The Two Thirds Society
In Western Europe there is currently a debate about the "Two Thirds Society".
Well known politicians with a great deal of opinion power think it is a worrying fact that the two thirds who are employed, and have few or small social problems, must provide for the last third, the unemployed, who very often have other social problems also. As one prominent Irishman said: "Why should we bother, and pay for the dropout third?"
There is a difference between the ones who stand for a "general welfare policy" and the ones who only stand for a "welfare policy".
Under a general wefare policy the welfare and the social safety is provided through a tax financed, collective social security system. Those who want only a welfare policy, finance their welfare through private and collective insurance, which encompass only those who are employed. The unemployed, or the ones who can't afford private insurance, do not benefit from the welfare policy and the social safety. At least not to the same extent as the other two thirds.
Valid also in the drug question
In the drug issue this last type of welfare usually means little or no interest in reducing the drug problems. Only too often one meet the attitude: "We don't care what happen to the junkies. Let them carry on as they like, as long as it doesn't cost too much, and they don't throw away their syringes on our lawn. The police must work harder to keep them away from our nice streets and squares, they'd better find themselves some other place!"
The "two thirds thinking" is most common in countries with a weak public sector. It is just this sector that protect people from being too badly affected by unemplyment or other social problems.
In countries where the "two thirds thinking" is common, there is also easiest to get support for drug liberalism and and legalizing propositions.
In the countries where the "two third thinking" meet opposition, there is also hardest to get support for drug liberalism. One will usually find a well structured public sector, that gives opportunities other than legalizing or repression, a possibility to choose a totality policy as an alternative. In a totality policy the point of main effort is centered on preventive measures and measures which aim at reducing the demand for drugs.
The public sector as a weapon
The opponents to drug liberalism and legalizing are often widely separated in their view of the public sector in general, and its importance in the drug issue especially.
"Cut down on the public sector"
The conservatives, the Christian Democrats and certain others among the traditional liberalists are usually adverse to the building of a strong public sector. Usually they want to cut down on the expenses to this sector. In the drug issue they are usually supporters of repressive means: A great effort from the police, the Courts of Justice and other authorities.
Preventive measures, measures to reduce the demand, and possibilities to get treatment and rehabilitation, demand a lot of resources from the authorities, also financial resources. This kind of work is therefore not very much supported by the Conservatives, the Christian Democrats and part of the traditional liberalists. In areas where their policy is dominating, the drug policy debate usually ends in a choice between legalizing and repression.
Drug policy becomes a part of the internal policy
As drug policy in many West European countries are not viewed in a totality, springing out from social considerations, the drug policy often winds up as a part of the internal policy. At times it even becomes a security issue, a question mainly concerning the police and the courts of justice.
From this base the switch of the drug question, from home policy to health policy, may be viewed as a progress. The question of treatment and rehabilitation is then given more consideration, and the repressive measures less.
But if the preventive work, and the measures to decrease the demand for drugs shall come into focus, the drug question has to become an important social policy, and be a part of the general society policy debate.
"Build out the public sector!"
There are opposing powers, with a more positive view on the public sector, both generally and its importance in the anti drug struggle. These are to be found among the Social Democrats, the left wing radicals, the "green" movement, certain social liberalists, people who work with treatment and rehabilitation, and the organized opposing powers.
Their attitude is that the main part of anti drug work must be put into preventive measures, and measures with the aim to reduce demand, and in addition a wide range of treatment and rehabilitation. Furthermore they think that this should be supported and carried through by a public sector, financed by taxes. The public sector, of course, have many more tasks than fighting drugs, but in addition - or maybe just because of that - it is very important in the anti drug work.
This is most clearly seen in countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and to a certain degree, Austria. In these countries the drug question is viewed as a part of the totality of the social policy and the general society policy.
Specific and general measures.
It is possible to implement specific measures against drugs, even if there is no well developed public sector, but it is difficult and takes a lot of time. The measures will often "hang in the air", and risk becoming projects which work well, isolated viewed, but which give no outward effect, and will be of no general importance.
There are plenty of such examples in most EU countries and in Switzerland, efficient and good projects, often on the treatment side. They may, isolated viewed, be big projects, but still very limited, seen from a society perspective. These projects are usually fully financed from private sources, often by religious organizations. Some times the government supports, and even in part finance the projects. The staff of the projects often consists of volunteers.
Very often one can see these isolated, good projects, with high ambitions, situated in a society where the general situation is deplorable. There are no, or very limited, means to do preventive work, treatment or rehabilitation. The projects function in many cases as drug policy alibies for the government, are handy to refer to, and also make an excuse for them not to start up similar, resource demanding measures themselves.
Difficulties for care and support
A treatment and rehabilitation work for drug addicts may well have a certain effect, even if it is isolated. But still the projects will not function properly if they are not supported and supplied with major measures within housing, labour market, the education and health sector and leasure time activities. In other words: The care of drug victims must be founded on a well functioning public sector, if the care shall function well.
Difficulties for preventive work
The preventive work has even greater problems in getting any results, if there is no possibility of an intimate coexistence with an extended public sector within these areas, and also with the customs, police and other authorities. Information from special projects or from information experts in voluntary organizations, can be valuable supplements to the preventive work by the public sector.
One can, however, never compensate for or replace the information work done by the employees of the public sector, work that is part of their normal activities. One may supplement, but never compensate or replace this work.
Much more than information
Preventive drug work is much more than information and education. Preventive measures also consist of leisure time activities, efforts in housing, the labour market, and the educational, cultural, social service and health fields, etc. Preventive work mainly falls to employees in the public sector, combined with support and activities from the voluntary organizations, of which there are many in the fields mentioned above.
Renewers
In countries with a well expanded public sector, the special projects are playing an important role in treatment and rehabilitation, in development work, as creators and as a driving force.
Popular resistance.
An extended popular resistance aginst drugs is dependent on "spearheads", who make good and engaging projects, and who are taking part of the public debate. Such persons always come from engaged folk movements and voluntary organizations.
A broad popular resitance against drugs is also depending on public and governmental support to these organizations, both monetary and in other ways. But popular resistance is also dependant on an extended and well developed public sector, which in itself combats drugs on a variety of fields. It is of outmost importance that preventive work and measures to reduce drug demand, is given much attention within leisure time and cultural activities, within the school and educational system, within social work, within the health service and by the police, the customs and other public authorities. An extended popular resistance is a result of all these factors. The voluntary organizations would be unable to rise this resistance alone, just as the public sector is unable to do it alone.
Repression
The repressive measures have several functions in drug policy.
Isolated viewed it is important that the customs and the police confiscate drugs, which thereby is kept away from the black markt. It is obvious that the customs, police, courts of justice and other authorities have a good deal of repressive measures in their activities. Their actual task is to detect crimes, confiscate drugs and arrest criminals.
But they are not merely hunting persons, they are as much, or maybe more, trying to detect and break up international drug rings, and to get at the people behind the drug traffic. This work is supported by everyone, including the drug liberals. In addition, the work of the police and the customs will function as preventive measures. Through their work they keep many people from smuggling drugs past the borders, and from dealing with or handle drugs at all. This kind of preventive work is also an important signal that the society does not accept drugs.
Less impact without support from others
Also the work of the police, the customs and other authorities must be supported by a greater society activity to have any real impact. If the confiscations and the work on disturbing the drug milleus shall have effect, they must be supported by a consequent effort from other authorities.
And if the preventive activities of the police and the customs shall have effect, it must be followed up by similar activities from the rest of the society, both from the public sector and from the voluntary organizatons. The same goes for the signals from the police and the customs that we do not accept drugs. These also must be supported by similar, consequent signals from other parts of the society.
Repression is not a failiure
When it is being said that all efforts of a repressive character, like "War on Drugs", is a failiure, one can easily point at a specific reason for this statement: The repressive efforts has been unsuccessful, because they have lacked a consequent support from other measures in the society, and because some other parts of the society signal that drug use is acceptable.
In other words: The repressive efforts themselves are not unsuccessful, but the inconsequence in the total efforts concerning drugs, remove a lot of their impact. The failiure originates in different attitudes and different signals from the different parts of the society.
If the police and the customs are the only ones giving signals that society does not accept drugs, while other parties say they have accepted that drugs are here to stay, the impact of the police and customs efforts will be far less. The correct conclusion must therefore be that it is other parts of the society apparatus that is a failiure in this connection, not the repressive measures.
Legalizing is the wrong conclusion
The drug liberals and the supporters of legalizing can see that the drug problem is growing. Thereby they draw the conclusion that it cannot be solved by setting in more police. They are correct in assuming that the police alone cannot solve the problem. But when they afterwards suggest that the society should not use police resources at all in this connection, as it is of no avail anyway, they are taking the wrong step.
Instead of closing the police activities in this field, one must keep it up, then concentrate more efforts on the implementation of extensive preventional projects, and at the same time take measures to decrease the demand for drugs. Simultanously the society must give consequent signals that it does not accept drugs. This is the real way out of the drug problem, and this must be the message to the drug liberals and the legalizing supporters. Decriminalizing and legalizing won't work.
Increased repression is also a wrong conclusion.
There are enough of representatives on the restrictive side in the West European debate, including Norwegian and Swedish ones, that actually believe that an increased effort from the police and the customs is enough to solve the drug problem. This also is a wrong conclusion.
As mentioned above, the repressive measures of the police, customs and other political authorities lose their impact if they do not get consequent support from the rest of the society. The message must come from all sides: We do not accept drugs!
Without support from other parts of society, including preventional work and measures to decrease the demand for drugs, the repressive efforts will be left hanging in the air, and have very little effect.
One does not neccesarily have to increase repression, with increased efforts from the police, increased penalties for drug crimes etc. What is needed, is that the main efforts from the society are concentrated on prevention work and measures with the aim to decrease the demand for drugs, and that all society activities are consequent in their message: We do not accept drugs!
In addition to this, society must offer good treatment and rehabilitation projects.
This must be the message to those who want to limit the effort only to repressive measures.
What we have to learn from the rest of Western Europe
If there is no developed public sector, or if one cuts seriously down on the public sector, the possibilities of implementing a totality policy in the drug field is vastly reduced. There will be fewer instruments to do the work, which in turn means that there will be a reduced effect of the work that is being done.
With a decreased effort from the public sector, and less support to the voluntary organizations from the public sector, the effect of the repressive measures will also be decreased.
Those who are for a drastic decrease of the public sector in Norway and Sweden, are, unconciously, at the same time preparing the ground for a tougher legalizing debate in our countries too. The day we are no longer able to lead a totality policy in the drug field, we are in the same position as many of the other West European countries. We will have to make the impossible choice between repression and legalizing.
What we can learn from the drug debate and the actual drug situation in Western Europe is this: The public sector is a vital element in the anti drug struggle, and it is important to uphold the voluntary organizations. They make a totality which is needed if one is to make any progress.
Say no to drug liberalism and legalizing of drugs!
Concentrate on a totality policy in the drug field!
Put the main efforts into prevention work, and the work on decreasing the demand for drugs!
Make "Decrease demand!" the main parole!