10. 4 The international context

The influence of the international context on the national problem
definition can be discussed at two levels.
First, we have the influence of the international problem definition
that was institutionalised by the UN Conventions and an international
control system. However, this influence was incorporated very
differently. The image of drug use as a menace to mankind as
proclaimed by the Single Convention was wholly adopted in the
Swedish definition. Consequently, demands for a distinction between
cannabis and other drugs were rejected. In addition, the Convention's
strong emphasis on controlling the availability of drugs formed a
perfect match for the Swedish definition. The perception of the
availability of drugs as the root of the problem was maintained and
even strengthened in the second problem definition. As noticed by
McAllister (2000: 249), putting the blame on producer countries (the
supply side), as practised by most Western governments, placed the
onus of responsibility for the national drug problem somewhere else.
The Dutch position can be characterised as ambivalent. On the one
hand, to advocates of legalisation of cannabis or a distinction between
soft and hard drugs, the Single Convention was a fishbone in the throat.
The very existence of drugs was perceived as an, undesirable, fact that
society had to cope with in one way or another. Furthermore, not all use
and all drugs were seen as equally dangerous and the drug policy was to
be grounded on a judgement of the risks that emanate from drug use.
The Dutch problem definition entailed a definite break with the
international problem definition.
On the other hand, the Dutch realised that in order to combat supply
of drugs with an unacceptable risk, international co-operation was
indispensable. Soon the Dutch government became aware that other
countries perceived the Dutch definition and drug policy as a fishbone
in their throat. The Dutch believed that the strong reactions, "the mixed
emotions", about the Dutch policy, were due to misunderstandings that
could be rectified by information. However, the Dutch stance was
weakened by its position as an important transit country for illegal
drugs to other countries. Other countries perceived this position as a
consequence of the Dutch drug policy and something the country could
(and should) be blamed for.
Secondly, the Dutch policy was defined in Sweden as a part of the
Swedish drug problem. Relations between Sweden and the Netherlands
have been strained from time to time, due to drug-policy-related
controversies. One reason was the central position of the Netherlands as
a source of amphetamines and later heroin that was smuggled to
Sweden. The Netherlands was certainly not the only country accused by
the Swedes. Imports of drugs from countries such as Germany, Italy,
Spain, Belgium, and the East European countries were also pointed out.
Within the Nordic family, Denmark has been criticised severely by
Sweden because of the freetown of Christiania where cannabis has been
sold openly since 1970.
However, in the international context, the Netherlands was the main
target for Swedish criticism. Why? One possible answer is the fear of a
contagious dissemination of Dutch liberal ideas as expressed in the case
of the Kokerjuffer. The Dutch policy to control cannabis could
jeopardise the message from the Swedish government to its people.
Besides, the Dutch had broken with the definition of all non-medical
drug use as something evil as proclaimed in the preamble of the Single
Convention. It had placed itself outside the international DOXA of the
drug problem. For Sweden, the UN definition symbolised international
coherence and co-operation in the struggle against drugs. It seems that
Dutch governments underestimated the strength of that symbol.
However, even if it had understood its importance, developments and
opinions within the country would have made it very hard to follow the
mainstream definition.