It is too easy to think of prohibitionism as being just an American obsession. It is not. These two articles offer important lessons to everyone, not just about Sweden. To quote George Bush, "Freedom works." It’s a pity that he did not understand what he was saying.)

May 1998

From Oberoende,
The official magazine for RFHL (National Organization for Help to Narcotics and Drug Addicts)

info@rfhl.se

http://www.rfhl.se

ByLeif Lenke,
Doctor of Criminology at the University of Stockholm.
Translation: John Yates <bobo@personal.eunet.fi>

DRUG WARS AND THE OPEN OR CLOSED SOCIETY

In 1984 Nils Christie and Kettil Bruun published the book "The Good Enemy". In it they describe how a powerless group of drug addicts were singled out as enemies by a society in need of scapegoats. The war on drugs and drug users was presented as a ritual and collective purification process in which society drove out evil symbolised by drug addicts. Fourteen years later the war continues with unabated enthusiasm, although, judging from available statistics, without any success.

The authors, Christie and Bruun, limit themselves in their description of the drug war to drug users, but they are not the only ones who have been defined as enemies. The other enemies are dissenters in the drug-political debate. They seem to constitute nearly as great a threat to society as the actual drug addicts. Dissenters are regarded as traitors to the well being of the nation, sometimes they are decried as advocates of the devil.

In war, descriptions of the enemy must be simplified and derogatory so that hate and the will to fight can be mobilised. There is no room for nuances, everything is either black or white, good or evil. Drug addicts are described as "drug fixated crime machines" while dissenters are maligned as "drug liberals" or "the apologists of legalisation". In the political debate surrounding Swedish narcotics policy the war is ever present: "Are you for or against the Swedish model? Are you with us or against us? Are you friend or enemy?"

Politically Correct

A body of politically correct perceptions has developed around drug questions. The politically correct perception is built upon a moral order where narcotics are singled out as the evil drugs and where the lifestyle of drug users is seen as a threat to conventional society. From a scientific perspective we can see that cigarettes and alcohol are a much greater threat to health than narcotics. However, the politically correct position is not built upon knowledge and rational argument, but upon morality and dogma.

There are many risks involved in not identifying with the politically correct position in narcotics policy. For politicians it means reduced credibility and less votes. Civil servants in national and local government risk losing their jobs or seeing their careers go down the drain if they express ideas contrary to the official policy. In the same way the careers and subsidies of researchers are threatened if they publish reports or articles that contain criticism of the politically correct position.

Vaccination Campaign

Is the drug wars threat to freedom of thought and expression a sign that we are distancing ourselves from what Carl Popper called the open society?

(Ed. note: George Soros, the prohibitionist philanthropist who is the leading funder of anti-prohibitionist organizations in America, has a degree in philosophy and is an admirer of Popper. Consequently, he named his foundation The Open Society Institute. The Hassela Nordic Network, the Stockholm based prohibitionist propaganda organization, is obsessed with Soros.
See  http://mn.medstroms.se/hassela/firstpage.html

They carry stories about him that have nothing to do with drugs. Recently, they even carried a story that blamed him for the financial turmoil in Asia, agreeing with the rabidly anti-Semitic Prime Minister of Malaysia. [Soros is Jewish.] This reference to Popper is consequently even more provocative in this context than would seem likely to a rational person.)

In the open society it is permitted to publicly propose and to criticize proposals for solutions to social problems. Open and critical discussion then lays the ground for the implementation of reforms. Open and critical discussion is also necessary for citizens to control authority. But in order for public discussions to take place, says Popper, there must be institutions that guarantee freedom of thought, speech and demonstration as well as there being a certain level of education.

The Closed Society

What happens to democracy and open and critical discussion when researchers, politicians and officials are silenced? According to the newspaper Kommun- Aktuellt, civil servants dare not criticize their employers or side with the ‘wrong’ opinions. They are scared of losing their jobs. Is the drug war an indication that we are moving towards a more closed society where there is no room for doubt or critical opinion?

The closed society is characterised by a magical and irrational clinging to traditions and habits instead of a rationally guided and critical questioning. But Popper warns us that the more we try to surpress rationality and truth and instead strive for the ideals of the closed society, all the easier it is to create inquisitions and secret police.

In this context it can be mentioned that Sweden’s own ‘Drug Czar’, Widar Andersson, has written a document together with K-A Westerberg where he says that "Limits should be placed on the freedom of speech of those who covertly or overtly spread drug propaganda". But who is it in the end who profits from the supression of open and free discussion of narcotics questions? One thing is sure, it doesn’t favour the clients.