projecton Alcohol and Other Drugs.800 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

CONTROL AND WELFARE IN DANISH DRUG POLICYHolstein, B. E.1972 Spredning af stoffer. In J. Winsløw (Ed.), Ungdom og stofbrug. København:Jørgen Paludans Forlag.Houborg, E.2006 Stofmisbrug, metadon, subjektivering. Historiske og aktuelle fremstillingeraf stofmisbrug. København: Sociologisk Institut.Houborg, E.2008 Youth, drugs and the welfare state. In V. Asmussen, B. Bagga & E. Houborg(Eds.), Drug Policy. History, Theory and Consequences. Aarhus: AarhusUniversity Press.Jepsen, J.1966 Marihuana i kriminologisk og juridisk belysning. In E. Thygesen (Ed.), Ermarihuana skadelig? (169–248). København: Stig Vendelkærs Forlag.Jepsen, J.1967 Efterskrift. In P. Laurie (Ed.), Fakta om narkotika.. København: ChristianEjlers’ Forlag, 174–188.Jepsen, J.1969 Stofmisbrug og social isolation. Mentalhygiejne(1), 8–12.Justitsministeriet2005 Fremtidens politi.Kontaktudvalget1969 Redegørelse for omfanget af en række akutte foranstaltninger modungdomsnarkomanien. København: Alkohol- og narkotikarådet.Kontaktudvalget1970 Redegørelse II om visse sider af stofmisbrugsproblemets udvikling ogforslag til påtrængende foranstaltninger. København: Kontaktudvalgetvdr ungdomsnarkomanien.Kontaktudvalget1972 Redegørelse III om prævention af stofmisbrug. København:Kontaktudvalget vedørende ungdomsnarkomanien.Leuw, E.1991 Drugs and drug policy in the Netherlands. Crime and Justice, 14,229–276.Lorentsen, H.2001 Fines for young drug abusers. [Bøder til unge misbrugere]. July 11. BT,p.15.Lykkeberg, R.2008 Kampen om sandhederne—om det kulturelle borgerskabs storhed og fald.København: Gyldendal.FALL 2010801

HOUBORGMacGregor, S.1999a Drug treatment systems and policy frameworks: A comparative socialpolicy perspective. European Addiction Research(5), 118–125.MacGregor, S.1999b Medicine, custom or moral fibre: Policy responses to drug misuse. In N.South (Ed.), Drugs. Cultures, Controls and Everyday Life. London: Sage.Manniche, E., & Høgh, E.1967 Hashbrug blandt dansk storbyungdom. Sociologiske meddelelser(12),61–66.Manniche, E., & Høgh, E.1968 Unge mænd og kvinders holdninger m.h.t. hash. Tidsskrift forsygeplejersker, 68, 383–385.Manniche, E., Holstein, B. E., & Boolsen, M. W.1972a Stofbrug blandt skoleungdom i Roskilde 1972. København: Kontaktudvalgetvedrørende ungdomsnarkomanien.Manniche, E., Holstein, B. E., & Boolsen, M. W.1972b En empirisk og teoretisk analyse af stofbrug blandt unge på Bornholm1972. København: Kontaktudvalget vedrørende ungdomsnarkomanien.Manniche, E., & Wolf, P.1969 Hash og narkotika. Mentalhygiejne(1).Matza, D., & Morgan, P.1995 Controlling drug use: The great prohibition. In T. G. Blomberg & S. Cohen(Eds.), Punishment and Social Control. Essays in Honor of Sheldon L.Messinger. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 229–241.Measham, F., Aldrige, J., & Parker, H.2001 Dancing on drugs: Risk, health and hedonism in the British club scene.London: Free Association Books.Measham, F., & Brain, K.2005 ‘Binge’ drinking, British alcohol policy and the new culture of intoxication.Crime, Media, Culture, 1(3), 262–283.Mold, A.2004 The ‘British System’ of heroin addiction treatment and the opening of drugdependence units, 1965–1970. Social History of Medicine, 17(3),501–517.Nielsen, B. G.2006 Straf. Hvad ellers? København: Tiderne Skifter.Nimb, M.1961 Narkotika, sovemidler og stimulanser. København: Berlingske Forlag.802 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

CONTROL AND WELFARE IN DANISH DRUG POLICYNimb, M.1972 Misbrug af euforiserende stoffer i Danmark i 1950erne medefterundersøgelse i 1972. København: Københavns Universitet.O’Malley, P., & Mugford, S.1991 The demand for intoxicating commodities. Implications for the war ondrugs. Social Justice, 18(4), 49–75.Østergaard2007 Youth binge drinking and the parents paradox. Copenhagen: Department ofSociology, University of Copenhagen.Regeringen2003 Kampen mod narko - handlingsplan mod narkotikamisbrug. København:Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet.Rold Andersen, B.1971 Grundprincipper i socialpolitikken. Albertslund: Nyt socialt bibliotek. Detdanske forlag.Schmidt, H.2008 Sanktionspåstande mv. i narkotikasager.Simon, J.2007 Governing through crime. How the war on crime transformed Americandemocracy and created a culture of fear. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Smart, C.1984 Social policy and drug addiction: A critical study of policy development.British Journal of Addiction, 79, 31–39.Stimson, G. V., & Oppenheimer, E.1982 Heroin addiction. Treatment and control in Britain. London: TavistockPublications.Sundhedsstyrelsen2000 Unges brug af illegale rusmidler - en kvalitativ undersøgelse. København:Sundhedsstyrelsen.Sundhedsstyrelsen2009 Narkotikasituationen I Danmark. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen.The Home Office1953 White paper on abuse of euphoriant substances. [Betænkning ommisbrug af euforiserende stoffer] Copenhagen.The Office of the Folketing Hansard1968 The Danish parliment inThe Union of Police Chiefs2002 Ecstasy-rapport. The Union of Police Chiefs.FALL 2010803

HOUBORGThomas Reuters Professional2007 Law 2007-06-06 no. 526 on changes of the Act of Euphoriant Substances[Lov 2007-06-06 nr. 526 om ændring af lov om euforiserende stoffer].Copenhagen: Thomas Reuters Professional.Turner, B. S.1993 Contemporary problems in the theory of cItizenship. In B. S. Turner (Ed.),Citizenship and Social Theory. London: Sage Publishers, 1–18.Ulff-Møller, B.1969 Forbruget af euforiserende stoffer blandt unge i foråret 1968. SocialtTidsskrift, 45, 87–112.Ulff-Møller, B.1971 Udbredelse af stofbrug blandt danske skoleelever. København:Kontaktudvalget vedrørende ungdomsnarkomanien.Ulff-Møller, B., & Jørgensen, F.1971 Nogle resultater fra census-undersøgelser af stofmisbrugere på sygehuse,på børne- og ungdomsforsorgens institutioner, i fængsler og indenforDansk Forsorgsselskab. Socialt Tidsskrift(1–2).Ulff-Møller, B., & Jørgensen, F.1971 To modeller for udvikling af stobrug blandt skoleelever i Danmark. SocialtTidsskrift, 47(1–2), 427–438.Ulff-Møller, B., & Jørgensen, F.1972 Spredning af stofbrug blandt danske skoleelever fra 1968 til 1970. In J.Winsløw (Ed.), Ungdom og Stofbrug. København: Jørgen Paludans Forlag.Vennekilde, L.V.2003 Drug policy has become an ideological battleground. [Narkopolitik erblevet ideologisk kampplads]. Politiken, November 24. p. 4.Villadsen, K.2003 Det sociale arbejdes genealogi. Københavns Universitet, København.Voss, T., & Ziirsen, M.1971 Stofmisbrug—en samfundssygdom. København: Thanning & AppelsForlag.Winsløw, J. H.1991 Videnskabelig hverdag. En sociologisk undersøgelse af forholdet mellempraksis og selvforståelse i empiriske videnskaber. Holte: ForlagetSOCPOL.Østergaard2007 Youth, binge drinking and the parents’ paradox. Unpublished PhD thesis,University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.804 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES