Cracks in zero tolerance: five of eight parties want to review criminalized drug use

This week, the umbrella organization National Collaboration for Mental Health, NSPH, held a political hearing on mental health, harmful use, and addiction. The hearing was streamed online and brought together representatives from all parties in the Swedish parliament: Karin Rågsjö from the Left Party, Anna Vikström from the Social Democrats, Nils Seye Larsen from the Green Party, Christofer Bergenblock from the Centre Party, Jakob Olofsgård from the Liberals, Christian Carlsson from the Christian Democrats, Cecilia Gustafsson from the Moderate Party, and Leonid Yurkovskiy from the Sweden Democrats.

Five parties open the door to reviewing the Narcotics Penalties Act

The most notable question in the hearing came when the parties were asked to answer yes or no on whether they want a review of the Narcotics Penalties Act. The dividing line was clear. The Left Party, Green Party, Centre Party, Liberals, and Christian Democrats answered YES. The biggest populists, the Social Democrats, Moderate Party, and Sweden Democrats, answered NO.

That does not mean these parties are now pushing legalization. But their answers show that a majority of the parties in the panel are at least open to examining the current criminalization of personal use. In a country where drug policy has long been marked by zero tolerance, that stands out as a significant message.

Centre Party representative Christofer Bergenblock was the clearest in his response. He said the party could consider reviewing decriminalization of personal use for people with harmful use or addiction, while also stressing that the Centre Party remains opposed to legalization. Sweden Democrat representative Leonid Yurkovskiy rejected such a change and said the party does not see decriminalization or legalization as the way forward.

Broad agreement on care and coordination

When the parties were asked how to ensure the right care for people with harmful use or addiction, their answers were far more aligned. Almost all of them returned to the government’s co-occurring disorders reform, the need for better coordination between psychiatry, addiction care, social services, and municipalities, and the importance of making sure people do not fall through the cracks.

Karin Rågsjö of the Left Party emphasized the link between addiction and mental ill health. Anna Vikström of the Social Democrats said her party supports the reform but raised questions about responsibilities and funding. Nils Seye Larsen of the Green Party highlighted the need for rapid support, regional responsibility, family support, and the role of civil society.

Christofer Bergenblock of the Centre Party said society should move away from the term “abuse” and instead talk about harmful use and addiction as illness. He highlighted low-threshold services, needle exchange, drug consumption rooms, and a justice system that directs people to care instead of punishment. Jakob Olofsgård of the Liberals spoke about people being passed between municipalities, regions, and psychiatry, and called for a zero vision against suffering and death.

Christian Carlsson of the Christian Democrats described addiction as an illness requiring care, treatment, and prevention. Cecilia Gustafsson of the Moderate Party emphasized clearer responsibility, social support, and the Housing First model. Leonid Yurkovskiy of the Sweden Democrats summarized his party’s line with three words: resources, accessibility, and division of responsibility. He also said there are flaws in Swedish drug policy and that the party is curious about harm-reduction elements in the drug policy inquiry.

Reform ambitions will be tested against the current system

The political consensus sounds almost so good that, for a moment, one could believe Swedish drug policy has already been reformed. But that is exactly where the gap becomes clear. Politicians talk about care, coordination, and human support, yet the reality is still zero tolerance, urine testing, suspicion, punishment, and stigma. A person who uses drugs does not only encounter the healthcare system. They also encounter the justice system.

It is also striking how repetitive many of the answers are. Everyone says people should not fall through the cracks. Everyone says addiction should be seen as an illness. Everyone says care must become more coordinated. But if everyone already knows this, why has the system been allowed to continue for so long? If all politicians can see that people are being bounced between social services, psychiatry, addiction care, and the justice system, then it is no longer a knowledge problem. It is a political failure.

The constant talk about codependency and support for relatives also deserves scrutiny. Of course relatives need help. Of course children, partners, and parents should not be left alone with worry, guilt, and practical responsibility. But the question is why relatives are forced to carry so much in the first place. If Swedish drug policy were not so deeply stigmatizing, perhaps fewer people would hide their drug use, avoid care, and withdraw from family and society. Then relatives might not so often be forced to act as care coordinators, crisis support, financial safety nets, and emergency responders all at once.

When politicians repeatedly say that people are falling through the cracks, they are in practice admitting that the current system does not work. This is not only about healthcare. It is about the entire way society views drugs. First, a system is created in which people with addiction risk punishment, registration, and stigma. Then that same system concludes that relatives need more support to manage the consequences. That is backwards. A less repressive system would likely reduce both the suffering of the person using drugs and the burden on the people around them.

The role of civil society remains central

The same applies to the talk about civil society. Several parties highlighted non-profit organizations as important actors. That may well be true, and there are associations doing vital work, especially when healthcare falls short. But it is also reasonable to ask which organizations the politicians actually mean. Are they referring to user organizations, harm-reduction initiatives, and people with lived experience? Or do they mean temperance movements and old drug warriors who for decades have opposed reform, cast suspicion on people who use drugs, and spread moral panic about narcotics?

The co-occurring disorders reform will be the next major test

The hearing is especially timely because the co-occurring disorders reform is now moving forward. The government has presented the bill A more coherent system of care for people with harmful use or addiction and other psychiatric conditions. Among other things, the proposal means that regions will organize care for people with harmful use or addiction so that it is coordinated with other psychiatric care. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on January 1, 2028.

In practice, that means regions would take clearer responsibility for care and treatment in addiction, while social services (often municipal) would remain responsible for support measures such as housing, employment support, and family support. The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, SKR, has meanwhile warned that the reform requires realistic conditions, clear allocation of responsibilities, and sufficient funding to avoid creating new gaps.

Against that backdrop, the question of the Narcotics Penalties Act takes on new weight. If care, harm reduction, and coordination are to guide policy, pressure may grow to also examine how criminalization affects people with addiction or harmful use.