Talk:Drug policy of Sweden/Archive 1

Dala11a

I am going to report user Steinberger's abuse of tags. Dala11a (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for WP:3O

Before a reasonable third opinion can be offered, there needs to be some discussion of the disagreement. You may find that this will lead to a resolution without requiring a third opinion. If not, feel free to request another. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 13:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the issues have been discussed till boredom at Talk:Drug policy. Also look at User_talk:dala11a and Talk:War on Drugs#"A different view on the War on Drugs" section too long?. The Nils Bejerot article and its talkpage might also be of intrest. Steinberger (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Steinberger. It would be particularly useful to hear why dala11a feels the use of tags in this article is not appropriate. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Examples of abuse of tags

• Entering a lot of tags in the beginning of the article not connected to specific claims. I have several time asked for specification of his claims in the talk page. Exactly what part of the text is false or without a good source. He has now added a large number of tags with no or very little explanation. This section has by far many more references than any other section. Steinberg don't like the general drug policy in Sweden. OK. But that is not a good reason for discrediting traceable facts about it.

Several of the claims are ridiculous or could bee fixed with adding one existing references once more in the text.

• • "In the last years has drug test[3][verification needed]" ...Read the reference from the Swedish drug coordinator Björn Fries.
  • tracing many other types of criminal activities[5][improper synthesis?]". Is an indirect quote from the police from [[Sundsvall]. Steinberger can read Swedish. The claim is a lie.
  • "Sweden has a very low proportion of the citizens imprisoned for drug offences and other offences [8][improper synthesis?][verification needed]" The source is missing in this version. I have added the source several times in the article and Steinberger delete it several times. And what synthesis, its a traceable fact.
  • "for ex. by supporters of the drug policy of Netherlands,[original research?]" The text is "for. ex." At least one of the sources Steinbergs adds is general supporter of The drug policy of Netherlands and probably also steinberger. Dala11a (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the input Dala11a. Please try to assume good faith and keep the discussion civil. Characterizing an editor's statements as ridiculous when you think they are not valid is uncivil. Also, the editor with whom you have a difference of opinion calls himself Steinberger. Please be respectful and spell his name the way he spells it. Finally, I recommend that you keep things simple and pick one issue at a time, work toward an understanding, and then move on to the next. If you have a general issue you want to address first, that would be fine too. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dala11a wrote that I discredited "traceable facts", elsewere [1] he have used the term "traceable source". And I admit to that. However, he adds near-relevant fact together to form a new synthesis, using newsarticles, speeches and plain statistics to tell a story not directly attributed to the sources. I can take two examples: 1) Reference number 8, "Svar direkt - om Svensk kriminalvård" from Kriminalvården (presumably a paper for convicts and their relatives from the Swedish Prison and Probation Service), it does not state that "Sweden has a very low proportion of the citizens imprisoned for drug offenses and other offenses" nor does it have any international comparisons, nor does it state a low number of prisoners to the drug policy. Ok, the source sucks, and should be removed. But the facts? Even though the basic facts are right (I admit to that), I did even find a text that stated that the tradition of few and short prison sentences, on the contrary was broken by this zero tolerance drive. However, that he ignores. Even though it were about 4000 prisoners when the aim was set and 10000 now. 2) On the "supporter of the dutch drug policy" issue: Presumingly, the only reason for calling the author of the article a "supporter of the Dutch drug policy", it that it originates from a research department at the University of Amsterdam. Steinberger (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

After looking through the article and having some discussion, I offer this opinion on the use of multiple tags and in-line citations:

The over use of in-line tags and citations makes the text of an article unreadable. The use of mid-sentence citations is almost never necessary and for the purpose of readability, should be avoided at all costs. At worst, tags should be placed at the end of a sentence; never in the middle. At best, when there are a number of issues, the section should be tagged and the specific issues addressed on the article talk pages. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I completely understand what you mean with "use of mid-sentence citations is almost never necessary and for the purpose of readability, should be avoided at all costs." I have several times tried to write own and more readable summaries but they have by Steinberger been spammed by tags like private research, even i case it obvious that he knows about good sources that are supporting the text. If I quote is the claim "to many quotes". If I don't quote "citation needed" etc. Some of the claims have been correct and I have tried to take them in consideration but in the end he spams the new text with new tags. Dala11a (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My Suggestion is:

• Delete the general tags in the beginning of the article
• Steinberger shall keep his hands off from the first 2/3 of the article and try to write his own summary under the headline Criticism in the last 1/3.Dala11a (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I don't see the problem. The tags have been removed and Steinberger is demonstrating good faith. On your second point, there are a number of issues raised regarding this article and the tag should stay until they are worked out to everyone's satisfaction. On your last point, you do not appear to understand how wikipedia works. Any editor may contribute to an article and all editors should assume good faith. When there is a disagreement, it is worked out through discussion on the talk pages. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 22:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)e

• The many general tags is not deleted ! I see is only one valid, "An editor has expressed concern that the article is unbalanced".

• I know very well that anybody can edit a text. But Steinberger has in the last days on this subject focused on spaming tags. You find a good example of his unreasonable claims above. A full quote is "Sweden has a very low proportion of the citizens imprisoned for drug offenses and other offenses [8](compared with the US); one citizen in 1400." He lost "compared with the US." The source is the last official numbers for number of prisoners 2006. "Den genomsnittliga beläggningen under året 2006 var 4 781 intagna." + "Det finns 32 häkten med 1 847 platser." You also need the number of citizens in Sweden abut 9.187 million. 9187000/(4781+1847)= 1 396. I rounded of to 1 prisoner in 1400. Compare with 1 in 100 in the US and you see the very big difference between Sweden and the US.

• Her is a source that shows numbers comparable with the 4781(prisons for convicted) [2] The number of prisoners has increased in the last years but the proportion is still lower than year 1970 (4893) Dala11a (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you mean with a traceable source, that with it, someone could guess how you figured something out? Really, from what I know of the wikipedia guidelines that is typical original synthesis. Steinberger (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done a major clean-up of the article. I don't have time to look over sources now, but there were several sentences that had to be removed because they were repeated too many times, lots of very bad grammar, and a whole section that is entirely unclear because of the wording. NJGW (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it "- Vi gör husrannsakan hos den misstänkte och det har lett till många beslag." (- We do a house warrant at the suspect and that have led to many seizures) or "- Narkotikamissbruk leder till annan kriminalitet och kommer vi åt narkotikan så minskar brottsligheten, så enkelt är det, säger Mats Anrep." (- Drug abuse leads to other criminality and if we can get hold of the drugs, criminality will decrease, its that simple, Mats Anrep (of the Sundsvall police) states) the source of the indirect quote you stated the "tracing many other types of criminal activities" thing were built on? Well, if it is the last, Anrep does infact imply that the action is indirect, so it is wrongly used from that reason. And the context the first quote were used, everything points to that the seizures were (more) drugs. Steinberger (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Drug Policy

User Steinberger

User SSteinberg, pro cannabis activist, probably a supporter of the Drug policy in Netherlands has entered a sign in the article:

This article or section may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that convetheys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "Drug policy". See the talk page for details.

Exactly what means "may" and "not attributable to orginal sources" here? Unspecified claims is a sort of vandalism. I recommend anybody with doubts to read the more the 50 pages long report from UNODC, one of the references in the article and after that some of the other 15 sources. --Dala11a (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate If Leif of Hedemora, would stop giving me epithets that I don't feel familiar with. But as he asks why I think its a original synthesis, thats because of the mixing of Bejerots personal ideas on drug policy and the actual drug policy Sweden has and its outcome. To me it lacks stringency and trustworthiness, and as the synthesis itself does not have a source, I'll call it Original Research. For those who whats to read a rapport on the Swedish drug policy, could find this link useful. Ssteinberger (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That report is 11 years old and of course well known by the authors of the UNOCD-report. I have now added sources for every specific claims about unsourced text. So what is left is an unspecified claim. I must remind about that the headline is not "The :Swedish drug policy", the headline is "An alternative view on War on drugs -Nils Bejerot" Dala11a (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So Bejerot is the cause behind Sweden's low number of prisoners for example, and not our juridical tradition? (By the way, your sources sucks, look at Wikipedia:Verifiability: Some of your sources are definitely questionable, like those from Nils Bejerots official website, and they should not be used other than in his own article. Other sources are fairly off-topic and after checking, more then one does not state what you have written.) Ssteinberger (talk) 22:59, 3 Mayicl 2008 (UTC)

"So Bejerot is the cause behind Sweden's low number of prisoners for example" is not a text in the article. And don't delete sources. "Some of", "Other sources" , "the one", "after checking" "more than one" = more unspecified complains.Dala11a (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A quote part of the UNOCD report:

In 1969, Bejerot founded the ‘Association for a Drug-Free Society’ (RNS), which played an important role in shaping Swedish drug policies. He warned of the consequences of an ‘epidemic addiction’, prompted by young, psychologically and socially unstable persons who, usually after direct personal initiation from another drug abuser, begin to use socially nonaccepted, intoxicating drugs to gain euphoria. He was particularly concerned with the highly psycho-social contagiousness of drug use and considered contagion to be a function of susceptibility of the individual and exposure to drugs.

One key precondition for the spread was availability. While susceptibility of the individual was difficult to influence, exposure could be limited through drug policy. Therefore, Bejerot concluded that society had to have a restrictive drug policy to limit general exposure to illicit drugs. He also argued that drug policy had to target the drug user, since the drug user was the irreplaceable element in the drug chain while drug dealers could be easily replaced in the event of being arrested. In addition, he saw the need for a broad popular support to be achieved through a broad political agreement and massive information campaigns, leading to something like a popular uprising against drug epidemics. The practical implications – which over the years were put into practice – were: (i) to increase prevention and treatment activities as well as to criminalize not only drug trafficking but also drug use, (ii) to target cannabis use as the first drug in the chain towards drug abuse (based on the ‘gateway’/‘stepping stone’ hypotheses) and (iii) to create a national consensus on drug policies across party lines, supported by civil society pressure groups."--Dala11a (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean with the above quote? Well, since you bring up the UNODC source, I would say is the best you got, but since UNODC is a political organization with a fixed goal in phase with the Swedish drug policy, I am not surprised of the conclusions they do. Ans since Sweden is the third biggest donor, I'll say its logic. But what about your another sources... The one from Eskiltuna kommun does not state that the modern social service evolved from the temperance movement (nor that the temperance movement was a key behind the follow up by the authorities). The Snoop Dogg Article] does not state that "A drug test by the police showing that you have used cannabis in the last week is a cogent evidence of a crime", and as a source on that Sweden has "Zero tolerance" i find it very off topic. I have already deleted one source that did not state that it is effective to intervene at an early stage. And the sources from the official Bejerot and RNS websites... questionable to say the least. Ssteinberger (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Above you admit that there is a traceable source for the general view in the article, the article is about the view, so we can agree on that.

2) Deeper in the history of the present Social service in Sweden. The present local ‘‘Socialnämnder’’ (The social service board) is a result of a merge between three different local boards, the Nykterhetsnämnd(The Soberness board) was one of them. The Soberness board merged with another local board in the 1960s and that later merged to the local service boards. The Soberness boards was started in the 1910s, 1916 in Eskilstuna. In those days were the temperance movement in Sweden very strong. Sweden was very close to a general prohibition of alcohol like in the US. and Finland in the 1910s. Instead of a total prohibition Sweden implemented a system with other types of restrictions for sale of alcohol and local soberness boards. I don’t believe it is necessary to add more sources about that history here. --Dala11a (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1) No. I do accept that Bejerot has all kinds of ideas, some better then other. And I do agree that he had an instrumental importance for the Swedish drug policy. He has been dead for the last 20 years, and even as he is the founder of the ideological approach of the drug policy, you can not mix these two entities to freely. As you have done it, I feel it is inaccurate (or at least biased). 2) If you need to read behind the lines and do some guessing while reading references, why use them? Ssteinberger (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How relevant is it that Sweden has a lower number of prisoners then the democracy with the most? You stated that it that the article does not attribute this to Bejerot, and thats true. But you self did say that the article did reflect Bejerot and his ideas rather then the Swedish policy, and I'm quite sure that if Bejerot had got more of his ideas to be accepted the numbers would not look as favorable. Already, a common manslaughter renders a shorter prison sentence then a "ruthless drug offense" (like smuggling and selling huge quantizes of "dangerous drugs"). Ssteinberger (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Suppressing of interesting facts, like the combination of a restrictive drug policy and comparably low number of citizens in prison, is against the whole idea of Wikipedia.--Dala11a (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Intresting perhaps, but is it relevant? Have some another then you made this connection? Well, I don't think so. Ssteinberger (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for help with a third option--Dala11a (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

" Have some another then you made this connection?" Answer: The article newer say that i is a connection but U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics , Cross-National Studies in Crime and Justice, 2004 is a comparison between US and 5 other countries, one of the 5 is Sweden. Dala11a (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So it really connects Sweden's low number of prisoners with Sweden's drug policy? Ssteinberger (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User SSteinberg has changed the headline in my request for comment to another headlineDala11a (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I partly did. I want comments on your usage of sources. Should sources were you have to read behind the lines, add some assumptions and lots of detailed forehand knowledge, be used on wikipedia? If the source above that is written in a other language then English, I think it's deeply dishonest as few people can verify the claims made in the article. Ssteinberger (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

More unspecified claims, except one, that some sources are in Swedish. The Wikipedia demand is only that it is traceable, not that it must bee in English. Dala11a (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Nils Bejerot and the Swedish drug policy; various questions on relevance and verifiability

Is the fact that Sweden has a comparably low number of prisoners relevant for this article? Is the usage of sources dishonest? 13:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I added some more tags. I don't see why 80% of the article is about the opinions of one man. NJGW (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Bejerot wrote about 600 articles about the subject in different media for a period of more than 20 years. In his active days he educated almost every police officer in Sweden about drugs. He had 2 days long courses with about 100 000 participants. etc. He and associated organizations changed the Swedish drug policy. And as the UNODC report states it had practical implications, also today. Dala11a (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, put that in the Sweeden section. What has this to do with drug policy in general? NJGW (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question but, i did not included it this articel Dala11a (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues in Sweden section

Sweden zero tolerance for illicit drugs, including cannabis is supported and used as a term by .the former and present government. Opinion polls in the last years show that only a fraction (less than1/10) of the Swedes support legalization of cannabis. A balanced presentation of other views in Sweden is therefore relevant part of Drug policy in Sweden.Dala11a (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Steinberg's summary "The modern Swedish drug policy stems from a decision by the Riksdag in 1978 were illict drug use was deemed as inconsistent with Swedish culture and that the goal of the drug policy should be a drug-free society". My comment: The change came step by step as a result of a fast growing use of amphetamine, cannabis and LSD in the late 1960s and a great public debate about that in the 1970s and 1980s. One of the first steps was a big police action 1969-70 in Stockholm. Steinberg's description is not fair. Compare: C. M. Chatwin: On the Possibility of Policy Harmonisation for some Illicit Drugs in Selected Member States of the European Union Conclusion: Delete.

It seems he means when the law itself was enacted vs. the social changes and debates which lead up to the law. These are two different things, both of which can be discussed. Try asking for sources. NJGW (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

More in Steinberg text "To stop this from happening, these infectious users have to be identified and separated from the rest of the society so that they can't spread there habit". My comment: The term and connection ["infectious users" +Bejerot] or [infekterade användare + Bejerot] is an invention by user Steinberg. Zero hits in Google. Conclusion: Delete.

I think that you are both not native speakers of English. As such, I give each of you the benefit of a doubt when reviewing the text you write (though you really should be much more careful with your grammar). Here he seems to try to put in layman's terms the core of the Bejerot policy. If you have another suggestion for explaining why (or if), besides the spread of drugs and drug culture, users were to separated from society, than feel free to make that suggestion. NJGW (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read the source: "This was very relevant to Bejerot since he believed that drug use had an epidemic and contagious character: “once a group of abusers has formed and a drug culture has arisen in society, the availability of the drugs is the most important factor in the spread of this form of abuse." NJGW (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"However the conclusion have been criticized" (by whom, how many in Sweden with good knowledge abut Sweden etc.) "as fundamentally biased in favor of repressive drug laws, when it picks Sweden among quite a few countries with low prevalence rate.[3] Other long standing problems noted is the high"( source ? compared with what country?? is it high?) "numbers of problem drug users and the mortality rates"(UK reports for example a lot lower, is that the truth or is it a difference in how an what is reported??) "among Swedish drug addicts are comparably"(source?)" high".[3] Conclusion: A different version and better version of this textneeds much more text and sources. Move to Drug policy of Sweden. .

You have not reached a conclusion. You have only asked for sources. NJGW (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The present Swedish policy has a general support in Sweden both in the public opinion and in the parliament. So if someone states something else it is really POV. Dala11a (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source that shows that there are no critics of the policy, feel free to share it with us. Until you do, this is actually your POV. For now, you have asked for a source (though not in the correct manner, as you haven't used a {{fact}} tag in the text). NJGW (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is another report about Sweden's drug policy "The Swedish vision of a drug-free society is so widely accepted that it is not questioned in the political arena or the media. The drug policy has support from all political parties and, according to the opinion surveys, the restrictive approach receives broad support from the public. For example, a survey in 2001 revealed that 96% were opposed to legalizing any drug that is classified. In addition, another survey in 2000 revealed that 91% were against decriminalizing cannabis use" etc. NATIONAL DRUG POLICY: SWEDEN Prepared For The Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs, Canada 2002. Section DEBATE IN SWEDEN Dala11a (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing in Steinberg's text: That less than 10% of the Swedes want to legalize cannabis.Dala11a (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So insert it with a source. NJGW (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on this all this nonsense, to me you can change, rewrite and develop what I'm written. Insert {{fact}} or {{what}} or delete my source if its used in a misleading, dishonest way or does not state whats written in the article - as I have deleted yours. However, as far as I know, Sweden has a long-standing tradition of favoring alternative solutions other then prison and relatively short sentences, if anything this tradition is broken by this stance on narcotics were a manslaughter can render a shorter sentence then drug trafficking. It would be more true to say "in spite of" instead of "in combination with" as it is now, so I would delete all of the prison-nonsense promptly. Also, among all democracies in the world, no one (except hmm.. Russia in second place) comes close to United States of America when it comes to imprisoning its population, so that comparison is totally unnecessary. (A Suitable Amount of Crime (Lagom mycket kriminalitet 2005) by (professor) Nils Christie for history and international comparisons on prison rates). Steinberger (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweden: Is the low numbers of prisoners relevant?

Stenberger deleted "Sweden has also a very low proportion of the citizens imprisoned for drug offenses and other offenses (compared with the US)." His own text above he gives a good reason for that this is a relevant text. "Sweden has a long-standing tradition of favoring alternative solutions other then prison". Despite that maximum time for drug offense is longer than the minimum time for murder has the laws not filled the prisons in Sweden as in the US. Police work, high subsidies to sport and cultural activities are in part based on the hypothesis that low substance abuse => low rate of many types crimes. Preventing prisoners from relapse in crime and substance abuse is an integrated part of the correction care system. Ann-Britt Grünevald, prison director: Prisons are Strategic in the War on Drugs the Swedish Experience]. Actions long before substance dependence has developed is a part of The Social services law and a fundamental principle in that law. In Nils Bejerot's own definition of addiction is addiction described as a learned behavior (following a learning curve). The association between substance dependence and crime is a fact in Sweden, more than 50% of new prisoners has used illicit drugs in the year before imprisonment. I can add many more evidence for that the low proportion of imprisoned is relevant for this section.Dala11a (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[3] That link is the preview on Google Books of A suitable amount of crime by Christie. I would read page 38 forward if I were you. Steinberger (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't show page 38. So exactly what part of the text is not true and sourced.I have asked this question beforeDala11a (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Turn page till you reach the right one. How difficult can it be? [4] Now to answer your question: In contradiction to sources given on the discussion page above, and in defiance with the sources given in the article you further a view where the low number of prisoners should be attributed to the drug policy. Steinberger (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A former minister had a vision 38 years ago about far less prisoners than any other country in the world. OK. But an unproven and unrealistic vision does not show that the text in the article is false.Dala11a (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the text you have read don't contradict "Sweden has a very low proportion of the citizens imprisoned for drug offenses and other offenses [8](compared with the US); one citizen in 1400." Read page 52-53 in the same book for even more statistics. However, it contradicts that this has anything to do with the Swedish drug policy, and the article does imply that. Steinberger (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your source: 1) Sweden 64 per 100 000 (= 1 in 1563), USA 730 per 1000.(=1 in 136). The text state that Sweden has far less than the US; 1 in 1400. Your source give almost the same numbers (probably older statistic. 2) A comment about far less prisoners is relevant for reader in the US. who don't have your foreknowledges. In the US. have zero tolerance been criticized as something = many people in prison. ["zero tolerance" leads to prison US] gives 362 000 hits in Google. Therefore is the Swedish number relevant in the article. Dala11a (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

.

You could use the Christie book to verify that argument. He states that the zero tolerance-maniacs use Sweden as a welfare-alibi on the war on drugs, even if its historically misleading and incorrect. He also states that the US and Sweden uses the UN to promote their ideas, not on the basis of ther accuracy but as Sweden and the US are among the biggest donors. (The statistics used in his book are from 2003 and as the number of prisoners are on the rise, I would believe its newer then your's.) Steinberger (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your and Cristie's general opinions about what you called the "zero-tolerance-maniac" belongs to part of the text that is a summary of the minority opinion in Sweden, the less than 10% who support legalization of cannabis or other listed drugs.Dala11a (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Our personal opinions might be in minority, but among scientific professionals its not: "Swedish policy makers and popular ideologues developed their own logic, policy language and version of Swedish drug history in order to convince themselves that no other policy could be possible." [5] This divide between the view presented by scientific amateurs like yourself and well-known professors like Christie and Tham is striking and more relevant then you might want to recognise. In fact, I view it as a key feature of the Swedish drug policy phenomenon. Steinberger (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweden: Relevance on the police using drug laws indirectly in a part of the struggle against crime

"Police work is in part based on the hypothesis that light on the users of illicit drugs, also smaller offenses, contributes to a lower rate for substance abuse and a lower rate for many different types of criminal activities." This statement is attributed to detective superintendent Eva Brännmark in a speech she made to the organization "Drug Free Australia". However, she does not use that argument, that focus on drug users would lower the overall criminal activity. She has many similar arguments, but she don't use the one presented in the article. Steinberger (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is another source abut the new police tactic since 2006 called Nova II, also called "The Al Capone tactic" [6]. I have seen similar comments on other pages.

I don't follow, what has police strategies against organized crime to do with this? And if you mean the practice of initially arresting (known or unknown) criminals for drug offenses and using the warrant to search their home and belongings and find proof of other crimes. Well, it takes a lot of imagination to interpret that into what you have written in the article. Steinberger (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is another example for a newspaper. Suspected person drug tested ==>if positive result==>search the suspect==>find more evidence==>search in the suspected persons home==>find evidence of other crimes [7] The last part of the newspaper story is in other words the same as in article Drug policy of Sweden. The same story has been in the newspapers from other parts of Sweden.Dala11a (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This ting on using drug laws in a combat against heavier and more organized crime, I think its have a to peripheral affiliation to the drug policy itself to be stressed in any detail. That is on this page, that is supposed to be some kind of short summery on the relevant parts. I can admit some relevance, as it used with such routine. However, I suggest, we shorten the section on Sweden severely. And not only on this thing here. Now when it is a page called Drug policy of Sweden. Steinberger (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweden: Issue on when the decision on "drug free society" were taken and what it stated

12:52, 14 May 2008 Dala11a (→Sweden: What year? is it declared or is just a statment not included in a any law?)

"Riksdagen fastslog 1978 att narkotika inte passade in i den svenska kulturen och skulle elimineras." In 1978, the parliament declared that drugs didn't fit in to the Swedish culture and should be eliminated. Steinberger (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Henrik Tham's summay in 2003 is "Den skulle aldrig få bli en del av den svenska kulturen" (drugs should not have have the opportunity to be a part of the Swedish culture.) page 32Dala11a (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

13:35, 14 May 2008 Dala11a {{cn|a first hand source}}

I can't find any first hand source (a reprint of the decision), not without a visit to the library. However, the culture thing seems its originate from the same decree, law or whatever, where the utopian proclamation a drug free society first were stated (it has been repeated) - if its not a narration originally made by Tops [8] or Tham and retold in a magazine article and on some Swedish blogs - as it (also) was done in 1978, many sources (in Swedish) now implies. What I originally wrote, that these were two separate things were wrong!

From "The Swedish drug control system": From 1977 onwards, the Swedish drug policy would have a more restrictive character. In that year the government appointed a committee to “recommend further measures to curb the acceleration of drug abuse”. / Following the committee’s recommendations, the Riksdag decided in 1977 that the aim of Swedish drug policy would be a drug-free society.

He is right on the part of the turn in 1977 ([9] in Swedish) and on the committee ([10] in Swedish), however, as stated above, he has mistaken on the year of the original goal proclamation. Steinberger (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag spam

This article has been a target for tag spamDala11a (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Which items in the tag do you think are not valid? Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 09:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have added "Since 1993 the police have had the legal right to take action against people they suspect of being under the influence of drugs. In such cases the suspect may have to produce a blood or urine sample for analysis. If the sample contains drugs, or traces of drugs, the person is guilty of a minor drug offence, personal use. One of the reasons why this legislation was introduced was to make it possible to find and apprehend people in the risk zone of addiction and tooffer care and treatment at as early a stage as possible. The penalty for drug offences depends upon the seriousness of the offence. For minor drug offences the court may impose a fine or prison sentence of up to six months. More serious offences always carry a prison sentence, usually up to a maximum of three years. If the offence is considered particularly serious, the sentence will be anything from a minimum of two to a maximum of ten years" All is word by word a quote from the source, the former Swedish Drug coordinator.

• "involved in conflict.." What conflict, except abut this article??
• "It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable" An unspecified claim. Why don't include that in the main page for Wikipedia or ??
• "It may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text." More unspecified claim .
• "An editor has expressed concern.." OK it disputed but that don't need 2 tags
• "It may contain inappropriate or misinterp..." More unspecified claim

Dala11a (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for listing your concerns. The in-text citations, which pointed to the specific concerns were removed by Steinberger at my suggestion. I'm sure that when he gets a chance he will address them here on the talk pages. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

COI: [11] That corresponds well with what he ones stated on sv:wiki. There he has used his own personal experience in a attack against some edits in the gateway theory section of the Swedish cannabis article, as he "knew" of some cases and that its not funny to see someone laying on the floor, as a turtle upside down... (I will not provide a diff, as he uses his own name as user name)

Synthesis: What I mean should be obvious by now for everyone that have what I written, here above and elsewhere.

Citecheck: See above. Did it stand anything about the low numbers of prisoners in the Kriminalvården pamphlet to prisoners for example? Is the US numbers mentioned? Dala11a seems to think that all "traceable source" could be used, as long as it is possible to read out something behind the lines. I have higher demands on sources, it should for example verify whats written in the article without a need for advanced interpretations based on forehand knowledge. Steinberger (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

COI

Having an opinion, even a strong opinion, does not constitute a conflict of interest. I have removed that tag on the assumption of good faith. If there is any evidence of an actual conflict of interest, please discuss it here before re-inserting the coi tag. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Industrial hemp?

Why is it important with industrial hemp in reference to the drug policy? To me its not obvious. I don't beliave it is a part of the drug policy in Sweden (eg, the Ministaries of Foreign Affairs, Justice and Social Services do all have part in the drug policy. To my knowledge the Ministry of Agriculture does not). I think it should be omitted. Steinberger (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In the US. is cultivating of industrial hemp prohibited. Hemp is a variant of Cannabis. Sweden has a different history than the US. concering hemp. The Swedish prohibition of hemp in 1970 was a part of the Swedish drug policy at that timeDala11a (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't think its overly anachronistic to speak of "industial hemp" in the context of the opium conference? On the rest: I can see your point, however the decision in 1970 should be put in context. Steinberger (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed lead

To address the tag on the criticism section and achieve a more neutral point of view I recommend incorporating the criticism section into the lead as follows:

Drug policy of Sweden

The Drug policy of Sweden is one of zero tolerance, including cannabis. The general drug policy is supported by all political parties and, according to the opinion polls, the restrictive approach receives broad support from the public. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports that Sweden has one of the lowest drug usage rates in the Western world, and attributes this to a drug policy that invests heavily in prevention and treatment, as well as strict law enforcement. However, the conclusions in the UNODC report have been criticized as fundamentally biased in favor of repressive drug laws. So, while Antonio Maria Costa, the Executive Director of UNODC, praises Sweden as having a successful drug policy, opponents state that there are long standing problems with high numbers of problem drug users and a comparatively high mortality rate. A total reported number of deaths related to illicit use of drugs was 362 among Swedish drug addicts in 2004.

References

Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Steinberger (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The text assumes that UNODC was unaware of Peter Cohen's earlier report on the Swedish drug policy from 1997. His report is however included in the List of sources to the UNODC report. The criticism Cohen has now made against the UNODC report is in substance only a repetition of what he wrote in 1997. UNODC has rejected key parts of Cohen's report from 1997 which Peter Cohen obviously does not like.

• The text assumes that UNODC report does not describe the extent of the number of so-called problem users of drugs etc.. It is not true. There is a section on this in the report.
• The major Swedish newspapers, television channels etc have not been critical on the UNODC-report. It has been a well-received report. To say that there are criticisms, but not give a balanced description of the scale, is not correct. The public view is that more than 90% support the law that make use of cannabis illegal.
• The text assumes that zero tolerance is the main cause for the number of drug related deaths. This is assumption is not supported by anything in the text. The cause is probably a mix of many things for ex a tradition with fair reporting, the average so called problem-addict is now older, more new types of risky poly drug use, cut in founding in the 1990s as a result of a general financial crisis etc.

Conclusion: Keep the present text.Dala11a (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously fantasize as Peter Cohen is not the author of the 1997 report. Second, major Swedish newspapers and television channels has to my knowledge not mentioned the UNODC-report at all, and I don't think thats is a good reception. That RNS (the most militant of the anti-drug social movements) has a big article on it an other thing. I can imagine the reason behind this: Nils Christie, productive sociologist and professor emeritus of criminology at the University of Oslo, reject the report as a missing-the-point propaganda stunt, being part of promoting Sweden as a welfare-state alibi in the war on drugs. To me thats also obvious, as i think it is to all thinking journalist in Sweden. Speculated as it is, that journalist are more skeptic to the drug policy then the general public, something stated by former drug coordinator Björn Fries himself.

Also, according to the "all parties support" bit in the entry section, the Canada senate report states the "moral panic" surrounding drugs in the society, fueled by the anti-drug social movement, makes it impossible for any political party to make propositions that could be interpreted as non-restrictive. I know that there are differing opinions on the policy in the riksdag. Steinberger (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I mixed Peter Cohen with other former employees at CEDRO. "53 Boekhout van Solinge, Tim (1997), The Swedish drug control policy. An in-depth review and analysis. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij Jan Mets/CEDRO" (the UNODC-report). CEDRO is now closed but Peter Cohen is at CEDRO's website the contact for the former CEDRO. [12] But in terms of key content, is my description above correct.

The UNOCD-report has been reported in major Swedish media. See for example this text from Sweden's largest morning paper [13]. Dala11a (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

About criticism sections wikipedia expresses the following opinion:

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

— Wikipedia:Words to avoid

If there are no objections to the facts as stated, then I recommend that the proposed lead be incorporated. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"So, while Antonio Maria Costa, the Executive Director of UNODC, praises Sweden as having a successful drug policy," the word "while" is a distortion of his statements. World like big or small is also confusing. How big is a big problem?

My suggestion is now

• Keep the present text but add "Both the UNODC-report and the Swedish government points out that Sweden has a problem with about 26 thousand so called problem-users, users of for example amphetamine or heroin." after "among the population.[2]"
• Keep the section criticism. (Deleted by Steinberger)Dala11a (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor's job is to accurately report the facts relating to the topic of the article. What we have here is a difference of opinion. One group says the campaign is successful, another group says no it's not, there is still a big problem. This has been documented using their words. That's the wikipedia process. While is a conjunction that means: at the same time that on the contrary or whereas. It signifies only that there is more than one opinion held on the subject. If you have an alternate wording you think would work better, then by all means suggest it.

I will caution you that people have argued over what makes the best drug policy without any resolution for many years, and the argument will no doubt continue for many more. This article is about the drug policy of Sweden, not how successful or unsuccessful it is. Since this article will not answer the question, I wonder whether there should be any discussion of the subject at all. It's become a distraction that detracts from the real work of writing a good, informative article. If you guys insist on including the controversy in the article, then you will need to work toward a NPOV method of doing it. Separating the discussion of the positive and negative arguments in different sections is not an option. In other words, do it in the lead or do it in a controversy section, or do it in a section discussing the success of the program and call it whatever you want. What is unacceptable is to try and delegate one position into obscurity. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

A have a number of times tried to include some statistics abut the number of prisoners in Sweden compared for ex with the OECD average or theUS.. I have also tried to include an external link to the two web sites in English with statistical reports about the these numbers. User Steinberger always deletes this type of information or link as not relevant. It is his personal opinion, but other readers have certainly a different view.Dala11a (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That it is relevant is your opinion. Steinberger (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dala11a, could you please explain why you think these statistics are relevant for an article on the drug policy of Sweden? Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 20:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why ask you not Steinberger why he erases a text that will fit on a single line?Dala11a (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Sweden has a comparably low number of prisoners is unrelated, or in fact, the drug policy has a negative impact on the numbers of prisoners:

At the global arena, Sweden seems to be the very incarnation of welfare. A land for generations spared from war and huge accidents. A land where the political hegemony for so long belonged to the social democrats. A land where pople care for each other.

Henrik Tham (1995/2001) has described the Swedish development in ths once to solidly founded welfare state. He characterizes the social democrats' attitute to penal questions as - initially - one of non-interest. The social democrats were interested in social refors, particularly in impriving the conditions of the poor. There reforms were the key to the establichment of the good society. Slowly the social democrats became more interested in penal policy, but then in reforms, particularly in the reduction of the size of the penal system. Lennart Geijer, a Swedish Minister of Justice in the 1970s, established the political goal of no more then 500 prisoners for the whole of Sweden and not 4,000 as they had at that time.

But then the tide turned. The war against drugs reached Sweden. Demands rose for severe punishments as weapons in this war. The Prime Minister at the time - Olof Palme - tried to fend off the punitive demands by pointing to the need for reform of the general conditions leading to abuse. But the penal activist had other arguments. From the far left came references to the view Karl Marx had on the Lumpenproletariat as the enemy of the working class. Others, also from the left - often working within the treatment institutions for drug users - pointed to Labour's established tradition for solidarity with the weak. In line with this: Youth were in need of protection, they were in danger of their lives, penal measures must prevent such a development. A drug-free society became the official goal. Step by step, the penal measures were sharpened and not only against drugs. As Henrik Tham points out, the last 20 years, has seen a complete turnabout, from demands for reduced use of imprisonment to demands for war equipment, which inevitably leads to a greater use of prisons.

— Nils Christie A Suitable Amount of Crime (2003), page 38

If the prison numbers are to be deemed relevant, this should be taken in consideration when writing it. Steinberger (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dala11a, I did not need to ask Steinberger, because he already stated that he did not think it was relevant to the article. I asked you because I saw no way to defend its relevancy and hoped you could offer some. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Compare for ex. with War on Drugs about the US. There is it stated that the high numer of prisoners in the US. is a problem . The number of prisoners is also seen as a problem in Sweden but an intresting fact is that the proportion is so low compared with the average in OECD and the US. There is no general encrease with a speed comparable to the US. The proportion is probably also lower than 1960-1970. Dala11a (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"The proportion is probably also lower than 1960-1970." So is it, what do you have on it? To me it looks like your speculations yet again. Steinberger (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)e

Statistics for persons in remand prison and prison because of drug crimes

In prison, remand prison not included, 1960: 4 770, 1970: 4 893, 2005: 4 755. The population 1960-70 was about 86% of the population in 2005. [14][15] The headline of the section you deleted was "==Statistics for persons in remand prison and prison because of drug crimes== " Both in short time and long time have drug policy probably an effect on the number of prisoners. How is it possible to state that as unrelated. Dala11a (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The deleted text was:

"==Statistics for persons in remand prison and prison because of drug crimes==

20,5% of the sentenced to prison 2005 was convicted for drug offences or smuggling of drugs. A high percentage of the prisoners have severe drug problems and over 55 per cent of these have injected narcotics. Sweden had in 2004 84 persons per 100 000 in prison and remand prison (in Swedish called häkte). It is clearly less than the average for OECD (132 persons per 100 000) and much less than in the US. (725 per 100 000)."Dala11a (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientist Roddy Nilsson says that the crime level has plunged since the early half of the century, on the contrary to popular believes. That there in fact are less people to put in jail today then in 1970, that if there were not alternative solutions introduced in the 80s and 90s, the prisons would be overfull with the present practice of the courts. Think about the introduction of 1) probation 2) electronic tagging and 3) ignition interlock device introduced to keep people out of prison to begin with. Also think about the practice of mandatory premature release, introduced in 1983. Steinberger (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)