Alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco and gambling

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! The Foreign Affairs Committee sprinted in the debate. I apologize for arriving late here to participate in the important debate on alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco, and gambling.

Reports in the Riksdag often bear complicated names, and it is not always clear what the matter is about. But in this case, it is very clear. The report is titled Alcohol, narcotics, doping, tobacco and gambling, and that is exactly what the report is about. Clear and distinct!

I shall now, Madam Speaker, attempt to be as clear and explicit as possible regarding the Moderaternas position on these issues. Due to time constraints, however, I will only have the opportunity to make a few points.

That these questions are extremely important is my first clear message. Unfortunately, I do not think the questions have received the attention they deserve in the Swedish public debate.

Not least, this applies to the drug policy and addiction care. I am therefore glad that these issues have been moved up on the political agenda, partly thanks to our joint work in the Social Affairs Committee during the last parliamentary term. We succeeded in highlighting Sweden's frighteningly high drug-related mortality as well as the related issue of comorbidity. In this context, comorbidity refers to when individuals suffer from both addiction and have another psychiatric diagnosis.

To reduce Sweden's very high drug-related mortality, to simply save lives, a long series of measures and reforms are required. We need to develop the preventive work so that fewer get trapped in abuse and addiction. We need to ramp up the harm reduction work, and above all, we need to strengthen addiction care in terms of both content and accessibility.

Specifically, we Moderates have pushed for, among other things, increased access to the overdose antagonist naloxone, the introduction of a national overdose strategy, and strengthened access to care including LARO, which means medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction.

Many of the ideas and proposals that we Moderates have put forward are now included in the Narcotics Inquiry's final report, which is titled We can do better! - and that is exactly it, Madam Speaker. We can do better. Sweden can do so incredibly much better. Now, municipalities, regions and, of course, the government have an important task to take the inquiry's proposals and ambitions further.

An important but difficult and complex issue is also to ensure that persons with substance abuse problems and addiction are given coherent care and treatment. The comorbidity investigation's proposals are important to realize this clear ambition from the government.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to alcohol policy, the Moderates and I have long pushed for a proper evaluation of Swedish alcohol policy. We need to evaluate how today's alcohol policy works and how the various regulatory measures deliver, whether they are effective or not, in order to be able to shape future policy.

That is why I am pleased that the government in February appointed an inquiry with exactly this mandate, but also with a significantly broader mandate to see how the current system for monitoring public health policy can be further developed by being supplemented with health economic analyses. This is excellent. To achieve results, we must calculate the cost of various modifiable risk factors for ill health as well as the cost and effect of different interventions. This is fundamental for a results-oriented policy that provides good health effects but also value for money for the taxpayers.

An area where I hope the government can deliver results soon is in the issue of farm sales.

I think it is absolutely fantastic to see the emergence of a large number of beverage entrepreneurs all over Sweden who are creating jobs, strengthening the tourism industry, and actually also contributing to the development of the Swedish alcohol culture.

As a population, we have moved in a positive direction away from binge drinking towards a significantly more responsible and moderate consumption. This positive development is, among other things, thanks to Sweden's beverage entrepreneurs, who now deserve better conditions to develop their businesses. Therefore, farm sales are important.

Madam Speaker! I also want to raise the tobacco and nicotine policy.

We consider it important to have a policy that makes a clear distinction between the harm of different products and that focuses on preventive work and on reducing harm. Therefore, a new overall goal for the ANDTS policy and a new ANDTS strategy are needed.

Now, an investigation is looking at a very long series of questions within the tobacco and nicotine area. There are two questions that the investigator is looking at that I particularly want to highlight.

One is the question of banning and punishing the possession of tobacco and nicotine products. Banning possession is an important part of protecting children and young people.

The second question I want to highlight is that the investigation should analyze whether a regulation of the maximum permitted nicotine content should be introduced. This was something we Moderates highlighted when the red-green government in the previous mandate period presented its proposition on stricter regulations for new nicotine products. At that time, we said no to introducing intrusive proposals on flavor bans. Instead, we emphasized the need to investigate limitations regarding the maximum permitted nicotine content in tobacco-free nicotine products.

Madam Speaker! Flavor is not harmful. Nicotine, on the other hand, is both addictive and hazardous to health. Therefore, it is good that the question of limiting the nicotine content is being investigated now, especially in light of the fact that the nicotine content in white snus is many times higher than in traditional snus.

In conclusion, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

In this speech, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Johan Hultberg for hurrying here to give his speech so that we could listen to it.

Last year, Madam Speaker, I devoted my entire speech to the issue of farm sales. Furthermore, I asked questions about it to the various members from the Tidö parties.

We have a strong majority in this assembly today to introduce farm sales - if one can believe what the parties said during the election campaign. In that case, both the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna and Sverigedemokraterna and of course the Centerpartiet stand behind the issue of farm sales. It is an issue that we in Centern have pushed for nearly 20 years, but during that time we have gained more and more supporters.

In December 2021, the third investigation on the sale of farms was completed. In June 2022, the referral process was finished. In October 2022, this government took office, and now we find ourselves in March 2024. The last day for submitting propositions for the spring term occurred recently, and we can state that no proposition on the sale of farms arrived this spring either.

Since all parties in the cooperation and also the Center Party in the chamber stand behind the sale of farms, one naturally wonders what it is that is taking so much time. Why is there no government bill on the sale of farms? The investigation contained both well-founded analyses and ready-made proposals for constitutional amendments. So my question is: What is it that is taking so much time?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Member Bergenblock for his persistent commitment to the introduction of farm sales. It is a commitment that unites us two and our parties. The Moderates are, just like the Centre Party, very keen that we should carry out this reform, which is so important not least for the Swedish countryside, for the beverage entrepreneurs whom I praised in my speech, and for the opportunity to create jobs and develop these important industries.

What is challenging with farm sales is that the prerequisite for the broad majority that Bergenblock reports and refers to in his statement is that farm sales shall be introduced while Systembolaget's monopoly is preserved. In that case, it immediately becomes much more difficult from an EU law perspective. I feel, just like Member Bergenblock, incredibly secure that this is possible, as the investigation also showed.

Unfortunately, it does not become at all the permissive and generous model that I and the Moderaterna had hoped for. The model that the investigation proposes contains limitations regarding volume and how large a producer is allowed to be, but also limitations of the volume at each point of sale. I would have wished that that type of limitations were not needed, but they clearly are so that the system is not considered to challenge EU law and come into conflict with the exception Sweden has that enables the monopoly.

This is the long but also the short answer to the member's question about why it is taking so long. The EU law analysis and the preparatory work in connection with it has continued at the Ministry of Social Affairs. I am just as impatient as member Bergenblock. I often kick the minister on the shins and hope that the issue will move forward. I feel confident that a proposal for a referral to the Council of Legislation will soon be submitted in the matter.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I am not a violent person, but I would nevertheless like to urge the member to kick that shin a little harder so that we can move forward in this matter.

I understand from what the member says that there is a certain split between the government parties - possibly between those who are for and against in this issue - completely independent of what they said during the election campaign, as all were for the introduction of farm sales.

There is no doubt that there are challenges. Two major parts are addressed in the investigation: the public health aspect and the question of the retail monopoly. Regarding the public health aspect, it is stated in the investigation that it will have a minimal impact on public health. Regarding the question of the retail monopoly, this is examined very carefully and it is concluded that the retail monopoly is not challenged by the form of sufficiently restrictive farm sales proposed in the investigation.

Thus, Madam Speaker, it becomes a bit difficult to understand why the Ministry of Social Affairs should need to sit and dwell on this issue and investigate the same thing over and over again. What is needed now is a legislative proposal, a notification to the EU Commission that this is underway, and thereafter a government bill on the floor of the Riksdag. It will not get any better by waiting.

From the government's side, one will eventually be forced to take a position. I and many with me are waiting persistently for this, not least small-scale producers of alcoholic beverages, consumers and people out in Sweden's countryside who see that this is an opportunity for the development of business activities in the countryside.

Therefore, I do not conclude with a question but with an appeal: See to it that you get this issue moving so that we can finally get farm sales in Sweden!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Bergenblock does not need to wait for the government's position. The government has been very clear that we are to introduce farm sales. The Prime Minister has raised it in his government statement, and several ministers have stated that this is an issue that is important for the government and that a bill will come. The more detailed questions as to why the final proposal is delayed should rather be directed to the responsible minister, who is responsible for the preparation of the matter.

I feel confident that a referral to the Council of Legislation will be issued in the near future. Several of us representing the Tidö parties have together, among other things, written a debate article where we are clear that we envision a proposal being able to enter into force during 2025. It is with this ambition that I and the Moderaterna have entered to continue working to produce a finished proposal that can win broad support here in the Riksdag and also can be accepted by the EU Commission.

I and Member Bergenblock, the Moderates and the Centre Party, agree that farm sales are an important reform to create better conditions for Sweden's beverage entrepreneurs, for the tourism industry, and not least for the countryside. It is precisely for that reason that I will, of course, continue to push for such a proposal to be put forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now going to debate, over the next hour, issues concerning public health. I believe that we politicians are actually quite in agreement that we want all people to be able to live long and healthy lives and be able to make their own wise life choices.

When it comes to alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco and nicotine products and gambling, we are also likely in agreement that it is possible to prevent ill health and other problems. The debate is about how we do this in the best way. We have already received an insight into how different parties reason regarding these issues.

I think the questions we need to ask ourselves are:

How much collective responsibility should we take in the preventive work, and how much should we leave to the individuals themselves?

How do we help children and young people with healthy habits?

How should we relate to the strong economic forces that make money from individuals making choices that do not benefit either their own health or public health?

How should we legislate so that municipalities and authorities can work as effectively as possible with their mandates?

How can we best join forces with civil society, for example sports clubs and other organizations that every day make invaluable contributions to public health?

How shall we provide healthcare with the best conditions to work health-promoting and disease-preventing, and to be able to cure and alleviate when one has become ill?

Madam Speaker! Faced with the many questions, we must not forget that political decisions make a difference and that during the year that has passed since we last stood here in the chamber and discussed these issues, several pieces of good news have arrived that can guide us forward in this work.

A good piece of news is that Systembolaget continues to be the company that the Swedish people have the greatest trust in, according to Medieakademin. This clearly shows that the Swedish people stand behind the restrictive alcohol policy and that Systembolaget manages the very difficult balancing act it entails: on the one hand, providing a wide assortment of alcoholic beverages to consumers, and on the other hand, limiting the harmful effects of alcohol.

What Systembolaget does, no other company could do. Companies driven by profit interest naturally want the customer to shop, preferably a bit more, even if it is not needed. Companies driven by profit interest have no interest in informing that the products they sell are actually not good for the customer's health.

From the Social Democrats' side, we argue that all proposals that threaten to undermine Systembolaget's position and Sweden's opportunities to independently steer the development in the alcohol policy area should be implemented with very great caution.

Another piece of good news during the year is what Member of Parliament Johan Hultberg has just touched upon, namely that the Narcotics Inquiry has submitted its final report, with the encouraging headline We can do better!

The report contains proposals for more effective drug prevention work and proposals for a reformed and modernized addiction and dependency care. These are reforms that are needed, and we hope that the government intends to bring the narcotics investigation here to the Riksdag for a decision. Unfortunately, it is essentially empty on the Ministry of Social Affairs' list of planned propositions.

It is also good news that the Medical Products Agency recently approved that naloxone may be sold over the counter at pharmacies. It is a medication that quickly reverses the effects of an overdose. But that is not enough. If deaths as a result of overdoses are to decrease, naloxone must become available to more than just those who personally go in and buy an ampoule at the pharmacy. According to the Medicines Act, it may not be shared further. The law must be changed so that more, not least those who work in facilities where they daily encounter drug users at risk of overdose, get access to naloxone.

This was good news. But as politicians, we cannot turn a blind eye to news about things that threaten to worsen public health in Sweden. One such thing is that Germany is now legalizing cannabis. This means that the availability of cannabis increases significantly in Sweden's geographical vicinity. It gives wind in the sails for those who want to allow cannabis in Sweden, but the harmful effects of cannabis use receive no significant attention.

Another piece of bad news is that the dramatic increase in new nicotine products also continues. That is not good. On the other hand, it is good that more people are drawing attention to the health risks with these products and want an investigation into a limitation of the nicotine content.

It is also good if we see through the arguments that white snus and e-cigarettes would be a Swedish way to get people to stop smoking or to stop using brown snus. There are few habitual smokers or average users of brown snus who are reached by the TikTok advertisements for white snus with the flavor "blushy berry" in a rhinestone-studded tin. The white snus is marketed towards a young target group that is not, and for many years has not been, any major consumers of tobacco. In the background is the same old tobacco industry that has invented new ways to make money from its tobacco by extracting pure nicotine from it.

We Social Democrats believe that the goal of the policy must be that more people should completely abstain from tobacco use and that the use of tobacco-free nicotine products should also decrease.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it is good that we today have a broader discussion on gambling addiction. We have received new reports on how online casinos try to get those who already gamble very much to gamble a little more and to pay a little more. We need to monitor that. But we also hear the increasingly clear alarms that other forms of gaming at the computer also create addictions, just like social media. We as politicians need to monitor that because we can also see that there is a risk that it leads to or reinforces other ill health.

Madam Speaker! I naturally support all the Social Democrats' motions in this matter, but in order to gain time, I move for approval only of reservation 2 regarding Swedish alcohol policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! What pleases me so much in this debate is that we seem to have very much in common across party lines. It is very positive, but there are, of course, certain issues where we do not agree with each other.

What we from the Sweden Democrats are reacting to regarding the Social Democrats' policy in this area is, among other things, the snus issue, which the member touched upon at the end of their speech.

The Social Democrats propose that the government should take measures that result in more people completely abstaining from tobacco use and the use of tobacco-free nicotine products. Quite concretely, this has involved proposals for flavor bans. These have been proposed both in motions and in government bills that have been rejected.

What the Social Democrats propose could unfortunately have consequences here as well. As we see it, there is a reason why Sweden is doing so well regarding the low number of lung cancer cases and that we have so few smokers. Cancer is among the worst things one can get that is related to nicotine products.

My question is: Do the Social Democrats see any problem with their policy destroying the incentive to switch from a more harmful nicotine product to a significantly less harmful product? The statistics comparing Sweden with other countries still show that it is obviously something we are doing completely right here. At the same time, I should add that the total nicotine use is not significantly lower here, but it lies somewhere at the average level.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! The difference that the member describes regarding cancer cases and health-related problems here in Sweden related to smoking is older than white snus. It is the effect of many years of restrictive tobacco policy.

For many years, there have been very good smoking cessation products on the Swedish market, which many smokers have received help from. It is, of course, also true that some use brown snus to quit smoking.

But I cannot understand that the proponents of white snus do not see that white snus is not marketed as a smoking cessation product. This is used as an argument in the political discussion, but it is marketed towards young people – to a large extent girls – who have not used brown snus before and who also do not smoke to any significant extent.

It is not middle-aged male snus users that are reached with rhinestone-studded cans and flavors like "peach" or raspberry. They are not the target group. Instead, the advertising with young influencers is niche-targeted towards young people. It is them that these products are marketed towards.

I think one could dare to admit that it is about the tobacco industry having large economic interests to make money from its product development instead of hypocritically claiming that it is tobacco cessation products we are talking about.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that something that we from the Sweden Democrats' side can agree on is the issue of marketing. We are clearly prepared to review the potentially aggressive marketing towards children.

But I cannot agree on the question of taste. For the first thing, I don't really see the logic in that it would be the flavors that attract people to nicotine products, given that there are so many nicotine-free alternatives that are probably much tastier, for example candy, chewing gum, or whatever it may be.

Secondly, I question that young people would have a significantly different taste than adults when it comes to what one considers good. I do not believe there is any evidence for that. Pure candy flavors might be appealing to very small children, but they are not the target group, but rather possibly relatively young teenagers. I do not really believe that they would be more attracted to a flavor like Hubba Bubba than menthol or some other more classic flavor.

We do not say that this is a weaning product. We say that it is an important alternative to smoking. If one then wants the positive trend in Sweden to continue, it should reasonably also continue to come more and better alternatives that attract more people away from smoking.

We will, of course, work to ensure that more people do not start with nicotine at all, and there we are, as said, willing to review such things as apply to marketing, nicotine content, age limits, and so on. But if you Social Democrats want the positive trend to continue, why do you want to make the supply worse and dampen the relatively positive incentives that exist on the market?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not primarily about the flavors - it is a quagmire of a discussion. The flavors are part of the question of how these products are marketed. It is part of the fact that these products are aimed at a target group that will not primarily use them to quit tobacco products.

The tastes have, in many respects, a precise accuracy towards a young target group. I do not quite share the view that taste preferences do not differ between different population groups. But, as was said, that is not the big question.

The big question is how these products – in the way they are marketed and under the regulatory framework they are covered by – actually reach young people, who begin using them without having smoked and without having used brown snus.

It is good to have many good ways to be able to stop using brown snus and cigarettes. It is fantastically good that we have researched and tested smoking cessation products that have been sold in every pharmacy in the country for decades. They are effective. They are good. They can be used.

Those who, at an adult age, think that white snus might be the way to quit with the brown pellet under the lip should naturally be able to use it. But that is not how these products are used. Those are not the people who are the target group. It is just a political argument, and it is hypocrisy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report. The Christian Democrats stand for a solidary, public health-based and restrictive Swedish drug and alcohol policy. All people shall be able to grow up and live without the risk of being harmed due to their own or others' use of alcohol, drugs, doping agents or tobacco or gambling.

We safeguard Systembolaget's sales monopoly as well as an active price policy with excise taxes on alcohol, which makes alcohol more expensive than other beverages, in order to thereby promote moderate alcohol habits. Together with strong preventive work, these measures can reduce the medical and social harmful effects of alcohol, which are extensive, as well as the related health-economic costs.

Within primary care, the issue of addiction should be a natural part of the care's responsibility for public health work.

I am very pleased that Social Minister Jakob Forssmed was able to announce this week that naloxone will soon be available for over-the-counter sale at Swedish pharmacies. It will save lives. Making naloxone available through over-the-counter status is an important step in the government's work to reduce drug-related deaths. The Medical Products Agency has decided to grant an application from a company that supplies naloxone as a nasal spray for over-the-counter sale. Sweden will then become one of the first countries in Europe where this is possible. This is a very good and life-saving measure.

Madam Speaker! More effective health interventions through health economic analyses are important, we in the Christian Democrats believe. We also take a positive stance toward an ANDTS strategy. Therefore, in February 2024, a special investigator was tasked with submitting appropriate proposals on how the current follow-up system regarding health policy can be further developed by being supplemented with health economic analyses.

The purpose is to be able to follow the development of society's costs for modifiable risk factors for ill health, as well as to be able to evaluate major initiatives within public health policy and be able to demonstrate the benefits of these for both individuals and society.

Madam Speaker! All nicotine products are highly addictive and affect the brain development of children and young people. Nicotine products can harm fetuses during pregnancy, and they can have negative effects on, among other things, the heart and blood vessels.

In the first major survey regarding tobacco-free or white snus, CAN found that use is as common among women as among men and that it is most common among persons aged 17-29 years.

The investigation shows that many young people start using tobacco-free snus without having used tobacco or other nicotine products previously. This suggests that tobacco-free snus is partially reaching new groups, which represents a new public health challenge. Children and young people run a greater risk of harm from nicotine use. It is therefore necessary to start looking at specific preventive measures for this group and at measures for their relatives.

The increasing use of tobacco and nicotine products among children and young people is worrying. We need to look at further measures. It is important to somehow stop this development and to safeguard children's right to freedom from nicotine and tobacco.

Alcohol can be a source of joy and pleasure but also of great costs. Illness, crime, and accidents can be related to alcohol. This is estimated to cost our society over 100 billion kronor per year today. But behind the costs there are also countless human destinies.

The Christian Democrats want a drug-free society and work to stop all tendencies towards drug liberalization. The efforts should primarily be directed at those who profit from drugs, smugglers and sellers. Preventive work is needed, good care and treatment if one has become trapped in addiction, and a crime-fighting effort from customs and police. Until now, society has often lagged a step behind, but now it is in the process of catching up to some extent. We do not give up the fight against the trend that we see.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's narcotics policy needs to be developed. Mortality must decrease. Care must become better. The work of reducing both supply and demand must become more effective. The stigmatization of people who have an addiction must decrease, preferably cease.

More and more often we hear about the simple measures that are claimed to solve the problems. The golden ticket to a society where significantly fewer people suffer badly because of drugs simply does not exist. The solution lies rather in us ensuring that we understand how complex reality is. It is about adjusting legislation, enforcement, preventive methods, and coordination within care and treatment until we see a better result. There we must hold on and continue to carry out our measures.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Politics surrounding alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco, and gambling with money is interesting to discuss. These are things that are important in the sense that they directly affect people's lives and sometimes can actually destroy people's lives completely. In the worst case, they can lead to death, something that unfortunately is still all too common. It is therefore very pleasing that we can still see a fairly large consensus in this chamber, not least between the Tidö parties.

Something that rarely ruins lives is snus and other smoke-free nicotine products. On the contrary, they can be a salvation for many who are to get out of their addiction to cigarettes. Here, it is very important that Sweden adopts a strong harm-reduction principle. We have, in fact, parties that want to push for a flavor ban for tobacco products. Then we have the eternal EU that we must defend ourselves against. They want, among other things, to control which products are to be allowed to be sold but also minimum levels for taxation.

It is also worth mentioning the ANDTS strategy because we still seem to follow the old strategy where cigarettes and snus are more or less equated. As is known, there is an announcement of a new ANDTS strategy, and we see a need to get this settled.

The Sweden Democrats are very pleased that we raised the excise tax on cigarettes and lowered it on snus. It is a tax shift for public health and a clear difference from what the previous government did. We must protect the alternatives to smoking precisely from a harm-minimization perspective. We in Sweden have the EU's lowest smoking rate per capita while, as I also mentioned earlier, our total consumption of tobacco and nicotine products is at the EU average. This indicates that we are doing something right.

With this said, nicotine is far from some kind of health product. The health risks are, on the contrary, very well documented, and it is alarming, as several have pointed out previously, that at least more young people are choosing to use the products.

The Sweden Democrats are therefore open to reviewing the marketing directed at young people. But we are also open to reviewing the question of a nicotine content for the products in question. We do not believe that a flavor ban would help. It is somewhat naive to believe that it is the flavor that drives the young towards nicotine. Then, it is probably wrong to believe that their taste preferences differ significantly from those of adults.

It is absolutely a worthy goal that significantly fewer people should be nicotine users in Sweden. But that ambition must not be realized with more smoking as a result. Then it becomes completely counterproductive.

Another issue is that the number of people treated for the diagnosis of gambling addiction has unfortunately increased during the last decade. The statistics are limited, but it should at least be something that captures our attention.

A good deal can be done on the market side regarding the issue of gambling. A concrete and important measure that we have taken is, of course, the mentioned credit ban for gambling with money. The new ban shall, among other things, mean that gambling with money may not be paid for with credit cards. In this way, we counteract people falling into a difficult indebtedness that can lead further down into a negative spiral of behavior.

The situation on the gambling market before the deregulation and the new legislation was unsustainable. Certain parts of the market were in the hands of unregulated actors, and the Sweden Democrats support the model with a licensing system that is now in place on the Swedish gambling market. That is also why we are so keen on what is called channeling, that is, the proportion of gambling that takes place via licensed gambling companies that follow the rules for, among other things, consumer protection. For example, it is forbidden for gambling companies with a Swedish license to offer or provide credit for stakes in gambling. But it can also be about marketing, duty of care, and so on.

Then I shall address doping. According to the Public Health Agency, approximately 1 percent of men and less than half a percent of women in Sweden have at some point tried anabolic androgenic steroids, AAS. In the National Association for Alcohol and Drug Information's national school survey, about 1 percent of students in grade 9 and grade 2 of upper secondary school answer that they have at some point tried anabolic steroids. Now, the amount of users seems to be more or less stable over the decades, but it would not surprise me if we see an increase as a result of a cultural shift.

Even though there is more information than ever on the internet, there are also more than ever who are users and who earn money by glorifying this anabolic lifestyle on the internet. There are millions of views for videos where one more or less normalizes this or at least presents anabolic steroids as a reasonable alternative provided that it contributes to the individual's aesthetic goals.

Fatal overdoses can occur. Common side effects are severe acne, high blood pressure, increased cholesterol, elevated blood count, liver damage, and fertility problems. Serious cardiovascular diseases also occur, as well as gynecomastia in men. In that case, we are not talking about muscles but about what can be likened to female breasts. I do not believe that is the intended effect for the vast majority.

Here I also want to make a joint submission that we perhaps need to get a better grasp of the statistics and be prepared for the fact that a need for a fairly extensive information campaign may arise.

Last but not least, I shall address the narcotics. Sweden has failed when it comes to narcotics. The addiction and narcotics situation therefore needs to be mapped out, and it is necessary to investigate in an overall and in-depth manner what the situation looks like in Sweden. This was partially done by the Crime Prevention Council in its report Narcotics Markets. There, it was estimated that the Swedish narcotics market turns over between 3.7 and 9.2 billion kronor annually. These are, of course, enormous sums. Therefore, we believe that a well-thought-out and clear strategy regarding narcotics is needed.

Future drug policy shall be based on the latest research, with a focus on harm minimization rather than ideology. In this way, we create concrete and effective legislation that ultimately saves lives.

As previously mentioned, the government has announced that naloxone will soon be sold over the counter at Swedish pharmacies. We think that is good. It is also a concrete measure to reduce drug-related deaths.

Madam Speaker! We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 9, which concerns mapping the current drug situation in Sweden.

In this speech, Jonas Andersson (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

I want to highlight the people who, in our society, every day in their work or through voluntary work, work to support and help people who in one way or another have fallen into a dependency on that which we are debating today. It can be alcohol, drugs or gambling.

For my part, through my professional life in civil society, I have worked closely with these groups. Civil society, as I come from it, is more of a code word for the church. But for the sake of the matter, I want to add that there are more civil society organizations than churches. There are fine sports clubs and fine Red Cross and Save the Children organizations that make great contributions.

But these people who care about others – who do not give up, who take in other people and offer them a roof over their heads and food on the table, and who endure when life fails time and again for individuals in addiction – are still there. They are persistent. When their friends, the authorities, and even the family of the one who has fallen into addiction may have given up, these people are there in their work or voluntarily and continue to support and help. These heroes, who engage and work with the back sides of the use of primarily alcohol, exist in our country.

When it comes to this subject, I often think of children living in homes where both parents or one of them has an addiction. There is a lot of statistics showing how many they are, who they are, and how they experience being in such an environment. But we know above all that there are far too many of them.

Against this background, I want to say a few words about Systembolaget. It plays a major role where these stores are located, how many there are, when they are open, and how they conduct their sales. Even which aisle one walks in the store matters for how much one takes with them when leaving. It also matters that, as a young person, one is allowed to show an ID. Why does it matter? Yes, for the people who are affected by the downsides of alcohol, including children, it matters. It matters that we have a systembolag in our country. There are those who claim that it does not matter, but then I wonder if they have lived and walked close to, supported and helped those who are affected and know how they think, function, and behave when they destroy both their own and others' lives through their abuse.

So, moving on to farm sales. It is something that the government is working on developing proposals for. In light of what I have said so far, there is an opening here for Sweden to try to introduce farm sales and see if it also holds up under EU law, and I am convinced that this will be tested to its limits. Why? Well, because small-scale, craft-produced beer, wine, and cider from the farm where the grapes or apples are grown should be able to be sold in a limited capacity. It matters for a healthier alcohol culture that we do this, and it matters for the countryside and the producer.

In the drug investigation that was recently presented, there were proposals regarding naloxone, something that in the near future will finally be sold over the counter at pharmacies. It is an antidote against opioids that saves lives in the event of an overdose. It is very welcome that this medicine gains greater distribution in our society.

The same narcotics investigation contains a number of different proposals with a focus on preventive work, harm reduction, and good care in the case of harmful use or addiction to narcotics. The Liberals share the view that harm reduction and low-threshold activities must be given a larger place within healthcare but also in society at large. The Co-addiction Investigation also presented similar proposals.

That is why the Liberals have proposed that a region should establish a so-called consumption room for research purposes. A consumption room is a place where persons with a harmful addiction can consume drugs that they have purchased and brought with them, without risking a police intervention. Consumption rooms do not lead to increased drug use or risk-taking, according to studies that the Narcotics Inquiry refers to. On the other hand, the research shows clear benefits of consumption rooms. It reduces overdose-related injuries and unsafe user behaviors, facilitates care and support for persons who use drugs, and relieves the emergency medical services. Those who need help must receive care quickly, and a consumption room can be an important step on the way.

The person who becomes addicted to drugs loses, first and foremost, their freedom, and many people suffer greatly. We need to rethink in Sweden. The goal is to save lives, prevent suffering, and increase people's dignity. We need a social policy and a health and medical care that is based on knowledge and proven experience. When everyone else has given up and when no one any longer cares whether an addict lives or dies, society must be there. A drug room can then become just that place where life turns around, and it is worth everything.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that Jakob Olofsgård, just as Johan Hultberg did earlier, raises the issue of farm sales in his speech and that there is an expectation that this shall be introduced. But why do the Tidö parties settle for an expectation instead of moving from words to action? The question has been investigated three times, and the latest investigation contains well-considered assessments, including regarding the EU law part and the retail monopoly. Despite the fact that there are finished legislative proposals in the investigation, the government's bill is delayed.

From the Moderate Party member Johan Hultberg's post, one could sense that the government parties are not entirely in agreement. The debate article, which among others Jakob Olofsgård signed, was quite minimalist in its expression, but it was nevertheless stated there that there is an ambition to introduce farm sales.

I am wondering how committed one actually is in this, given the time it takes to carry it out. What is it that takes so much time with the introduction of farm sales in Sweden, and why do we not receive a government bill?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

The investigation the member refers to contained much, including proposals for a more limited form of farm sales. It lacked a perspective, however, namely what happens when a foreign producer sues Sweden for this in an EU court. That that perspective was not included was a deficiency. I am well acquainted with the investigation because we, together with Centerpartiet, proposed the same. The consequence of this is that it is delayed. It takes time to go through this extra carefully, because we are very eager to be able to carry this out and do not want to risk that the proposal must be withdrawn.

I am convinced that the member, just as we, safeguard the small-scale producers and do not want them to lose their place at Systembolaget, where the majority of their sales take place. If you ask any small-scale producer, they are extremely keen on retaining Systembolaget as a sales channel for their products.

It concerns me that the member from the Centre Party is not more concerned about the small-scale producers but thinks that this can happen hastily and a bit lightly. It risks undermining the small-scale producers. My question back is therefore: How does the member think there?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the clarification.

I have quite a lot of contact with various small-scale producers in the country regarding farm sales specifically, and I can state that no one thinks this issue is being handled hastily. On the other hand, very many believe that this issue is being sidelined by the sitting government and the Sverigedemokraterna and that one does not dare to take action because one is so worried about what the consequences might be that what has already been investigated must be investigated again and investigated in detail, point by point.

Madam Speaker! In the end, one must nevertheless dare to reach a decision. It is not possible to simply push a question forward and say that we shall investigate it a bit more because we are so uncertain about what we actually want and what the consequences will be.

Of course, the local producers should have the same opportunity as today to sell their goods through the local assortment at Systembolaget. At times, there has been some scaremongering from Systembolaget's side about making changes, but that naturally must not happen. All of us who stand behind the farm sales naturally stand behind Systembolaget remaining.

It is clear that it is important how this legislation looks. But what, at the current moment, worries quite many of those who are waiting for this to be introduced is what the member mentioned about there being a proposal for a more limited farm sale. Should I interpret the member's previous statement as that is the path the government intends to take? Then there are many small-scale producers who will become worried about what this actually becomes for a law in the end.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the clarifications and further questions. I can only say that I do not share the member's view of what the small-scale producers are conveying. It is argued here that they primarily want it to happen. But they actually have a bit more patience, Madam Speaker, than the member seems to have.

From my representative in these matters and alcohol issues in particular, Barbro Westerholm, I was told that politics is a marathon. It is a matter of holding on and persevering so that it will turn out well. That is what we want, that it should turn out well.

Madam Speaker! What concerns me, however, is that the member stands up and takes replies that only concern farm sales. I had hoped for a reply regarding how we are to prevent alcohol damage or how we are to minimize the damage for all those children who are affected by the downsides of alcohol damage. None of this seems to interest the Center Party; instead, one is mostly interested in highlighting the industry first.

The Liberals put the children first; we put those who are affected first. That is why it takes a little time, and it needs to take time. I think these children are worth a little more time. But it does not seem the Center Party thinks so. The risk of losing Systembolaget, which we have built our public health around, does not seem to concern the Center Party. I suspect that from the Center Party, they do not want to see this in the future at all.

It will be interesting to hear the speech from the Center Party member here afterwards and see if he highlights the preventive work to help and support the children and those affected and does not just think of business and money regarding alcohol.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Alcohol is not an ordinary commodity, which means that profit interests and competition must be kept away from the trade of alcohol. We must maintain the reasonably restrictive alcohol policy, which is rooted in a public health perspective and which is solidary instead of selfish.

We have been able to see alcohol-populist moves from the right. Their path is a dangerous path to take. Specifically, C seems to be a more ardent supporter of an alcohol policy that includes an extreme accessibility where Systembolaget's role is threatened.

Allowing farm sales of alcoholic beverages alongside Systembolaget would, of course, mean a departure from the systematic and coherent alcohol policy we have had in Sweden and the strategy that has de facto been very successful for a very long time.

We want a solidary and responsible alcohol policy which means that the availability of alcohol shall be limited through high taxes, a strong Systembolaget, and restrictive rules for private import. Alcohol is one of our greatest public health problems and causes, among other things, cancer, neuropsychiatric disorders, cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis, and injuries through accidents. The more alcohol that is consumed, the greater the damages become.

Generally, we in Sweden know very little about certain damages caused by alcohol. In particular, there is a need for an increase in knowledge regarding the increased risk of being affected by cancer during alcohol consumption. It is a connection that few are aware of. More information is needed here.

Vänsterpartiet therefore considers that the public sector needs to take greater responsibility for conveying knowledge to the population regarding the impact of alcohol consumption on health, such as the increased risk of cancer. We want to see the government task the appropriate authority with developing a national information campaign on the impact of alcohol consumption on health. We want to see an investigation with a mandate to develop proposals for a long-term plan with measures to counteract the harmful effects of alcohol, for example, to develop proposals for health texts on alcohol products.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 7.

Madam Speaker! The damages of alcohol do not only affect the one who drinks. Perhaps the right wing has not thought of this. Children of addicted parents suffer very badly. Every fourth child who grows up in families with addiction problems, for example, leaves primary school without eligibility for upper secondary school. That is twice as many as in other families.

Failing in school is a clear indication of an increased risk of addiction. The single largest preventive measure is a functioning, equitable preschool and school where the goal is that all students progress from primary school to upper secondary school.

Children's right to their own support when they grow up in a home with addiction is a matter of equality. The support for children and young people up to 18 years old in families where a parent or another adult in the child's immediate vicinity has substance abuse problems or mental illness varies across the country. Today, the children have to rely on projects that come and go.

Vänsterpartiet has previously highlighted the need for amended legislation so that children in families with addiction and mental illness shall have the right to independent help. Only a fraction of children in families with substance abuse are allowed to participate in support activities. It is not reasonable.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is important that children's and young people's right to accessible, equal, and equivalent health and medical care is strengthened. We want the government to appoint an inquiry with a mandate to produce proposals on how regions and municipalities should develop the preventive work for young people at risk of substance abuse and mental ill-health.

Madam Speaker! The tobacco manufacturers are skilled at developing new profitable concepts. Vänsterpartiet believes that it should not be permitted to use additives of flavorings that make tobacco-free snus attractive to children, young people, and non-smokers.

The tobacco-free flavored nicotine snus was launched in 2016 and is the most commonly occurring product among the tobacco-free nicotine products. We want the government to task the appropriate authority to investigate a potential ban on flavored tobacco-free snus on similar premises as when it concerns the ban on flavored tobacco products.

Madam Speaker! Last but certainly not least: The Left has led the way for a narcotics policy based on research and evidence. We have been at the forefront when it comes to demands for needle exchanges, harm reduction measures, equal health for those with addictions and better care and treatment, as well as when it comes to investigating the decriminalization of personal use.

During the period 2006-2019, mortality from drug and narcotic poisoning increased by 79 percent. But in 2018, the curve turned downward. During the pandemic years 2020 and 2021, lower figures were seen, but last year instead saw an increase to 860 deaths. It is difficult to see that as a measure of a successful drug policy. Affected are mothers, fathers, children, sisters, brothers, friends and the deceased themselves - a lost life.

The stigmatization and vulnerability have increased. The drug policy no longer holds together. Compared to how it looks in other EU countries, Sweden is today a country where many die because of drugs. People with addiction are stigmatized and treated as criminals instead of receiving the care they need. The Swedish drug policy must therefore be changed.

Now we are waiting for the bills following the Mental Illness Inquiry and the Narcotics Inquiry. What is happening at the Ministry of Social Affairs? Will you get moving? Will they be produced?

We want to change the drug policy from a life-threatening policy to a policy that benefits the addicted and gives them chances for care and treatment and to survive. Addiction is a disease, and diseases are treated. It can begin with more generous distribution of naloxone - the substance that allows those with an addiction who receive an overdose to quickly receive help to survive.

It is high time that politics ensures that those living with addiction are given a decent life.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of the Centerpartiets reservation 1 under point 1 regarding the ANDTS strategy.

Today we are debating issues concerning alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco and gambling. Common to all these areas is that the overall policy is about countering addiction and abuse as well as minimizing direct and indirect harms linked to these areas.

The ANDTS strategy adopted by the government in 2022 took a good grip and highlighted many good and relevant measures for both preventive work as well as care and support. The responsibility for the implementation of the strategy is shared by many actors at all levels of society. Much of the preventive work lies with our municipalities and regions to carry out, but there we have unfortunately been able to see in recent years that this work or the resources for the work have been reduced while the responsibility for the strategy has been expanded.

For this reason, we in Centerpartiet want to strengthen the conditions for municipalities and regions to implement the ANDTS strategy. There has been a mandate to the Public Health Agency to look into this area. The mandate was finalized in May 2022, but since then, nothing has happened. When the Tidö parties in their report refer to the fact that it is still being prepared in the Government Offices two years later, it may not appear as if the issue is being taken sufficiently seriously.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party sees a great need to develop the Swedish drug policy. Above all, it is about changing the view of those who fall into and live in an addiction. Society's previous view of addiction as a form of self-chosen, self-destructive, and antisocial behavior is beginning to change, and we welcome that. It is high time to establish that addiction is a disease and shall therefore be treated as a disease.

As an addict, one should primarily be regarded as ill and not as a criminal. For this reason, addiction care shall be based on the principle of harm minimization and nothing else. From the Center Party, we welcome that all regions have now established or begun the work to establish needle exchange programs. The experiences of such activities are good. Furthermore, the Center Party wants to investigate the possibility of so-called consumption rooms in Sweden, something that exists in Norway and Denmark today, in order to reduce the vulnerability of addicts and prevent overdoses.

We also know that the majority of all drug users have an underlying mental or somatic disease profile, which has been noted by the Comorbidity Inquiry, which submitted its final report in 2023. One of the main proposals to create a coherent care chain is to move the primary responsibility for care from social services to healthcare.

What we are all waiting for now is for the Tidö parties to return to the Riksdag with a proposition on that proposal and many more of the proposals raised in the Samsjuklighetsutredning's report, but also with many of the proposals raised in the Narkotikautredning's report, which we have now received and which contains many wise and good proposals.

Madam Speaker! Swedish alcohol policy is about reducing the medical and social harmful effects of alcohol. The Center Party stands fully and firmly behind this. Over the last 20 years, alcohol consumption in Sweden has largely decreased from year to year, especially among young people. The view on alcohol has changed over time, and there is also reason to look at the legislation. Much of the content in the current legislation is based on another time and another society. Therefore, there is reason to review parts of the legislation to modernize it and adapt it to its contemporary time.

At the Center Party's convention in Örebro last autumn, we had a long and in-depth discussion about the current 20-year age limit for the purchase of alcohol at Systembolaget, and the convention reached a clear position: that it is now time to review the age limit and align it with the age of majority.

We note that youth risk behavior regarding alcohol has decreased significantly over the last 20 years and that consumption today is at historically low levels. When this is the case, it becomes difficult to defend that the age limit for purchasing alcohol at Systembolaget should differ from the age at which one becomes of legal age and is allowed to go to the pub, get a driver's license, marry, or for that matter become a member of parliament or prime minister in this country.

Furthermore, we want to see a modernization of the legislation for serving permits, where there is currently a multitude of detailed requirements that no longer serve any function.

Last but not least, Madam Speaker, I want to raise the issue of farm sales. Everyone in this chamber and hopefully most of the audience knows that this is an issue that the Center Party has championed for a very long time, initially alone but then with more and more supporters. If one is to believe what the parties said during the election campaign, it is not only the Center Party that stands behind an introduction of farm sales in Sweden but also the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals. Together we hold 200 of 349 seats in the Riksdag. So why is nothing happening?

The investigation was completed in December 2021, and now it is March 2024. The investigation contained well-made considerations and finished legislative proposals, so why is nothing happening? Producers and consumers have waited long enough for this change. It is time for the Tidö parties to move from words to action in this matter as well. It is time for the government to place a proposition on the Riksdag's table.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! It has probably not escaped anyone listening right now that Christofer Bergenblock is the foremost advocate for the sale of farmland. I understand that this is of great interest for the tourism industry and for many local producers all around our country, and when we listen to the debate, it sounds very idyllic. It is almost as if we can hear the sheep bleating in the pasture next door and the wind rustling in the trees or the grain field.

I still have to ask Member Bergenblock: How does he think about the fact that in the vast majority of cases, it is not that idyllic farm it is about? Most local producers are not located in the countryside but on the outskirts of cities or in urban areas.

I guess that many of the local producers that Member of Parliament Bergenblock speaks of visiting are located in an industrial area surrounded by barbed wire. Of the 800 points of sale that the investigator identified as possible, many are located exactly there, compared to the 448 Systembolaget stores that exist in the country.

The Leader of the Opposition says that we should of course keep Systembolaget, but then the question arises whether he is not at least slightly worried about what many referral bodies warn against, namely that this will never be approved by the EU and that it will mean that we, by the back door, abolish the retail monopoly that the Center Party says it wants to protect. Or is this perhaps even a goal in itself, to abolish it by the back door?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I can reassure the members regarding the Center Party's view on Systembolaget, which I believe I also mentioned in my speech. The Center Party has no other view than that we should keep Systembolaget in Sweden and that the retail monopoly shall remain.

The investigation that was conducted on farm sales was the third investigation. The Center Party has stood behind all three investigations, and one could say that they have been refined in their mission as they progressed. The Center Party has also not been able to stand behind the proposals in the first two investigations in the end, as there were risks associated with them. The third investigation that was carried out was intended to produce a proposal that was very clearly compatible with a maintained systembolag and retail monopoly. And that is exactly what the investigator has delivered.

It is also very clear that in the investigation, this question has been examined carefully and the EU law has been looked at to see if there is a risk for Systembolaget. It is highly probable that when we finally have legislation in place, it will be tested by the European Court of Justice. Then we will find out if the legislation is sustainable. But even if one were to say that the legislation is not sustainable, it still does not mean that Systembolaget's monopoly falls.

I know that different referral bodies have given different answers to this question. There are those who have been in favor and those who have been against. It is quite traditional and what one could expect from the different referral bodies. But what we face now is to produce legislation that we can notify the EU Commission of and subsequently implement and test legally.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! I think two things are good in the member's answer. One is that the Center Party stands strongly behind Systembolaget's retail monopoly. The other is that he admits that there is a fairly large range in the referral bodies' responses in the investigation that we are now discussing and which forms the basis for the intended reform.

I think that we once again need to weigh the 800 points of sale that it is now suggested should be opened for people to be able to purchase alcohol against the 448 Systembolaget stores that exist in the country.

There are referral bodies that argue that this is a fundamental blow to Systembolaget as we know it today. In that case, one must once again consider the urgency expressed from the Center Party's side. Should we not ensure that the process regarding farm sales is carried out in such a way that it does not jeopardize the monopoly and the conditions for Sweden to be able to continue to manage it as a primary sales channel? It is, after all, I think and the Social Democrats think, infinitely much more important than that one can sell alcohol straight over the counter in the countryside or in industrial areas in our urban centers.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Even though it concerns about 800 small-scale producers of alcohol products today, they represent a very small part of what is sold at Systembolaget today.

Calculations have also been made in the investigation to what extent this would increase alcohol consumption or alcohol sales in Sweden, and it is minimal levels that are being discussed. There will be a certain shift of sales from Systembolaget out to the farms.

The great profit for the manufacturers is often the added value that exists in reaching such a farm or a point of sale. Since there are also requirements for a guided tour or some other form of activity in connection with a visit, I believe that there will be significantly more visitors and thus significantly more sales at the places located in the countryside. That could be a farm where you hear the bleating sheep in the background, as the member requested. It might also offer the opportunity to visit a restaurant or farm sales of other products. One can see how clusters of activities could be formed in the countryside around these places. This is not a threat to Systembolaget, even though many are trying to portray it that way.

What we need now is not to wait and wait to test this in reality, but for us, from the Center Party's side, to press the government parties so that it eventually becomes a reality.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I understand that the Center Party would have liked to continue the discussion on the sale of farms, but I think we should change the subject and talk about some other alcohol issues.

Centerpartiet proposes that the age limit for purchases at Systembolaget should be lowered to 18 years. I will not, of course, play dumb, because I understand the logical reasoning that one wants to be consistent. For example, it is spoken of that young people are allowed to drive cars, get married, and participate in elections. That is not negative. We want a high voter turnout and for people to find a partner to marry, and the car is an important tool in life, and so on.

People talk about the positive trend that young people are drinking less. Has the Centre Party analyzed whether the proposal could possibly contribute to breaking that positive trend and that we could see a more negative development? It is something that worries me.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party has, of course, made its analysis and its assessment of the proposal to lower the age for purchases at Systembolaget from 20 to 18 years. We have therefore concluded that it is reasonable to have the same age for purchases at Systembolaget as the age of majority, so that an 18- or 19-year-old who is to graduate legally can buy a bottle of wine to drink in connection with the celebration, if they so wish or are allowed to by their parents, something which is not a legal occurrence today.

If such a change in the legislation is to be made, it will naturally need to be investigated, just like all other changes in the legislation. Centerpartiet has made its assessment. But the prerequisite for an introduction of an age limit of 18 instead of 20 at Systembolaget is, naturally, an investigation. That is how it looks in our democratic system. We are happy to push for such an investigation, if we can gather more parties in the Riksdag who think the same, in order to properly get to the bottom of the issue and hopefully thereafter be able to change the age for purchasing alcohol products at Systembolaget.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can comfort the member by saying that there are guaranteed to be individual members in other parties who also want to go in this direction. That matter is probably clear.

It is not particularly desirable to try to increase the availability of alcohol for young people, even if it may be in connection with a pleasant celebration or so. I feel that we as the Social Affairs Committee have a responsibility for the more problematic cases. I do not advocate for greater alcohol consumption for anyone really, but it is particularly sensitive for young people.

When I look back, I am quite grateful that my classmates did not have access to Systembolaget when we were in high school and were 18 years old. One speaks about demand specifically, and demand decreases. In that case, I think that the liberal principle should say that a larger supply is not required, to simplify it a bit. Does the Center Party have any reflections regarding this and, again, an analysis of the risks? I perhaps understand the positive aspects of the proposal, but I would like to hear more about the Center Party's view on the risks.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that young people are drinking less and less alcohol and that it is a trend that has been ongoing for 20 years. It is therefore not over any short period that there has been a downward trend when it comes to alcohol consumption. Drinking has been almost halved during these 20 years. It has not been replaced by other uses to any higher degree. One can sometimes believe that it would have been replaced by drug use, but that is in any case not what the research shows so far.

We in the Center Party believe that adapting the alcohol legislation to the time we live in is essential. Part of our proposals is that we see it would be fully possible to lower the age limit for purchases at Systembolaget, reasonably without it leading to increased consumption of alcohol.

At the same time, we see that there are other things that also need to be reviewed in the current alcohol legislation, for example regarding the right to a serving permit. Today, one must combine the serving of alcohol with the serving of cooked food from a kitchen adjacent to the premises, which we do not think is contemporary. We want to see a change. One should naturally be able to use catering in an establishment if one wishes. We do not see the need to keep the requirement for serving food at all.

There are further changes that need to be made to Swedish alcohol legislation. In many cases, it dates back a long time and has not been modernized and adapted in the way it should be in relation to the alcohol culture and the alcohol consumption that we have in society today, and therefore the Center Party has landed on this proposal for a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! For the Green Party, it is important to emphasize that issues regarding alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco, and gambling are part of the larger public health policy work. It is important to see how risk use of different kinds creates ill health that affects both the individual and society, and the measures taken must stem from that perspective. In a future public health law that the Green Party wants to see, the ANDTS issues should therefore also have a place.

In addition to the public health policy perspective, the Green Party also wants to emphasize the importance of having a harm-reduction approach and that the policy in the area should aim to save lives and minimize avoidable harm. That perspective must be stronger than a repressive stance.

Miljöpartiet believes that the narcotics legislation should be evaluated to see if there are grounds to change it in order to facilitate for persons with misuse and addiction to seek help. Since 1988, it has been criminal to, among other things, possess and use narcotics in Sweden. The law has not been evaluated. Now that it has been over 35 years since the Swedish criminalization was introduced, we still know very little about its effects. Therefore, it was a great success that a unanimous social affairs committee stood behind a motion that today's narcotics policy needs to be evaluated.

Several actors, including Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, have repeatedly stated that the law should be evaluated to determine whether it hinders aid efforts for people with addiction diseases or not. Sweden should primarily evaluate the criminalization introduced in 1988 and, in the investigation, also preferably see if there can be good examples from other countries' policies.

The Green Party welcomes in this context the announced penal reform investigation, which is to conduct a review of the sentencing scales and reform the sentencing system. The purpose of the assignment is, according to what has been stated, that the sentencing scales shall, in a better way than today, reflect the seriousness of the crimes and that the sentences handed down shall appear reasonable. It appears from the directive that in the future's sentencing system, it may more often than today be possible to use a sentence with a care orientation when someone is sentenced for a minor narcotics offense where the act is rooted in addiction. The Green Party would have liked the directive to go further but welcomes the initiative.

Madam Speaker! People who abuse drugs are one of society's most vulnerable groups, and drug-related mortality in Sweden is high. Measures that can save lives must therefore be taken. Miljöpartiet wants a drug policy that focuses on harm reduction and wants to, among other things, carry out trials with injection rooms or consumption rooms. We also want to expand the circle of people who can administer naloxone in an emergency situation. This could, for example, involve police officers, staff within addiction care, staff at shelters for the homeless, or relatives.

In this context, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the government that the important Co-morbidity Inquiry submitted a partial report as early as November 2021. The referral process was completed almost two years ago. The inquiry proposes, among other things, that health and medical care should become the primary authority for all addiction care, which Miljöpartiet has advocated for for a long time. There is also an important focus on how people with both mental health issues and substance abuse should no longer fall through the cracks. We look forward to seeing a government bill soon.

I also want to point out that preventive work is important in the area of substance abuse as well. We believe that the government should, among other things, appoint an inquiry with a mandate to produce proposals on how regions and municipalities should develop preventive work for young people in the risk zone for substance abuse.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the Swedish alcohol policy. In our opinion, it is important to maintain the existing alcohol legislation in order to reduce the medical and social consequences of alcohol. It enables various tools to limit availability, for example, import regulations, age limits, and sales monopolies. It is important that we have the opportunity to continue working with this type of tools.

By reason of the judgment in the Supreme Court from the summer of 2023, where it was established that according to the Alcohol Act, distance sales are permitted—that is, where the alcohol at the time of purchase is in another EU or EEA state and is subsequently transported to Sweden by a carrier hired by the seller—the government should appoint an inquiry with a mandate to produce proposals on restrictions of commercial mediation of alcohol that risk undermining the legal standing of the retail monopoly.

We want to see more information directed at the public regarding alcohol's impact on health. Knowledge is relatively low among the population, not least when it comes to the increased risk of developing cancer with alcohol consumption. The Government should therefore task an appropriate authority with developing a national information campaign regarding the impact of alcohol consumption on health. The Government should also appoint an inquiry with the mandate to produce proposals for a long-term plan with measures to counteract the harmful effects of alcohol.

Madam Speaker! I stand behind the Green Party's all reservations but move for approval of reservation 13.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 April.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)