A two-track system: Police officer discretion in enforcement of personal use and possession of drugs in Sweden's zero-tolerance setting

Abstract

National drug policies and legislation set the framework for the police's work against drugs. However, police officers use their discretion to implement policy into everyday drug law enforcement. This study is based on qualitative interviews with 19 police officers in Malmö, Sweden, with the aim of analyzing police officers’ views on and actions in relation to personal use and possession of drugs in a zero-tolerance drug policy setting. Our analysis focuses on three main areas: (1) police officers’ views on the criminalization of drug possession for personal use, (2) how they perceive and categorize people who use drugs (PWUD), and (3) how they apply discretion when handling complex cases, making decisions, and prioritizing enforcement actions. The results show that the police officers support the continued criminalization of minor drug offenses, motivated by a deterrence and prevention-based perspective and by a strategic use of the law to reach higher levels of drug market hierarchies. However, the police used categorization work to differentiate between user groups, resulting in an informal two-track system in which one leans toward de facto depenalization and harm reduction principles for marginalized PWUD and the other favors punitive interventions for youth and first-time offenders. The study also demonstrates how police discretion can involve uncertainty but also flexibility, allowing for more experience-based and context-sensitive judgments in the face of complex situations. Sweden constitutes an interesting case for studying how police officers relate to punitive drug policies. The study emphasizes the critical need to examine how drug policy unfolds locally, shaped by police culture and discretion in everyday practice. The way discretion is exercised can have a profound impact on the risks and opportunities faced by PWUD, with significant implications for both public health and justice outcomes.

Introduction

Current global changes in drug laws tend toward non-punitive approaches (Stevens et al., 2022). Regarding the criminalization of simple possession, models such as decriminalization (removal of criminal sanctions for the possession of drugs for personal use), depenalization (reduction of the use of existing criminal sanctions, not requiring changes to legislation), and diversion (initiatives or legislation that direct people away from criminal sanctions and toward educative, therapeutic, or social services) are currently viable policy options. However, these are implemented differently in different national settings (Greer et al., 2022a; Stevens et al., 2022). The North American opioid crisis has been one impetus behind the introduction of changes in drug control regimes toward removing or downgrading criminal penalties for some drug-related offenses, particularly in some Canadian provinces (Greer et al., 2022b). In Europe, Portugal and Czechia are two countries that have introduced decriminalization models regarding drug use (O’Reilly et al., 2022), with Portugal often mentioned in the drug policy debate as an influence on the policy changes of other countries. In the Nordic countries, Norway looked closely at the Portuguese model in their governmental drug policy reform work, but the reform bill failed to gain a parliamentary majority. Nevertheless, it has resulted in the de facto depenalization of drug use in Norway (Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services, 2021). Denmark has traditionally had a less restrictive model than the other Nordic countries, but during the last two decades, drug policies in Denmark have become more punitive, including the recriminalization of drug possession. However, studies show a diversified system, with harsh penalties for those on the professional side of the market and exemption from penalties for the personal possession of drugs, particularly for marginalized people who use drugs (PWUD) (Houborg et al., 2020, 2022).

With its zero-tolerance drug policy approach, a drug-free society as main goal, and limited access to a range of harm reduction services, Sweden stands out from other Nordic countries, as well as from a European perspective (Bjerge et al., 2016; Chatwin, 2003; Tham, 2021). Drug use and possession are criminalized with enforced blood tests as possible detecting measures and prison as a possible punishment. Since the 1980s, the number of reported minor drug offenses has increased sharply, and during the last decade, the vast majority of reported drug crimes (over 90%) in Sweden were for personal use and possession (Estrada et al., 2022; Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2021). According to the most recent statistical bulletin from the European Union Drugs Agency, Sweden has the highest number of registered drug offenses per capita among all reporting countries (EMCDDA, 2023). The criminalization of drug use in Sweden, enacted in 1989, has never been officially evaluated, but researchers have criticized the police for focusing on the street level rather than on organized drug crime, pointing out that drug-related problems and harms have not decreased since the introduction of the law and that the current practice of the law can contribute to stigmatization and marginalization for PWUD (Estrada et al., 2023; Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2013).

The police are a central actor in implementing drug policy and legislation into practice, and they exercise significant discretion in doing so. It is therefore crucial to understand how they interpret legislation and how they translate it into everyday policing. How police officers, for example, choose to act regarding criminalization of possession of drugs for personal use can have a decisive impact on risks and opportunities for PWUD. When dealing with minor drug offenses, officers have considerable latitude to interpret their mission, assess situations, and decide how to proceed. This proactive policing approach allows for substantial discretion, particularly when compared to handling more serious offenses (Blumstein, 1982; Brownsberger, 2000). As a result, there may be a gap between the policing dictated by regulations and actual policing practices. For instance, Bacon's research highlights how certain officers in the United Kingdom are moving away from traditional drug law enforcement methods because they feel disillusioned by repeatedly dealing with minor drug offenders without seeing meaningful outcomes (Bacon, 2021).

Considering Sweden's zero-tolerance drug policy approach, and the extent to which the police handle cases of personal use and possession for personal use, Sweden constitutes an interesting case for studying how police officers act in relation to punitive drug policies and how they use their discretion in their everyday drug policing. In this study, we interviewed 19 police officers involved in drug law enforcement in the region of Scania in Sweden. The primary aim of the study was to analyze police officers’ views on and actions in relation to personal use and possession of drugs in a zero-tolerance drug policy setting. Our analysis focuses on three main areas: (1) police officers’ views on the criminalization of drug possession for personal use, (2) how they perceive and categorize PWUD, and (3) how they apply discretion when handling complex cases, making decisions, and prioritizing enforcement actions.

Police discretion in drug law enforcement

Police discretion and police culture are topics that have been discussed within different scientific fields for several decades (Mastrofski, 2004; Rowe, 2007) but have gained relatively little attention in drug law enforcement research, with some notable exceptions (del Pozo et al., 2021; Greer et al., 2020, 2022b; Kammersgaard, 2019; Maher and Dixon, 1999; Marks et al., 2017). Discretion refers to the police being able to choose their course of action in their everyday law enforcement work. Mastrofski provides a basic but useful definition of discretion, viewing it as ‘the leeway that officers enjoy in selecting from more than one choice in carrying out their work' (Mastrofski, 2004: 101), which can vary from little to absolute. Drug policing has been characterized by considerable room for discretion in comparison to more serious offenses (Blumstein, 1982; Brownsberger, 2000). This can in part be explained by the fact that drug enforcement is often assumed to be a proactive activity (e.g., pedestrian and traffic stop-and-search practices) rather than reactive (e.g., officers responding to calls-for-service) and that minor drug offenses are considered ‘victimless crimes’, in the sense that they involve a user carrying drugs or a consensual transaction between a seller and a willing buyer (Egnell, 2023; Gaston et al., 2020). These crimes typically have few witnesses and limited technical evidence, further amplifying the discretion available to officers (Blumstein, 1982; Reiner, 2010).

Police discretion in drug law enforcement is shaped by police organization cultures that vary over time and place and may be more or less supportive of non-punitive approaches (Greer et al., 2020; Holmberg, 2000; Kammersgaard, 2018; O’Reilly et al., 2022). Greer et al. (2020) highlight two perspectives on police discretion: (1) discretion as an opportunity for leniency by the police, which can reduce criminal penalties and the burden on the judicial system; and (2) discretion leading to confusion among police officers who may apply inconsistent, unpredictable, and discriminatory criteria.

Drug law enforcement poses various dilemmas for police officers tasked with policing personal drug use and possession. Targeting specific demographics based on age, gender, ethnicity, prior offenses, social status, or geographical location is one such issue (Maher and Dixon, 1999; Marks et al., 2017). For example, the large degree of discretion given to police officers and the proactive nature of enforcing minor drug offenses have been cited as contributing factors to the greater unexplained ethnic disparity in drug offenses compared to other crimes (Beckett et al., 2005; Egnell, 2023; Koch et al., 2016). Dilemmas also emerge regarding the prioritization of drugs, defining threshold quantities, identifying drug types, handling non-psychoactive substances in seized samples, assessing and reporting weights, as well as determining whether drugs should be confiscated and the extent to which arrests for simple possession should be leveraged for obtaining search warrants for vehicles or residences. Greer et al. (2020) found that some Canadian officers viewed policing personal possession as a ‘tool’ which furthered information gathering on drug trafficking, perusal of other charges, and intervention in the lives of PWUD, indicating ‘secondary functions’ of the criminalization of simple possession (see also Maher and Dixon, 1999). Studies indicate that police officers perceive significant discretion in enforcing drug laws, with situational factors like the suspect's attitude toward the officer influencing enforcement approaches (del Pozo et al., 2021). Greer et al. (2020) found that police discretion affects officers’ likelihood to charge youth for possession, particularly based on the type of drug involved; for example, they were less inclined to charge for cannabis compared to substances like heroin and cocaine. Additionally, PWUD may possess limited knowledge of current drug laws and perceive a disparity between written laws and police actions (Brochu et al., 2011).

Distinguishing personal drug use from supply poses challenges for drug law enforcement and the judicial system (O’Reilly et al., 2022). O’Reilly et al. identify five global models for this differentiation: legislated amounts, authoritative body specifications, prosecutorial or sentencing guidelines, court precedent, and case-by-case assessment. Implementation varies among police officers, prosecutors, and judges, and assessments rely on diverse evidence, complicating this task and increasing discretionary practices (O’Reilly et al., 2022).

Swedish drug policy

Swedish national drug policy differs from other European countries by emphasizing a ‘drug-free society’ and adopting a prohibitionist stance known as ‘restrictive drug policy’ (Tham, 2021). Since 1989, personal use of illicit drugs has been criminalized, with imprisonment introduced in 1993, allowing for forced police-administered urine or blood tests. This policy is often justified by aiming to deter youth and first-time offenders from drug use (Goldberg, 2004).

Some researchers refer to Sweden's policy as repressive rather than restrictive and highlight how its zero-tolerance approach to drug use produces significant negative effects for PWUD (Chatwin, 2003; Goldberg, 2004). This approach has historically impeded the development of harm reduction services like syringe exchange programs, substitution treatment, naloxone distribution, and safe consumption rooms (Richert et al., 2023). Moreover, Swedish drug policy appears ineffective in safeguarding the health and lives of PWUD, as evidenced by high rates of drug-induced deaths annually. While cross-national comparisons of these rates may have limitations due to registration differences, Sweden consistently reports one of the highest rates of drug-induced mortality in Europe (EMCDDA, 2019).

Sweden's justice system adheres to the legality principle, meaning that the police and prosecutors are obligated to act on any reported crime if there is sufficient evidence to proceed. However, certain exceptions regulated by law allow for discretion. For less serious offenses, such as minor traffic violations or public disturbances, Swedish police can issue on-the-spot fines (so-called summary fines). While the personal use of drugs is often treated as a minor offense in legal terms (resulting in a fine or warning), it is still pursued actively by law enforcement in Sweden under its zero-tolerance policy.

Sweden follows a case-by-case model of drug law sentencing, where severity is determined by three main factors: type of drug and its assessed health risks, the quantity possessed, and additional factors like age, drug dependency, and whether it is a recurring offense. However, in practice, penalties are primarily influenced by the amount and type of drug listed in sentencing guidelines. Although prison sentences are theoretically possible for those with small quantities or under drug influence, the usual punishment is a unit fine based on the offender's daily income (Träskman, 2011). Official statistics for 2019 show the majority of reported drug crimes in Sweden were for personal use (49%) and personal possession (43%) (Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2021), indicating a strong focus on street-level drug market dynamics rather than on mid- to high-level dealing.

Methods

We used a qualitative research design to achieve an in-depth view of police officers’ attitudes and actions toward policing personal use and possession. The study was conducted in Malmö, Sweden's third largest city, with a population of around 340,000 inhabitants, located in the south of the country close to Copenhagen in Denmark.

We conducted 19 in-depth interviews with police officers who had experience of either interacting with people who use or sell drugs or who had been involved in strategic work concerning drug law enforcement in public places in Malmö. We recruited the interviewees through advertising the study internally in the police organization in Malmö and through snowball sampling. Initially, an officer working with community policing acted as a key contact and emailed information about the study to colleagues. The first interviews were conducted with officers who responded to that invitation to participate, while the following interviewees were recruited through snowball sampling. The interviews were conducted between May 2020 and October 2021, which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. To minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, we decided to conduct the interviews via telephone and Microsoft Teams (Archibald et al., 2019). Our assessment is that the telephone and digital interviews were appropriate and efficient. The interviewees spoke in detail and at length about policing practices, and we encountered few technical problems. Most of the interviews lasted about 1 hour, with a range in duration from 55 to 93 minutes. We recorded the interviews with a standalone recorder, and they were then transcribed by a professional transcriptionist.

The interviews were conducted with the help of a semi-structured interview guide that included the following topics: personal background information and motivations for becoming a police officer, current position and focus of the work, interactions with people who use or sell drugs, perspectives and strategies relating to open drug scenes, views on and actions relating to the criminalization of drug possession for personal use, and attitudes to drug policy and harm reduction services. While focusing on specific topics, the interview guide allowed us to be flexible and let the police officers’ answers lead the interview in different directions, letting us know what the interviewees considered important and relevant to discuss further (Galletta, 2013).

In the recruitment process, we tried to achieve a variation in the sample in terms of gender, age, and number of years as a police officer. Although we actively tried to achieve a relatively even gender balance, the final sample consisted of 14 men and 5 women. The ages within the group varied between 29 and 61 years, with a median age of 32. Most interviewees were experienced police officers, but the number of years as a practising police officer varied between 1 and 40 years, with a median of 11 years.

Our approach to analyzing the empirical material was based on qualitative text analysis and aimed at interpreting meaning from the empirical material. Coding was carried out jointly by the two authors in a three-step process, influenced by Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis. The first step consisted of a parallel reading of all the transcribed interviews by the two authors, with the aim of obtaining a holistic view of the material. In the next step, the material was categorized into broad themes relating to the overall focus of the study, such as ‘views of criminalization of use and position’, ‘the role of criminalization in everyday police practice’, and ‘decision making and prioritizing in drug law enforcement’. The overall themes were then categorized into more specific subthemes. We then discussed the coding and compared and reviewed the identified themes with attention to previous research about police discretion in drug law enforcement. This analytical work resulted in a focus on police views and practices with specific attention to categorization and discretion, which appeared to extensively guide the officers’ drug law enforcement approaches. In the third step, quotations that represented the identified themes were chosen as analytical points and interpreted for meaning.

The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr. 2019-06509). Participants were briefed about the study prior to agreeing to participate, and they provided oral informed consent before commencing the interview. To protect confidentiality due to the small sample size, we anonymized individual police officers and their affiliations, and we modified or omitted details that could identify specific interviewees or teams.

Results

Discretion to categorize: Marginalized PWUD, youth, and first-time offenders

A central theme in the interviews concerned the categorization of persons who use drugs into different groups, and how police officers used their discretion to handle these groups differently. We identified three groups of people discussed by the officers: marginalized PWUD, youth, and first-time offenders. Strategies taken toward these categories varied, with mainly low levels of response toward marginalized PWUD and high levels toward youth and first-time offenders.

Marginalized PWUD: Prosecution as counterproductive

Many police officers contended that targeting minor drug offenses and personal drug use among marginalized individuals was ineffective, unhelpful, or even counterproductive. Their argument was centered on the portrayal of the socially marginalized circumstances faced by people struggling with drug addiction. This is how one officer encapsulated this perspective:

Heavy drug abusers, so to speak, my personal opinion is that it will not help to report those persons for drug crime number one hundred. Because that person needs help. That person will not stop abusing just because we report this crime or that. I would say that's generally accepted [in the force]. There are no police officers who put any joy in reporting heavy addicts for personal use. (Participant 13)

The majority of interviewed police officers expressed support for the current drug policy, which criminalizes drug use and possession. However, some officers exhibited ambivalence toward the policy, particularly regarding its application to different categories of PWUD:

There are several aspects in this. You can talk about general prevention, that it's good that there is punishment also for use. So that people don’t take it lightly. On the other hand, drug abusers who are too far gone maybe only need help, and not more fines. It's not an easy question. I’m not entirely sure where I stand personally on this issue. (Participant 12)

The quote shows a complexity and how the officer had not fully decided where he stood on the question of whether PWUD should be prosecuted. On the one hand, he describes that it does not help the individual PWUD to receive another fine. He continued by stating that it is rare that he or his more experienced colleagues ‘arrest and take a urine sample from someone who is a heroin addict or an amphetamine user’ but that some younger or less experienced police officers or aspirants might do it ‘because you haven’t seen the whole picture yet’. Overall, however, most officers supported a kind of informal depenalization model for marginalized PWUD, as in the following excerpt:

In my world, for the police to go after drug addicts, it won’t have any effect. Those poor guys, if they get a fine or community service, it won’t change a damn thing for them, they will continue buying and I think that it should absolutely be criminalized, but at the same time I’m not entirely convinced that punishment is what's giving the best effect for the users. (Participant 1)

Central to descriptions of this kind is the notion of effects and results. The police officers wanted to see actual results through their police work. Marginalized ‘drug users’ were described as entrenched in addiction to such a degree that punishment in the form of fines or community service would not lead to effective results. However, as the police officer interjected in the sentence, she nonetheless supported the criminalization of personal use.

Several police officers portrayed marginalized PWUD as a highly vulnerable group. This vulnerability was seen as related to homelessness, the risk of contracting blood-borne viruses, overdosing, and the risk of becoming a victim of theft, abuse, and violence. In connection to this, some officers explained that, instead of arresting or using forced drug tests, they usually offered marginalized PWUD concrete service aimed at help and support, as in the following excerpt:

If you conduct a control of a drug abuser around town that both we and him know is intoxicated, we much rather drive him to a homeless shelter or offer other kinds of services. Perhaps he is in such a state that he requires hospital or inpatient treatment. Or possibly to the police arrest. But it's those kinds of measures rather than reporting him for personal use. (Participant 6)

As such, officers found marginalized PWUD to be in need of other kinds of interventions than prosecution for personal use or minor possession.

Youth and first-time offenders: Prosecution as a means of prevention

The police officers emphasized prioritizing young PWUD, echoing the official drug policy's goal of criminalizing personal use and minor possession to facilitate detection and intervention among youth, aiming to deter ongoing drug involvement and prevent aggravated drug problems. As one officer explained: ‘Overall, we work against possession, and if we talk about personal use, that's primarily about youth and first-time users’ (Participant 13). The youth category was not clearly specified in terms of age. While some talked about youth in relation to teenagers, others talked about ‘youth between 18 and 25, maybe up to 30’ (Participant 10). First-time users were implicitly characterized as youth, encompassing individuals without prior convictions or recognition by law enforcement or social services. As illustrated in the following quote, interviewees frequently emphasized the necessity of informing parents and social services about young individuals’ drug issues to facilitate access to assistance:

We are very meticulous with first-timers and youth if we suspect they are intoxicated or not yet sentenced. Then we do body searches, and it's often positive. So that the social services can open their eyes on them to get at them at an early stage. /…/ We take urine samples, and then contact both their parents and the social services and [conduct the] interrogation at the youth section. (Participant 3)

The main strategy for policing personal use and possession among youth and first-time offenders was to produce an officially registered acknowledgment of their ‘misuse’. This type of document can be used by the social services as the basis for social work interventions such as treatment, as stated by several police officers in the interviews:

If you manage to intervene at an early stage and report for personal use, that is a support for the social services. They get a whole other toolbox to intervene against this youth compared to just vague information. And if you then can see that a person stops using drugs, I think that is a success of the drug policy. (Participant 6)

Interviewer: How about younger people who are in the beginning of their drug use careers?

Well, those are the ones that the law targets, you should focus on them. And that has gained traction a bit better the last couple of years /…/ If I know that this is a little girl just turned 15 who is a drug misuser, then she might need all, how to say … she might need to be registered in the system. This is where current drug laws have a clear function. (Participant 9)

Officers viewed the suspicion of and arrest for personal use among first-time offenders as a window of opportunity to personally intervene in the lives of these suspects, as in the following excerpt:

You speak with that person since they might be a bit more susceptible to influencing. Trying to understand, making this person understand that ‘you are heading in the totally wrong direction’. A report regarding minor drug crime feels like it could become an eye-opener. (Participant 2)

Details of discretion: Making priorities and handling dilemmas

We found several subthemes of interest regarding how the police officers used their discretion when handling cases of offenses relating to personal use or possession of drugs: (1) the confiscation of drugs, (2) the quantities of drugs, and (3) the prosecutorial influence on discretion. All these areas involved decision making based on difficult priorities, trade-offs, and dilemmas.

Confiscation of drugs: Getting drugs off the street or building rapport

Whether the drugs found in the possession of suspects were confiscated and the crime was reported varied according to the discretion of each police officer. Police officers pointed out challenging dilemmas, where their main mission of prosecuting crime and getting drugs off the street could conflict with other important goals such as, reducing harm, and building relationships with people in the drug scene to gather intelligence and prevent further drug-related offenses. We observed that the distinction between youth/first-time users and marginalized PWUD influenced the officers’ discretion, with a tendency to report the former but often not the latter. One officer expressed a personal view that possession of small amounts of drugs among marginalized PWUD was not a concern, opting not to report it, and sometimes allowing individuals to keep their drugs or dispose of them:

I want to add that this is my very personal opinion. How should I put it? Drugs—sure, if it's a larger amount, then you have to do something. If it's a smaller amount for personal use among these marginalized people, then I won’t make a fuss about it. If they are at home, they can leave it there or get rid of it somehow. Again, this is my personal view that … in fighting drugs at the street level, it becomes a bit more social in a way. I mean the fight against drugs as such is not really carried out there [at the street level], it's on another level where you confiscate hundreds of kilos. (Participant 7)

Like many other officers, this strategy aimed to foster rapport with suspects entrenched in street culture while prioritizing combating higher levels of the illicit drug trade. Consequently, marginalized PWUD may occasionally retain their drugs, as this approach was viewed as enhancing rapport and strengthening officers’ connections to the local drug market's social milieu. However, the fact that the interviewee (like several other police officers) notes this as his ‘personal opinion’ suggests controversy, with not all officers likely to agree. As another police officer put it, ‘It is actually legal malpractice for the police not to prosecute all crimes that could result in imprisonment’ (Participant 4).

Some officers even regarded confiscating drugs from marginalized PWUD as counterproductive. They believed that such action could lead to increased crime, as suspects might resort to further criminal activities to replace the confiscated drugs. At the same time, many police officers spoke of the importance of seizing as much drugs as possible in order to reduce the amount of drugs in society. This created a dilemma between, on the one hand, getting drugs off the street and, on the other hand, developing good relationships with experienced PWUD and avoiding further drug-related crime. This is evident in the following excerpt:

It's difficult because if I confiscate that gram, well, the result will only be that they do another burglary to get money for new heroin. In my view, it's counterproductive to take someone's drugs if it just results in another new crime. (Participant 3)

The officers also referred to the right of a police officer to use discretion in their encounters with marginalized PWUD:

We have a legal right to give a person abstention from prosecution, as it's called. We can choose not to report if it's a minor crime. It might be minor traffic crimes, minor shoplifting, those kinds of things. We can choose, but it depends on the situation. (Participant 6)

In the following excerpt, one officer explained that the police have the right to confiscate drugs without subsequently reporting the crime:

I might encounter a person where I clearly notice that—‘Okay, you have so many violations for personal use and possession registered, you are a drug abuser, it's tough for you’. If it's a small amount, we have the right to confiscate it without writing a report … But the drugs in their possession are destroyed, and nine out of ten say, ‘I get it, no problem. You can destroy it’. So it's possible to have that kind of interplay, absolutely. You don’t always have to bust people. You have to think also about the long-term give and take. Sometimes that [strategy] is good. (Participant 18)

As in several other examples, refraining from reporting was viewed favorably for building rapport with PWUD involved in street-level drug markets. This officer strongly opposed reporting minor drug offenses, believing it would not positively impact the lives of marginalized PWUD. However, some officers insisted on reporting all drug crimes in line with current laws, as shown below:

As long as it's illegal to use drugs and to be intoxicated, then it's the task of the police to bust people. I might feel that it's not a big thing to bike against red lights, but it's still illegal and you get a fine, and if you have a driver's license, you will lose that even if you’re on a bike. I might feel that, but as long as I’m a police officer, it's my task to book people for that. (Participant 17)

This view was, however, held by only a small minority of the interviewed police officers.

The significance of quantities of drugs: Distinguishing between users and dealers

Although the police officers reported a large amount of discretion in drug cases, they also are required to consider official guidelines on quantities of drugs within the judicial system. Examples of these considerations relate to being able to differentiate between minor and serious drug crimes. Some officers referred to specific guidelines and tables that they use to base their judgments about the level of criminality of specific amounts of drugs and how these relate to what kind of crime should be reported. In the following excerpt, an officer explained that discretion to waive prosecution is closely influenced by official lists of drugs and their amounts:

Interviewer: So if it's about a very small amount of narcotics, for example, then it can be okay, but as soon as it's about slightly larger amounts, then you don’t really have the right to waive prosecution?

No, no, we cannot, we cannot. There is a clear table really from gram to gram, from tablet to tablet [regarding] what applies if it becomes a minor drug crime or a serious drug crime. (Participant 6)

As seen in the following excerpt, these guidelines also guide the actions that police officers should take in regard to arresting or not:

It's different amounts depending on which kind of drugs it is. /…/ And every drug has a degree when it goes over the normal amount. And if someone is in possession of the normal amount, then we cannot close our eyes to that. Then we should deprive that person of liberty, an arrest. Because then it's assessed to be not only for personal consumption. (Participant 4)

Quantities thus also relate to assessing if a specified amount of drugs in possession should be classified as being for personal use or for purposes of dealing to others. While there was consensus to avoid intervention with ‘marginalized drug addicts’, dealing crossed a limit, often based on possession amounts. Drug sales were prioritized, requiring ‘zero tolerance’ from the police:

If you are in possession for personal use, maybe ten grams of amphetamine, then perhaps you are also a dealer. Certainly a user, but maybe he's also selling. And then we have other input values. If he has it on him, maybe we can find out where he lives and then we can get a bigger seizure, then we can do a house search there and find bigger quantities like … personally, I want to get the ones that are the big ones like that. Because in the end, these addicts who have abused, are sad, broken people. I want to get to those who have put them in this shit and continue to supply them with drugs. They are the ones I want to get to. Big ones who make a lot of money from their suffering. (Participant 3)

However, some officers struggled to differentiate between a ‘drug user’ and a dealer. They recognized that many individuals with drug addiction also engage in small-scale selling to support their habit. Nonetheless, most officers advocated for stringent action against all drug dealing. There was variation among officers in adhering to guidelines on handling different drug possession amounts, with experienced officers typically exercising more discretion. One officer described, for example, how new police officers often worked ‘by the book’:

Then you have, as in all other professional categories when you are new, there is of course an uncertainty about how to handle certain things. Therefore, it is sometimes easier to do everything exactly as it should be done. As you work and move around enough, in that part of society, so to speak, grey areas eventually arise. You get to know people. All police officers have, as they say, informants, right, and all police officers should have that. It is perhaps someone who gains a certain trust in a certain officer, it always happens. And then it's quite obvious that you don’t treat that person like everyone else. But it's about these smaller things then [minor drug possession], not big things. (Participant 7)

Unlike inexperienced officers, the quoted officer above and his experienced colleagues demonstrated greater flexibility in implementing the law. They could navigate ‘grey areas’ and adjust their approach based on the situation, thus gaining an advantage in combating organized crime.

Prosecutorial influence on discretion: Having to prioritize

There were several aspects related to how the officers engaged with guidelines and more informal norms in relation to the judicial system. Key elements were prioritization of cases, economic justifications, and experiential factors. Police officers described a judicial system bogged down with cases, which meant that officers had to prioritize some crimes over others:

There's a pretty hard pressure on cases in Malmö, so we cannot … it's the same with traffic, we don’t report that many traffic crimes in Malmö. We could have taken cyclists biking on sidewalks and biking against red, but we kind of don’t have the possibility to do it. We have to prioritize. (Participant 4)

Officers exercised discretion by choosing not to report some offenses to the prosecutor. This decision was justified based on the economic costs associated with investigating minor drug crimes, especially when the offender had other pending sentences:

If the work put in to investigate this and the consequences for the offender turns into nothing, then it's not economically defensible to investigate in several stages and send it to drug analysis. Then he will still get abstention from prosecution because he already has 40 thefts and 30 other minor drug crimes. Then they will sweep it under the carpet, and I might just as well decide not to report it. (Participant 3)

Experience levels among police officers notably influenced their use of discretion. Inexperienced officers often needed guidance not to report every drug crime, reflecting an ongoing evolution of police culture influenced by interactions with the investigative side and the broader judicial system:

We try to teach them—‘Why do you need to arrest them?’, if you know what I mean. Maybe that's an old way of working, I don’t know. But I don’t think so because the message from the investigation side is ‘don’t bring it in, we don’t have the time’. And I cannot see … what's the point? Someone who's a heavy drug user who's been arrested ten times but still smokes every weekend. Obviously, it hasn’t helped, what's the point of continuing? Then we must arrest the sellers instead. (Participant 5)

In this example, it is interesting to note that the issue of caseload at the investigative side of the police force is taken into consideration in a way that results in a focus on drug dealers instead of PWUD. As such, our findings suggest that the police officers exercise significant discretion in prioritizing certain offenses over others, often influenced by practical considerations such as resource constraints and judicial capacity. Officers opt not to report some minor drug-related crimes to preserve resources for more demanding cases, such as those targeting drug dealers. Experience and mentorship seem to shape a pragmatic policing culture where newer officers learn to align their practices with the investigative side's emphasis on efficiency over rigidity.

Discussion

The notion that there is ‘law in books’ and ‘law in practice’ is well established in the literature, pointing to how police officers on the street level have a large degree of discretion in how to handle situations and cases in everyday practice. Although discretion may be seen as furthering leniency or leading to discriminatory criteria in drug law enforcement (Greer et al., 2022b), the nature of police work suggests it will always involve some level of discretion (Rowe, 2007). This means that the various effects of drug legislation and enforcement need to be studied locally and from the perspective of police officers, as police culture and implementation of laws in practice can vary between different regions and police organizations.

In our interviews with police officers in Malmö, we found a strong support for the continued criminalization of personal use and minor possession for personal use. However, we could see how the police used their discretion to categorize and act differently toward different user groups, and how current drug policy was seen as effective and legitimate for some categories of people who use drugs (PWUD) and not others. Our findings imply an informal two-track system at work in drug law enforcement, with a focus on detailed repressive measures toward youth and first-time offenders and tendencies toward informal depenalization for marginalized PWUD.

Extensive efforts toward youth and first-time offenders were motivated by a prevention perspective with a strong focus on deterrence and making their drug-use problems visible for the social services. Marginalized PWUD were seen as vulnerable and in need of targeted harm reduction efforts. As such, we found evidence of both informal depenalization and informal diversion, with a large focus on diverting youth to the social services and marginalized PWUD to low-threshold services and the medical system. However, this kind of diversion is not the same as specific programs developed in other countries that divert PWUD to designated services (Stevens et al., 2022). Projects where PWUD who have been arrested by the police and then offered various treatment interventions have been tested previously in Sweden, but these projects have never been expanded on a larger scale or made permanent (Magnusson, 2023).

Our analysis points to how, on the one hand, discretion can lead to confusion and difficult assessments, and on the other hand, to more flexible decisions, based on experience. In their efforts to determine the most appropriate course of action, officers encountered numerous dilemmas in drug law enforcement. These included challenges such as assessing the age and extent of drug use problems, previous offending, and social situation of the offenders; assessing what quantity and type of drug in possession should be considered a serious crime; deciding when to prioritize prosecuting drug-related crimes and removing drugs from the streets versus not detaining drugs in order to building relationships with experienced drug users and to reduce the likelihood of them committing new drug-related crimes. Officers also had to consider prosecutorial factors affecting caseload in the judicial system, when making decisions on reporting drug crimes. To navigate these challenges and make informed decisions, the officers emphasized the importance of experience. They noted that spending significant time in the same area or drug scene and building rapport with the community allowed them to make better, more context-sensitive judgments in the face of complex, often conflicting priorities. According to several experienced officers, younger police officers tended to adhere more strictly to written laws and guidelines, ‘practicing law by the book’, and required guidance on not reporting every drug-related incident. This highlights how discretion is shaped by officers’ experience levels and how more seasoned officers establish the prevailing culture within the local police force (Bacon, 2021).

The informal depenalization of marginalized PWUD may be explained by police culture shaped by the local drug policy landscape. Scania County, where Malmö is located, is a harm reduction pioneer in implementing services such as needle exchange programs, liberalized substitution treatment, and take-home naloxone (Holeksa and Richert, 2024). Malmö's proximity to Copenhagen, Denmark, with its notable harm reduction approach, may also influence police officers in Malmö to take a more public health and non-punitive approach toward marginalized PWUD (Kammersgaard, 2019; Nordgren et al., 2022). In comparison with some other regions in Sweden, where the police have been shown to enact a repressive application of the law, also toward marginalized PWUD (Holeksa, 2022), it seems like the police in Malmö have a more liberal and public health-oriented approach. This indicates that police discretion can facilitate geographical differences in drug law policing, which can also mean inequalities in vulnerability and opportunities for different groups of PWUD.

Our findings suggest that drug law enforcement practices in Malmö are similar to Danish drug policy, which makes a legal exception from penalization for those defined as ‘socially marginalized drug users’ (Houborg et al., 2020). In Copenhagen, which is only 25 minutes by train from Malmö, the work of the police has even been described in terms of ‘harm reduction policing’, where the local police, in a zone connected to the drug consumption rooms, generally refrain from prosecuting drug offenses, support low-threshold services, and focus on reducing harm for PWUD (Kammersgaard, 2019). The fact that the police in Malmö refrained from confiscating small quantities of drugs, that they have been observed to be positively disposed to various harm reduction services in the city (Nordgren et al., 2022), and the fact that in some cases they offer help rather than prosecute vulnerable PWUD, points to elements of harm reduction policing and a public health approach, similar to what have been found in some other studies of drug law enforcement (Bacon, 2024; Christmas and Srivastava, 2019; Kammersgaard, 2019; Marshall et al., 2024).

Our finding that Swedish police officers in general view the arresting of marginalized PWUD for personal use and minor possession to be ineffective or counterproductive mirrors results from police studies from Canada (Greer et al., 2022b), United Kingdom (Bacon, 2016, 2021), and South Africa (Marks et al., 2017). However, the officers in the present study still found the criminalization of personal use to be important in relation to deterrence effects, and as a tool to build cases and to get drugs of the street.

The criminalization of personal use of drugs was used strategically to reach higher levels of drug market hierarchies. By not prosecuting personal use, the police were able to develop rapport among street-level users, which could then lead to information about more serious drug crimes. This seems to be an informal nod to the Portuguese drug policy model, which aims to shift the focus from low-level possession to the higher levels of drug markets (Stevens et al., 2022). However, similar to Maher and Dixon's (1999) study of drug law enforcement in Sydney in the 1990s, we also identified a tendency among officers to redefine marginalized PWUD as ‘potentially major players, or as the beginning of a trail to them’ (Maher and Dixon, 1999: 491), a type of categorization work that may be used to legitimize the current extensive focus on minor drug crimes in the Swedish judicial system. Similar to what O’Reilly et al. (2022) describe, distinguishing between marginalized ‘drug users’, users/dealers, and professional dealers, and deciding how to act toward these different groups constituted a challenge for police officers.

Strategic uses of the criminalization of personal use were most clearly seen regarding the possibility to conduct a search of premises and using the policy as a tool to gather evidence and build cases by being able to develop a rapport with marginalized PWUD over time in everyday drug law enforcement practices. This is similar to what Greer et al. (2022b) has described as ‘secondary functions’ of the criminalization of simple possession, where police officers use the law as a ‘tool’ to work against more serious crime. On the one hand, this can be seen as an opportunity for some marginalized PWUD to escape punishment by providing information, but on the other hand, it could also be interpreted as a form of exercise of power and extortion on the part of the police that goes beyond what the law is intended for, a practice that could have severe consequences for ‘informants’ if they are categorized as ‘rats’ within the drug economy (Goldstein, 1985).

Stevens et al. (2022) note the importance of research and evaluation in both the design of drug policy reforms and in making sure problems with implementing alternatives to non-punitive approaches in drug policy are identified and rectified. Although personal use of drugs has been criminalized in Sweden since 1989, no official evaluation has been conducted or proposed by the Swedish government. The few Swedish studies that have focused on aspects related to the criminalization of use point out that drug law enforcement takes up large resources that could probably be better spent elsewhere, that the proposed objectives of the legislation (such as less drug use and related harms) have not been achieved, and that criminalization can contribute to stigmatization and marginalization of PWUD (Estrada et al., 2023; Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2013).

There is a lack of research and knowledge about the effects of the far-reaching law enforcement work and diversion strategies directed toward young PWUD, described by the police officers in this study (Egnell, 2023). However, from a theoretical understanding (e.g., labeling theory) as well as from empirical evidence, there seem to be many risks with police contact with young people, as this can lead to negative effects in terms of stigma and reoffending (McAra and McVie, 2007).

In terms of drug policy, Sweden is an interesting case where both personal use and possession are criminalized activities that ‘by the book’ can result in a prison sentence, and where over 90% of drug law sentences pertain to these minor drug crimes. Despite global trends favoring non-punitive drug policies, Sweden shows no signs of changing course. In fact, recent legislative changes in June 2023 have further criminalized preparatory acts for minor drug crimes and increased penalties for all drug sales to a minimum of 6 months in jail (Government of Sweden, 2023). What this might mean for police practice and for PWUD remains to be seen.

Conclusions

This study examines the complex role of police discretion in drug law enforcement within Sweden's zero-tolerance drug policy framework. In accordance with Geers et al.'s (2020) two primary perspectives on discretion, the drug law enforcement practices of police officers in Malmö demonstrated both discretion as an opportunity for leniency and discretion leading to confusion and discriminatory decision making (Greer et al., 2020).

Based on categorization work, the police officers developed an unofficial two-track system involving a less repressive approach toward marginalized PWUD while adopting a stricter, more punitive stance toward young PWUD and first-time offenders. The leniency toward marginalized PWUD was motivated by a harm reduction and public health approach, aligning with findings from several other studies on drug law enforcement (Christmas and Srivastava, 2019; Kammersgaard, 2019; Marshall et al., 2024).

The police officers’ more punitive stance toward young PWUD was motivated by a deterrence and prevention-based perspective, showing how discretion can result in unequal and discriminatory practices that could have negative consequences for some PWUD.

The study expands previous research on discretion by emphasizing the categorization work and the various details of discretion police officers exercise in their daily drug law enforcement work. Officers navigated trade-offs, such as prioritizing prosecuting minor drug crimes versus building rapport to strategically target more serious crimes. They also had to make difficult assessments about the age, extent of drug use problems and social situation of the offenders, distinguish between users and dealers, and prioritize actions to use resources effectively. The study underscores how discretion often involves confusion and difficult choices, while also offering flexibility for context-sensitive, experience-based judgments in complex, conflicting situations.

Ultimately, the study emphasizes the critical need to examine how drug policy and legislation unfold locally, shaped by police culture and discretion in everyday practice. The way discretion is exercised can have a profound impact on the risks and opportunities faced by PWUD, with significant implications for both public health and justice outcomes. The study also highlights a growing tension between punitive legal frameworks and emerging harm reduction approaches, suggesting that policy changes may be necessary to better align enforcement policies and practice with public health goals.