Almost every year, The Economist has a special edition where the issue of drug legalisation is raised. The perspectives, examples and arguments vary, but the underlying line is the same: the war on drugs is not over and is bloodier than ever.

Even British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has, in a number of high-profile statements, responded favourably to a change in drug policy. There are a number of parallel changes. Some countries have begun to adopt new methods of treatment for addicts, in others, such as Portugal and the Czech Republic, a new approach has been taken regarding the possession and consumption of drugs.

Another perspective shift that has taken place over the past decade is that drug policy can no longer be considered only from a nation-state perspective. Just as no country has a unilateral trade policy, more countries have come to understand that drug policy in one country very much influences events in another. This gives the issue another dimension. Producer countries are usually poorer than the consumer countries. The countries most affected by drugs are usually also those where they are produced, not where they are consumed. Drug abuse has, for example, in Sweden mainly been discussed as a national public health issue. But drug policy is global and therefore affects the politics of security, law enforcement, and the rule of law.

Erik Jennische describes in this edition’s Dossier how the drug policy debate in South and Central America has evolved over the past decade. The more obvious it became that the war against drugs was lost, the more voices have been heard on the need for new ways to combat drugs’ destructive consequences. The steps are tentative, but several South American countries are discussing a bill that would change the fight against drug-related harm.

But the political debate on drugs and their harmful effects is broader than just changing their legal status. In his article, Pat O’Hare describes the idea of ??harm reduction. Proponents of harm reduction argue that instead of being content with lofty declarations about eradicating drugs, we should explore the objectives in the foreseeable future can actually be achieved. It includes substitution programmes and opportunities for addicts to get clean syringes. The opposition to harm reduction policy is still, not least in Sweden, very intense and active. The needle exchange issue has been debated extensively in several of the country’s counties. Bjorn Johnson in his article details the debate about the Swedish substitution programmes. The programmes’ purpose is to give addicts medical replacements for the drugs that drive them to crime and result in them contracting serious diseases.

But what options are there really today to the prohibition line against drug production and consumption? It is a misunderstanding to think that the answer is black and white: either a ‘prohibition line’ or a ‘legalisation’ line. Between total prohibition and legalisation there is the concept of ‘decriminalisation’. With decriminalisation, the use or possession of drugs ceases to be criminal. The primary aim is to redirect police resources to combat other crimes, such as the trafficking or production of drugs. Legalisation goes one step further. Instead of just decriminalising use, production and trade is incorporated into a legal and public system.

Beyond the theory, there are few who advocate or work for a global legalisation. What is considered realistic and relevant is instead to adjust and change the current system in order to more effectively reduce harm. This includes the wide range of harm-reduction measures now being tested in many countries. It is obvious that the political debate on drugs is changing in many places. Sweden is still a country on the periphery of this discussion. This gives us more reason to be informed about how developments look abroad.