Advanced

Legalisering av det egna bruket av narkotika - följder för polisens praktiska arbete ur ett tvångsmedelsperspektiv

Järvelä, Antti LU (2012) JURM01 20121
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Föreställ er att vi i Sverige skulle legalisera det egna bruket av narkotika. Det skulle bli lagligt att snorta kokain, att skjuta upp heroin eller att röka marijuana. Vad skulle detta innebära för svensk Polis, sett ur ett tvångsmedelsperspektiv?

Toleransen i Sverige gentemot droger är väldigt låg. Narkotikafrågan har under en längre tid varit, och är fortfarande, högprioriterad hos regering och riksdag. Det uttalade målet är att vi ska leva i ett "ett narkotikafritt samhälle". Trots detta har varken vi i Sverige eller något annat land, uppnått målet avseende frihet från droger.

Eftersom narkotika står högt på politikernas dagordning lägger svensk Polis också ned mycket tid och resurser i sin strävan efter att konfrontera och... (More)
Föreställ er att vi i Sverige skulle legalisera det egna bruket av narkotika. Det skulle bli lagligt att snorta kokain, att skjuta upp heroin eller att röka marijuana. Vad skulle detta innebära för svensk Polis, sett ur ett tvångsmedelsperspektiv?

Toleransen i Sverige gentemot droger är väldigt låg. Narkotikafrågan har under en längre tid varit, och är fortfarande, högprioriterad hos regering och riksdag. Det uttalade målet är att vi ska leva i ett "ett narkotikafritt samhälle". Trots detta har varken vi i Sverige eller något annat land, uppnått målet avseende frihet från droger.

Eftersom narkotika står högt på politikernas dagordning lägger svensk Polis också ned mycket tid och resurser i sin strävan efter att konfrontera och lagföra såväl säljare som brukare. Svensk lagstiftning avseende tvångsmedelsanvändning är också relativt liberal jämfört med andra länder, och ger Polisen goda möjligheter att fatta beslut om användande av tvångsmedel för att hitta bevis om brottslighet. Det är "lätt" att fatta beslut om t.ex. en husrannsakan, för att söka bevis som ska användas mot den misstänkte vid en eventuell rättegång.

Som ett resultat av detta arbetar svensk Polis på ett aktivt och offensivt sätt för att göra det så svårt som möjligt att såväl sälja som bruka droger. Arbetet genererar förutom lagföringar för dessa brott även bonuseffekter: En misstänkt som från början konfronteras med misstanke om eget bruk kan ofta i förlängningen visa sig inneha såväl droger som vapen. Våldsbrottslighet är också nära förknippat med eget bruk av droger. Bonuseffekterna begränsas inte enbart till det rent straffrättsliga: i takt med att fler brott uppdagas tack vare det offensiva polisarbetet kan detta påverka den misstänktes bidrag, taxering, m.m.

Men vad skulle då hända om det egna bruket skulle legaliseras? Skulle vi fortfarande kunna konfrontera personer på det sätt som görs idag? Skulle bonuseffekterna gå förlorade?

Svaret enligt uppsatsen är att så troligtvis inte skulle bli fallet. En legalisering skulle innebära en temporär nedgång i polisens arbete, då man skulle vara tvungen att lägga om taktiken och hitta andra, lagliga, sätt att konfrontera de personer man vill konfrontera. Resultaten i uppsatsen talar för att en legalisering skulle kunna öppna upp för en mer liberal tolkning av hur tvångsmedel får användas. Det finns redan ett exempel på detta, i uppsatsen omnämnt som "G.R.L-fallet". Polispersonal använde misstanken om eget bruk av narkotika som grund för en husrannsakan i den misstänktes hem. Man hävdade, framgångsrikt, att en köpdos narkotika alltid är större än en brukardos, varför det rimligen kunde antas att brukaren fortfarande med viss sannolikhet innehade narkotika. Detta skulle kunna göra att en misstanke om eget bruk automatiskt skulle innebära en misstanke om innehav.

Slutsatsen blir att en legalisering, trots att den skulle innebära en belastning för såväl samhället som Polisen, inte skulle innebära någon katastrof i det långa loppet ur ett tvångsmedelsperspektiv. Kreativa och duktiga poliser skulle hitta lagliga vägar för att kunna hantera de problem man vill trots att eget bruk vore lagligt. (Less)
Abstract
Imagine that we, in Sweden, would legalise the personal use of drugs. It would be legal to snort cocaine, to shoot up some heroine or smoke marijuana. What would this mean for the Swedish law enforcement, from a "means of enforcement" point of view?

The Swedish tolerance when it comes to drugs is very low. It has for a long time been, and still remains, a top priority for the government to ensure that we live in "a society free from drugs". Albeit that, Sweden as well as other countries, battles with the problems that drugs cause, and has not achieved the goal of being "drug free".

Since being a top priority for the politicians, the Swedish law enforcement spends quite some time and resources trying to interfere with both dealers... (More)
Imagine that we, in Sweden, would legalise the personal use of drugs. It would be legal to snort cocaine, to shoot up some heroine or smoke marijuana. What would this mean for the Swedish law enforcement, from a "means of enforcement" point of view?

The Swedish tolerance when it comes to drugs is very low. It has for a long time been, and still remains, a top priority for the government to ensure that we live in "a society free from drugs". Albeit that, Sweden as well as other countries, battles with the problems that drugs cause, and has not achieved the goal of being "drug free".

Since being a top priority for the politicians, the Swedish law enforcement spends quite some time and resources trying to interfere with both dealers and users. The Swedish codification when it comes to the use of means of enforcement is also relatively liberal compared to other countries, and gives the police force very extensive liberties when it comes to finding evidence against these people. It is today very easy for the police to issue house-search warrants and other means of coercion, in order to find the evidence that eventually will be used in court.

As a result of all this, the Swedish police works in a very active and offensive way, to make it as hard as possible to use or sell drugs. This work also generates bonus-effects: A suspect, who is originally confronted for suspicions regarding the use of drugs, is often found to also posses’ drugs and/or weapons. Violence connected to drugs is also very common. The bonus-effects are not solely in the limits of criminal law: as more criminal actions are revealed, thanks to offensive police work, this could affect the suspect’s subsidies, taxes, and so on.

But what would happen if the personal use of drugs was to be legalised? Would we still be able to confront people in the way we do today? Would we lose many of the bonus-effects?

This paper suggests that this would not be the case. In the event of a legalisation, there would be a temporary decrease in police work, during which the police would have to change strategies and find other legal ways to deal with these problems. The paper suggests that this could open for a more liberal interpretation of when and how means of enforcement are allowed to be used. There is already an example of this, in the paper called "the G.R.L-case". Police officers used the suspicion of personal use of drugs as a reason for a house-search-warrant, successfully claiming that drugs are always bought in bigger portions than one uses them, which gives an automatic suspicion regarding possession of drugs as soon as one is suspected of personal use.
The conclusion is that although being a blow to society as well as police work, the legalisation of personal use of drugs would not be a catastrophe in the long run, as creative police officers would find legal ways to deal with the problem anyway. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Järvelä, Antti LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Legalisation of the personal use of drugs - impacts on policiary work from a perspectiva focusing on means of enforcement
course
JURM01 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, polis, narkotika, tvångsmedel, husrannsakan, eget bruk, legalisering
language
Swedish
id
2628714
date added to LUP
2012-08-31 15:33:19
date last changed
2012-08-31 15:33:19
@misc{2628714,
  abstract     = {Imagine that we, in Sweden, would legalise the personal use of drugs. It would be legal to snort cocaine, to shoot up some heroine or smoke marijuana. What would this mean for the Swedish law enforcement, from a "means of enforcement" point of view? 

The Swedish tolerance when it comes to drugs is very low. It has for a long time been, and still remains, a top priority for the government to ensure that we live in "a society free from drugs". Albeit that, Sweden as well as other countries, battles with the problems that drugs cause, and has not achieved the goal of being "drug free".

Since being a top priority for the politicians, the Swedish law enforcement spends quite some time and resources trying to interfere with both dealers and users. The Swedish codification when it comes to the use of means of enforcement is also relatively liberal compared to other countries, and gives the police force very extensive liberties when it comes to finding evidence against these people. It is today very easy for the police to issue house-search warrants and other means of coercion, in order to find the evidence that eventually will be used in court. 

As a result of all this, the Swedish police works in a very active and offensive way, to make it as hard as possible to use or sell drugs. This work also generates bonus-effects: A suspect, who is originally confronted for suspicions regarding the use of drugs, is often found to also posses’ drugs and/or weapons. Violence connected to drugs is also very common. The bonus-effects are not solely in the limits of criminal law: as more criminal actions are revealed, thanks to offensive police work, this could affect the suspect’s subsidies, taxes, and so on.

But what would happen if the personal use of drugs was to be legalised? Would we still be able to confront people in the way we do today? Would we lose many of the bonus-effects?

This paper suggests that this would not be the case. In the event of a legalisation, there would be a temporary decrease in police work, during which the police would have to change strategies and find other legal ways to deal with these problems. The paper suggests that this could open for a more liberal interpretation of when and how means of enforcement are allowed to be used. There is already an example of this, in the paper called "the G.R.L-case". Police officers used the suspicion of personal use of drugs as a reason for a house-search-warrant, successfully claiming that drugs are always bought in bigger portions than one uses them, which gives an automatic suspicion regarding possession of drugs as soon as one is suspected of personal use. 
The conclusion is that although being a blow to society as well as police work, the legalisation of personal use of drugs would not be a catastrophe in the long run, as creative police officers would find legal ways to deal with the problem anyway.},
  author       = {Järvelä, Antti},
  keyword      = {straffrätt,polis,narkotika,tvångsmedel,husrannsakan,eget bruk,legalisering},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Legalisering av det egna bruket av narkotika - följder för polisens praktiska arbete ur ett tvångsmedelsperspektiv},
  year         = {2012},
}