Legaliseringsguiden, genomgång av ... - PDF Archive

Professor Ted Goldberg gör en jämförelse med antalet problematiska konsumenter mellan våra
länder:
“
–
trots avkriminalisering av cannabis, och trots tillgång till cannabis i coffee shops och
trots alla andra harm reduction-åtgärder som två generationer holländare levt med
sedan barnsben, visar tillgänglig statistik att antalet problematiska konsumenter per
capita i Nederländerna är på samma nivå som i Sverige. (Goldberg, 2005, s 311f)
— Professor Ted Goldberg (2012) [22] ”
Och Mark Haden noterar att Nederländerna har färre intravenösa brukare än Sverige och att Sverige
har fler överdoser och missbrukare smittade med Hepatit C.
The Dutch vs the Swedes
“
Social factors are more important indicators than criminal sanctions in determining
levels of drug abuse. This conclusion is apparent in the debate between Sweden and the
Netherlands. These two countries are the two extremes in Europe. The Dutch are the
most liberal and the Swedes are the most repressive in their drug policies. Both
countries have very low addiction rates (the Netherlands are slightly lower) in spite of
their contrasting policies. Both countries are wealthy welfare states and have a high
degree of social cohesion. It is predictable that they would both experience limited
problems. One of the most significant differences between these two countries is the
Swedes have an overdose rate which is 3 time higher than the Netherlands (1.6 vs .5 per
100,000 pop). In Amsterdam drug use is decreasing in Sweden drug use is increasing.
The Netherlands have the lowest rate of drug injection in Europe. The Swedes have the
highest HEP C infection rate in Europe (92% of IDU’s). The Netherlands used to be the
radical amongst the Europeans and now that most of Europe is changing, Sweden is now
the radical of this group.
— Drogföreläsaren Mark Haden [23]
”
Debattklimatet
Ted Goldberg beskriver Sveriges historiska syn på narkotikafrågans båda läger och debattklimatet:
ARE THERE ONLY TWO CHOICES?
Part of the reason so many people are advocating some form of legalisation is to be
found in the polarisation which has marked the drug debate. The alternatives have been
reduced to two: either you support the current drug policies or you're a 'drug liberal'.
People have been led to believe that there are no other alternatives. In Sweden, for
instance, one of the leading voices in the drug debate, Nils Bejerot, writes:
“
After 12 years of debate there are still some points to be settled. How prevention and
narcotics policy in general shall be drawn up (strict, restrictive and consistent or lax,
liberal and inconsistent) ... (Bejerot, 1979, p. 8).
That drug policy could be formulated from a wider range of alternatives appears to be
out of the question.
When an increasing number of people feel that drug policies have failed, and at the same
time have been led to believe that the only alternative is legalisation, what remains
other than to be for legalisation?
Presumably 'either/or-thinking' on drug policy is based on the fear that any questioning
of current policy will weaken resistance to narcotics and lead to more drug misuse. In
Sweden, anyone who questions the Swedish model runs the risk of being the target of
”
21