Sweden has had a very dark past in terms of its drug culture, which developed relatively late in the 1930’s (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007).  The government was shocked after addictions slowly took hold over the population, and many public warnings led to the fluctuation in drug purchases (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007). However, addiction claimed many Swedes, particularly adolescents, in the 1960’s (Johansson & DuPont, 2009).  In an attempt to wean citizens off of drug addiction, particularly from the Black Market, drugs such as amphetamines and opioids were medicalized (Johansson & DuPont, 2009).  However, this practice was condemned after a 17-year old girl died from overdose on prescribed drugs, and soon after in the 1980’s all drugs were banned from the country, setting the grounds for Sweden’s drug policy today (Johansson & DuPont, 2009).

            Sweden is a “first-class” European country with a population of about 9.7 million as of July 2014 (“The World Factbook”, 2014).  It is a very well-educated country at a 99% literacy rate (“Sweden Facts”, n.d.), with a very strong economic position leading to an “enviable” standard of living (“The World Factbook”, 2014).  They also are a relatively healthy country, with low rates of obesity and HIV/AIDS, a high life expectancy of about 82 years, and a great health care system (“The World Factbook”, 2014).

            The United States and Sweden share the same general view of public policy with regards to drugs: both have a no-nonsense attitude towards drugs, and feel that drugs are dangerous enough to be eliminated from society.  In the United States, this policy is expressed through Nixon’s War on Drugs, which listed drugs as “Public Enemy #1.”  Sweden leads a “zero-tolerance” policy, which essentially means that they want to get rid of all drug use in the country (Murkin, 2014).  Despite the fact that both of these countries may go about their restrictions differently, one thing is clear between the two: drugs will not be tolerated in either society and they will work to reduce drug use as much as possible. 

            Sweden and the United States also have similar approaches when it comes to how to reduce drug use: both rely on enforcement-led approaches to carry out the laws (Murkin, 2014).  Enforcement-led approaches focus more on prosecuting drug users, prevention, and abstinence from all drug use.  Comparatively, a rehabilitation-led approach would focus more on more sympathetic treatment of users, focusing on detoxification and rehabilitation of the patient, as well as funding research into the causes and preventions of addiction itself.  Clearly, rehabilitation-focused policies are much more sympathetic towards the drug user.  While Sweden’s drug policy has always been no-nonsense and enforcement-focused (Murkin, 2014), the United States’ policies originally started skewed more towards rehabilitation.  However, as time passed, different presidents took office and public opinion about drugs changed.   Policies became more and more enforcement-based.  Both countries’ policies make it extremely difficult to try and rehabilitate drug users, and instead focus solely on punishment (Murkin, 2014).  Because of the nature of enforcement-based policies, both countries spend quite a bit of money on required components, such as law enforcement and public education (“How attractive is the Swedish model?”, 2008).  The controversy of this spending depends on the perceived success of the programs.  In the United States, the War on Drugs is seen mainly as a failure, and therefore spending is widely scrutinized. In Sweden, the policies have been seen as widespread successes, and therefore the spending is seen as a requirement for this success (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007).

            Sweden and the US focus a lot on public education to deter the public from using drugs.  In the US, this is exhibited through programs such as the Drug Abuse Resistance Education training, in addition to multiple public service announcements, such as the “Meth: Not Even Once” campaign.  Sweden has had similar campaigns.  Programs encouraged in legislation such as The National Action Plan on Drugs focused on educating the public about the dangers of drugs to convince them to say no to taking drugs in order to avoid addiction in the first place (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007).

            Despite fundamental similarities between the policies, there are many differences between the two countries.  Classification of drugs is very different between the two countries.  In the US, different drugs are classified under different legality schedules to determine “how bad the drug is,” based on conditions such as medical use and potential for abuse.  In Sweden, all nonmedical use of narcotics is strictly banned (Johansson & DuPont, 2009).  There is no classification between drugs, and all drugs have relatively the same punishment for possession (“Sweden Drug Use Data and Policies”, 2014).  Punishment for drug possession also differs between the two countries.  In the US, drug users are often jailed for extensive periods of time.  Jail sentences differ depending on the type of drug, circumstances of drug use, amount of drug, etc.  However, in Sweden, fines are the main form of punishment, and punishments are not given based on type of drug, but more of the nature and amount of drug (“Sweden Drug Use Data and Policies”, 2014).  These offences can be considered major or minor, and sentencings change depending on the classification (“Sweden Drug Use Data and Policies”, 2014).  Furthermore, Sweden policies focus on giving help if it is needed (Johnasson & DuPont, 2009), and even have programs such as needle exchanges in the interest of public health, though not very many (“How attractive is the Swedish model?”, 2008).  Conversely, the US system has been criticized for relatively little rehabilitation efforts for offenders, as well as for lack of needle exchanges, which were still illegal, as confirmed by the Clinton Administration.

            The effectiveness of the policies also differs between the two countries.  In the United States, the War on Drugs has been regarded as a failure.  In addition, public opinion about drugs such as marijuana has become much more accepting, quite the opposite of what the US government wanted.  Sweden, on the other hand, has been applauded for having a successful program (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007).  Drug use has been dropping, and this drop has been attributed to Sweden’s drug policies (“How attractive is the Swedish model?”, 2008).  Furthermore, public opinion of the Swedes seems to be swaying against drugs, further discouraging people from taking drugs: there is a higher perceived risk of taking drugs (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007), and, in particular, young people also perceive this high risk of taking drugs, particularly with regards to marijuana (How attractive is the Swedish model?, 2008). 

            However, Sweden’s “success” story is sometimes debated as not being as effective as once thought (Murkin, 2014).  First of all, drug use in Sweden, as in the US, has a lot of social, cultural, and economic factors involved; drug culture revolves around people with more “deprivation” and more “social inequality”, with law enforcement having no effect (Murkin, 2014).  Drug-induced deaths have also been increasing in Sweden, showing that drug abuse could be a huge threat to the population (Murkin, 2014).  So, though at first glance Sweden’s policy may be productive, though, like everything else, it stands to be improved.

            In conclusion, Sweden has had a dark past with drug abuse, which is predominant in the depraved, adolescent, and discriminated against.  Sweden’s drug policies are zero-tolerance, and though they may seem similar, have many differences.  Sweden’s drug policies are widely hailed as being very effective, but of course there is a lot of work to be done to perfect them.

Works Cited

(2008, May 15).  How attractive is the Swedish model?  The Drug Foundation. Retrieved from     http://www.drugfoundation.org.

(2014, June 20).  Sweden. CIA.  Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov.                                             

Johansson, P., & DuPont, R. (2009, October 15). Drug policy choices – the Swedish way.  World              Federation Against Drugs.  Retrieved from http://www.wfad.se.

Murkin, G. (2014, December 15). Drug policy in Sweden: A repressive approach that increases                     harm.  Transform. Retrieved from  http://tdpf.org.uk.

Sweden. (n.d.).  Find the Data. Retrieved from http:// http://country-facts.findthedata.com/.

Sweden Drug Use Data and Policies. (n.d.).  Drug War Facts. Retrieved from             http://drugwarfacts.org.                                                          

SWEDEN’S SUCCESSFUL DRUG POLICY: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. (2007,             February 1).  United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved from             http://unodc.org.