Since the turn of the millennium, calls for evidence-based drug policy have become increasingly louder. In response, researchers have generated a large body of evidence in support of measures such as needle exchange programs (NEPs), while another strand of research testifies that policy makers often neglect to take the research evidence into account and hence fail to introduce these programs. This article studies the interplay between research-based knowledge, values, and policy making during 16 years of intense parliamentary debate in Sweden on the needle exchange issue. In 2000, the future of the two existing experimental NEPs was uncertain; in 2006, the regulations were reformed; and in 2015, they underwent a government inquiry. Both the reform and the inquiry aimed at regulating and expanding the programs. The analysis is guided by work done within the tradition of science-policy nexus, where the increased emphasis on evidence-based political measures is problematized. As drug policy arouses normative and ethical concerns, the analysis also explores values. The study illustrates the central role that values play in a policy field which is repeatedly declared to be science based. Within the overall framework of the Swedish drug policy ideology of a drug-free society, the advocates of NEPs framed drug misuse as a consequence of either an unjust society or a disease, arguing that because misuse is a condition beyond the control of the individual, the Swedish welfare state has an obligation to take care of those affected. For their part, the opponents framed drug misuse as a result of misguided attitudes, which would only be corrected by restrictions and prohibition. In their view, NEPs are a tool for drug policy liberalization. In the debate between the two positions, research evidence played only a minor role.
BacchiC. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be?Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education.
2.
Bak JörgensenM. (2011). Understanding the research-policy nexus in Denmark and Sweden: The field of migration and integration. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13, 93–109.
3.
BallA. L. (2007). HIV, injecting drug use and harm reduction: A public health response. Addiction, 102, 684–690.
4.
BellD. S. (1990). The irrelevance of research to government policies on drugs. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 25, 221–224.
5.
BejerotN. (1978). Missbruk av alkohol, narkotika och frihet[Abuse of Alcohol, Drugs, and Freedom]. Stockholm, Sweden: Ordfront.
6.
BergmarkA.BergmarkÅ.LundströmT. (2012). The mismatch between the map and the terrain: Evidence-based social work in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 15, 598–609.
7.
Boekhout van SolingeT. (1997). The Swedish drug control system: An in-depth review and analysis. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Jan Mets Cedro.
8.
BuchananD.ShawS.FordA.SingerM. (2003). Empirical science meets moral panic: An analysis of the politics of needle exchange. Journal of Public Health Policy, 24, 427–444.
9.
Centralförbundet för alkohol- och narkotikaupplysning. (2014). Drogutvecklingen i Sverige 2014: CAN rapport 2014[The drug development in Sweden 2014: CAN report 2014]. Stockholm, Sweden: CAN.
10.
ChatwinC. (2003). Drug policy developments within the European Union: The destabilizing effects of Dutch and Swedish drug policies. The British Journal of Criminology, 43, 567–582.
11.
ChristieN.BruunK. (2003). Den gode fiende[The Good Enemy]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. (Original work published 1985)
12.
Departementsskrivelse [Ministerial Report] 2015:56. (2015). Ökad tillgänglighet till sprututbytesverksamheter i Sverige[Increased Access to Needle Exchange Programs in Sweden]. Stockholm, Sweden: Regeringskansliet.
13.
EagletonT. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London, England: Verso.
14.
EdmanJ. (2012). Vård och ideologi. Narkomanvården som politiskt slagfält[Care and ideology. Drug treatment as a political battleground]. Umeå, Sweden: Boréa.
15.
EdmanJ. (2013). The ideological drug problem. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 13, 9–19.
16.
EdmanJ.OlssonB. (2014). The Swedish drug problem: Conceptual understanding and problem handling, 1839–2011. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 31, 503–526.
17.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2015). European drug report: Trends and developments. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.
18.
FraserS. (2015). A thousand contradictory ways: Addiction, neuroscience and expert autobiography. Contemporary Drug Problems, 42, 38–59.
19.
FraserS. (2016). Articulating addiction in alcohol and other drug policy: A multiverse of habits. International Journal of Drug Policy, 31, 6–14.
20.
FreedenM. (2003). Ideology: A very short introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
21.
GentC. E. (2000). Needle exchange policy adoption in American cities: Why not?Policy Sciences, 33, 125–153.
22.
GouldA. (1994). Sweden’s syringe exchange debate: Moral panic in a rational society. Journal of Social Policy, 23, 195–217.
23.
Government Bill [GB]. (1977/78:105). Om åtgärder mot narkotikamissbruk[On measures against the abuse of drugs]. Stockholm, Sweden: Parliament Documents.
24.
Government Bill [GB]. (2005/06:60). Nationell strategi mot hiv/aids och vissa andra smittsamma sjukdomar[National strategy against hiv/aids and some other contagious diseases]. Stockholm, Sweden: Parliament Documents.
25.
HurmeT. (2002). Skadereduktion: Ett begreppsligt problem i narkotikapolitiken[Harm reduction in Finnish drug policy: conceptual problems and contradictions]. Nordisk alkohol- och narkotikatidsskrift, 19, 239–248.
26.
JohnsonB. (2003). Policyspridning som översättning: Den politiska översättningen av metadonbehandling och husläkare i Sverige[Policy Translation: The Political Translations of Methadone Maintenance Treatment and Family Doctors in Sweden]. Malmö, Sweden: Lund Political Studies.
27.
JohnsonB. (2005). Metadon på liv och död: En bok om narkomanvård och narkotikapolitik i Sverige[Methadone, a matter of life and death. A book about drug treatment and drug policy in Sweden]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
28.
JohnsonB. (2006). Brukarinflytandets utveckling i den svenska narkotikapolitiken 1965–2004[The Development of User Influence on Swedish Drug Policy 1965–2004]. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 108, 39–60.
29.
JohnsonB. (2007). After the storm: Developments in maintenance treatment policy and practice in Sweden 1987–2006. In EdmanJ.SteniusK. (Eds.), On the margins: Nordic alcohol and drug treatment 1885–2007 (pp. 259–287). Helsinki: NAD Publications No. 50.
30.
KingdonJ. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. London, England: Scott Foresman.
31.
LancasterK. (2014). Social construction and the evidence-based drug policy endeavour. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 948–951.
32.
LancasterK. (2016). Performing the evidence-based drug policy paradigm. Contemporary Drug Problems, 43, 142–153.
33.
LarsenL.JepsenJ. (2002). Danish drug policy: An ambivalent balance between repression and welfare. The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 582, 20–36.
34.
LatourB. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
LenkeL.OlssonB. (2003). Den narkotikapolitiska relevansen av narkotikarelaterade dödsfall[The relevance of drug-related deaths on drug policy]. In ThamH. (Ed.), Forskare om narkotikapolitiken[Researchers on the drug policy] (pp. 48–57). Stockholm, Sweden: Kriminologiska institutionen.
36.
LindgrenS.-Å. (1993). Den hotfulla njutningen: Att etablera drogbruk som samhällsproblem 1890–1970[The Menacing Pleasure: Establishing Drug Use as a Social Problem 1890–1970]. Stockholm, Sweden: Symposion.
37.
LundinP.StenlåsN.GribbeJ. (2010). Science for welfare and warfare: Technology and state initiative in cold war Sweden. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications.
38.
MacGregorS. (2013). Barriers to the influence of evidence on policy: Are politicians the problem?Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 20, 225–233.
39.
MoldA. (2006). Heroin: The treatment of addiction in twentieth-century Britain. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
40.
MonaghanM. (2010). The complexity of evidence: Reflections on research utilisation in a heavily politicised policy area. Social Policy and Society, 9, 1–12.
41.
MonaghanM. (2011). Evidence versus politics: Exploiting research in UK drug policy making?Portland, OR: The Policy Press.
42.
MooreD.FraserS.TörrönenJ.Eriksson TinghögM. (2015). Sameness and difference: Metaphor and politics in the construction of addiction, social exclusion and gender in Australian and Swedish drug policy. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26, 420–428.
43.
MånssonJ.EkendahlM. (2015). Protecting prohibition: The role of Swedish information symposia in keeping cannabis a high-profile problem. Contemporary Drug Problems, 42, 209–225.
44.
OlssonB. (2011). Ett halvt sekel med narkotika: Från panik och undergångsprofetior till hantering av ett vardagligt problem?[Half a century with drugs: From panic and prophecies of doom to the handling of an everyday problem?] In OlssonB. (Ed.), Narkotika: Om problem och politik[Drugs: On problems and politics] (pp. 15–22). Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts Juridik.
45.
OttosonJ. M.HaweP. (Eds.). (2009). Knowledge utilization, diffusion, implementation, transfer and translation: Implications for evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
46.
Parliament Bills [PB]2000/16.
47.
Public Records [PR]2003/17.
48.
Questions [Q]2003/12.
49.
RhodesT.HedrichD. (2010). Harm reduction and the mainstream. In RhodesT.HedrichD. (Eds.), Harm reduction: Evidence, impacts and challenges (pp. 19–33). Spain: EMCDDA.
50.
RichertT. (2014). Överdoser, försörjningsstrategier och riskhantering: Livsvillkor för personer som injicerar narkotika[Overdoses, income strategies and risk handling: Living conditions for people who inject illegal drugs]. Malmö, Sweden: Malmö University.
51.
RitterA. (2009). How do drug policy makers access research evidence?International Journal of Drug Policy, 20, 70–75.
52.
RitterA. (2015). The privileged role of researchers in “evidence-based” policy: Implications and engagement of other voices. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 15, 181–191.
53.
RitterA.BammerB.HamiltonM.MazerolleL., & DPMP Team. (2007). Effective drug policy: A new approach demonstrated in the drug policy modelling program. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26, 265–271.
54.
RitterA.LancasterK. (2013). Measuring research influence on drug policy: A case example of two epidemiological monitoring systems. International Journal of Drug Policy, 24, 30–37.
55.
RoomR. (2005). Symbolism and rationality in the politics of psychoactive substances. Substance Use: Individual Behavior, Social Interactions, Markets and Politics: Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, 16, 331–346.
56.
SchechterM. T. (2002). Science, ideology and needle exchange programs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 582, 94–101.
57.
Svensk författningssamling/Swedish Statute Book [SFS]. (2006:323). Lag om utbyte av sprutor och kanyler[The Syringes and Needle Exchange Act].
58.
ShermanS. G. (2006). Critical condition facing needle exchange programs: The politics of science. Substance Use & Misuse, 41, 827–829.
59.
StevensA. (2007). Survival of the ideas that fit: An evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Social Policy and Society, 6, 25–35.
60.
StevensA.RitterA. (2013). How can and do empirical studies influence drug policies? Narratives and complexity in the use of evidence in policy making. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 20, 169–174.
61.
StoneD. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: Norton.
62.
SvenssonB.AntoniussonE.KristiansenA.LaanemetsL.TopsD. (2005). Sprutbytesfrågan: En granskning av en forskningsgenomgång om effekter av sprutbyte[The needle exchange issue. A scrutiny of a research review on effects of needle exchange] (Vol. 2005:1). Lund, Sweden: Meddelanden från Socialhögskolan.
63.
TammiT. (2007). Medicalizing prohibition: Harm reduction in Finnish and international drug policy. Vaajakoski, Finland: STAKES.
64.
ThamH. (1992). Narkotikakontroll som nationellt projekt[Drug control as a nationalistic project]. Nordisk Alkoholtidskrift, 9, 86–97.
65.
TieberghienJ. (2014). The role of the media in the science-policy nexus: Some critical reflections based on an analysis of the Belgian drug policy debate (1996–2003). International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 276–281.
66.
TieberghienJ.DecorteT. (2013). Understanding the science-policy nexus in Belgium: An analysis of the drug policy debate (1996–2003). International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 241–248.
67.
TryggvessonK. (2012). “Sprutbyte—visst bara de slutar med droger”: Svenska myndigheters och politikers hantering av rena sprutor till narkomaner[“Needle exchange – fine as long as they get off the drugs”: The Swedish authorities’ and politicians’ handling of clean syringes to drug users]. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 29, 519–540.
68.
TörnqvistD. (2009). När man talar om knark: Drogdebatt i svensk dagspress 1970–1999[Speaking of drugs: Drug debate in the Swedish press 1970–1999]. Umeå, Sweden: Sociologiska institutionen, Umeå universitet.
69.
UNAIDS. (2016). Do no harm: Health, human rights and people who use drugs. Retrieved fromwww.unaids.org
70.
WeissC. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431.
71.
WeissC. H. (2001). ‘What Kind of Evidence in Evidence-based Policy?’. Paper presented at the Third International Evidence-Based Policies and Indicator Systems conference, Durham, UK, 4–7 July. Retrieved May 05, 2016, from http://www.cemcentre.org/eb2003/.
72.
WHO. (2005). Biregional strategy for harm reduction. Manila: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific.
