{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018172100481026188, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01549973276322822, 'mean_word_length': 4.803100775193799, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Drugs and change in the welfare state framework as reflected in newspaper editorials

This article presents a comparative analysis of the treatment of the drug problem and drug policy issues in Finnish newspaper editorials across three periods, viz. 1966–1971, 1972–1985 and 1993–2000. The material for the first two periods was obtained through Alko Inc.'s library and information service, while the editorials published in the 1990s were drawn from the newspapers' own electronic archives. The analysis reveals three main shifts in the welfare state's drug policy rationality over the past 35 years. First, there has been a shift from the closed nation to a global world. During the first drug wave of the 1960s Finland was categorised as a separate, isolated corner beyond the reach of the world's trafficking routes, and the aim was to create a united national front in defence against the external enemy. In the 1990s, the enemy is both on the outside and in, and Finland is positioned as an integral part of global processes. Secondly, there is evidence of a transition from the protection of deviant individuals and groups to the protection of the whole population. When drug use began to attract attention in the 1960s, it was categorised mainly as a problem for youths. The aim was to keep Finland clean above all by protecting the youth: this, it was hoped, could be achieved through police control, on the one hand, and education, on the other. In the 1990s drugs were no longer categorised solely as a youth problem, but the whole population is affected. The newspapers began to deconstruct the deviant label by arguing that drug users were ordinary Finnish youths who needed to be helped rather than isolated. The need for help and support was raised alongside the issue of protection (care and harm reduction). The shift in emphasis from deviance control to the development of treatment and care clearly illustrates the shift in the welfare state framework from paternalistic protection to client-ism that underlines the individual's rights and clienthood. Third, there has been a shift in the way that the actors in the drug problem are positioned. The control-oriented action programme that stressed the subject position of the police in the efforts to combat the first drug wave, was widely endorsed in the print press in the 1970s, even though there were other proposed positions in the newspapers in the 1960s. In the 1990s this model was called into question. The position take in the press was that it would no longer be possible to fend off the second drug wave simply by means of control and policing. There were growing calls for prevention, treatment and harm reduction alongside criminal control. According to the predominant line of thinking in the editorials, the new action programme was to be based upon equal cooperation among control authorities and other actors. In this programme the concept of drug offender was broken down into the components of sellers and users. The subject position of the control authorities was defined above all through combatting drug trade. Drug users, by contrast, were to be integrated into society: responsibility for this was given to the welfare state's service system and to various community actors. In the division of labour among state authorities, this model implied a strengthening of the position of the service system in the field of drug policy. There are also important continuities to be seen in the welfare state's drug policy rationality. Key among these is that related to the view of young people as the major group at risk that requires national protection. There has also been a strong emphasis in all three periods on collective welfare state responsibility.