Читать книгу Drug Policy - Группа авторов - Страница 7

Drug policies usually comprise a mix of three or four different ways of regulating drugs. These are: drug control, which encompasses drug legislation and law enforcement; drug treatment for people who have drug problems; drug prevention to stop people from starting to use drugs; and finally harm reduction, which has the goal of minimising the risks and harm of ongoing drug use. Against this background the particular drug policy of a country, region or city can be characterised according to the content of and balance between these different elements of drug policy. The overall drug policy resulting from such a mix is sometimes described according to how it prioritises use reduction and harm reduction – comparing stopping or minimising use as much as possible against minimising the harmfulness of use (MacCoun, Reuter et al. 1996; MacCoun 1998; MacCoun & Reuter 2001). There is not necessarily a contradiction between these two goals, but there may be. It is all a matter of degree. Too much effort put into stopping or minimising use can lead to higher risks and more harm for people who continue to use drugs (O’Malley & Mugford 1991).

Modern Danish drug policy was born in 1955 with the Act on Euphoriant Drugs (see Jepsen in this volume). This act was in principle a regulatory instrument with an added penal clause, which raised the penalties for violations of the drug legislation to two years from the six-month maximum of the Opium Act, a predecessor to the Law on Euphoriant Drugs that focused on production rather than use. The Act on Euphoriant Drugs made the possession of illegal drugs for personal consumption an offence in Denmark for the first time (Nimb 1961; Jepsen 1966; Kruse, Winsløw et. al. 1989). However, in connection with the promulgation of the act it was stated that the penalisation of possession was not meant to criminalise users, but was only meant to be a short cut to criminalising possession with the intent to deal. During the years 1965-1969 an increasing number of charges were made in connection with possession (primarily of cannabis). Particularly in Copenhagen the numbers rose steeply, although the dominant reaction was a simple caution. Only a few minor dealers were charged, and here the primary reaction involved fines. The rising number of cases was among the reasons for the creation of a separate provision in the penal code in 1969 (§ 191 of the penal code) for particularly serious violations of the Act on Euphoriant Drugs, which raised the maximum penalty to six years. Less serious violations were still dealt with under the Act on Euphoriant Drugs, with its maximum of two years’ imprisonment.¹ The Danish Parliament wanted to avoid a ‘rub-off effect’ of the rise in penalties, and did not want to criminalise the large number of young people experimenting with drugs, particularly cannabis. So an agreement was made between the Parliament and the Ministry of Justice, which told the Attorney General to issue a circular instructing police and prosecutors not to go after simple possession, particularly not young people (for details see Jepsen in this volume). Law enforcement was to be used primarily against drug dealers and drug traffickers, while other means like treatment, education, social services and prevention were to be used against drug users (Laursen 1995; Storgaard 2000; Laursen & Jepsen 2002). Following this depenalisation of possession for personal consumption, the number of charges for possession dropped while the number of charges against serious violations rose in the following years. This de-penalisation of possession of drugs for personal consumption has meant that Danish drug policy was considered to be relatively liberal by international standards. Contributing to this image was also a distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ drugs, which was introduced in 1975 in connection with an increase of the maximum penalty for serious drug crimes.

This liberal drug policy ended in 2004 when parliament decided to repenalise possession of illegal drugs as part of an overall zero-tolerance drug control policy. This, in turn, was embedded in a more general change of the politics of law and order in Denmark. But this move towards more restrictive drug control is only part of the picture. Because at the same time as legal control has been made more restrictive, drug treatment has also been given a high political priority. In the 1990s drug treatment saw an infusion of resources, and political attention with regard to treatment increased from the mid-1990s (Storgaard 2000; Houborg 2006). Since the turn of the century, drug treatment has continued to be an important political issue, owing among other things to a high death rate among people with drug problems in Denmark (Sundhedsstyrelsen 2007), and following this pressure to implement new measures like heroin maintenance treatment. In 2003 it became a social right to receive drug treatment within 14 days of application for treatment (L37/2003). It is therefore no longer possible for the social authorities to turn people applying for drug treatment away for any reason. The present treatment policy continues a policy of having a differentiated treatment system, which provides a variety of different kinds of drug treatment in order to accommodate different kinds of clients and different kinds of drug problems. This policy started in the mid-1980s under the slogan ‘differentiated goals’, and means that drug treatment should not have abstinence as the only goal, but should be able to reduce the problems and improve the resources of people with drug problems, even if they continue to use drugs (Alkohol- og Narkotikarådet 1984). This has been the basis of a treatment system in which methadone maintenance treatment plays a substantial part, even though it is drug-free treatment, which receives most political attention. In the 1990s it was also the basis for the establishment of many low-threshold institutions, which provide care and service for drug users. This policy has continued and been expanded since the turn of the century, for instance by setting up low-threshold health services like street-level health clinics, drop-in centres and outreach workers (Pedersen 2003; Grytnes 2004; Siiger 2004). While there has largely been political consensus about Danish treatment policy for drug problems, the same has not been the case for Danish drug control policy. The latter has been (and continues to be) an area of political conflict.

The overall purpose of modern Danish drug policy since it was established in 1955 by the Act on Euphoriant Drugs has been to reduce the use of illegal drugs. But for 35 years Danish drug policy made a distinction between the measures applied to the supply side and the demand side of the illegal drug market respectively. Law enforcement and legal sanctioning were the primary measures against the supply side, while other more ‘social’ measures were applied to the demand side in order to avoid the criminalisation of drug users. The 2004 re-penalisation of possession for personal use has made law enforcement and legal sanctioning an even more important element of Danish drug policy than it already was. It has been given a much more important role in the regulation of the demand side of the illegal drug market, where (until 2004) other kinds of social control were the primary means of regulation in order to avoid the criminalisation of drug users, as we have already discussed.