Russian Political Discourse on Illegal Drugs: A Thematic Analysis of Parliamentary Debates

Abstract

Background: Since the beginning of the twenty first century, there has been an intensified political debate about drugs in Russia. The drug problem is now regarded as one of the country’s most serious problems and as an issue of top priority for the Russian government. Objectives: The aim of this qualitative study is to explore how illegal drugs are discussed in Russian political discourse. Methods: The material includes an analysis of 177 speeches made in the lower house of the Russian parliament, the Russian State Duma, between 2014 and 2018. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis (CDA). Results: In general, the study found that the debate about the drug problem was characterized by consensus, and there were small differences between the Deputy members in their understanding of the problem. Three main understandings of the drug problem were identified: (1) Illegal drugs as an increasing problem in Russia, (2) Drugs as an external threat, and (3) A need for a more repressive drug policy. Conclusion: There was a general consensus about how the drug problem should be regarded among the politicians, with a focus on a war on drugs and an absence of harm reduction ideas.

Keywords:

• Drug policy
• Russia
• political discourse
• the State Duma
• qualitative content analysis

Introduction

In the Soviet Union, drug addiction was regarded as a characteristic of the moral decay of capitalism and as something that could not exist in a communist society (Morvant, 1996). It was not until the period of Gorbachev’s perestroika in the 1980s that the drug problem was acknowledged as a social problem about which the state would have to do something. During this period, the Soviet state began to launch comprehensive operations to stop the spread of the opium poppy in the Central Asian republics, and the Soviet militia introduced drug education programs (Shelley, 1996). With Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost, the media were also allowed to address the drug issue for the first time (Morvant, 1996), which resulted in an increase in the attention focused on drug-related issues in the Soviet press (Afanasyev & Gilinskiy, 1994). After the Soviet period, the discussion about illegal drugs came to occupy an increasing amount of the time of both politicians and the press. During Yeltsin’s period in power, a Federal Program against drug abuse and trafficking was introduced (in 1995) and in 1998 the Federal Law on “Narcotic means and Psychotropic Substances” was passed. The attention focused on drugs in the press and among politicians rose in particular around 1997–1998, as the number of round table discussions, meetings in the State Duma and commissions increased (Blyudina, 2006).

During president Putin’s first period of power, the drug problem and the fight against drugs were regarded as one of the most important issues facing the country (Lilja, 2007). In 2004, president Putin announced that “the drug trade and crime connected with it are one of the most serious threats to the security of the Russian Federation” (the board of the Federal Service for control of drugs and psychotropic substances, 2004-03-30). The importance of the issue was also illustrated by the creation of a Federal anti-drugs agency in 2002. This agency was given the major responsibility for enforcing Russian anti-drugs legislation, and approximately 40,000 people were employed by the agency at that time (Kramer, 2003). Since the creation of the anti-drugs agency, it has been renewed and renamed several times. Since June 2016, the Federal drug agency has been named the “Main Directorate for Drugs Control” (GUKON) and is part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), with responsibility for the regulation of narcotics and the investigation of drug crime. Another indication of the priority given to the drug problem can be seen in the formation of strategic federal programs and three federal programs focusing on illegal drugs have been launched during the twenty first century.¹

Despite the priority ascribed to the drug problem, official data on the number of drug users in the country provide an incomplete picture of the extent of the problem, since different reports cite widely contrasting figures. Determining the actual number of drug users and abusers is difficult in any country, among other things as a result of problems with selection, drop-out, definitions, individuals’ willingness to provide honest answers about drug use, changes in legislation and/or changes in drug control resources, and as a result all drug statistics are affected by some degree of uncertainty (see Goldberg, 2000). In Russia, however, official surveys have not been conducted at regular intervals, which means that it is difficult to generalize on the basis of the results from the occasional studies that do exist, and also to compare the results with national surveys from other countries.

A few scientific studies have been published on the extent of drug use in Russia since the beginning of the new millennium. For example, Russia has participated in the surveys published by the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs (ESPAD) on four occasions. In the latest ESPAD report (CAN, 2012), in which Russia participated, it was found that 15 percent of the students in Moscow reported lifetime use of marijuana or hashish, which was slightly lower than the average European level (17 percent). The number of students who reported lifetime use of any illicit drug was also slightly lower than the European average (16 percent vs. 18 percent). Cannabis use at the age of 13 or younger was reported by three percent of the students. In another study, which was conducted in three regions in Russia (Pilkington, 2004), it was found that about 21 percent of 14–19-year-olds (N = 2814) had used one form of illicit drug at least once in their lives. The most widely used drugs were cannabis (80%), heroin (about 9%) and pharmaceutical drugs (about 9%). Other drugs, including Ecstasy and other amphetamines, were not widely used. A survey of sixth to tenth grade students in public schools in Arkhangelsk, Koposov, Stickley and Ruchkin (2018) found that 6.1 percent of boys and 3.5 percent of girls reported use of inhalants (N = 2892). In an attitude study of university students in Smolensk (N = 150), it was found that the students had mostly negative attitudes toward drug users and that many regarded drug users as “weak, stupid, unreliable, and unhappy” (Gritsenko et al., 2017). More than half of the respondents (56%) has positive attitudes toward the use of severe punishments for drug traffickers, such as the death penalty (ibid.).

Despite limited research about the extent of the drug problem during the twenty first century, injecting drug use in Russia has been well explored, particularly by Western researchers. Russia experienced its first case of HIV in the mid-1980s, but it was not until ten years later that Russian officials began to emphasize the importance of the problem (Dehne et al., 1999). Since then, many researchers have agreed that there has been an increase in the number of people with HIV in Russia (Atlani et al., 2000; Des Jarlais et al., 2002). In 2009 it was revealed that Russia has one of the largest HIV epidemics in the world, with almost 1 million people infected (UNAIDS, 2010). There is a general consensus among a number of researchers that injecting drug use has been the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Russia during the twenty first century (Atlani et al., 2000; Burrows et al., 2000; Kiriazova et al., 2017; Kozlov et al., 2016; Reilley et al., 2000; Rhodes et al., 2003, 2004). Although heroin has generally been the most common injected drug, one study found that the proportion of users who had injected methadone in the 30 days prior to interview increased from 3.6 percent in 2010 to 53.3 percent in 2012–2013 (Heimer et al., 2016).

Since the Russian government views the drug problem as one of the most important problems facing the country, and since there is a lack of research regarding both the extent of the problem and drug policy, it is imperative to improve our understanding of the way in which this problem is framed in the Russian political arena. The aim of this study is to explore how illegal drugs are discussed and debated in Russian political discourse. A particular focus is directed at identifying dominant themes in the parliamentary debate (the Russian State Duma) with regard to both the extent and consequences of the problem, and also possible solutions. The study will also discuss which political parties are represented in the debate, and which understandings of the drug problem are on the one hand taken for granted, and on the other not recognized, in context of this debate.

Materials and methods

Documents included in the analysis and data collection

The material examined is comprised of speeches made in the lower house of the Russian parliament (the Russian State Duma) between 2014 and 2018. The data were collected as follows. First, relevant meeting transcripts (Stenogramma zasedaniya) were downloaded from the official homepage of the Russian State Duma (http://duma.gov.ru) in December 2018. Since each meeting transcript comprised up to 200 pages, it was necessary to further limit the material. Therefore, in the next stage, only speeches in which illegal drugs were explicitly discussed were included. Speeches in which a politician only mentioned the term “illegal drugs” without any other further discussion of the subject were excluded. In total, 177 political speeches were included in the analysis (Table 1). Each speech was made by one politician. The distribution across different years and political parties was as follows:

As of 2017 there are six parties in the Russian State Duma (United Russia, the Communist party, Liberal Democratic Party, A Just Russia, Rodina and Civic Platform). However, this study only includes political parties/politicians that discussed drugs. For this reason, only four political parties are included in the analysis: United Russia (Yedinaya Rossiya), the Communist party (Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii, KPRF), Liberal Democratic Party (Liberal’no-demokraticheskaya partiya Rossii, LDPR), and A Just Russia (Spravedlivaya Rossiya, SR). United Russia is the ruling party and is the largest party in the Russian Federation, holding 343 of the 450 seats in the State Duma. In the 2016 elections, the party received about 55 percent of the vote. Since 2012, Dmitry Medvedev (former Prime Minister of Russia) is the elected chairman of the party. The Communist party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) is the second largest political party in the Russian Federation and holds 42 seats in the State Duma. In the 2016 election the party received about 14 percent of the vote. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) is a social conservative and nationalist party. It is the third largest in the State Duma with 39 seats and received about 13 percent of the vote in the 2016 election. A Just Russia is a social democratic party and holds 23 of the seats in the State Duma. In the 2016 election it received about 6 percent of the vote.

Analysis

The study is based on a social constructionist approach, according to which reality may be regarded as socially constructed by different individuals and groups within society (see Berger & Luckmann, 1991). The study focuses on politicians, members of the Russian parliament, who may be seen as representing the political discourse. Parliamentary debates are “a specific genre of political discourse,” in which members of parliaments, political parties or social movements have different political identities that shape their political activities (van Dijk, 2010). In these debates, which are regulated by various rules and norms, members of the government or the opposition take turns to support or oppose bills, policies or declarations. Other genres in the political discourse include, for example, laws, government or ministerial regulations, media interviews and party programs (Van Dijk, 1995).

The data material was analyzed using qualitative content analysis (QCA) (see Schreier, 2012). QCA may be defined as “a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns.” A theme may be defined as “statements or utterances that go together because they have a common point of reference” (Schreier, 2012). One advantage of QCA is that large volumes of textual data from different textual sources can be used in the analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). A disadvantage with the method is that it is less standardized and formulaic than quantitative analysis (Polit & Beck, 2004) and there is no ‘right’ way of doing it (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). In this study, the identified themes came both from the data (an inductive approach) and from the author’s prior theoretical understanding of the phenomenon under study (an a priori approach) (see Ryan & Bernard, 2003). The material (in the form of statements) was firstly systematically coded using an inductive coding frame, which was developed during a pilot study conducted on part of the material. After this pilot study, main themes and sub-themes were identified and the rest of the material was coded in accordance with this structure. Three main themes were identified: (1) the extent of the problem, (2) causes of the problem, and (3) solutions to the problem. The themes and associated sub-themes are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Themes and sub-themes identified in Russian parliamentary debate.

Themes	Sub-themes
The extent of the problem	An increasing number of drug users
	Illegal drugs as a youth problem
Causes of the problem	Opium production in Afghanistan
	Immigration and illegal drug smuggling
Solutions to the problem	More severe legislation
	Prevention and treatment

Limitations

This study has several limitations that need to be addressed. First, the material examined includes only speeches from the Russian parliament, the Russian State Duma. As a means of analyzing the political discourse, other genres could have been selected, e.g. legislation, media interviews, party programs, or presidential documents. Second, the data only cover a five-year period in Russian politics. It is possible that other themes could have been identified if a longer time frame had been selected. Third, this study has not studied what impact the political rhetoric has in Russian society. Despite these limitations, the study is unique, and previous research on how the drug problem is constructed in Russian politics is limited.

Results

The extent of the problem

An increasing number of drug users

Throughout the period there is consensus among politicians that there has been an increase in the number of drug users in Russia. There is substantial variation in the numbers of drug users mentioned, and it is most common for no specific source for the statistics on use and abuse to be mentioned. Also, the words “use” and “abuse” are mentioned interchangeably. For example, in the first example below, Deputy member Nilov argues that there are “about eight million drug addicts in Russia,” while in the second example Deputy member Smolin says that there are “8.5 million people that use drugs in the country”:

We know very well that we have about eight million drug addicts [narkomanov] in Russia, people who are addicted. These people need to be treated, otherwise they will go to the streets and commit crimes, robberies, murders. (Nilov, O. A., Spravedlivaya Rossiya, 141007)

According to official data, 8.5 million people use drugs in the country, of which three million on a regular basis. (Smolin, O. N., KPRF, 160608)

There is consensus in the debate that the Russian drug problem constitutes a serious problem facing Russian society. The language is often dramatic and different metaphors are used to illustrate the seriousness of the problem. It is alleged, for example, that the problem has reached the stage of an “epidemic,” that it is “critical” or that it constitutes “a serious threat to human health.” Several politicians argue that drugs are dangerous not only for individuals but for Russian society in general.

Generally, all illegal drugs are perceived as dangerous and it is rare for any particular substance to be mentioned by the politicians. When a specific substance is mentioned it is mostly either heroin or spice or some other designer drug. Spice in particular is spoken of in more dramatic language than other drugs, and narratives about individual users are often presented to illustrate the seriousness of its use. For example, in the following quotation, Deputy member Sukharev from the LDPR party describes the dramatic consequences of using spice:

Everyone has heard the terrible story about when a husband and father smoked spice. First he killed his wife, and then tried to kill their child. In Belarus, in the city of Gomel, there was an even more terrible story: young men, you can hardly call them men, smoked this deadly poison and first had sexual intercourse with each other, and then one of them thought he was a robot and cut out his friends eyes. (Sukharev I. K., LDPR, 141112)

Illegal drugs as a youth problem

As in many other countries, illegal drug use is perceived mainly as a youth problem. It is argued that the young generation are important for Russia’s future and that it is therefore particularly alarming that Russian youth are the most affected group in society. It is said, for example, that it is “our children” who are suffering from drug abuse and that it is important to preserve the life and health of Russia’s younger generation. One example of this idea is found in a statement made by Deputy member Rashkin, from the KPRF party, who argues that it is important to preserve the health of Russia’s youth to ensure the survival of the nation:

In fact, we are talking about preserving the life and health of our young people, about the survival of the Russian nation. Can any other considerations outweigh this absolute priority? (Rashkin V. F., KPRF, 140225)

In the Duma it is argued that one way of protecting young people from drug abuse is by preventing them from taking drugs for the first time.

Causes of the problem

Opium production in Afghanistan

There is general consensus that opium production in Afghanistan constitutes the main cause of the Russian drug problem. The smuggling of illegal drugs from Afghanistan through the Central Asian border (especially through Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) is also seen as causing the problem. Data on actual drug seizures are often used to illustrate the real extent of the problem and the statistics on confiscations and seizures are usually based on Russian or UN data.

Opium production in Afghanistan is regarded as a threat to Russian society and as something that should be a priority for the Russian government. Several politicians argue that it has a direct impact on the drug situation and on the number of people using drugs in Russia, and that there is therefore a direct link between the increased smuggling of Afghan drugs and the worsened drug situation in Russia. The illegal drug market is most often portrayed as being large and organized and as therefore being difficult to combat. It is also frequently argued that the illegal drug trade is related to terrorism and/or corruption:

Terrorism, corruption and the drug mafia—this is the three-headed hydra, which is today causing the most terrible, most irreparable harm to Russia! [—] In the world, money from the drug mafia has already exceeded 500 billion dollars—huge money!—trillions of losses, damage, harm, and of course, the most terrible loss is the loss of lives. (Nilov, O. A., A Just Russia, 140923).

Immigration and illegal drugs

During the period examined, there is an increase in the level of discussion focused on migration and the relationship between migration and illegal drug smuggling. Mostly, this discussion is presented by politicians from the LDPR, KPRF and the A Just Russia party. It is said, for example, that it is illegal immigrants or foreign citizens who are responsible for smuggling:

According to the Federal Drug Control Service, the backbone of the criminal gangs related to the drug business are foreign citizens and former migrants who have received Russian citizenship. (Rashkin, V. F., KPRF, 140225)

When this topic is discussed, the problems of drug smuggling and illegal migration at the Russian Central Asian border are often mentioned. It is argued, for example, that there is an “open door policy” for immigrants at the border, which increases the volume of illegal drug smuggling into Russia. For this reason, some politicians argue that one way to stop the smuggling is to improve visa controls at the border.

When politicians from the LDPR fraction discuss migration and illegal drug smuggling, they stress on several occasions that the solution is not only to improve the situation at the border, but also to stop immigrants from entering Russia:

… crowds of uncontrolled migrants with no visas or entry restrictions move to our country and bring drugs, unemployment and diseases, and the Russian people cannot cope any more.

[—] Neither from a political nor an economic point of view, do we need such migrants. (Lebedev, I. V., LDPR, 140422)

Other causes that are mentioned less frequently in the debate are high youth unemployment, poverty and the view that drug use is a result of Russia being a capitalistic society.

Solutions to the problem

More severe legislation

The politicians present many different solutions to the problem. However, one of the most common is that a more repressive drug policy is needed. It is particularly common that they claim there is a need for more severe legislation, for example, that more substances that are currently legal should instead be classified as illegal. Several also agree that there should be a change in the legislation regarding consumption, from an administrative offense to one resulting in a prison sentence. Some politicians are also positive to using the death penalty for drug trafficking. In one debate, for example, Deputy member Khudyakov, from the LDPR party, explicitly expresses a favorable view of the death penalty for drug trafficking:

I believe that for such criminals, such scumbags, who are responsible for people dying, for these types of crimes there should be only one punishment—the death penalty! Is it possible that we in the Russian Federation can forgive a monster who offers drugs to children and knows what a serious problem this is?! After all, you know as well as I do that such geeks have irreversible changes in their psyche; for them the most important thing is to earn money, and for them there is no difference between different types of crimes, and after being in prison for a number of years, he will be free and will do the same thing again. (Khudyakov, R. I., LDPR, 150512)

One interesting observation is that in the same debate, Deputy member Remezkov from the United Russia party answers Khudyakov by informing about human rights aspects, which are said to be a reason why Russia does not use death penalty for drug trafficking:

Of course, we agree that the drug mafia, the drug lords, all those who distribute drugs, of course, must be fought, but it is important to note the following. [—] Regarding the development of the draft law on the death penalty, it must be borne in mind that this is a result of a long moratorium on the use of the death penalty. (Remezkov A. A., United Russia, 150512)

Prevention and treatment

A few politicians argue that the state should prioritize prevention and treatment. This is not mentioned frequently, however. In general, only primary and secondary prevention are discussed, such as prevention in schools, media campaigns and other forms of information campaigns directed at the public. Schools are regarded as a particularly vulnerable arena in which illegal drugs are being sold, and some politicians therefore say that school children should be screened for drug consumption. Another proposed means of protecting young people from drugs is to educate and inform children about traditional values. According to Deputy member Anatol’yevich from the United Russia party, Russian children are today being “destroyed” and it is therefore important to teach children about traditional Russian values:

What should we do today, in my opinion? We must create a multi-level information system, conduct an information campaign to teach patriotism. We must learn to speak the same language as children, teenagers, we must hear them. We must create a trend, a fashion for Russian history, so that Russian children, even those playing computer games, do not choose the Abrams tank, but our Armata, so that this will be normal. Russian children should be proud of our history, should not be influenced by American drug addicts and wear clothes bearing their images, but those of Russian heroes such as Gagarin or the St. Petersburg metro driver who saved dozens, or maybe hundreds of people’s lives. (Anatol’yevich, B. D., United Russia, 170407)

When information campaigns are discussed, some politicians also talk about how to control negative information about drugs in the media and several are in favor of the so-called “propaganda” law. According to Article 46 of the 1998 law on narcotic means and psychotropic substances, “propaganda” about narcotic drugs can be punished in the form of an administrative fine (Butler, 2003). Propaganda may, for example, include information concerning the means and methods for developing, manufacturing and using drugs, and also the production and dissemination of books, and dissemination in the mass media, or via computer networks (ibid.). For example, Deputy member Nilov, from the A Just Russia party, is one of the politicians in favor of greater controls in relation to information regarding drugs:

… Little more than twenty years ago, the time had come for liberal freedoms for everything. Sex, drugs and rock’n’roll. These are the main things that have been promoted by TV. Light drug intoxicated heroes of various TV shows act, perform and laugh, thus directly popularizing this rubbish. Of course, such programs and such television should be closed down; it is necessary to rescind licenses! (Nilov, О. А., A Just Russia, 141007)

Discussion

Since the end of the Soviet period, Russian drug policy has undergone considerable changes. Despite this, the research on drug policy in post-Soviet Russia remains limited. To the author’s knowledge, this qualitative study is the first to explore how illegal drugs are discussed and debated in the Russian parliament (the State Duma). The picture that emerges from the State Duma is one of Russian society being faced by an increasing, extensive and serious drug problem and there was consensus that the use of illegal drugs was mainly a youth problem. Constructing illegal drug use as mainly a youth problem is not unique to the Russian parliamentary discourse, however. A number of researchers have also agreed that the drug problem in Russia is predominantly a youth problem, e.g. Averina (2004), Romanovitch and Zvonovskii (2004), Reutov (2004).

In parliamentary discourse, the main causes of the Russian drug problem were said to be increased migration from Central Asia and opium production in Afghanistan. Afghan opium production was seen as a threat to Russian society and was regarded as a top priority for the Russian government. The focus on an Afghan drug-related problem influencing Russian society is not a new idea for discussion in Russia, however, but had already been seen during the Soviet period. During that period, some newspapers discussed a widespread use of hashish and opiates among Soviet troops in Afghanistan and also described these veterans as continuing to use drugs when they returned to the Soviet Union (Kramer, 1991). The idea of Afghan drug production as a problem for society is also not unique to the Russian context. The view of Afghanistan as one of the world’s main producers of opium seems to have been universally accepted among a number of researchers, politicians and NGOs from around the world for several decades. For example, as early as 1979, the DEA intelligence chief referred to a “new Middle Eastern threat” (referring to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran) at a Middle East Conference, and in the mid-1980s the United States began to provide assistance to the Afghan government to cut their opium production (McCoy, 2003). Afghan drug production and its influence on Russia is also something that has been discussed by President Putin. For example, in a meeting with the Director of the Federal Drugs Control Service Viktor Cherkesov, in 2004, President Putin said that “we need to join forces and make use of every possibility to neutralise this threat coming from Afghanistan” (President Putin meeting with the Director of the Federal Drugs Control Service Viktor Cherkesov, 2004-09-23.).

One of the most common solutions to the drug problem in the Duma debate was that there was a need for more severe legislation. Politicians argued that Russian drug policy was too weak and that a more repressive policy was needed – for example that more legal substances should be classified as illegal, that the drug consumption legislation should be more severe or that the death penalty should be introduced for drug traffickers. Interestingly, only a few politicians discussed prevention and/or treatment as solutions to the problem. When prevention was discussed, many different forms were mentioned, such as school prevention, media campaigns and/or other forms of information campaigns directed at the public. Another form of prevention that the politicians talked about was protecting young people from information about drugs by educating and informing children about traditional Russian values. In line with this idea, some politicians were also overly positive about the use of different forms of legislation to control information about drugs, for example, by means of a propaganda law. The idea of criminalizing drug propaganda is also in line with the rhetoric used by President Putin. In October 2019, Putin called on lawmakers to toughen the anti-narcotics legislation and to impose jail sentences on those found guilty of online “drugs propaganda” (Carroll, 2019). However, the propaganda law has been heavily criticized by NGOs in Russia, and there are media reports about NGOs being sentenced to fines on the basis of this law because they are accused of having published propaganda on drugs (Carroll, 2019). The drug propaganda law has also impacted the situation for anti-drug NGOs in Russia. For example, the Andrey Rylkov Foundation decided in April 2020 to limit access to its website containing materials on Russian and international drug policy, health and human rights resources for people who use drugs (International Drug Policy Consortium, 2020).

Based on the discourse analytical perspective (see Van Dijk, 1995, 2006, 2010) two main ideologies could be identified that constitute the basis of the Russian parliamentary discourse on illegal drugs. Firstly, an external threat ideology was identified, in which the drug problem is primarily regarded as an external problem, coming into Russia from other countries. In the Russian Duma, illegal drugs are seen as posing a threat to Russian society, mainly as a result of Afghan opium production. It is here possible to draw some parallels with the early US war on drugs rhetoric. One similarity with the early US war on drugs rhetoric is the strong focus on heroin as one of the main problems. For example, when President Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1969, the focus was on the growing heroin problem (Boyum & Reuter, 2005). Another similarity with the early US war on drugs rhetoric is the focus on supply reduction. In the US, for example, several American presidents have devoted resources to supply control efforts, e.g. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (Mathea, 1996). As in the US, this study of the Russian parliamentary discourse indicates a focus on supply rather than demand when debating the drug problem. For example, the politicians place a major emphasis on controlling the drugs entering Russia from foreign countries (especially Afghanistan), but focus less attention on rehabilitation and prevention. Secondly, a prohibitionist ideology was identified in the Russian parliamentary discourse. For example, there was a general consensus among politicians that Russian drug policy and legislation was too weak and that a more repressive policy was needed. However, this idea of drug prohibitionism is not unique to the Russian context but is similar to drug prohibition ideologies in other countries. For example, during the war on drugs in the US, prohibitionists defended strict legal sanctions against all illicit drugs (MacCoun & Reuter, 2001).

When analyzing political discourse it is often easier to identify what is said explicitly.

However, it is also important to identify ideas and ideologies that are not put into words. Based on the extensive research on injecting drug use and its impact on the spread of HIV in Russia, it is surprising that the Russian politicians examined in this study devoted so little attention to this topic. Further, the topic of substance treatment and injecting drugs was not discussed in the debate. It is therefore possible to argue that the results of this study indicate an absence of a harm reduction ideology in the Russian political debate.

Conclusion

In post-Soviet Russia, there has been an intensified political debate about illegal drugs, and the drug problem is now regarded as one of the country’s most serious problems and as an issue of top priority for the Russian state. Using qualitative content analysis, this study has focused on the illegal drug debate in the Russian parliament. It was found that there is a general consensus among Russian politicians about how the drug problem should be perceived and handled, with a focus on a war on drugs and an absence of harm reduction ideas. The findings in this study indicate that the illegal drug debate in Russia is developing in the direction of a more repressive drug policy. While many countries in the world are now beginning to liberalize their drug policies, it seems that Russia is going in the opposite direction. However, there is a major need of further studies about drug policy and the illegal drugs situation in Russia.

Declaration of interest

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Table 1. Number of speeches according to political party and year.

Political party	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Total
United Russia	6	4	7	19	8	44
Communist Party	6	3	11	5	6	31
Liberal Democratic Party	18	12	11	7	4	52
A Just Russia	9	8	5	10	7	39
Government representatives	2	2	3	3		10
Politicians with no political party				1		1
Total	41	29	37	45	25	177

Notes

1 Federal’naya tselevaya programma kompleksnye mery protivodeistviya zloupotrebleniyu narkotikami i ikh nezakonnomu oborotu na 2002-2004, (2) Federal’naya tselevaya programma kompleksnye mery protivodeistviya zloupotrebleniyu narkotikami i ikh nezakonnomu oborotu na 2005-2009, (3) Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii N 690 ot 9 iyunya 2010 goda Ob utverzhdenii Strategii gosudarstvennoy antinarkoticheskoy politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii do 2020 goda.