Search

Einar Ødegård & Anne Line Bretteville-Jensen & Astrid Skretting: The development of drug abuse in Norway in the 1990s This article aims to shed light on the development of drug abuse in Norway during the 1990s. The data come from various different sources, including questionnaire studies as well as other data sets describing the extent of drug abuse in the country. There has been a marked increase in drug abuse during the 1990s. Data from annual youth surveys in 1990 to 1995 indicate that between 8 and 10 per cent of youths aged 15–20 had ever used cannabis, whereas the figure during the latter half of the decade was substantially higher at 18–19 per cent. Surveys in the whole population also point at an increase from 1991 through to 1999: in 1991 the proportion indicating they had ever used cannabis was 8.2%, by 1999 the figure had risen to 12.5%. Furthermore, a simple cohort analysis clearly indicates that large numbers are continuing to use cannabis: the figures are also rising in older age groups. With the growing prevalence of cannabis use in younger age groups we may therefore expect to see increasing numbers of regular and frequent cannabis users in the whole population as well. Drug seizures by the police and customs have increased sharply during the latter half of the 1990s: this applies not only to amphetamine and ecstasy but also cocaine and LSD. This is supported by the results of annual questionnaire surveys among youths, who are reporting a marked increase in the use of these types of drugs. In the early 1990s around 1% of youths in the age group 15–20 said they had ever used amphetamine. This figure remained more or less unchanged through to the mid-1990s. However by the end of the decade around 4% said they had used amphetamine. The data from youth surveys furthermore indicate that there is considerable overlap in the use of amphetamine and ecstasy. In this material the sharpest increase is recorded in the proportion of those indicating they have used both amphetamine and ecstasy. There are several indicators which describe the extent of heroin abuse. All these indicators show that there has been a sharp increase in heroin abuse during the 1990s. A simple mortality analysis suggests that the number of heroin abusers has doubled over the past decade. Drug abuse has also spread markedly both in relation to age groups and geographically: today the problem is by no means limited to any specific age group, nor just to a few major cities.

Section 12 of the Norwegian Prisons Act provides for convicted persons to be transferred to a treatment institution as part of the serving of their sentence. In recent years with a growing drugs problem this provision of section 12 of the Prisons Act has been applied to an ever greater extent in the case of inmates with a drug abuse problem. One purpose of transferring inmates to a treatment institution has been to prevent recidivism. The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of serving under section 12 with respect to criminal relapse. We find no preventive effect from serving under section 12 with respect to recidivism.

In a public survey conducted in the Spring of 1993, a randomly selected sample were asked about their attitudes toward counter measures in drug policy. According to the survey there is general support for both preventive, therapeutic and repressive actions. Also more controversial measures such as electronic room bugging, which the Norwegian Parliament rejected, has public support. However, the respondents seem to give priority to preventive actions, such as working with young people, in preference to society's main answer so far: sharper punishment. In public discussion about the level of punishment, it seems to be accepted as a premise that the penal practice has its correlate in public opinion, which supports sharper punishment. In response to a general question about the penalties for drug offences, a clear majority of the respondents said they are “too lenient”. When specifying the crimes, however, the respondents were not more repressive than the courts. This paradox indicates that the correspondence between public attitudes and legal sanctions, thought to be of almost causal nature, has to be reconsidered.