ANTECEDENTES TEÓRICOS

Introduktion

Denmark has a long tradition for solving social problems via social welfare measures and treatment rather than through law enforcement. However, ever since the modern drug problem emerged in the mid-1960s this ideology has been challenged by the fact that the unauthorised use and possession of certain drugs has been defined as an offence in Denmark since 1955. Hence modern Danish drug policy can be characterised to a large extent as “an am- bivalent balance between repression and welfare”, as the author of this article and co-author Lau Laursen phrased it in an analysis of Danish drug policy in 2002 (Laursen & Jepsen 2002). This article revisits this issue by presenting a historical account of Danish drug policy since 1945 with particular emphasis on drug legislation and the role of law enforcement. The article will consider the way in which Danish drug policy and particularly drug control have been shaped by official and unofficial influences on a political level, through the state apparatus, and by the influence of interest groups and professionals. It is the contention of this article that the definition of the drug problem and public perceptions of drug users have played an important part in shap- ing drug policy, and that these definitions and perceptions have varied over the years resulting in a changing emphasis on drug control and other more social kinds of regulation. It will be suggested that in the public perception and depictions of drug users two main images have been advanced: Users as ‘problem carriers’ and as ‘problem creators’. As problem carriers drug users are perceived as people carrying the burdens of the drug problem, who deserve to have their problems alleviated by treatment and other interventions. As

and maintenance of the drug problem, primarily as dealers, smugglers and criminals involved in the drug field and in acquisitive crime, or as people creating a public nuisance. Another figure has also been important in policy discussions, namely what has been referred to as ‘the background figure’ (‘bagmanden’ in Danish). This figure is a non-addicted, well protected and discreet financier of drug smuggling and distribution. Over the years the importance of this person, who had a significant influence in shaping official policy and penal law in the sixties and seventies (as evidenced by parliamen- tary and political debates), has gradually waned and interest has focused on lower-level drug dealers as ‘seducers of the young’ instead.

The central questions posed in the article are: How have the shifts in the perception of the drug problem and of the balance and content of Danish drug policy come about? What have been the important turning points and critical incidents? Who have been the important players in shaping Danish drug policy, and what part has been played by the state and other parties? The state is clearly not a monolithic entity, but which relevant structures and institutions within the state apparatus are discernible in the process? What have been their different agendas and interests?

The historical account presented here is based on various sources: laws and preparatory material, government white papers, committee reports, statements by various areas of government and other kinds of official docu- ments, as well as previous research and publications in the area. In addition, the experience of the author as a researcher in the field and while serving as a consultant to NGOs and a few politicians, including membership of the research group of the Council on Alcohol and Narcotics and later membership of the Narcotics Council (1995-2001)1, has provided background information and a platform for observation of policy making.

When investigating Danish drug policy in a historical perspective, there are three important elements which have to be taken into account in particu- lar: the legislative process, government white papers, and advisory bodies. Table 1 presents a summary of Danish drug legislation since 1945, as well as the most important documents and advisory bodies.

Advisory boards to the government and its relevant ministries have been created in reaction to a perceived need for coordination and expert advice, for the procurement of information and research, and for more long-term

deliberations. These boards have involved various kinds of experts, including researchers, medical specialists, psychiatrists, treatment staff, policemen, etc. A number of reports on the drug situation in Denmark have been published over the years, complete with recommendations for reactions to the drug problem. However, most of these reports have dealt with aspects of drug policy that do not include control. In principle these advisory boards2 were independent of ministries and government bodies. So even though their reports have laid the basis for describing the drug problems and proposing action, they have not themselves been part of government policy. All the same, the advisory boards and their recommendations have had an important influence on policy and have shaped the systems of reaction, treatment and control.

Government white papers have had a more direct impact on Danish drug policy. They have been prepared by one or more ministries acting in conjunc- tion, and can be seen as platforms for the preparation and implementation of legislation and regulation, as well as expressing the government’s view on how to interpret existing drug legislation and rules. For instance, the Com- mittee Report in 1953 was commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior and formed the basis of ensuing legislation; and the latest official government policy statement, The Fight against Drugs (2003), has been the basis of the fundamental change in policy which has been carried out since then. When investigating Danish drug policy it is also important to note that international influences have played and still play an important part. Not only formally – Denmark has signed the various UN drug control conventions, making Danish drug policy subject to the conditions of these conventions with the flexibility for developing national drug policies they allow (as dis- cussed in chapter 1 of this volume). But also more informally – the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers in particular have been venues at which other Nordic countries with a tradition for more repressive drug policies than Denmark have put pressure on Danish politicians to follow their example, e.g. by closing down the open cannabis market in Christiania or by raising penalties (Laursen 1996a; 1996b; Jepsen 2000). The opposite has also been the case, since Danish politicians have sometimes used international drug policy to strengthen their arguments in the national debate about Danish drug policy. This happened when the Danish government asked the INCB

about the legality of implementing safe injection facilities. This element in the formation of Danish drug policy will also be included in the following account.