Response to interpellation 2022/23:402 on the legalization of cannabis in Germany
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Sweden's stance on drug policy in light of developments in Germany. KD advocates for a public health-based and restrictive drug policy where the right to health is guiding 1. KD argues that legalization is not compatible with the drug conventions and that Sweden should continue to pursue a restrictive stance internationally 1 2 3. KD wants to develop harm reduction measures and improve access to care without stigmatization 2 3. KD emphasizes that Sweden must maintain its position to protect young people and prevent criminal environments from benefiting 3 4. S believes that the policy must be developed as Sweden faces a new situation with increased availability for youth 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Karin Sundin has asked me how I intend to act on behalf of Sweden in the issue of the legalization of cannabis in Germany.
The government's narcotics policy is based on a public health-based perspective rooted in human rights. This means that the right to health shall be a guiding principle that applies to everyone, both children and young people as well as women and men, with harmful use or addiction. The government advocates a line where restrictiveness is contained within the framework of a public health-based policy. Harm reduction measures shall be carried out on a scientific basis. A powerful crime-preventive and crime-combating effort should continue to be prioritized.
The drug situation in Sweden is affected by events in the rest of the world. It is therefore important to pursue an active drug policy also within the EU and internationally. In the international drug policy context, the government represents a line where measures that have public health as the primary goal are in focus. Since illegal drug trafficking is a cross-border problem, cooperation regarding crime fighting within the EU and internationally, as well as with international organizations, is also of central importance, not least because illegal drug trafficking constitutes one of the primary sources of income for organized crime.
The UN's drug conventions are a fundamental basis for the design of drug policy, both nationally, within the EU, and internationally. A starting point for the drug conventions is to promote health and welfare for people. The international drug conventions have been ratified by most of the world's countries. The responsibility to live up to the commitments that a ratification entails rests on each individual state.
The narcotics conventions specify the frameworks for how the countries that have ratified the conventions shall enact laws. The laws shall restrict the use of narcotics to only medical and scientific use. All other cultivation and sale of the substances covered by the conventions is illegal. The frameworks in the conventions are written so that a member state can choose to penalize its own use or not. Both possession and use of cannabis, which constitutes a narcotic, is illegal in Sweden.
The International Narcotics Control Board, INCB, works to monitor and support states' compliance with the international narcotics conventions. The INCB has been clear that the legalization of drugs is not compatible with the narcotics conventions. The legalization of cannabis should also be considered in light of the EU regulatory framework resulting from the Council of Europe's 2004 framework decision on minimum rules concerning criminal offenses and sanctions for illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as well as the Schengen acquis.
INCB's annual report 2022 describes, despite difficulties in measuring the consequences of the legalization of cannabis, that evaluations conducted relatively shortly after the implementation of legalization show that the most serious problems that one wished to address through legalization have not decreased. For example, use is higher in areas where cannabis can now be purchased legally, and the prevalence is increasing faster compared to areas where it is still illegal.
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC, publishes a report every year on the drug situation in the world. According to the 2022 report, the legalization of cannabis also entails negative health effects and an increased burden on health and medical care.
The Government also considers that the national competence to develop and adopt national criminal policy and criminal laws regarding the definition of drug offenses and penalties shall be respected and protected. The same applies to the rules of criminal procedure.
The Government will continue to work actively to reduce the demand for and the availability of illegal drugs in society. A completely central part of this is to work actively within international contexts such as within the EU and the UN.
Karin Sundin (S)
Mr. Speaker! I shall, of course, as is customary, thank Minister Jakob Forssmed for the answer I have received. I note, however, that it was not much of an answer to my question. The question was: How does the Minister intend to act on behalf of Sweden regarding the legalization of cannabis in Germany?
The Minister's response contains nothing at all about how they intend to act. Not a word is said about what the Minister and the government intend to do now. The Minister's response is a general and rather sweeping description of the conventions and legislation that form the basis for the Swedish government's narcotics policy.
It is quite true, as the Minister says, that most countries have signed the conventions. It is, of course, quite true and important that several reports show that increased legalization has not fulfilled the hopes that have existed regarding reduced drug-related crime. And it is quite true, as the Minister points out, that legalization entails negative health effects and an increased burden on healthcare. We know that.
It is, for all intents and purposes, a good description that the Minister gives of the background to the Swedish narcotics policy and the Swedish positions. And I think that this answer would have worked perfectly well as an answer to some other interpellation on cannabis at some other time, some other year when this has been debated. It could have been a good answer then. But, Madam Speaker, this is not a good answer to the question of what needs to be done now. It says nothing concrete about what the government intends to do now that Germany chooses to proceed with a proposal on the legalization of cannabis, despite the fact that they have ratified the narcotics conventions, despite the fact that a legalization is not compatible with the EU's regulatory framework, despite the fact that no previous example suggests that crime will decrease, and despite the fact that the evidence on the health effects is strong.
Madam Speaker! I wrote and submitted this interpellation in the middle of June. At that time, the German government had presented its proposal to legalize cannabis. And now the German government has also decided to proceed with this proposal. The German government wants it to be legal to use and possess up to 25 grams of cannabis. It shall be legal to have one's own cannabis cultivation at home, and it shall be legal with special cannabis clubs for cultivation and distribution. The next step in the process during the autumn will be that the German Bundestag shall make a decision on the proposal.
The ambition with these proposals is that the new legislation shall begin to apply from the turn of the year. From the turn of the year - in a little over three months - we can therefore have a situation where it is free game for all Germans over 18 years of age to use cannabis.
When I listen to the Minister, it does not seem as if he has perceived at all that this is happening in Germany right now.
Madam Speaker! This is not just a German matter. A legalization of cannabis in the EU's most populous country will affect the narcotics market in all of Europe. It raises a number of questions about the boundaries between different countries' legislation and about what happens when there is an illegal and a legal market simultaneously. It raises fears about increased smuggling and drug tourism. It will also mean new opportunities for Swedish youth to try it out. This is happening now on the other side of the Baltic Sea, just a few hours' drive or boat trip away.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the interpellor Karin Sundin for this and for her commitment to reducing drug use in Sweden. It is very and important in many ways.
As I explained, the government is pursuing an active policy both in the EU context and internationally. There, it is about combining a restrictive position with a public health-based approach. There are countries that have a very restrictive view but not so many public health-based approaches. There are also countries that have neither one nor the other. In these contexts, we want to contribute in the ways we can so that we have a restrictive stance on this, because so much happens in the narcotics track that is negative for societies.
With this, I want to say that I follow the German developments closely. I have followed the different stages of the reform and also how it has been adapted and modified over time. That it has been done, I also believe, is due to requirements from international conventions, EU law issues, and other things. Then this must be tested. What is now happening in Germany may perhaps need to be tested in EU law contexts. I cannot judge in what way it occurs. But it is primarily up to the international forums that are to monitor convention compliance to do so rather than Sweden having to do it. On the other hand, Sweden will continue to pursue a restrictive stance in the contexts where we are present internationally. This is not something unknown to me, but something that I, of course, follow closely.
One must also remember that the German situation is different compared to the Swedish situation. Far fewer people in Sweden have tried cannabis or who use cannabis. This also applies among young people, where the difference is very large between Sweden and Germany. It also means that we have different conditions.
It is also important for me that Sweden can continue to pursue a restrictive policy. But of course, this does not happen in a vacuum, and it is a matter of being observant of the world around us and following and discussing this with other countries that choose other paths. We must ask the question: What experiences are there of this? We are not to do this so that Sweden will change, but we shall continue to maintain a restrictive stance. But we also need to learn from the reforms that have occurred and other measures that could be possible within the framework of a restrictive policy and work more with harm-reduction interventions and ensure that those who use drugs get better opportunities for care and support so that there is less stigma so that people can also seek help for their problems in different ways. I also think this is important for Sweden to develop. But we shall not deviate from the restrictive line, and that is what we advocate for in international contexts.
Karin Sundin (S)
Madam Speaker! It is good that the Minister has noted what is now happening in Germany, and it would be strange otherwise. The waves of debate have indeed been high in Germany regarding which path Germany is to take now. The German government coalition is clear that this is only the beginning. It is the intention to go significantly further than what is done in the proposal that has now been presented. They want a more extensive legalization, and they intend to return with proposals on making it possible to sell cannabis over the counter, despite the current EU legislation.
The question is whether it should go so far that it must be tested, or whether we can act preventatively and proactively in this regard.
What we have heard most from the German debate here in Sweden, I believe, is that many legalization advocates mean that the German proposal is bad and that it is too small a first step towards easier drug use. The present proposal is portrayed as being bureaucratic and convoluted. It is argued that these cannabis clubs will not function as one had hoped they would.
In the Swedish reporting, we actually have not heard very much at all about the German discussion on whether one should have a legalization in Germany at all. The big question is, of course, how one can protect minors from drugs when it becomes permitted for anyone to have cannabis cultivation at home. One can have three lush plants in one's kitchen window.
Access to drugs will, as a result of this, increase in Germany and in all of Europe. Consequently, the risk of addiction problems, mental ill-health, and other health-related problems will increase.
The medical evidence is, as we have touched upon, clear. And many German parents are, of course, worried today about what this will mean for their youth when it becomes fully permitted for 18-year-olds to use drugs. Since these are known facts, the German Medical Association is, of course, completely opposed to this. In this context, we must not be deceived into thinking that this is only about youth, but that it also concerns children. The example from Canada, which legalized cannabis in 2018, is that the number of poisoning cases among children related to cannabis has also increased dramatically, not least because cannabis is often used in various types of pastries. This is a development that we are now opening the doors to in Europe. It does not only concern Germany, but it concerns all of Europe.
It is also about the legislation. The German judiciary is skeptical. The government in Germany hopes, just like many proponents of legalization in Sweden, that this will mean reduced crime - a reduced illegal market. But the German jurists argue that there is a great risk of mixing between the white and the black market, i.e., that these will become intertwined, and they state that they will likely have more to do.
Against this background, I wonder what Jakob Forssmed thinks we in Sweden should do to prepare for that debate. I wonder what Jakob Forssmed intends to do in this issue before the next EU meeting he is going to attend. I wonder what Jakob Forssmed intends to do to counteract a development like the German one in Sweden. I wonder what Jakob Forssmed intends to do so that Swedish youths do not seek out Germany to try their luck. What does the Minister intend to do?
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the interpellor for the questions.
I perceive that I have, in any case to some extent, answered the questions, namely that Sweden in the international contexts where we are present will continue to put forward our view on these issues. The conventions we have acceded to must, of course, be followed, and the EU regulations and decisions that exist must, of course, apply. It is something that member states must comply with, and the international forums that are to monitor this must do so.
Sweden needs to continue to maintain a restrictive stance here. We still have a significantly lower use of drugs, not least cannabis, than many countries, and that is something to guard against. From survey studies, we know that Swedish policy means that younger people use drugs to a lesser extent - or use drugs fewer times than they otherwise would have done, precisely because it is not permitted and thus not legal. It is an important matter when it comes to use in relation to young people.
We also need to develop our policy and show that it is possible to combine a restrictive policy with a public health-based approach where the right to health applies to all people. When it comes to access to care and support, we can improve and ensure that there are opportunities for those who use drugs to get out of it in a better way and receive help and support without being affected by stigmatizations that counteract this in various ways. That is also important in the international context.
Now we have a narcotics investigation that is working with very broad directives. It is also to make international observations and see what lessons can be drawn regarding these issues internationally. I look forward to the investigation submitting its final report shortly, and I believe it will be important for both the ongoing narcotics policy debate and the development in Sweden. But our restrictive position remains firm, and we advocate for it in the international contexts where we are present.
Karin Sundin (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the clarification, Minister!
The Minister and I grew up at approximately the same time. It was a time when Swedish narcotics policy, public health policy, and what was then called ANT issues were largely characterized by state-supported information campaigns. We grew up with Anslagstavlan, and we grew up in a society covered in yellow stickers that said "Spola kröken". We grew up with exhortations from A Non Smoking Generation. A lot has happened since then.
We are members of the EU, and I think it is good that the government emphasizes the importance of actually continuing to work on these issues at the EU level. But in this situation, it is not possible to just continue; we must push forward. Over the years, we have learned a lot about what works and what does not work when it comes to countering drug-related problems. We live in a completely different society today, and it is actually we who are middle-aged today who need to take responsibility for those who are young.
There, I think a social minister in Sweden needs to take more measures than just talking at the EU level. It is an important part, but I think a Swedish social minister must also act towards the Swedish population and the Swedish youth when it comes to what we can do to counteract alcohol, narcotics, and other drugs. These are issues that we need to return to, and there, I think there is much left to do.
When the Minister says that the policy must be developed, I expect it to be developed. We are now facing a completely new situation in Europe, with a completely new accessibility for the Swedish youth.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! There is much to be done in this area; there is no doubt about that. Then I am a bit questioning as to exactly what the interpellor wants us to do in these international contexts that we do not do and which I have not accounted for, but we can possibly return to that.
However, I believe that we need to develop healthcare initiatives better than we do today. Not least, we know that there is a high comorbidity between mental ill-health of various kinds and drug use, and there we need to develop the policy. There are investigations that have submitted proposals, which we are now processing at the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, on how to become better at seeing the problems together in a much better way. Then we have the drug investigation that is currently working.
Furthermore, we need to be constantly vigilant and active when things change. Just as the interpellor states, the old times no longer exist; the world is more internationalized, and we are affected by how other countries act. We want, however, at the same time to safeguard Sweden's opportunities and our way of approaching the issue. We have a different position than other countries have – we have a lower usage – and that is something to continue trying to guard in different ways. This should, of course, take place in dialogue with other countries but also in the international contexts.
I therefore share the view that we have much to do to ensure that no more people get stuck in drugs, and this applies in particular to young people. It is also about ensuring that criminal environments are not provided with money and opportunities in this area.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.