Alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco and gambling

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are to debate ANDTS, and as you understand, many topics are encompassed within this abbreviation and in the report. Let me therefore begin with something positive, namely the Socialstyrelsen's future forecast which we received yesterday. It shows that the cases of lung cancer among women, which previously had increased for a very long time, are now expected to turn downwards each year. According to the forecast, the risk of dying from lung cancer is also expected to decrease.

I mention this, of course, in view of the tobacco section in the report. There are, of course, several reasons why Sweden is almost smoke-free, or even already smoke-free according to WHO's standards, and why we have some of the lowest lung cancer levels in the entire world. This is partly due to the fact that we have been at the forefront of disseminating information about the risks and restricting the products – here we can think of the advertising and the outdoor seating – partly due to the fact that a not healthy but significantly less harmful alternative has been available and has been popular. As I recall, there is no party in this assembly that wants to ban tobacco and nicotine for adults, and as long as that is the case, we do not want to see any policy that would make it harder for people to make a less harmful choice.

Every year, thousands of people get cancer as a result of smoking. It is among the worst things one can get. Many die. As far as I know, there are no tobacco-related deaths. This is also very important to take with you when evaluating this policy. At the same time, we see a clear problem in that more young people are starting to use nicotine products. We naturally want fewer people overall to use nicotine products, but it should not happen at the expense of increased smoking.

What concerns the young we obviously cannot ignore, and it is also nothing that my party denies. But we must find ways to work with both target groups simultaneously, that is, both towards the adults who have every right to use these nicotine products and choose a less harmful alternative and towards the young who should not use these products at all. We therefore take a positive stance towards previous proposals on a ban on vaping and a nicotine-free school time. We are open to reviewing the rules regarding marketing, and we also increase the tax on cigarettes, which are the most dangerous of these products.

Mr. Speaker! Another positive piece of news is that all parties in broad agreement have together succeeded in tackling the harmful use of nitrous oxide. From last year onwards, an 18-year age limit applies, and there are reasonable restrictions regarding how much nitrous oxide one can purchase at a time. Retail of nitrous oxide must be reported to the Public Health Agency. There are also reasonable penalties in place that can lead to fines and imprisonment if one sells illegally.

I naturally expected that we in this chamber would be positive about it. I also expected that the parents, who can now feel a little less worried about their children, would be positive. But I myself was surprised by the response from the young people and their reaction to the new law, Mr. Speaker. They also think that this is good, and hopefully, these young people can now also feel a little safer when they go to parties.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the heavier parts of the narcotics policy, we want the government to conduct a fundamental review of both past and current policy. We believe that the future narcotics policy should be based on the latest research more than solely on political will. We urge the government to act based on the Narcotics Commission's recommendations. The Sweden Democrats particularly endorse the proposals for measures aimed at preventive work, harm minimization, and the compilation of current science.

There is a certain connection to this with the Samsjuklighetsutredningen. Already in the Tidö Agreement, it states that addiction care shall be strengthened, and the government has signaled that it intends to proceed with legislative work based on the Samsjuklighetsutredningen. That is nothing new in itself. The idea was that the reforms would be rolled out over a five-year period after it was signaled here. One must nevertheless consider that the delivery phase is approaching now. Of course, one must not rush anything, but every delay affects people's lives. We Sverigedemokrater are very keen that this is implemented as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker! Something more lighthearted are the questions regarding serving permits and farm sales. Last year we spoke about farm sales. We Sverigedemokrater were positive, with some minor reservations regarding the limitations.

A significantly easier question in my opinion is the one regarding the serving permit, which is now out for consultation. As a public health politician, I naturally advocate for drinking as little alcohol as possible. But it is still positive that we see a cultural shift from a focus on intoxication to a focus on taste, experience, craftsmanship, socializing, and so on. Our position is that no one wins from serving establishments having to offer boring food in connection with alcohol service. The Sweden Democrats therefore welcome regulatory simplifications in this area. It is a bit like with nicotine. We agree that alcohol should be allowed to be consumed on outdoor terraces. As long as we are, there should not be unnecessary complications that only worsen the experience for everyone involved.

Madam Speaker! As pleasant as it may be with outdoor seating and farm sales, the fact remains that alcohol is among the most dangerous legal substances intended for human consumption. The list of alcohol's harmful effects is extensive. It is important that we, within public health policy, inform about this and try to reduce the total consumption in Sweden. Here I believe we are in agreement.

Something concrete that we Sweden Democrats want to highlight is that there is currently a discrepancy between warning texts on packaging between, for example, alcohol products and tobacco products. The introduction of warning texts has proven to be a very clear and quite cost-effective form of health information and an intervention that reduces consumption. The positive effect has also been established internationally.

Given the harmful effects of alcohol, there is reason to consider a more uniform approach to warning texts. Sverigedemokraterna believes that the government should investigate the potential effects of implementing requirements for health risk disclosure on alcohol products. We will push for this internally within the current government cooperation.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! I heard the member point out that snus would be less harmful and that he has not heard that anyone has died as a result of snus use. I want to emphasize that research clearly shows that snus increases the risk of type 2 diabetes and cancer. Snus is also bad for the function of the blood vessels. It raises the pulse and blood pressure, which in the long run can lead to cardiovascular diseases. Nicotine is dangerous during pregnancy because it affects the supply to the fetus. It increases the risk of premature birth and infant mortality.

We know that all these diseases ultimately lead to an increased risk of premature death. I wonder how the member views the clear picture of the harmful effects of snus.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Member! We might need to organize a joint knowledge seminar for our parties. That perhaps would have been good.

I am aware of the effects of snus – primarily nicotine – on the heart and blood vessels and the risks during pregnancy, but that nicotine in itself would be carcinogenic is certainly not proven to me. Our point from Sverigedemokraterna is that there are differences in the risks and the degrees of harm among the different nicotine products – primarily between tobacco that is smoked and, in our view, the less harmful alternative, snus.

We see a clear connection. Sweden has, as mentioned, been at the forefront with various restrictive measures, but we are not alone in that. There are other countries that work in that way as well, but unique to Sweden is snus's status as a nicotine product. It is a contributing factor to fewer people dying of lung cancer in Sweden.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! I would very much like to see the research that supports the member's theory that snus has contributed to a decrease in mortality from lung cancer. The truth is that tobacco smoking has decreased, but the question of whether snus is behind it or not remains to be answered.

I can only state that the representatives for the Tidö parties most often sound like an echo from the tobacco industry in their eagerness to assert that snus is less harmful than smoking. The question is why one should compare the one with the other. Even if not as many research studies have been conducted on snus – and in particular not on white snus – as on cigarettes, we know that nicotine is harmful to health.

We know that the best alternative to smoking or chewing tobacco is to not smoke or chew. One should not replace one addictive substance with another. The only ones who profit from more people using and becoming addicted to white or brown snus are those who sell snus.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite perceive any follow-up question, but I nevertheless thank you for the opportunity to further develop the reasoning.

One must compare the different nicotine products because they are differently harmful, just as I said. All parties in the Riksdag agree that nicotine products should be legal.

It is legal for adults to use nicotine products. The follow-up question then becomes: Which nicotine products should they use, those who now want to do so? It is of course better if no one does it at all. Those who do not use any nicotine product should preferably not start. But for those people who choose to use nicotine products, who already do or choose to do so in the future, there should be a less harmful alternative.

It is simply the case that with snus, the person does not inhale any smoke, with all that entails. That is the big difference. Of course, one can become some kind of multi-nicotinist, but as a rule, there is a total dose that a person consumes. If one consumes their nicotine through snus, it displaces the consumption of additional nicotine through smoking. That is why this is good from a public health perspective.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that the member highlighted that one should listen to the research when it comes to drug policy. That makes me a little happy this late in the afternoon.

Another question I intended to bring up is the tobacco industry's enormous impact on us. I have received very many invitations to attend various things with them. But I do not do that, because it is with the tobacco industry just as with the alcohol industry; I do not attend their events and so on either.

But I wonder about one thing. From the tobacco industry's side, they are incredibly skilled at peddling things – they have always been. Now we smoke much less, which of course is great, but there are other products they want to push in, and push out.

For example, it concerns the snus, which Karin Sundin mentioned – I am going to talk about the white snus. A large youth group has been captured through additives in this tobacco-free snus. It is flavors such as raspberry and blueberry. I don't really know, but I have seen the list of fun flavors. They might not really be adult flavors, but this is, I believe, aimed at children and young people so that they will become a bit craving. What it leads to, one actually has zero clue about.

I wonder: Are we not going to do anything about this? Are we really going to have flavors in this tobacco-free snus? Is it good?

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an important question!

First, I want to comment on this regarding adult-flavors. I am not sure that there are adult and child flavors when it comes to either candy or nicotine products. But I obviously understand what the member is after: that the tobacco companies specifically adapt their product so that it appeals to children and young people. That is the thesis, at least – I understand that.

My answer to this is that we, as long as we agree that adults should be allowed to use nicotine products, must ask ourselves which products they should be allowed to use. Should it be legal to use nicotine products but only if they taste bad? That is not for me the best way to reason around this. If one is okay with adults being allowed to use nicotine products, there must be alternatives and – again – alternatives that lure away from smoking.

The right question, Madam Speaker and members, is in my opinion how we stop the young people from consuming these products. That is the problem. When it comes to the statistics showing that more young people use snus, it concerns young people who are not even supposed to be able to buy snus to begin with. The follow-up questions are therefore: How can we tighten the controls at the points of sale? How can we stop the distribution? How can we achieve a nicotine-free school time? I am happy to answer those questions together with the other parties.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! It is very easy to see how the tobacco industry turns to different groupings. When snus is now presented by some parties almost as a health product – it sounds as if one could go to the pharmacy and buy snus because it is so damn good – I become a bit skeptical. Then one has bought into something. One has bought into an idea from the tobacco industry, quite simply. It becomes geschwint; people smoke less and snus more. But what does it lead to? It is not always great.

We know very little about how this affects, for example, young people. I know many adults who use the tobacco-free snus, but it is very few of them who are running out to get specifically raspberry flavor. It is very targeted towards children and young people. One should perhaps reflect a bit on that. What lies behind this? What will be the next product these children and young people will use? I am also thinking about, for example, vaping. What does that lead to?

Another question here at the end is that alcohol, even from the Sverigedemokraterna side, is becoming more of a business issue than a public health issue. When it comes to farm sales, serving permits and so on, it doesn't just sound from the right side, but actually also from Centerpartiet – I will return to that – as if in some way it is good to have alcohol. The consequences in the form of the extremely many children and young people who suffer in homes where there are alcohol problems are not mentioned. The big problem in Sweden is still that we have a fairly large alcohol abuse. I wonder how the member sees that. It may have become a bit of a vague question, but I hope that the member can answer.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think that is an excellent question.

I can start by just briefly commenting on this with the snus. I agree that it is in no way some kind of health product. But the question that remains is: How do we prevent the young people from starting to use more snus? If we do not agree on the flavors, perhaps we can see a way forward when it comes to the marketing. How do you reach out to the youth? How do you get them to become interested in this to begin with? That is a question we perhaps can move forward with.

When it comes to alcohol, it is exactly as it is with nicotine, a framework that we must work from. The framework means, again, that all parties agree that one shall be allowed to consume alcohol. One shall be allowed to do it at outdoor seating areas, and one shall be allowed to do it at home.

Then the follow-up question arises: Based on this framework, what rules are reasonable? Does it somehow become better if the place one goes to drink a beer is forced to serve food, for example? It is often about food cooked without love. Perhaps for that reason it even becomes a worse experience than if the beer were served without food. This is the question.

Should one tackle the alcohol issue? Yes, that is what the Sweden Democrats believe should be done. But should one do it by worsening conditions for businesses or restaurants when they are, according to the law, supposed to serve alcohol, which we agree they should be allowed to do? In that case, the answer from us is no.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I hadn't actually intended to request the floor, but I felt a bit like participating in the tobacco debate. Some others will also raise this.

I want to start by being honest, because I have said that one should be. I am unfortunately myself one of those who is addicted to snus. I have tried to quit, but it has not gone particularly well – speaking of addiction issues.

With that said, I have only three short questions that I want answers to.

The first question I have is: We all agree on reducing tobacco use when it comes to smoking, but do the members and the Sweden Democrats consider that the goal of our policy should also be to reduce snus use in society, i.e., to reduce nicotine use in total?

The second question is whether the member believes we should introduce a higher limit for the nicotine content, particularly in white snus products.

The third question I have is: What was the goal of lowering the snus tax?

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, the member, for the questions!

I can also, as a personal piece of information, tell you that I am fortunately not addicted to nicotine, but I am not attracted to these flavors. So I have received that argument as well.

So, as for the three questions, first the question of whether we want to reduce nicotine use overall. The answer is that we primarily want to reduce the nicotine use that is most harmful, which is smoking. In addition to that, we have a new tobacco policy goal, namely to reduce the harms of nicotine. To the extent that, for example, tobacco-free, white snus is harmful, we want to reduce those harms as well. But the difference between how we think today and how it was thought previously is that we weigh these against each other, bring in knowledge, and look at what the differences between the products are and how much one can minimize the harm.

This is interesting, for Miljöpartiet and also the Socialdemokraterna, I believe, advocate a harm minimization perspective in other parts of the report, for example when it comes to drugs. I welcome the member to apply the same logic to this area.

When it comes to the limit value, there is a proposed value from the so-called Askersjö investigation of twelve milligrams per gram. We are not against a ceiling in itself, but the question is where it should be set. We propose that it be set slightly higher than what has been proposed, partly based on the fact that there is already snus that exceeds that value, and partly because the limit value is expressed in milligrams per gram, which in our opinion is the wrong measure to use. It should be expressed in milligrams per portion to avoid people simply changing the size of the portions or users taking more portions.

When it comes to the tax, it is about a tax shift for public health, one could say. The purpose of the tax is precisely that it should be easier to choose snus over cigarettes, not instead of abstaining entirely.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We can start with the last point. We already have a very low proportion of smokers today. The large nicotine use in Sweden consists of snus. The reduction of the snus tax should reasonably lead to more nicotine users in the large whole. Above all, it is a reward for those of us who have this unhealthy habit. I would not have minded not receiving this tax reduction.

Let me also say that the limit values are still important. It is actually insane that we here in Sweden can sell nicotine products with up to 50 milligrams of nicotine content. It is harmful to such an extent that it became a major scandal in France when such products were smuggled in. Young people became unconscious here and there. They decided to ban it outright.

The fact is that France is an interesting example when it comes to reducing smoking. They have successfully worked on it. Cigarettes are even more expensive in France than here in Sweden. They have brought the figures down to a record low level. That development continues very strongly, and they have not had to replace cigarettes with any other nicotine product.

I didn't really get an answer as to whether you would like to reduce all nicotine use, including snus.

In conclusion: It is also vice versa. We would like to see you look at harm minimization when it comes to drugs. But it should be added that the goal of the policy we pursue regarding drugs is that people should be able to reduce and gradually free themselves from these problems of abuse. It is therefore not about just reducing the harm. There is a goal in all of this, just so that I am clear about that.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Nils Seye Larsen, for many interesting points of view and comments! I want to start by saying that we are in complete agreement, for example, on this with portions of 50 milligrams per portion. It is completely crazy, and there we agree.

But where should the limit then lie? The Sweden Democrats want the limit to be at a level that is still normal for a normal user, perhaps a user who even likes slightly stronger snus. One should not have to have two portions in the mouth for that reason. It could be about a full-grown man who has used snus for a long time and made a well-considered decision over the years, hopefully. One should not complicate it there – provided, of course, that we agree that one is allowed to use snus.

The tax on snus is not being lowered, but rather it is being indexed upwards, but we are increasing the tax extra for cigarettes. We are therefore not going to make snus cheaper and cheaper, so that it eventually becomes free and as many as possible use snus. The point is – and it also links to the member's main issue – that we want to reduce nicotine use, but not at the expense of increased smoking. That is why the policy looks the way it does. It is about steering smokers away, because smoking is, in our view, by far the most dangerous.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Leonid Yurkovskiy, for the speech!

One of the parts that the member raised concerned Swedish drug policy. I note that the member mentions that it is important that we now take the next step in that policy and move from the current perspective to a perspective that concerns harm reduction and damage minimization for those who have a harmful use of drugs.

These are questions that are raised both in the Co-morbidity Inquiry from January 2023 and in the Narcotics Inquiry from October of the same year. There, a long series of proposals are presented. Things have also happened during the mandate period, and the absolute most important thing has been that naloxone can now be dispensed at pharmacies. This alone has contributed to a reduced mortality.

But we have a high drug-related mortality in Sweden compared to many other countries. Many of the proposals that need to be implemented are in the two investigations I mentioned. From the opposition side, we pushed hard to get the government to at least take action on the Samsjuklighetsutredningen, which is now being implemented so slowly over several years. However, we have not seen a glimpse of the Narkotikautredningens proposals.

My question is therefore: Where do the other parties that the Sverigedemokraterna cooperate with stand in this issue? And do the Sverigedemokraterna achieve any impact for the policy they are talking about here, i.e., with harm reduction and harm minimization in focus?

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Christofer Bergenblock, for the important question! Here we seem to be fairly in agreement. I also believe that we are in agreement across the party blocks here as well.

I was clear in my speech that we would like to see more things now come to fruition. We naturally raised the issue in our meeting with the department, but at the same time, this is not something that can be forced through from this chamber.

We were also positive about the part regarding naloxone. It is yet another proof that we are quite united on these issues.

I hope that this will mean that our positions gain stronger traction once the bills are in place. But unfortunately, I cannot give any information on when things will arrive or how fast it can go.

Regarding the Co-morbidity Investigation, there was a forecast that the proposals would be rolled out over five years. This year is the year when concrete proposals are expected to start arriving on our table. We look forward to that.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I note that things are moving very slowly here. What one can sense when things move slowly is that there is no consensus among the government parties or the coalition parties regarding the way forward. That was why it took such a long time to even reach the working group regarding the Mental Illness Inquiry and the implementation of the inquiry's proposals. Now, this is finally underway.

It is an immensely important reform to move the responsibility for caring interventions from the municipalities' social services to the health and medical care in the regions. It is very good. There, we will of course push further, not least from the Center Party's side, so that the whole thing becomes a reality.

But otherwise, there have been missing proposals from the Tidö parties. One of the things that one had expected a decision on was this matter regarding the syringe exchange programs. Now, the regions have actually gotten ahead there, so that they exist in all of Sweden's regions, even if they might only exist in a single location in many regions.

Another thing that should be investigated and looked into more is the possibility of differentiated sanctions for those who use drugs. Today, the sanction is primarily a fine, but the person should actually be given the opportunity for treatment instead.

Another thing that should be looked at is consumption rooms. It is not raised in the Narcotics Inquiry, but it would still be interesting to hear where the Sweden Democrats stand on that issue. There we see positive examples from our closest neighboring countries, where we see that it leads to reduced harm and reduced mortality from drugs.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the question regarding consumption rooms. As the member is referring to, it is a proposal in the Narcotics Inquiry where the investigators themselves state that further investigation is required. For that reason, the Sweden Democrats are not taking a position on the issue yet, but we are, of course, following the developments and observing how it works elsewhere. We will gladly return to the question when it becomes relevant.

The priority should be to implement the existing and fully investigated parts of the Narcotics Inquiry.

Just as the member says, a lot rests on the regions. It is positive that they take their responsibility there, but the Sweden Democrats generally want to see greater state responsibility. We have not quite achieved that breakthrough yet.

When it comes to the Tidö government base, I want to say that I have not experienced any disagreement whatsoever. If one reads the report, one also notices that all our parties are reasonably in agreement on the direction. I therefore strongly doubt that anything such would be the basis.

There is a very large amount of work on the Social Ministry's desk, and I believe that is the simple explanation. There are very many reforms to be implemented in a relatively short time, one parliamentary term.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! The debate is about public health. It is a debate that is needed, because Sweden still has a long way to go to be a society where everyone has the best possible health. But it is a debate that has come to be about something other than just public health; it is increasingly about what is good for the companies, good for the breweries and good for the tourism industry and about what is pleasant.

I think that in this debate we need to keep the focus on what is today's core issue, that is, how we best protect our population, and above all our children and youth, in a political way, from the harms that can arise when one uses alcohol, drugs and tobacco.

We are moving, despite what is sometimes heard, in a relatively well-researched area. We know that there are clear links between alcohol and serious diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and depressions. These are diseases that involve great suffering for those affected and large costs for society.

We know that next of kin, especially the children, are negatively affected when someone drinks. No matter how we calculate it, there are several hundred thousand Swedish children growing up in homes with alcohol abuse. We also know that alcohol consumption increases the occurrence of violence in close relationships.

Since we know all this, there is every reason for Sweden to continue to have a restrictive stance towards alcohol. We shall continue to use the tools that research has taught us work. We shall limit access to alcohol through age limits and clear rules for serving and sales. We shall safeguard Systembolaget's retail monopoly and public health mandate.

As a Social Democrat, I do not think that the interests of individual companies or the needs of the tourism industry should weigh more heavily than public health in alcohol policy. This applies to the issue of farm sales. It applies to the issue of removing the requirement for food service at the pub. It applies to the requirement that there must be seats for guests where alcohol is served.

I am surprised by how, in recent years, we have seen a pure black-painting from industry organizations and from the Tidö government's parties about how restrictive alcohol legislation makes Sweden a boring country. There is talk about how fantastically pleasant it will become when Stockholm's most prominent restaurateurs get the opportunity to open luxurious cocktail bars.

We Social Democrats do not believe it will be that fantastic because the same legislation will be applied everywhere. It will not obviously become nicer when the pizzeria in the square in Småköping is allowed to serve alcohol without having to serve any pizza, and it is difficult to see in what way it would benefit public health.

We Social Democrats regret that the debate on alcohol policy is increasingly focusing on the conditions for those who want to make a profit from alcohol and all less on the harmful effects of alcohol.

Madam Speaker! I will now speak about nicotine and tobacco. We know with all certainty that tobacco smoking is one of the greatest risk factors for disease and premature death. Over time, there has been a positive development, and the proportion of those who smoke daily has decreased significantly in Sweden. But in recent years, we have also seen a worrying increase among teenagers in year 2 of upper secondary school. It is the same group that is now said to stop smoking because they use white snus. The truth is that young Swedes have not smoked for many years, but now smoking is increasing in this age group in upper secondary school.

In recent years, we have seen a sharp increase in e-cigarettes and white snus. These are what we call tobacco-free nicotine products, even though the nicotine usually comes from tobacco itself. The increase occurs primarily among young people.

Since these are relatively new products, there is not the same research on the long-term effects as there is regarding other tobacco products, which have been used for a very long time. But we know that there is nothing that suggests that this would be healthy.

Nicotine in itself is an acutely toxic and highly addictive substance. We know that nicotine is bad for the function of blood vessels. We know that it raises the pulse and blood pressure, which ultimately increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases. We know that nicotine is harmful during pregnancy because it reduces blood flow and oxygen supply to the fetus. We know that it increases the risk of miscarriage, premature birth, and sudden infant death. These are facts.

We know that several alarm reports have emerged stating that white snus can cause serious damage to the mouth and inflammation in the gums. We have heard, also here in today's debate, how difficult it is to stop using snus. We know that the calls to the Quit-Smoking-line from snus users asking for professional help to stop using snus have increased significantly.

As legislators with responsibility for public health and thus responsibility for the upbringing conditions of children and young people, we Social Democrats believe that we should follow the precautionary principle. We should do everything we can to prevent the use of white snus among children and young people. We should introduce nicotine-free school time. We should ban flavor additives that entice young people to try it, and we should set a limit on how much nicotine white snus may contain.

Madam Speaker! I shall say a few words on the narcotics policy. We view with great concern how drug use is spreading in society and how it seems to be more accepted in some circles than in others.

We know in the same way that people who use drugs have an increased risk of developing serious mental ill-health and mental illness. We know that Sweden has a high drug-related mortality resulting from both overdoses and suicide. We also know that the drug trade feeds organized crime and thus undermines the security and safety for everyone in society. It is a major public health policy problem.

We Social Democrats are against all proposals to legalize or decriminalize drugs. There is, thank goodness, a broad consensus on this. But we are also impatient, because we need to become significantly better at countering drug use, and we need to become significantly better at helping those who are drug-dependent.

It was the previous Social Democratic government that appointed the Co-morbidity Inquiry and the Narcotics Inquiry, as they are called. Both inquiries were presented in 2023, and they were well-received. But three years later, we are still far from any major reforms for the care and treatment of persons with drug abuse and co-morbidity.

Where is the politics in this? We have heard that it is a short time, but it has actually been three years. The government has appointed a special comorbidity delegation to develop a plan. That is good, and we look forward to the partial report that is to be released this spring. But partial reports do not change the world; rather, political decisions are required.

We Social Democrats would have wanted measures for better and more equal access to care and treatment throughout the country. We would have wanted clearer interventions for a faster stop for new substances, and we would have wanted that, according to the Narcotics Inquiry's proposal, the issue of consumption rooms should be investigated, to mention a few things.

With all this said, Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that I stand behind all the Social Democrats' motions, but in this context, I wish to move for approval only to reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member, for the speech!

I will not prolong the debate more than necessary, but there are some questions that I would like to clarify a little bit.

Let us begin with the Social Democrats' reservation, which partially concerns a nicotine content for snus and white snus. As I see it in the reservation, one goes straight for the Askersjö investigation's proposal. I problematized in my previous exchange of remarks that twelve milligrams can be relatively low, not least when it is per gram, as well as just this that one sets a limit with milligrams per gram.

I just want to hear if the Social Democrats think this is completely well-thought-out. If one wants to limit the intake per occasion, one should indeed set a limit based on milligrams per portion.

I also wonder how one views the risk that people will simply take more portions at a time with this proposal.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the question.

We consider it completely unreasonable that Sweden today has an almost unregulated market for so-called tobacco-free nicotine products. These are products that contain nicotine extracted from tobacco and which in large parts have the same effects on the body as tobacco products.

We therefore consider it reasonable to equate the nicotine content in brown snus with the nicotine content in white snus. It is not reasonable that white snus falls under food legislation. That is what we want to change.

When it comes to whether it should be necessary to use several pouches of white snus, my answer is that our task as legislators is to ensure that the harmful effects of these products are limited. Our goal is that people should not use any nicotine pouch at all. That is, after all, what is best for public health. There is nothing that suggests these products would be healthy in any way, so our goal is that no one should put a pouch under their lip.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the clarification.

We agree that there should be some kind of ceiling for this. It cannot be just any amount. But then I interpret it as that the Social Democrats are still okay with it being exactly twelve milligrams per gram, as written in their reservation. That message can also be given clearly and distinctly to their snus-using voters.

What I am almost surprised by is that one does not propose to ban nicotine products outright. As I hear the argumentation from the member, the only reasonable conclusion is to simply ban nicotine products outright. I would actually like to know why the Social Democrats do not propose that, if one thinks that this is the priority here – not to minimize harm so that people become as little harmed as possible, perhaps move from smoking to snus. The goal is that as few as possible should use snus. One should not be allowed to do it with a good taste. We are to have nicotine taxes. Why not just ban it outright?

I also have another question. It is described that these types of restrictions and flavor bans are supposed to save the youth who use snus to a high extent. The Sweden Democrats agree that it is a problem that more young people use snus. We believe that they should be prevented from getting hold of the snus, to begin with. But we also see that it is almost a larger proportion in that age group who drink alcohol, which is significantly more harmful. Alcohol also has age limits and strict regulations, but they do get hold of it. An alarming proportion get hold of narcotics, which are completely forbidden in society.

Then the Social Democrats mean that nicotine intake and flavor bans would save the situation. I am very skeptical about that.

I would like to hear the Social Democrats' reflections regarding what I just said, but also why one does not simply ban snus outright.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! The question of snus is somewhat difficult. We have in Sweden for a long time used tobacco and snus. To make a clear distinction and ban it is difficult, but we see it as our task to limit the harmful effects and have a clear focus on children and young people. Therefore, we want the conditions for banning flavors in white snus to be reviewed and thereby remove its attractiveness.

I cannot help but be surprised by how clearly it is when representatives for Sverigedemokraterna speak on these issues that it sounds like an echo from the tobacco industry.

I take the liberty of referring to Jan Hirsch, who is a periodontist, chief dental officer, and professor emeritus at Uppsala University. He is one of Sweden's most knowledgeable experts on issues concerning damage resulting from tobacco and nicotine. He questions why some Swedish politicians, just like the member right now, are so eager to highlight and defend white snus. In an article in a journal from the professional association Tandvård mot tobak, he asks whether this is due to ignorance or if one receives good pay from the tobacco industry.

I cannot help but ask myself that question when it is so clearly, time and again, highlighted how these products could in some way be good for public health. They are not. Therefore, we shall do our utmost to prevent children and young people from using them.

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

Cecilia Gustafsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Social Affairs' report on alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco, and gambling. These are issues that go straight to the heart of some of society's most important tasks: to protect children and young people, to prevent ill health, and to create security for people who find themselves in vulnerable life situations.

For me, ANDTS policy is ultimately about responsibility – about preventing in time before the problems grow large, about intervening when the risks become clear, and about ensuring that care, support, and supervision actually work when people need society the most.

For me, it is fundamentally about what kind of society we want to be. I want us to tackle problems early, before they grow large. I also want children and young people to always come first, even when the issues are complex and sometimes politically uncomfortable.

The committee makes the assessment that the direction of the policy shall remain fixed and that the focus now shall be on the implementation of already decided reforms rather than new announcements. Against that background, I would like to initially move for approval of the committee's proposal.

Madam Speaker! A, N, D, T and S are each five letters, but when we put them in a context linked to children, young people and preventive work, they gain meaning and significance. It is from these five areas that I will structure my speech.

Madam Speaker! Alcohol policy must be characterized by responsibility, balance, and long-term perspective. The committee notes that the basic alcohol policy tools shall remain in place and that there are currently no grounds for new announcements.

A stable and predictable alcohol policy is of great importance for public health, not least for children and young people who are affected by adults' alcohol consumption and society's norms regarding alcohol. For that very reason, the committee makes the assessment that several of the motions now raised should not be granted. To safeguard stability also means not making abrupt changes that risk having unwanted effects.

At the same time, the government has already implemented and is working on certain delimited and controlled changes within the framework of the existing alcohol policy. Farm sales have been introduced in a strictly regulated form, and the government has presented proposals to change the food requirement for serving licenses. The proposal is now out for consultation, with the aim that new rules can enter into force during the summer of 2026.

This does not change the basic direction of the alcohol policy. On the contrary, it shows that reforms can be implemented with order and responsibility and without compromising on the public health goals.

Against that background, the committee's conclusion is clear: The focus should be on supervision, compliance, and safety, not on new announcements that risk undermining a coherent alcohol policy.

Madam Speaker! Drug policy is the clearest line of conflict in the report. The committee stands firm on the goal of a society free from drugs and doping. It is a goal that sets a clear norm, especially for children and young people. Therefore, the committee says no to motions that want to take the policy in another direction, for example through decriminalization of personal use, consumption spaces, and drug checking.

Decriminalization of personal use would weaken the possibility of early interventions, not least when young people are in a risk zone. It risks sending signals that society accepts the use of drugs, even though we know how quickly experimentation can turn into an addiction.

Consumption rooms and so-called drug checking are often described as harm reduction measures. But for us, the objection is not about turning a blind eye to the problems, but about what role society should take. These proposals risk shifting the focus from preventing and treating addiction to, in practice, organizing and facilitating drug abuse. Socialstyrelsen and Folkhälsomyndigheten have also pointed out that the evidence for long-term reduced use is weak, while the risk of normalization is real. The committee's "no" is therefore an expression of responsibility, not passivity.

The committee also makes the assessment that the Riksdag should not anticipate the ongoing preparation of the Narcotics Inquiry by changing the objective formulation already now. At the same time, it is important to be clear that the work to strengthen care and support must continue. The co-morbidity reform is an important step for people with both addiction and mental ill-health. The Moderaternas line is clear. Yes to care, treatment, and preventive work, but no to measures that risk normalizing drug use.

Madam Speaker! Doping is the sometimes forgotten letter in ANDTS, but it is a serious social problem. Doping occurs in the same environments as drugs and contributes to organized crime. It also increases the risk of aggression, violence, and mental ill-health, which makes this a clear issue of safety.

In Trollhättan where I live, we work with the national method 100% Ren Hårdträning. Municipality, gym, and police work together with supervision, educational initiatives, and narcotics searches with dogs. It shows how the preventive work together with control and cooperation can actually work in practice.

Madam Speaker! Tobacco and nicotine entail, as we have heard in the chamber today, significant health risks, especially for children and young people. Early exposure increases the risk of lifelong addiction and poorer health. The Riksdag has recently decided that the objective formulation for tobacco and nicotine policy shall be about reduced medical and social harms, not solely reduced use. This means that the policy can better manage the actual risks linked to different products and live up to the overall public health mandate.

Against that background, the committee rejects motions on nicotine intake and flavor bans, not because the risks are diminished, but because the policy must be long-term and coherent and be based on how different management measures actually affect the behaviors of children and young people. The legislation on tobacco and nicotine has also recently been tightened, especially regarding age limits, supervision, and the protection of children and young people specifically. The focus now must be on implementation and compliance so that the protection for children and young people works in everyday life.

Madam Speaker! Gambling is a growing problem among children and young people. CAN's school surveys show that risky gambling is increasing, especially among boys. For many young people, gambling addiction leads to debt, mental ill-health, and problems within the family. And in some cases, there are also links to crime. The committee does not propose any new announcements, but the protection of children and young people must be central here as well through preventive work, strong consumer protection, and access to support and care for those who are affected.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, it is said in this report no to rapid changes of course but yes to responsibility, implementation, and long-term perspective. That is how we protect children and young people, that is how we strengthen public health, and that is why the Moderaterna stand behind the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! No one wants to directly – bang on the beet, so to speak – remove the criminalization, but instead, one wants to investigate.

The government should appoint an inquiry into how the law on the criminalization of personal use has affected the number of abusers and users and on their quality of life, health, and drug-freedom. So goes the proposal. Why do we say this? It is not just us, but a number of researchers, SKR and the National Board of Health and Welfare want to look at the issue. Has it become better since the law was introduced?

One can measure the number of reported drug crimes, and the number has risen enormously. They are now 130,000 per year. 90 percent of the reported drug crimes concern possession of personal use. That is something to reflect upon.

Then one can observe, just as the researchers have done. We rely on the research. Are there fewer open drug scenes with the current legislation? Is there reduced use in the population? Fewer people with problematic drug use and reduced need for care? What does the situation look like? What does it look like with the deaths? Those types of questions should be investigated. I am for investigations. If an investigation shows that the law is fantastically good, that it is good with criminalization – yes, then we buy that.

Several parties have a fear of not being able to manage the investigation. It is unfortunate. I say once again that we want to investigate. I am surprised that in so many cases it is a number of parties that are against investigating, when so many researchers say something else. SKR and the authorities say something else. Vänsterpartiet does not drive these issues from the basement.

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

Cecilia Gustafsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the reflections.

For the Moderaterna, children and young people are always the starting point in drug policy. We know that norms play a role, especially for young people. Lowering society's standards by decriminalizing risks sending signals that drug use is acceptable, even though we know how quickly one can go from experimenting and testing to ending up in an addiction.

There is no unambiguous scientific evidence today that decriminalization reduces drug use among young people. On the other hand, we know that early interventions are often completely crucial for people to be able to receive help in time.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! Then I want to know what research and what references the member leans on. I can mention, among others, Tham and 20,000 other researchers who argue that the issue should be investigated. The drug situation in Sweden does not look good. Why does it not?

Madam Speaker! I have another question regarding alcohol. Many children and young people grow up with parents who have a serious alcohol addiction. 20 percent of all children in Sweden, 430,000 children, experience at some point during their upbringing that at least one parent has a problematic drinking habit. How should one view the alcohol issue?

The Moderaterna have a frivolous view of alcohol. This is what the Moderaterna in Stockholm city say: Systembolaget should be open on Sundays, and grocery stores should be allowed to sell beer and wine. These are two proposals that the Moderaterna in Stockholm city think the government should realize.

How does the member view that type of move, that is, populism at all costs? It becomes strange, considering that so many children and young people in Sweden suffer from alcohol specifically. Unfortunately, not much is being done for the children, and there are not many self-help groups.

What is serious is the shift among the Moderaterna in the way they view alcohol. Will Systembolaget remain? Will we be able to buy wine on Tuesday in a regular Ica store? I have no idea when I read your motions.

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

Cecilia Gustafsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I cannot comment on what the Moderaterna in Stockholm city are saying. But as far as I know, there are no such proposals on the floor of the Riksdag to close Systembolaget, to be open on Sundays, or to sell spirits at Ica. It is nothing I am aware of. If I alone had been given the power to decide, we would not be submitting any such proposals either.

But now we are not in a position to make any such decisions, and I can only stand by what I think. I stand behind the proposal; I like Systembolaget.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! What should politicians base their actions on when enacting laws and looking at policy? Is it research, evidence, or moralism? Or is it the fear that the voters will go bananas when we say something other than tougher measures?

The discussion on Sweden's drug policy has changed. This is largely because the media and authorities have looked at the research. They have discarded the moralism that has long existed regarding how we can view the problems with drugs.

I have worked with drug policy for a long time and was one of those who ensured that needle exchange was implemented in Stockholm. Even then, the moralism filled the rooms. Back then, around 2010, the major parties said: Needle exchange will mean that more people will start using drugs. They said that for real back then. Now, a number of years have passed, and of course, they do not say that anymore. But we have a drug policy that we should reform and look at.

The ESO report Bruk och straff shows that today's addiction policy does not correspond to the knowledge development that has occurred in the field or society's needs. More and more people are suffering, and the methods used within social services and addiction care are not always relevant.

Furthermore, there have been very large cuts in both municipalities and regions for decades. Many have been denied care and support. The cornerstone for meeting addiction is a well-developed welfare system that is solidarily funded and without private profit interests. A powerful effort against drugs was needed, while at the same time addiction should not be stigmatized. Housing, detoxification, care places, and coherent care chains were needed.

An often neglected area is support in recovery and integration into society. To reach that, another new goal for drug policy is required. Vänsterpartiet believes that the goal of Swedish drug policy should be changed from a society free from drugs to a society with reduced harm from drugs based on a restrictive view of drugs. We want the government to commission an inquiry into how the law on criminalization of personal use has affected the number of addicts and users and their quality of life, health, and drug-freedom.

During the years 1993–2024, the number of reported narcotics offenses has gone from just over 40,000 to over 130,000 per year. Today, 90 percent of the reported narcotics offenses are possession for own use. One might then think that the police would perhaps move higher up in the hierarchy of criminality, but they do not.

One can wonder if it has become better since the law was introduced, if the supply of drugs has decreased and if there have been higher prices, fewer open drug scenes, reduced use in the population, fewer people with problematic drug use and reduced need for care. Do we see that?

It has instead gone in a completely opposite direction. Particularly serious of all available measures is the mortality. It has now gone down slightly due to naloxone. That is very good. But we have had an extreme mortality in Sweden. Not many in these halls have cared very much about it. I think that is a bit tragic. But now it has been done.

We want to see that an investigation is commissioned on how the law on criminalization of personal use has affected the number of users and abusers as well as their quality of life, health, and drug-freedom. I move here for approval of reservation 13.

In March 2022, the then government appointed the inquiry A Swedish narcotics policy adapted to present and future challenges, often called the narcotics inquiry. There, it has been recommended that the government "adopt a program to reduce deaths resulting from narcotics and drug poisonings as well as complement the government's vision with a concrete goal that mortality should have decreased by at least 20 percent from 2022". There are also several proposals aimed at young people.

We welcomed it. But now we wonder: What happens? When will it come? Is this one of the bills that we are to deal with in July? What will happen? That is what we wonder anxiously.

Madam Speaker! The tobacco industry is skilled at finding new markets for its products. What can go wrong when tobacco-free snus becomes child-friendly through flavors that appeal specifically to children? Or do adults want to taste raspberry in their mouths? I have no idea.

Vänsterpartiet considers that it should not be permitted to use additives of flavorings that make tobacco-free snus attractive to children, young people, and non-smokers through a clear, noticeable scent or taste of something other than tobacco.

The tobacco-free flavored nicotine pouch was launched in 2016 and is the most commonly occurring product among the tobacco-free nicotine products. Isn't it good to have both hinges and life-belts when introducing new things and considering what we should do with them? Is this good? It is perhaps not just good.

The tobacco industry is after money. It is not some kind of public health institute. They want to make money, and they continue to do so on those types of products.

Madam Speaker! There is today a more relaxed view on alcohol among politicians in the Riksdag. In some motions, it can be read that the monopoly, i.e., Systembolaget, is being questioned.

Very few speak about children of alcohol dependents. In Sweden, there are 330,000 people who have an alcohol dependency. More than 20 percent of all children in Sweden, i.e., 430,000 children, experience at some point during their upbringing that at least one parent has alcohol problems. That is a lot. It is therefore not uncommon to grow up with parents who have alcohol problems. Those children suffer very badly.

These are precisely public health issues. But sometimes the question of alcohol tends to become a commercial issue. We do not talk so much about the problems. It is more "hello and goodbye, how fun!" There is simply very little consideration of consequences, which I would like to see.

I also refer back here to the Moderaterna in Stockholm, who want Systembolaget to be open on Sundays and that grocery stores should be allowed to sell beer and wine. We could see those proposals about half a year ago. I think that Centerpartiet also has a tendency to sometimes drift away in these issues and see it more from a business perspective instead of a public health perspective. I wonder about that sometimes during such chilly winter days.

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

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

The Christian Democrats stand for a solidary, public health-based and restrictive alcohol and drug policy. All people should be able to grow up and live without being harmed by their own or others' use of alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco, nicotine or gambling. Therefore, we safeguard Systembolaget's monopoly and an active price policy, in order to prevent harm and social consequences.

The Christian Democrats base their work on human dignity, the family, and the community. It is in secure environments in the home, in association life, and in civil society that the preventive work gains real power.

Madam Speaker! The Government has tasked nine authorities with developing a common national plan for better addiction care and strengthened preventive work. The National Board of Health and Welfare and the Public Health Agency are leading the work, which is to be reported on June 1, 2026. For this work, the Government has allocated 18 million kronor.

For us Christian Democrats, children and young people are a particularly prioritized group in the work of ANDTS. The development shows both a bright and a dark picture. Alcohol consumption is decreasing, as is daily smoking and risk consumption. At the same time, we see a worrying development regarding drugs and especially nicotine products. The use of snus, including white snus, and e-cigarettes has increased sharply, not least among young people. The goal of a smoke-free Sweden is reached in some groups, but far from all.

Alcohol can be a source of joy and social community, but we must not turn a blind eye to the extensive economic consequences of damages related to alcohol use for both the individual and society as a whole. The costs include healthcare, the justice system, and social interventions as well as lost production, which several agencies have pointed out as a strong reason to invest in preventive work.

Madam Speaker! Drug-related mortality remains at a high level, even though it has decreased since 2015. In 2024, 725 people died as a result of drug and narcotic poisonings – a decrease compared to the previous year. The decrease primarily concerns unintentional overdoses and men. Drug-related suicides, however, have increased.

The Christian Democrats and the government have taken several important measures.

On the initiative of Social Minister Jakob Forssmed, naloxone as a nasal spray became available over the counter during 2024. It saves lives in cases of opioid overdoses. The Medical Products Agency, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Public Health Agency are now working to spread knowledge and ensure equitable use.

Medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction, LARO, is part of the work. When properly designed, with both medical treatment and psychosocial support, it reduces relapse, transmission of infection, and mortality. But there are also several other treatment methods to support people with addiction problems and their families. This can occur through rehabilitation and preventive measures, also in cooperation with civil society.

In the budget for 2026, 50 million kronor are allocated for preparations for the upcoming comorbidity reform. For the years 2027–2031, 400 million kronor per year are planned for regions and municipalities. The reform implies that the regions' responsibility for addiction care shall be strengthened and that the distribution of responsibility between health and medical care and social services shall be clarified.

The regions have the responsibility for all treatment of persons with harmful use or addiction. The responsibility applies to all levels of care and ages and covers both medical as well as psychosocial and psychological treatment interventions. Social services retain their responsibility for support in everyday life, for example support with housing and employment and help for persons to develop their own resources.

Madam Speaker! Gambling is also a part of the ANDTS policy. The Government is strengthening the preventive work and has presented proposals for a new ban on gambling on credit to reduce the risk of over-indebtedness and protect consumers. The National Audit Office's review of the gambling prevention work will be presented shortly.

When it comes to alcohol, I also want to mention that farm sales have been permitted since June 1, 2025. The Government intends to evaluate the regulatory framework. The proposal for simplifications of the Alcohol Act is now being prepared following the conclusion of the referral process.

Madam Speaker! The previous ANDTS strategy expired at the turn of the year. The Government has decided on a new overarching goal for the ANDTS policy that better takes into account the harmful effects of different products. The question of a new strategy is still being prepared, but the policy remains fixed.

The high use of tobacco and nicotine products among young people is particularly concerning. Sweden has an EU exemption for snus, but white snus is not covered by the EU's tobacco legislation. The EU Commission is expected to submit proposals in 2026 in connection with the revision of the tobacco products directive. There is no information on what regulation the Commission is expected to propose. Other Member States have, however, stated that they see a need for harmonization of the regulation of nicotine products.

The Christian Democrats will continue to pursue an ANDTS policy that puts human dignity at the center, strengthens the family and civil society, prioritizes preventive work, and stands firm against drug liberalization.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating ANDTS issues. I intend to address two different areas in my speech, partly the need for a modernized alcohol legislation, and partly the need for a modernized narcotics policy.

Let me begin with the alcohol policy. The purpose of the Swedish alcohol policy is, just as we have heard earlier, to promote public health and reduce the medical and social harmful effects of alcohol. We in the Center Party fully share that goal. We can also observe that alcohol consumption in Sweden has steadily decreased over the last 20 years. Above all, there has been a sharp decline among adolescents and young adults. Drinking habits in Sweden have also changed significantly during this time. However, the legislation has not. For that reason, the Center Party wants to conduct a major review of the law. We are already presenting proposals for changes in the parts where we see a need for it.

Madam Speaker! This summer, Sweden finally introduced retail sales of beer, wine, cider, and spirits. It was a change that the Center Party had worked for for 20 years and which could finally become a reality thanks to the investigation that we in the Center Party initiated and had carried out during the previous parliamentary term, and thanks to the fact that we finally had a majority for this in the Swedish Riksdag after both the Christian Democrats and the Liberals had joined. On the very same day that the law came into force, June 1st last year, the first locations were able to open for sales. Others joined during the weeks and months thereafter.

I have personally visited several of these points of sale. My impression is that, overall, people are satisfied that this has now become a reality. But at the same time, there are things to refine in the legislation. We raised this from the Center Party's side already when the law was adopted, and we repeat it now in our committee motion. All in all, it is about making the law more liberal and business-friendly, for example by raising the volume production ceilings, reducing the requirements for the visiting arrangements, and removing the requirement to inform about the harmful effects of alcohol. The latter was introduced right at the end of the government, even though it was not even included in the investigation.

Madam Speaker! Another issue that we have pushed hard from the Center Party's side is the one regarding the abolition of the so-called food requirement, which one is today required to fulfill in order to obtain a serving permit. The requirement means, on one hand, that there must be a varied selection of cooked food available until 11 p.m. in the evenings, and on the other hand, that the food must be prepared in its own kitchen which is located adjacent to the serving premises.

This is a prime example of a legal requirement that has become outdated and which it is now time to abolish. Now it finally looks like we could implement that change, at best from July 1st this year. Then we will hopefully also be able to clarify that there should be no requirements for indoor serving locations, but that it also works perfectly well with roof terraces, outdoor seating, and street seating.

Does the removal of farm sales and a removed food requirement lead to increased drinking and increased damage? If we look at our neighboring country Finland, which has had both of those parts for many years, there is nothing that indicates that would be the case. On the contrary, one can see that when Finland removed the food requirement in 2018, drinking subsequently decreased by an additional 10 percent in the Finnish population. There is therefore no connection between them.

The modernization of the alcohol legislation is therefore not in conflict with a restrictive alcohol policy, for those who thought so. Therefore, we from the Center Party want to conduct a review of the entire Swedish alcohol legislation, which in many parts has become completely outdated.

Madam Speaker! The second area I want to speak about today is the narcotics policy. Even there, a modernization was needed, not least in the view of addiction and addicts. Both the Narcotics Inquiry and the Mental Illness Inquiry address these questions and present proposals for necessary changes, but the change is moving very slowly in the Tidö parties' Sweden.

First and foremost, it is about how we view people who are in harmful use or addiction. There, we seriously need to move away from the image that it is a self-chosen antisocial behavior and state that it is a disease.

That is also why the Center Party has been insistent on implementing the content of the Mental Illness Inquiry, where the responsibility for care is to be moved from the social services in the municipalities to the health and medical care in the regions. It is an absolutely necessary change, which unfortunately takes far too long to implement.

Centerpartiet has also pushed for the introduction of needle exchange programs, which are now present in all regions. However, we cannot be satisfied with the fact that in many regions there is only a single site for needle exchange despite very large areas. It is naturally necessary to move forward here and look at having it in more places in one's region as well. We also believe that it is now appropriate to begin investigating the issue of consumption rooms in the same way as exists in our neighboring countries in order to reduce harm and provide proximity to medically competent staff.

From the Center Party's side, we firmly say no to all thoughts on the legalization of drugs. On the other hand, we argue that the police's resources primarily should not go towards hunting individual addicts, who are rarely helped by providing another urine sample, being fined once again which they cannot pay, or receiving another mark in the criminal record.

Instead, the resources should go towards hunting the dealers and the organized crime behind the ruthless sale of narcotics. Those with addictions should, above all, receive help and support to get out of their addiction, not another summary penalty.

Madam Speaker! Overall, we need to move towards a drug policy that is about harm minimization and harm reduction. That Sweden stands out in Europe regarding the number of drug-related deaths is in direct relation to the drug policy that has dominated since the end of the 80s. The intention was good, but now we know better. There are plenty of good proposals both in the Drug Inquiry and in the Co-morbidity Inquiry. But it is not enough to just talk about it; the changes need to be implemented for real.

In conclusion, I would like to move for approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation 8 under point 5 regarding the implementation of the content of the Narcotics Inquiry.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are dealing with issues that go straight into people's lives and everyday existence. They often go straight into perhaps the most vulnerable moment in people's lives. It is about alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco and gambling. But ultimately, it is about our health, our safety and our human dignity.

Behind every point in the statistics, there is a human being. It is a child who is suffering, a parent who is struggling, or a young person who is trapped in an addiction. The task of politics is not only to set boundaries but also to open doors, to help and to support.

In October 2023, the Narcotics Inquiry concluded its extensive assignment. It has been tasked with showing how a continued restrictive narcotics policy can be reconciled with effective prevention, a functioning substance abuse and addiction care, harm reduction measures, and a clear goal: that absolutely no one should have to die as a result of drug or narcotics poisoning.

The investigation finds that today's legislation does not provide the space needed for certain harm-reduction measures, for example, consumption rooms. At the same time, it is recommended that the government initiates a review of the narcotics legislation specifically, where the value of such interventions shall also be weighed in.

It is an important conclusion. The people we are talking about here are people in our society who everyone has given up on: the family has given up, friends have given up, and quite literally everyone has given up. It is about people who are left to their addiction and their abuse, and to making do in a back alley or a secluded stairwell.

Then society must step in. A social-liberal policy is about both heart and brain. It is about standing up for a restrictive line against drugs, but also about daring to adjust the tools when reality changes.

When people die from overdoses and poisonings, we cannot simply be content with saying that the system is consistent. Then we need to ask ourselves if it is sufficiently humane or sufficiently effective. Reviewing the regulatory framework is not giving up. It is taking responsibility.

Madam Speaker! At least as important is the preventive work among children and young people. Here, the Narcotics Inquiry has proposed that the government should supplement the ANDTS strategy with a special program to prevent drug use among children and young people, delay the debut, and reduce harmful use and behavior.

This is absolutely crucial. It is when one is young that everything begins. It is there that the foundation is laid for our entire lives. It usually happens during school age. We know that early debut significantly increases the risk of lifelong problems. Therefore, prevention must be long-term, knowledge-based, and coordinated.

Social services, school, health and medical care, and civil society need to work together, not in silos but across boundaries. A specific program here can create structure, spread evidence-based methods, and contribute to children and young people receiving equal opportunities, regardless of where they grow up in the country. It is social-liberal policy in practice: to strengthen the individual early, before the problems become large.

Another central part is addiction care. There, the government has appointed the Co-morbidity Delegation, which has been mentioned several times here today and which is so important. It is about implementing the extensive and thorough reform of coordinated, needs-based, and person-centered interventions for persons with co-morbidity, i.e., harmful use or addiction in combination with mental ill-health. The delegation has presented its work to us in the Social Affairs Committee, and nine agencies have been tasked with developing a common national plan for better addiction care throughout the country. It is an enormously important step.

For far too long, people with co-morbidity have fallen between the cracks – between regions and municipalities, between psychiatry and addiction care. A social-liberal starting point is simple: Care shall be organized based on each individual's needs, not based on the boundaries of authorities. A coherent care structure is crucial if we mean business about giving people a real chance at recovery, work, and participation.

When it comes to alcohol policy, the focus lies on continued public health and on the clear connection between availability, consumption, and harm. At the same time, the regulations need to be intelligible and purposeful. Therefore, parts of the Alcohol Act are being reviewed, including those concerning serving licenses. This is being prepared in the Government Offices.

The rules on farm sales, which entered into force on June 1, 2025, are an example of how we can combine responsibility with freedom. Small-scale producers now get limited opportunities to sell their products, and the local tourism industry is strengthened. At the same time, Systembolaget's monopoly and the public health perspective are protected. The sales are now clearly linked to local production and tourism activities. The reform is time-limited, and it shall be evaluated. This is a pragmatic and evidence-based way to develop policy step by step. There are some indications of impatience when it comes to implementing reforms, but we have seen that this needs to take time to become really good, which it now is.

Madam Speaker! Overall, both the Narcotics Inquiry and the work with the ANDTS policy show that these issues require precisely long-term perspective, knowledge, and balance between restrictiveness and humanity, between preventive work and qualified care with clear boundaries and open doors. The goal needs to be clear: fewer in substance abuse, fewer young people who get trapped in addiction, and fewer lives lost. It is towards this goal that this government continues to work and constantly needs to be measured – for every young person who gets trapped in substance abuse, for every parent out there who is struggling, for every young person's sake.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I remember when, at the age of 22, I was asked by a good friend of mine to accompany them to Stadsmissionen in Malmö and be a volunteer. On the weekend, they had a space where they offered sandwiches and received people, the vast majority of whom had severe substance abuse problems.

It was a very cold winter in Malmö just then. It was minus 15 when we sat and worked. Into the hall came about fifty people who had lived a long life with substance abuse and problems. There were three showers that there was a queue for, because it was the chance for them to be able to get a little clean. There was a small place where they could pick up winter clothes, which were needed. And one could write their name on a slip and put it in a box that was there. It was about applying to get one of the 14 emergency beds that existed. On the evening before we were to close, there was a lottery – the most absurd lottery I had ever been part of in my life. 50 people stood and waited to see who would be the 14 lucky winners, who would get the chance to sleep in a warm bed. When the names of the 14 lucky ones were called out, it was our role to ensure that the remaining ones were ushered out, who would have to find somewhere to sleep outside in Malmö, in minus 15 degrees. It was truly an eye-opener. Many of them had gone so far in the substance abuse problems that all lifelines had been broken – all lifelines towards relatives, friends, and other things.

Since then, much has happened. Unfortunately, the drug problems have increased in scope. It has become a larger and more challenging societal problem in Sweden. It has devastating consequences, not only for those who have fallen into addiction but also for the relatives, whether they are parents, siblings, or even children. And it is a problem that exists in the entire country.

I remember when a few years ago we woke up to the shocking news in Västerbotten that two people had died from overdose in Vilhelmina and five others were in hospital. This is a major problem that we have and that we must address and work on. That is exactly why it is so urgent that we move forward. That is why we in Miljöpartiet are pushing, together with several others, for us to now move forward from the sound Narcotics Inquiry and ensure that we try to implement the proposals that are there. But it also concerns the Co-morbidity Inquiry. Many times the issues are linked. People with addiction can also have problems with mental ill-health, and people with mental ill-health tend to a greater extent, in desperation, turn to drugs to self-medicate.

I want to make a co-submission on an important matter. In our fight against drugs, which nourish the criminal gangs that we so dearly want to remove from our streets and our society, we must not lock ourselves behind ideological barriers. We must have an openness to empiricism and research and to the proposals that come to us.

I have previously spoken about the work with the needle exchange program, which I visited. It was so incredibly interesting to be there. Something that struck me was that many of the people they help are in difficult life situations, and they are seen as and are today criminals. They commit criminal acts every day. I am a bit disappointed that we have not moved forward with looking at what opportunities exist, just as other members have touched upon. 90 percent of all drug crimes involve persons who are prosecuted for their own use. Are there opportunities to sentence in other ways? The Drug Policy Center has touched upon that, for example. Could one investigate and submit proposals that persons with addiction in the future could receive a different sanction, such as support or treatment?

We would need to move forward with these proposals, and we would really need to look objectively and listen in order to try to reduce the problems with abuse and drugs. Therefore, it is also important that we make this shift, for which there is anyway a very strong empirical basis. It is about us shifting the focus from a society free from drugs – we are a bit away from that today – to, above all, starting by reducing harm and negative effects. I think this was exemplified when I saw the needle exchange program. When it concerns many of those who received help, the first step could many times be to reduce harm, harm reduction. Slowly but surely, they could reach the stage where they perhaps could finally free themselves from their drug abuse.

I thought I would highlight another thing, and that is non-profit organizations and their invaluable work.

In Umeå, I have closely followed, for example, the work of Spelberoendegruppen when they help people with gambling problems. A major challenge that many with different types of addiction problems have is that it is difficult to access healthcare. It takes a long time before one gets help, and when one is stuck in an addiction and feels that "now I really want to stop this," one needs to get help now.

The sad thing is that many who seek help are referred by healthcare to the voluntary movements, which do a fantastic job. They are passionate people with their own experiences who are burning to help people get rid of their addictions. They, however, need significantly better conditions to be able to do that work. They need more resources to work with this invaluable work, whether it concerns associations against gambling addiction, Alcoholics Anonymous, or other organizations that work with helping people away from addiction.

These organizations can also be a valuable resource when it comes to preventive work. I have heard from several of them that they would like to come out and talk to school children and tell them about their own experiences. I believe it would have been invaluable to include them there.

I conclude by moving for approval of reservation 3.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an important and good speech that I agree with! I did not intend to prolong the debate; we have another debate underway here tonight. But I think we smaller parties need a little more time.

I listened for the word brukarrum in the speech. I do not believe it was mentioned in the speech. I myself have been close to the vulnerable people who are at shelters and elsewhere. In Jönköping, where I live, there is Hela Människan, which works with people who are torn apart by a lifelong addiction, who are stuck and who see no possibility at all of getting out of it. They are just trying to survive.

Madam Speaker! I wonder if Miljöpartiet stands behind investigating and introducing specifically usage rooms. It would be good to get an answer on that.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question! I will be completely honest and say that I actually do not know exactly where we stand when it comes to specifically usage rooms. It is such a matter that I will delve into, and then I promise to return to the question.

Generally, I can say that we are open to all proposals that can help. We want to listen to what emerges from research and positive experiences and then implement it without ideological blinkers.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the positive response regarding looking into this!

We in the Liberals have pushed this for a long time, both here in the Riksdag and in Region Stockholm, where the Liberals submitted a proposal to introduce a consumption room as a pilot project based on a research study, which provides legal room to make exceptions. However, it was voted down by the Green Party. Later, I can inform the members, a proposal was submitted by the party itself in Region Stockholm stating that they want to see this.

This doesn't quite add up for me, so I just want to get a clear answer: If the Liberals submit a proposal for hunting areas to the Riksdag or in any region, will the Green Party support that proposal or will you vote it down?

The narcotics investigation concluded that more studies and more evidence are needed regarding how consumption rooms can help people like those I believe the member met that cold night. Their inhuman suffering must come to an end. They should not be banished to a back alley or a stairwell, but they need to come into the warmth where people have not given up on them, where people care when no one else cares.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I sat and tried as quickly as possible to see if I could find something so that the member could receive an answer already now. But I promise that I will return to that question.

I cannot go into why the decisions that have been made in Stockholm have been made, but I am completely convinced that they have their legitimate reasons for it.

Now I have actually just received confirmation of what I hoped: We are generally in favor of user rooms, but we see that it must lead to a legislative change. That is where one can start in that case.

Thank you very much! What is so good with such debates is that one learns things!

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 February.)

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