A Qualitative Study of Former Drug Users’ Perspectives on the Drug Market in Sweden

Abstract

Over the past decade in Sweden, there has been a growing political and media discussion on the expansion of illegal drug markets. Although research has increased, few studies have examined how former drug users perceive the situation. This study explores former drug users perspectives on the illicit drug market in the 21st century. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 former drug users and four main themes were identified: (1) the violent environment, (2) the escalation of organized crime, (3) the ease of access to illegal drugs and (4) diverse perspectives on policy and prevention. There was a consensus among the interviewees that there has been an increase in organized crime and violence in the illegal drug market and that the availability of drugs in Sweden has increased during the 21st century. However, there were diverse opinions regarding drug policy and legislation. More research is needed on lived experience and attitudes to drug policy in Sweden.

Introduction

Over the last decade, there has been an increased debate in the Swedish media and politics about the expansion of the illicit drug market, and drug-related gang crime is a common topic in the Swedish press (see Ekendahl et al., 2024). However, despite a public discussion about an expansion of the drug market, illicit drug use has not changed significantly during the 2000s. In 2022, about four percent of the population aged 16–64 reported drug use in the past 12 months (The Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2023). According to a national drug survey, cannabis was the most commonly used drug, with use being slightly more common among boys than girls (Gripe et al., 2023). Over the past 20 years, experience of drug use among students has remained at a relatively stable level, but the frequency of drug use among ninth graders with experience of drugs is twice as high as it was 30 years ago (Gripe et al., 2023).

Despite little change in the prevalence of drug use, there are studies showing that attitudes towards drugs are changing. A recent study of 14-to 15-year-olds showed that the proportion of students who perceived drugs as a problem had declined between 2003 and 2019 (Gripe, 2020). The survey included a range of questions capturing different dimensions of young people’s attitudes toward drugs, including how problematic they perceive drugs to be and how restrictive their views were. Because the same questions were asked in both 2003 and 2019, it was possible to examine changes in young people’s attitudes over time. The study showed that there have been quite significant changes among ninth graders’ views on drugs, where students today do not perceive drugs as such a major problem as they did in 2003. The results also indicated a gender difference where girls were slightly more likely than boys to belong to the group that viewed drugs as a major problem. The study also showed a clear association between holding restrictive views on drugs and both lifetime and more frequent drug use. The more restrictive the attitude, the lower the likelihood of having used drugs. However, this association had weakened in 2019 compared with 2003, individuals with restrictive views were less unlikely to have used drugs in 2019 than in 2003. Moreover, the greater the extent to which students perceived drugs as a serious problem, the lower the probability that they had used drugs (Gripe, 2020).

In the early 2000s, official mortality statistics indicated a rise in drug-related deaths; however, the reliability of these figures has been questioned due to methodological changes in how drug-related mortality is measured (Leifman, 2016). The number of drug-related deaths fell by 37% between 2015 and 2024, with the largest decrease seen among men (The Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2026). In cases where the contributing substance could be determined, opioids accounted for approximately 90% of the deaths (The Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2026). Since the 1990s, the price of illicit drugs has decreased, and the most significant changes in street prices since the end of the 1980s relate to heroin, amphetamines, and cocaine (Guttormsson, 2021). In 2024, amphetamine cost one-fifth of the price level at the end of the 1980s (in real terms), the price of heroin has fallen, the price of cocaine has halved, and prices for both hashish and marijuana reached their lowest recorded levels (The Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2026). The societal costs associated with illegal drug use amounted to €3.7 billion in 2020, equivalent to roughly €355 per inhabitant, a level that is high compared to estimates from other European countries (Hofmarcher et al., 2024). Over the past decade, the number of people infected with hepatitis C has declined, a trend that may partly reflect the expansion of needle exchange programmes and increased access to curative treatments (The Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2026). The spread of HIV and hepatitis B within Sweden remains very limited (The Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2026). In 2019, an estimated 21,000 people who inject drugs (PWID) lived in Sweden, more than half of whom primarily injected amphetamines (Blach et al., 2021).

Although the reported use of drugs among young people has been relatively stable according to national statistics (Gripe et al., 2023), several studies have noted an increase in the use of gun violence in the illicit drug market in Sweden over recent years (Sturup et al., 2019). Gerell et al. (2021) explored the link between illicit drug markets and gun violence and found that gun violence in two major Swedish cities, Stockholm and Malmö, was strongly concentrated in open drug markets and that the concentration was more pronounced in relation to open drug markets in vulnerable areas ¹ . This study also found a relatively high risk for follow-up shootings occurring after an initial shooting. According to a report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, it is, however, difficult to draw a conclusion about the role of lethal violence in drug dealing in Sweden (Tollin, Hammar & Jonsson, 2021). Various conflicts may have been caused by unpaid debts, but they may also be related to violations of unspoken rules of behaviour. The report noted that several indicators suggest an increase in the availability of illicit drugs in Sweden over the last decade and that new forms of organizational patterns have emerged in the drug market, which have resulted in conflicts between different networks. The report identifies two different forms of open drug scenes: public places and criminally controlled sites in deprived areas. Other studies have found an overlap between gun violence and drug markets, particularly in areas characterized by harsh sociodemographic conditions (Magnusson, 2022). A study on different agencies perspectives on open drug scenes in Stockholm found that the agencies viewed drug dealing on open drug scenes as being conducted by well-organized criminal networks, which made use of people who were below the age of criminal responsibility and several respondents believed that more resources were needed to combat the problem (Feltmann et al., 2021).

In recent years, research on Sweden’s illicit drug market has expanded, and several studies have focused on open drug scenes (e.g. Feltmann et al., 2021; Gerell et al., 2021; Magnusson, 2022) and crypto markets (Demant et al., 2019; Moeller et al., 2021). However, a significant portion of the existing research has concentrated on quantitative data. There is also a shortage of Swedish studies in which former drug users with lived experience perceive the drug market and policy.

Previous Research on Drug Users’ Perspectives on Drug Policy

There is a comprehensive field of research about attitudes, views or norms on drug use and/or sales, however, there is less research on how drug users themselves view drug use, drug policy or changes in the drug market. Some studies have analysed how drug users regard drug legislation, for example, Darke and Torok (2013) analysed attitudes of injecting drug users (IDUs) towards the legal status of the major illicit drugs. The study found that IDUs rated methamphetamine as the most harmful of the five illicit substances and cannabis the lowest. The users were most supportive to legislative change of cannabis, and recent use was positively associated with support for both decriminalising and legalising heroin, but there was no relationship with views to other substances. Greater lifetime polydrug use was related to support for legalising heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and MDMA. An interesting finding was that demographic characteristics were relatively unrelated to attitudes. The authors noted that one’s drug use does not necessarily imply support for legislative changes. A quantitative study examined what values people who use drugs hold regarding drug use and drug policy, and factors that predict these values (Askew et al., 2022). For example, the study found that individuals who identified as recreational drug users and those who had used drugs recently constituted a distinct group. This group supported personal autonomy to use drugs, paternalism around ecstasy, cannabis, magic mushrooms and to some extent, cocaine use and highlighted the injustices of the current system, which prohibits the drugs they use while allowing alcohol.

Several studies have focused on cannabis users’ perspectives on drug policy. Osborne and Fogel (2016) examined adult cannabis users’ attitudes regarding the decriminalization and legalization of cannabis. It was found that the majority strongly favoured the legalization of cannabis use. In a study about the knowledge and opinions of cannabis users regarding cannabis laws it was found that the participants demonstrated a limited understanding of cannabis policy and the participants expressed sometimes incorrect understandings of the law (Brochu et al., 2011). Greer and Ritter (2019) studied perceptions of people who use drugs regarding a drug law reform and found that there were varied opinions and no consensus regarding a preferred policy model, and that the participants preferred a medical/prescription approach to drug regulation.

Current Study

Given that the development of the Swedish drug market in the 21st century is a highly topical issue in the media, politics and research, it is interesting to examine how people who have recently been involved in the market view this development. There is also a lack of research on how drug users with lived experience in Sweden perceive drug policy changes. This study focuses on how formerly justice-involved drug users perceive the illegal drug market during the 21st century. In particular, the study concentrates on how the participants regard the market compared to when they themselves were involved in the illicit drug environment and how they believe the drug problem could be addressed.

Material and Methods

Participants and Procedure

This study is based on data from semi-structured interviews with 16 former drug users. The interviews were conducted as part of a broader project on crime trends in Sweden. The participants comprise three women and thirteen men, ranging from 30 to 65 years of age. Three of the participants were born abroad, while the remaining were born in Sweden. All participants had a history of having been subject to legal proceedings. The majority (13) had been sentenced to imprisonment, one participant had been arrested, one had been sentenced to probation, and one did not report any previous sentence. The shortest prison sentence for those who reported prior offending was 4 months and the longest was 17 years Among the participants with previous prison experience, 10 had spent more than 18 months in custody. The majority of the respondents (11) had previous experiences of selling drugs. Those who mentioned a history of drug selling had mainly been street sellers. See Table 1 for respondent profiles.

To recruit respondents, the authors established email contacts with Swedish NGOs with a focus on prisoner rehabilitation. If the organizations agreed to participate, another email was sent containing more information about the project, and a letter of consent was sent to those individuals who confirmed that they were willing to participate. Before the interviews, the information letter and the letter of consent was also read out to the individuals who had agreed to participate. Telephone interviews were chosen for this study mainly for practical reasons, as the interviewees lived throughout the country. Azad et al. (2021) argue that telephone interviews can give flexibility, balanced anonymity and power relations, and a positive effect on self-disclosure and emotional display. The challenges could be loss of human encounter, intense listening, and worries about technology. In this study, the interviewees provided very comprehensive answers, and the fact that the interviews were conducted by telephone was not perceived as an obstacle.

The interviews were conducted between 2022 and 2025 and were carried out in private rooms at the NGOs facilities with only the interviewer and the respondent present (three interviews), online by Zoom (two interviews) or by telephone (eleven interviews). During the Zoom interviews, the camera was on, but only the audio was recorded. Two of the telephone interviews were conducted with two participants at the same time. These two interviews did not differ in terms of the questions discussed or their duration. The interviews adhered to a spontaneous format, with topics serving as a guideline for the aspects that should be covered during the interview (see Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014). The interview guide included themes focused on the individuals’ own criminal careers, risk factors for crime, and their perceptions of crime trends in society. The interviews lasted between 36 minutes and 84 minutes and took on average 54 minutes. With the participants’ consent, all interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim by the principal author. All interviews were conducted either by the principal author or both authors.

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Informed consent was obtained from all respondents, and the study adhered to ethical guidelines consistent with Swedish regulations, protecting the integrity and personal information of the participants. Consequently, real names, and the locations of the interviews have been withheld.

Data Analysis

The data were coded by the main author using NVivo version 15. The analysis focused on identifying themes based on Braun and Clarke’s (2022, p.229) definition that themes are “patterns of meaning (e.g. concepts, ideas, experience, sense-making) that are underpinned and unified by a central idea”.

To analyse the interviews, we have been used more inductive approach, thus we were interested in experiences, perspectives and meanings of the participants (see Braun & Clarke, 2022). The study was based on a constructivist approach (see Burr, 1995; Gergen, 1994) with a focus on analysing how the drug market is constructed and narrated by the interviewees.

Results

In interviews with formerly justice-involved drug users about the illegal drug market four main understandings of the illegal drug market were identified: (1) The violent environment, (2) The escalation of organized crime, (3) The ease of access to illegal drugs, and (4) Diverse perspectives on policy and prevention. These themes should not be understood as separate phenomena but rather as complementary themes within the narrative of the illegal drug market.

Theme 1. The violent Environment

The prevalence of violence in drug markets has been recognized by researchers for decades, e.g. Zahn and Bencivengo (1974), Goldstein (1985), Reuter (2009), Aziani (2020). Also in this study, the interviewees often returned to stories about the use of violence in the drug market. Although there is consensus among the interviewees that the drug market is violent, there are divided opinions on whether it has changed or not since they themselves were involved. One interviewee says that when he was involved in selling drugs it was about “killing or being killed” and that anything could happen:

Well, it was a case of kill or be killed, you could say. So instead, my drug dealing escalated and I ended up with the biggest names you can imagine, and we are talking about smuggling, drug trafficking. Well, anything could happen. (P1)

The quote illustrates how the participant perceived the drug market as a milieu of constant danger. The expression “kill or to be killed” might be a metaphorical way of describing the gravity of the situation, or an example of a real-life situation. This respondent had personal experience of selling drugs and had spent six years in prison, and by saying “anything could happen”, the participant describes a extremely violent and unpredictable drug market. Another interviewee believes that the drug market has now become more violent when he himself were involved, which was one reason why he left the criminal world. This respondent describes a breakdown of trust and moral boundaries within the market:

Everybody screws everybody. So, it doesn’t matter. Now I’m not saying that everyone has done it, but many do it anyway; as I said they walk over corpses to get their drugs really, and if it’s their best friend or mother they blow … You see it more. I see it more and more. Before I was detained, I saw it all the time and it scared me and made me decide to leave that world, because I was never safe out there. (P4)

Several previous studies have found that the use of weapons is common in drug dealing (e.g. Docherty et al., 2020; Sturup et al., 2019). Therefore, it is not surprising that the use of gun violence is something mentioned as common within the drug market by the interviewees in this study. It is said that those selling drugs carry guns on a daily basis or keep them at home. Several interviewees say it is not difficult to buy a gun, but it is sold by those who sell drugs:

“… even if the person knows or has it up there in the apartment, they will probably say ‘yes but wait a minute, I’ll check’. I’ll get back to you in a day or so. So, it’s just to ask the person you’re buying drugs from. It’s just asking them. Because they usually have guns.” (P2)

This quote reflects the normalization of weapon possession as an everyday feature of drug dealing. Several interviewees argue that the use of weapons within the drug market has increased since they themselves were involved in crime. An example is the following narrative in which the interviewee talks about the difference between using weapons recently and when he was active in crime and he means that today weapons are included in a kind of “package kit”:

It’s more brutal today… Of course we did, we had weapons and stuff too, so it wasn’t like we were running around with slingshots or something. But today that’s the way it is. … I want to say it in quotation marks, because weapons are never needed, but there and then, if we felt it was needed, then we took them out. Now it’s more like a package deal. If you’re going to commit a crime today, it’s like a starter pack you buy. You buy certain clothes and then you make sure you have certain types of tools, and you should have them on you all the time, and that’s what applies if things don’t go well. Don’t fight, don’t talk, don’t try to ask why it went wrong, but if it’s gone wrong then the tools should be brought out immediately, and it should be punished immediately. That’s the big difference today. (P2)

This quote illustrates a perceived professionalization of violence within the drug market. The participant also describes a shift over time in attitudes towards the use of violence, dating back to when he himself was involved in the illegal drug market. Another change in the market, according to the participants, is that very young children are now often involved. The involvement if young people in the illegal drug market which has also been confirmed in other studies, e.g. Tollin et al. (2021). Some interviewees are concerned about a situation in Sweden where young people and children who are involved in drug sales are using guns. The respondents reported having different means of dealing with the new situation with younger people involved in the drug market. One respondent said that he sold drugs mainly to older drug users because “we at this age, we are drawn to each other; we have done business with each other, because we can trust each other” (P4). Another respondent argues that one difference compared to when he was himself involved in crime is that today children are used by others to commit criminal acts, whereas it was seen as ‘immoral’ to give weapons to children when he was involved in crime:

At that time, there were no children, children who were criminals. There were children who committed crimes, but not in the way that happens now with hit men. It was immoral to give children a gun. [---] The big difference is that it’s now okay for criminals to use children. (P5)

The respondents often reiterated that they wanted to understand why young people abuse drugs, sell drugs, or are involved in serious crime, and they highlighted that it was important to understand that this group are still children, so the reasons for their criminality must be found in the context of their developmental processes. One example can be found in the following example, in which the respondent argues that it is important to remember that young people involved in serious crime are vulnerable and under a lot of stress. This participant illustrates this feeling of stress by using the metaphor a “ticking bomb”, to show that young people in the drug market are under intense psychological and social pressure:

It is children who are criminals today. They may not have developed this hard-core criminal identity because they are children. They may still be vulnerable. … I think a person who is 14, 15, 16 years old, it’s a difficult period in that person’s life overall, whether you are a criminal or not. You have many feelings; you have many questions in life. Where am I going, what about my sexuality, do I like boys, girls? And if you throw a lot of stress on this person, a lot of needs, money coming in or going out. What are you going to do? It becomes a ticking bomb in the end. (P5)

Other reasons mentioned by the respondents for the involvement of young people in the drug market were that young people become inspired by older criminals or that they do not believe that they will receive severe sentences. A recurring theme raised by respondents was the importance of status and money. For example, one respondent suggests that the reasons money has become so important are due to a change in society. He said that it is difficult to find a job today, because you have to have an education, so crime becomes a way of getting money quickly:

Money is like a drug in itself. And money is power. With money you can do things. Without money, you have nothing. Everyone wants money. More or less. If you're going to have a phone, it costs a hell of a lot of money. Everything costs a lot of money. Yes, it does. And you must have money for that. And there are lots of jobs, but you have to be bloody well-educated. There are no jobs for those who have no education today. You can’t be a road sweeper anymore. There are machines that do that. And then you have to have a trained driver to operate the machines. For example. I mean, society in general has changed a lot. (P3)

To summarise, there was a consensus among the participants that the drug market was violent, and several argued that it had become more violent since they themselves had been involved. The interviewees, who argued that the market had become more violent, argued that other examples of the increase of violence in the drug market were increased conflicts between different gangs in different neighbourhoods, ‘rougher’ crime, less trust between drug dealers, falling drug prices, and more drugs in circulation. The drugs considered to be increasingly common among young people, and especially boys, were tramadol, hashish, cocaine, and heroin. It was argued that young teenagers were using heavy drugs, which was a difference compared to when they themselves had started using drugs in the 1990s. However, several interviewees said that there were differences between cities when it comes to which drugs are most popular on the illegal market.

Theme 2. The escalation of Organized Crime

While respondents described the drug market as increasingly violent, they also linked this development to what they perceived as a broader escalation of organized crime in Sweden. There was consensus among those interviewed that there has been an expansion in the number of organized crime groups in Sweden during the 21st century. The reasons for respondent’s belief that organized crime has increased vary. For example, it was mentioned that there are more people involved in drug selling, which makes it more difficult to get caught, and that there are people working in ports who take bribes. According to several respondents, organized crime escalated during the late 1990s, when certain motorcycle gangs, such as the Bandidos and Hells Angels, became more active and exerted control over other gangs. Although it is argued that these motorcycle gangs have had a major impact on organized crime, there were different opinions as to whether these groups were still involved in organized crime. Some respondents argued that motorcycle gangs were still involved in organized criminal activities, but that they today focus primarily on drug trafficking, while others said that motorcycle gangs focus more on other types of crime, such as debt collection and protection activities. The following narrative illustrates the respondents’ perceptions of diversification within organized crime:

They at least say outwardly that they don't want to work with drugs; some do it anyway. I know that. They commit a lot of economic crime. For a while they were smuggling cigarettes. Pretty well done if you ask me. Debt collection. Protection activities. And they don’t shy away from unnecessary violence, I believe, which can create conflicts with other actors on the street or among themselves. Then it depends on which motorcycle club you mean. [---] I think they have realized that they don’t need to make use of drugs either. They already have an established name, so you can get money in other ways. (P5)

Although the respondents argued that some motorcycle gangs were still involved in various forms of serious crime, it was said that members of motorcycle gangs were not involved in street shootings. For example, one participant, who previously had been involved in selling drugs, constructs a distinction between street-level violence and more established criminal groups:

HA [Hells Angels] and those guys, they don't shoot. It’s like that. They’ve got vests like that or mopeds, broken shoes and an AK4 or something. […] They have families and houses and stuff. They don’t want to be involved in that sort of thing. (P3)

While the informants generally agreed that organized crime has increased, some questioned society’s definition of the term “network”. It was argued that it was mainly other actors, such as the media or the police, who categorized, and in some cases even created, the definition of a network:

I said to these guys, ‘You’ve been classified as a network’, and they immediately protested. ‘We’re friends, we’re childhood friends’. That’s what they see themselves as. So, like, what is a network, what is not a network? So, if you ask many of these groups, they don’t want to call themselves a network. It’s the authorities who call them networks. (P5)

This quote indicates a discrepancy between official classifications and participants’ self-understandings of what is percieved as a ”network”. Several interviewees also argued that the media could glorify certain networks, for example, one interviewee talked about the impact the media image had on him when he himself was active in crime. The interviewee regarded publicity as a form of recognition and for him, media attention was a sign of confirmation that he had done a good job:

We thought it was cool when it was highlighted in the papers and stuff. Because after all, that’s what you're looking for. It’s, it’s the confirmation for a criminal. Just like a worker gets compliments from his boss. If the boss comes into the office and says, ‘I think you did a great job. I’m buying you lunch today and you’re my guest’. That’s the best part. That’s kind of how it is, that things turn up in the news. And when it appears in the newspaper, which means that in some way, it’s probably unconscious, you seek out such situations to somehow be the one who gets on the news, be part of this event where you’re sitting with, with the guys on the couch and just that’s us, that’s us. And have it as some kind of, some kind of celebration that we, we did something that was so big that it was in the paper. We did something that was so big that it was on TV. It’s like a sign that we are seen, we are heard, and we exist. And we’re kind of willing to do this more times, you know. (P2)

In light of previous research (see Tollin et al., 2021) it is not surprising that respondents described a situation with organized crime on the increase. However, it is interesting that they questioned the network concept and argued that descriptions of network affiliation in the media may contribute to a strengthening of the criminal identity.

Theme 3. The ease of Access to Illegal Drugs

There was also consensus among the respondents that the availability of drugs has increased compared to when they were most active as users or drug dealers. Several argued that when they were active, it was often difficult to find people who sold drugs and that you needed a phone number or contact to buy drugs, but that today you can basically get hold of drugs directly on the street. According to one respondent, for example, “I could go downtown here now and come home with pretty much any drug.” This quote illustrates a perception of the drug market as openly accessable and that barriers to entry for buyers have diminished. Another example is found in the following narratives, in which an interviewee argued that today drugs has become more accessible to newcomers:

When I started, it wasn’t very accessible like that. It became so over the years, but there were a few people who sold drugs. … Today, it’s more like you don’t need to know anyone to buy drugs. It’s just that you as an individual, decide that you want to do drugs, and then you basically go out. (P2)

Now all you have to do is run down to town and find someone who says, ´Hi, I know someone who knows someone´. Then you've got everything sorted in no time. Yes. Wherever you are. Yes, it's not particularly difficult. (P16)

The respondents argued that the prices of many drugs started to decline in the early 2000s and have since fallen even further. It was said that drugs in general are “cheap” to buy today, and several different drugs were described as being readily available, including cocaine, amphetamines, hashish, “online drugs”, and benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines were viewed as a drug that is particularly readily available on a large scale. In the following narrative, the respondent spoke about the increased availability of benzodiazepines in his hometown:

NN-town [a small town in northern Sweden] was very well known; it is still known today as a drug town, they call it today. And then it has just escalated, from the 90s and until today actually, it has, I’m very sad about the way it looks. And today in NN-town it’s like, I know, I have friends who live there and so on, that there’s a lot of Benzo, it’s just collapsing. So, it’s so much easier to get hold of Benzodiazepines than to get hold of alcohol on a Sunday, that’s how it is. It is so incredibly easily accessible. (P4)

In line with previous research (e.g., Gripe, 2020), the respondents in this study felt that there was now a more positive attitude toward drug use among young people in Sweden. One respondent said that young people today have a different set of values and that ‘it is more acceptable to take drugs today’. He argued that drug use today is not as ‘taboo’ as it was when he was an active drug user. According to this participant, an individual may have had a normal upbringing but still use party drugs:

It was terrible if, if you said you had taken drugs, then you were like ‘oh that junkie, watch out, he’s dangerous’, and today it’s not like that at all. Today it’s almost, you shrug your shoulders if someone has taken some benzo or cocaine or amphetamines and goes to the pub [---] a normal childhood and still use drugs and … party drugs or whatever you want to call it. (P4)

This quote reflects a perceived shift toward a normalization of drug use, particularly among young people. There was a general agreement among the respondents that drugs are more readily available today than they were when they were actively involved in crime and drug use. There was also a consensus that prices are low and that there is a more positive view of drugs today, especially in relation to cannabis.

Theme 4: Diverse perspectives on Policy and Prevention

Drawing on their own experiences of the illicit drug market, the interviewees reflected on the implications and consequences for drug policy and prevention. However, there was considerable variation in how the interviewees discussed drug legislation and policy. Other studies have also found that there is considerable variation in how former drug users view drug policy, e.g. Greer & Ritter (2019). Some interviewees were more positive about a more repressive criminal policy with harsh penalties, while others believe that today’s crime policy is too severe and that society should instead invest more in treatment. One example of an interviewee who argues for this idea is the following, where she argues that since there is no treatment available in prison, she does not believe in harsher punishments:

I don't believe in harsher punishments. Because in prison, there is no treatment. There is no such thing, they have completely abolished the twelve-step programme and many, as I said, are addicts and criminals, they need to get to a point where they ask themselves, “Why am I doing this?”. It’s not just, ‘Now I’m in custody, and when I get out, I’ll be a perfect person. It doesn’t work like that. (P9)

Another interviewee said that, based on his own experience, he was critical of the lenient penalties for drug-related driving offences:

The first time I was in prison, I had 19 drug-related driving offences. 36 unauthorised driving offences. So, they caught me over 50 times and let me go. Before they sentenced me. And I’ve been caught by the police 50 times before they sentenced me to prison. And maybe only 3 or 5% of the time do they stop me when I'm driving. Do you understand what I mean? And they sentenced me to three months in prison because we have something called a sentence reduction in Sweden. It doesn't matter if you've driven once, but it doesn't matter, if you have more than three unauthorised drives, you can't get any more punishment anyway. And I think that's completely fucked up. Honestly. (P13)

Some interviewees who have spent longer periods in prison believe that there is less focus on treatment programmes in prisons today and more focus on incarceration. For example, one interviewee says that “you can’t just throw four people into a room and expect them to stop being criminals” (P15). Another interviewee believes that daily activities in prisons have been reduced and that there is little focus on treatment:

When you’re in prison, that's how it is, they lock the door, they unlock the door in the morning. Some places have done away with daily activities during the day; there's no compulsory work in prisons today. They’ve done away with it in some prisons. So, you’re kind of locked up and can only move your legs. During the day. You don't do anything. It's called criminal care, but it's not care because it's locking up and unlocking. (P13)

Several previous studies have examined how people who use drugs view different drug legislation models and drug policy. In this study, opinions were divided on drug legislation. Some were against the legalisation of cannabis, while others believed that cannabis could be legalised if an age limit were introduced for purchasing it. There was consensus among the interviewees that drugs should not be legal for young people. One interviewee says that if he had been asked the question five years ago, he would have thought that cannabis should be legal, but, now that he is sober, he has changed his mind and gained a different perspective:

If you had asked me five years ago, I would probably have said, “I want it to be legal because I smoke myself”. But then, when you sober up and start your own family and get this chance to let your brain develop without constantly stuffing yourself with things, and you gain a different perspective and become part of society, then I start to think and understand it in a different way. (P16)

Several interviewees were sceptical toward cannabis legalization as a crime-reduction strategy. For example, one respondent emphasized structural constraints in healthcare and argued that legalization would not disrupt the criminal economies. This respondent did not want to legalise cannabis because healthcare waiting lists are already long enough and it would not change the way the networks are organised:

We already have long enough healthcare queues. Are they going to get even longer because people want to come and get prescriptions for cannabis? And it won't change crime or the networks, because you still have cocaine, you still have tramadol, there's always something else that sells, so I don't think it will make any difference. (P9)

Several interviewees expressed concern about the increasing number of young people involved in the illegal drug market and the interviewees often returned to what society should do to prevent young people from becoming involved in the market. The interviewees suggested a prevention-oriented perspective with focus on early intervention. One example is the following narrative where it was mentioned that more efforts are needed to prevent drug use in schools and among parents:

It requires greater involvement among adult parents. Even more early intervention for children, calling those responsible at schools, teachers, you know. We must start very early. So that it doesn't happen. So that no one gets interested in making money from drugs. I think we must start even more distinctly. You need to go out to the schools in many ways and talk about the risks. (P15)

The increase in mental ill health in society was also discussed by several participants as one of the causes of the drug problem, and it was argued that more focus should be placed on reducing mental ill health. For example, one interviewee emphasized the importance of social support and argued that mental ill health leads to self-medication among individuals:

I think it's a very big part of why so many people today live with mental illness. When it's easier to use drugs and escape your feelings than to stay with them. And there are so many people, but then you need those who want to quit to learn that the pain of being drug-free is just feelings that will pass, and in a difficult period, they can be in those difficult feelings, have a safe network around them that they have and trust and dare to turn to in different situations. (P14)

The interviewees had varying views on how the drug problem should be addressed and what drug policy they advocated. However, a common feature among several respondents was that they believed that society must do more in terms of care and treatment, and several mentioned that these areas have been given low priority in society today. Because the participants varied in age, they had experience of different policy periods, which may shape how they interpret changes in drug policy. However, all participants were connected to a Swedish NGOs focused on prisoner rehabilitation, which means they were familiar with contemporary discussions on drug policy and prevention.

Discussion

In Sweden, there are almost daily media reports on gang crime, young people committing serious offences, and a changing drug market. Compared to other countries in Europe, Sweden has a higher level of lethal violence against young men (Hradilova Selin et al., 2024). Against this background, it was interesting to study how former drug users with lived experience of the illicit drug market regard the drug market in Sweden. The aim of the study was to focus on how former drug users perceive drug selling in Sweden during the 21st century. The study also examined whether the interviewees considered the situation to be different from what it had been when they themselves were involved in the illicit drug environment and how they believed that the drug problem could be addressed. Interviews were conducted with 16 individuals with history of drug use who had also been convicted at some point, and the data were analyzed using thematic analysis (see Braun & Clarke, 2022). Four main themes were identified in the interviews: (1) The violent environment, (2) The escalation of organized crime, (3) The ease of access to illegal drugs and (4) Diverse perspectives on policy and prevention. There was a high degree of similarity in the way the respondents talked about the drug market, with few differences between the participants based on age, gender, or country of birth.

Based on previous research, it was not surprising that the interviewees described the illegal drug market as violent. The violent nature of the drug market was recognized by several researchers (Goldstein, 1985; Reuter, 2009; Zahn and Bencivengo, 1974) and similar results have also been observed in recent Swedish studies (Gerell et al., 2021; Sturup et al., 2019). In Sweden, studies have shown that gun violence is strongly concentrated in open drug markets (Gerell et al., 2021) and that the use of gun violence in the drug market has increased (Sturup et al., 2019). The interviewees argued that they perceived heightened levels of conflict between various gangs across different neighbourhoods, decreased levels of trust among drug dealers and declining drug prices. Several respondents expressed concern about the increase in violent crime and shootings. Although a consensus among the interviewees regarding the increase in violence in the illegal drug market, several expressed a concern about the increased use of weapons and the involvement of young people.

Another major debate in Sweden today, both in the media and politics, is about the causes of the escalation of the illicit drug market, and criminologists are frequently interviewed about this issue in the media (e.g. Mossige-Norheim, 2023). It is therefore not surprising that the descriptions of the causes of the escalation are similar to those presented in the media and recent research. Similar to the findings presented by Tollin et al. (2021), the study’s participants described the involvement of certain motorcycle gangs in organized crime. Some respondents claimed that motorcycle gangs remain active in organized crime, primarily concentrating on drug trafficking, while others believed that their focus has shifted to other forms of criminal activity, such as debt collection. One interesting idea discussed by some of the interviewees involved questioning the concept of ‘networks’, arguing that it was the media or other actors who create these network affiliations. It was said that when a network’s name is mentioned in the media, this could create a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. This is something that would be interesting to follow up on in future research.

A further reason mentioned by interviewees for the changes witnessed in drug markets during the 21st century was an increase in the availability of drugs. This is also something that has been recognized in previous research (e.g. Tollin et al., 2021). Several respondents argued that during their own active years, it had often been challenging to find drug dealers, and that buying drugs had required a phone number or personal contact, while today, drugs were readily available on the street. The respondents argued that drug prices began to decline in the early 2000s and have since continued to fall, and that drugs are today generally considered widely accessible. The fact that drug prices are lower is also confirmed in a report by the Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs, in which it is argued that “the street price of many types of narcotics is currently historically low” (Guttormsson, 2021). However, other studies have shown that prices in illegal drug markets could be difficult to predict (Moeller & Sandberg, 2019). The interviewees argued that various substances, including cocaine, amphetamines, hashish, “online drugs”, and benzodiazepines, were relatively easily available, with benzodiazepines being available on a large scale. The respondents also argued that young people in general have a more favourable attitude towards drug use.

There was considerable variation in how the interviewees discussed drug legislation and policy where some interviewees were more positive about a more repressive criminal policy with harsh penalties, while others believed that today’s crime policy is too severe and that society should instead invest more in treatment. Several interviewees were concerned that the prison service focused too little on treatment.

Similar to other studies (Greer & Ritter, 2019) there were various opinions on cannabis legislation, where some believed that cannabis could be decriminalised to a certain extent, for example by introducing age limits for personal use, but others believed that cannabis should not be legalised, for example because the healthcare system would not be able to cope with the increased strain that this would entail. However, opinions on cannabis legislation were not the main focus of the study but could be examined in future research. In Sweden, there is currently limited previous research on lived experience, attitudes and drug policy norms. This study can therefore contribute to the field of research, but more research in this area is needed.

Limitations

This study is subject to several limitations. Firstly, it is based on a limited sample of individuals, 16 participants, which means that the results cannot be generalized to a larger population. However, people with a history of both involvement in crime and drug use constitute a group that is difficult to recruit in research, and the relatively small number of interviews may thus still provide new insights in this research field. Secondly, one limitation associated with interviewing people who have been involved in heavy drug use and crime is that their recollections of the past may be clouded, with dates and years becoming fluid, and it is therefore difficult to know whether the dates and years mentioned in the interviews are actually accurate. In this study, we have focused on the narratives provided by the interview participants and not on whether their stories are true. Thirdly, although all respondents stated that they had stopped selling and buying drugs, the time of their last involvement in drug sales varied from a few months to several years prior to the interview, and it was difficult to assess whether they were in fact still involved in selling or buying drugs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the interviews with people who had previously been involved in the illicit drug market confirm the findings from previous research. There was a consensus among the study participants that there has been an increase in organized crime and violence in the illegal drug market and that the availability of drugs in Sweden has increased. The interviewees also agreed that there has been an increase in violence in the illegal drug market since they themselves had been active in the late 1990s and early 2000s. There were diverse opinions regarding drug policy and legislation among the interviewees. More research is needed on lived experience and attitudes to drug policy in Sweden.