Response to interpellation 2023/24:661 on the criminalization of drugs
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers that the drug trade is one of the main sources of income for organized crime and that criminal law regulation is central to signaling a strong rejection of illegal handling 1. M argues that it is too early to evaluate the effects of the latest criminal law toughening 1 2. M advocates a line where restrictiveness is accommodated within a public health-based drug policy, but emphasizes that criminalization is not the entire solution 1. M considers that drugs must be combated through tangible penalties, police interventions, and customs interventions 3. M has not been convinced by arguments for decriminalization 3. MP considers it urgent to tighten control and supervision of large drug inflows from, among other places, South America 4. MP argues that there is great value in having the issue highlighted in a multifaceted way and that more knowledge and facts benefit the debate 4. M considers that there is great value in continuing to discuss the issues in a multifaceted and unconstrained way 5. M argues that it is valuable that there is a good knowledge base so that the discussion can be as informed and productive as possible 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.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Rasmus Ling has asked me if I intend to evaluate the increased penalties introduced for drug offenses which entered into force in the summer of 2023, if I intend to investigate the effects of the criminalization of drug consumption overall in an SOU, and finally if I will take the initiative to investigate the total costs of the Swedish drug policy.
I must begin by stating that drugs cause great damage to life and health and generate extensive costs for society. The drug trade is one of the main sources of income for organized crime and is estimated to constitute approximately one-fifth of global crime's revenues. The trade in drugs is also one of several driving components in the deadly violence between criminal networks. Furthermore, the trade in drugs is a gateway for young people to a criminal lifestyle.
Since the change of government, a major reorganization of policy is underway to push back organized crime and restore safety for honest citizens throughout the country. Combating drug-related crime constitutes an important part of that work. Crime-fighting measures need to be combined with effective drug prevention work and good substance abuse and addiction care in order to reduce demand.
Criminal legislation plays a central role in the fight against drugs and drug crimes. Let me emphasize the importance of the criminal regulation signaling a strong rejection from society's side against all illegal handling of drugs. That punishment is determined based on the severity of the crime must be the starting point.
Last summer, the penalty for drug offenses targeting the sale of narcotics was tightened, and ordering narcotics for personal use was criminalized as an attempted offense. The legislative changes constitute part of a larger number of changes to the criminal legislation which collectively mark the seriousness of crimes committed within criminal networks and give the justice system expanded opportunities to combat such criminality.
I truly welcome an engaged and multifaceted debate on Swedish drug policy and its consequences. Evaluating the total costs of the policy pursued is an issue that involves many actors and departments. Right now, the government's focus is on the final report of the Drug Inquiry, which arrived relatively recently. It aims to ensure that drug policy is compatible with the requirements for evidence-based care, proven experience, and harm minimization, as well as that it is developed and adapted to present and future challenges. The report is out for consultation. The government will subsequently take a position on whether further measures need to be taken in the drug policy area. On the other hand, I judge that it is too early to more closely evaluate the effects of the criminalization of drug consumption and the recent legislative changes in the area, given that the increased penalties entered into force as recently as last summer.
I and the government represent a line where restrictiveness is contained within the framework of a public health-based drug policy. But in the Swedish line also lies that criminalization is not the entire solution. We need to work broadly and long-term to reduce the number of drug-related illnesses and deaths. The right to health applies to all people. To achieve that goal, actions are required within several policy areas.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the answer to the interpellation!
We are to discuss drug policy. It is an area that is important and which has historically been quite charged. It is an area that is divided between departments – part of it lies with the Ministry of Justice, but I am aware that other parts lie with the Ministry of Social Affairs.
I believe it is still important to be able to discuss these issues, because they go together. Sometimes one has different perspectives in the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Affairs and in the Committee on Justice and the Committee on Social Affairs. Last year this was very clear: in the Committee on Justice, we handled proposals to tighten penalties, while in the Committee on Social Affairs, before the investigation was commissioned, a committee initiative was discussed, and there one had a harm-minimizing perspective and a different approach to the issue.
Sweden has some of the highest penalties in Europe regarding drug offenses, but we do not have the lowest usage nor the lowest number of deaths from drugs. On the contrary, we are among the highest, even if it is often difficult to measure.
Many years of imprisonment are handed down for drug offenses in Sweden. Some of them concern serious criminals who commit serious or even particularly serious drug offenses, but many are also sentenced to imprisonment for drug offenses of the normal degree.
In connection with new governments taking office, it is now almost an obligatory question from journalists regarding what is called skeletons in the closet, whether one has ever done anything illegal. Quite a few cabinet ministers have had to spend their first hours answering such questions and making various confessions. I have thought about this from time to time. If a minister, who stands in the country's highest leadership, had been sentenced to six months of imprisonment or more when they were 22 - would it have been good for society in the long run? Would it have benefited the person's development?
The entry point that Gunnar Strömmer speaks about is real. There are many who try drugs and then end up in more serious crime. Also, a relatively mild crime can lead to someone ending up in prison and becoming more deeply involved there, and that is something that must also be considered.
I have a couple of follow-up questions for Gunnar Strömmer. An ESO report was released last autumn, where a comparison was made between different Nordic countries and looked at how the criminalization of drugs appeared. The conclusion was that the successive toughening of penalties that have occurred since 1988 have not led to a reduced usage. Sweden, which has the strictest regulation among the Nordic countries, also does not have fewer problems than other countries. I would like to ask if Gunnar Strömmer has received the report and what conclusions are drawn.
I would also like to ask a general question. Gunnar Strömmer does not want to conduct an evaluation of the increased penalties. The narcotics investigation, however, is requesting just such an evaluation, and not only regarding the most recent increased penalties but collectively since 1988. Is this something that Gunnar Strömmer will proceed with?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rasmus Ling, for the opportunity to discuss these issues today! Let me first say that punishments and the length of punishments have a number of different functions. Some are about influencing behaviors, but there are also many other functions in a punishment. It should reflect the seriousness of the crime both from the perspective of the surrounding society and from the perspective of the intended crime victims.
It is a fact that narcotics are a core part of the criminal economy, and we see the consequences of the drug trade and the immediate links to shootings, bombings and other such acts. The gravity of this crime must also be reflected in the criminal law regulations.
I have received the ESO report but cannot say that I have delved into every part of it. However, I am familiar with the main observations. One reflection I make without having analyzed this in depth is that it is clear that one can view the issue from that perspective. But if one looks at countries that have a significantly more liberal attitude toward drugs and regarding criminal regulation, I believe that different outcomes and patterns can also be found there. What de facto affects the use of drugs is a number of different factors - the penalties possibly have an importance, but other factors may have an even greater importance.
I am aware that an evaluation is being requested in the investigation that both I and Rasmus Ling are addressing. When it comes to the latest sentencing increases, I think it is too early, for the simple reason that they have only been in force for barely a year. Certainly, one could say that there might be a need for an evaluation of something that has been in effect for a longer period. I am happy to continue that discussion.
I do not currently see this as a prioritized measure from the government's side, even though I generally support that not only punishments but also other reforms in the area of crime and social policy are evaluated and analyzed in a qualified manner, so that we can achieve even better precision in our decisions and actions moving forward.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Justice often correctly says that politics is a balancing of different conflicting goals. This also involves weighing different costs against one another.
In the ESO report, the clear recommendation is made that a cost estimate with pluses and minuses should be made, but one should also have as a starting point that when we have relatively harsh penalties for less serious drug offenses, it entails a cost. It is a cost for, for example, the Swedish Police Authority, which could instead allocate those resources to target those who are higher up in the supply chain. One could target more towards the Port of Helsingborg, where boats come from South America and where large seizures are made. There are many trucks passing the borders to Denmark, Norway, and Finland. This could be done instead of targeting the smaller ones. Making an evaluation would have been helpful politically and also for the Swedish Police Authority, which has to handle this.
Mr. Speaker! Narcotics are undoubtedly an important part of the gangs' revenues. The Minister for Justice refers to the estimate that it is one-fifth globally. It is naturally a significant part, even if it means that 80 percent is, therefore, something else. It is a large piece of the pie, even though the gangs have many other revenues as well.
When we had the budget debate in the chamber, I mentioned that a measure that could reduce the gangs' revenues would be to look at the Danish model, where there is prescription for heroin users, so that the most vulnerable in society do not have to be involved in crime or prostitution to finance the abuse. Naturally, this should also occur in combination with better substance abuse care. This is a concrete proposal that one should look at such things that would actually reduce the gangs' revenues from narcotics.
Mr. Speaker! Further back, perhaps, it was a position further to the left not to have a repressive attitude in these issues. But in recent times, it is worth noting that more and more actors, even to the right, want that this issue be viewed in a more multifaceted way.
There are editorial pages where such positions have been taken - there are also other actors. It can be mentioned that actors such as Folkhälsomyndigheten and Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner advocate for appointing an inquiry and reviewing what effects the criminalization has had, precisely because this has been in place for a longer period. It is not clearly visible that behaviors have changed and that there have been the effects that one actually had when this was introduced in the 1980s.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time to listen to these actors and also to look at the investigation that came out last autumn - an investigation named Vi kan bättre! I think, Mr. Speaker, that we can do better. We should actually investigate the matters that are recommended there.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! We can agree that we as a society can do better. The report we are now referring to has naturally been referred. It is being analyzed at the Government Offices, and we will return to how we will move the proposals in the report forward. In this work, other initiated positions must of course also be weighed in, for example the ESO report that Rasmus Ling mentions.
From my point of view, the crime-fighting point of view, it is clear that drugs must be countered from several different sides in parallel. Of course, effective crime fighting is required. My view is that tangible penalties are required. When it comes to limiting the supply with different measures, it is not least about police interventions and customs interventions.
I too have been to the port of Helsingborg and taken part of both the problem situation and the offensive work that customs and police, in cooperation with other local actors, carry out to address the extraordinarily large problem that it means a Swedish port has become a gateway for narcotics from South America, not only with Sweden as a market but likely also the rest of the Nordic countries and perhaps a bit further down on the continent.
Furthermore, it must, of course, be made various efforts to reduce demand in all parts of society, and one needs to ensure good and accessible care and support for individuals who have a harmful use or addiction.
I think it is important that we continue this discussion. I gladly concede that I myself come from the more repressive side regarding the view on punishment, especially when one looks at the extraordinarily great damage that the criminal networks' handling of narcotics entails for our society. I have not let myself be convinced by the arguments that have been put forward that, for example, a decriminalization would alleviate the pressure in a tangible way. I do not think that an international perspective provides any clear support for that either.
But even if that is my starting point, I am of course very interested in continuing a constructive dialogue on how we can improve in various, important respects regarding this issue. The natural starting point for the government's work in that part is now, as said, to move the current report forward in light of the referral responses. We intend to return to this.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I believe that Gunnar Strömmer and I agree that the best thing would have been if illegal drugs had not existed at all. That is what we could have wished for. Now, unfortunately, reality is not always as one would like it to be, but it is as it is. We must deal with reality based on how it looks.
It is true that it looks different in different countries, which have different legislations. One can also see that changes are being made which, regardless of what one thinks about it, will affect and have affected Sweden in different ways. It is important to keep an eye on it. I believe, as I was mentioning, that there is more to be done to sharpen control and supervision regarding the large inflows from not least South America but also other continents.
When it comes to the investigation that was submitted, they were thus prevented from reviewing the criminal law parts. But they themselves point out that it is something they would wish for, and they recommend that it be done. I hope that the referral bodies will also see this and send it to the government. I believe that there is a very great value in having this highlighted in a multifaceted way.
Even if one has a starting point that is more repressive, as Gunnar Strömmer says he has and which he shows he has in various contexts, I truly believe that more knowledge in this area, as well as in other areas, benefits a debate.
I am, despite everything, glad that Gunnar Strömmer welcomes a multifaceted debate. My view is that this issue has been charged further back and that it has been difficult to discuss it. But I believe, as said, that the more facts and knowledge we get, the better such a discussion can be conducted in the future.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I say once again: Thank you, Rasmus Ling, for the opportunity to discuss these very important issues today!
It is as Rasmus Ling points out. These are questions that, so to speak, cut across different parts of social life and thus, of course, different policy areas. It is very tangible. This applies in particular to the intersection between legal issues or criminal policy issues on one hand and social policy issues on the other. The investigation we have spoken about is an expression of that.
I mean, just as Rasmus Ling, that there is great value in continuing to discuss these issues in a versatile and unhurried - if we are to use that expression - manner. It is generally easy to agree that, in order for such a discussion to become as informed and productive as possible, it is of value that there are good knowledge bases.
Exactly what the underlying documents are and how they are to be obtained is, for my part, a later question. Now we will handle this investigation, and we will take part in the referral responses. This will become the starting point for our considerations in that part as well moving forward. But for today, I say: Many thanks for the opportunity to discuss the issues here in the chamber!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.