Dutch Drug Policy: The Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove

Let's recap yesterday: after our lecture with Dr. Hamdy, we took the tram for the first time and headed out to a Turkish mosque were he had a fabulous lunch, intriguing lecture on Islam and its place in the Netherlands/Dutch culture. We spent a few hours eating, listening, and discussing and were able to sit in on the afternoon worship. It was not much different than Israel, but the carpet was definitely nicer :) We came back and had a nice evening together, just hanging around outside the dorms.

Drug Use and Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Goodbye to the Dutch Approach
Justus Uitermark ; ASSR, University van Amsterdam

Gedogen: refers to selective enforcement. It is not simply allowing or tolerating illicit behavior. In the case of drugs, there is a comprehensive framework that regulates production, trade and consumption. This also applies to euthanasia, previously to abortion. Gedogen does not ignore illicit behavior; it recognizes it but does not enforce prohibitive laws unless there are negative social consequences.

Origins of the Dutch Approach
Commissions advised against prohibition in the early 1970s; commissions recognized that youth are using cannabis, but it is not very dangerous or addictive and can be easily regulated without being prohibited.

In the 1907s, the pillarized system was falling apart. Established parties feard an intergenerational conflict. Youth were no longer identifying as protestant or catholic, they were much more ambiguous. The elite members of these parties felt that if they outlawed cannabis, it would only alienate the youth even more.

Selective law enforcement - the expediency principle: laws are not enforced when there would be negative social consequences. In the US, law enforcement is not just a means, it is an end in and of itself. We uphold the law for the sake of upholding the law. In the Netherlands, laws are viewed as a means to an end, and sometimes, the best outcome is actually achieved by not enforcing certain laws.

If you prohibit drug use, drugs in and of themselves become intrinsically ‘bad’. However, harm reduction laws are not aimed at reducing or preventing use, but at reducing the harm caused by ab/use.

Theoretical and political considerations

Drugs have been with us for a long time, but repression is recent. Why can’t we live with them? Historically, literature on the subject notes that drugs have not been uncommon and have been, if not celebrated, a major social currency.

Self-regulation is a core principle in harm reduction laws. If you have the power to manage your consumption, the state has no legitimate claim for interference.

Civil society tries to prevent harm, the state facilitates. The state does not initiate interference - it takes facilitative action, not directly repressive action against citizens (only against producers, traders of ‘hard’ drugs i.e. cocaine). In prohibitionist regimes, the state is the most important.

Legalization and professionalization of use, in combination with the welfare state, prevents the formation of a stigmatized group of users. Most drug users would be students or individuals who are well established in the community. Unlike the US, it is recognized that these marginalized groups (homeless, poor people) of users are only a small part of the user population.

Specific Drug Policies in Amsterdam

Amsterdam is unique in the Netherlands for its number of coffee shops. Most municipalities do not have such businesses and do not want them.

Cannabis/Marijuana

Timeline:
1970s - hardly regulated; incidental and arbitrary.

1980s-90s - coffee shop regime developed. Rules: strict separation between hard drugs (cocaine, ecstasy, heroin) and soft drugs (cannabis), meaning that hard drugs and soft drugs should not be sold in the same place because it validates the ‘gateway theory’;no advertisements; no selling to youth (legally 18, in practice 21) because they do not want to accidentally sell marijuana to minors, they have chosen of their own volition to raise the entry age to 21, not enforceable by law; limited amount

2000s -

‘Die out’ policy: because there are such strict regulations, every once in a while a coffee shop will be closed (for 3 weeks) and if they are repeat offenders, they will be permanently closed, however, they will not issue new permits for another coffee shop.

Commercialization of coffee shops: highly professional organizations making huge profits off chain coffee shops, in the 1990s there were 500 coffee shops, there are now only 250 - however, the demand remains the same, so now coffee shops are able to make a much greater profit.

Slight increase in repression (no alcohol, hard drugs) - the separation between hard/soft drugs has existed since the beginning, but it is now a strictly enforced regulation. This is now more of a tool used by political parties to bother coffee shops and show that they are against coffee shops. The Prime Minister (CDA) and the Minister of Internal Affairs (CDA) both wish to close coffee shops completely; this is unlikely, however, because of all of the opposition. Beginning 1 July, the EU stipulates that working environments must remain smoke-free; employees should not exposed to smoke. However, coffee shops tried to find an exemption from this regulation because smoking is such an inherent part of their business.

From the very beginning, it has been recognized that alcohol and weed should not be mixed, that’s why coffee shops sold marijuana and hashish, not bars.

Ecstasy

Timeline:
Late 1980s - hardly any drug regulation, drug not really known beyond small circle.

1990 - ecstasy banned because of international pressure. Policymakers actually admitted that they did not agree with the ban but they did not want to provide further fodder for critics/opposition. The government, however, did nothing to inform the public that ecstasy was illegal.

Early 1990s - subculture grows. Civil society associations respond with education to (prospective) users. At a party, you could test the pill that was sold to you to see if it was actually ecstasy, or if it contained anything else. It was a type of informed consent program: the pill you have is dangerous, don’t take it or the pill you have is genuine ecstasy, but read this pamphlet on its dangers. Pill testing developed to the point that pills wold be tested in labs, identified and cataloged. If pills were determined to be too dangerous, the media would inform the public. Even producers began seeking out labs to have batches tested to make sure they would not be a danger to society. All funded by the state.

Mid 1990s - fully developed care regime. Health care in the center; marginal police presence nd supportive. COMPLETE opposite of US policies (RAVE [reducing Americans vulnerability to ecstasy] legislation). There were regulations put in place stipulating that parties must have quiet rooms, sufficient water for guests, so that should anything go wrong, you would be in a relatively safe place.

Late 1990s - strong pressure from US, especially because of high production. In the US, if you got to a party, the party-organizer is responsible for the drug use of party-goers; even handing out free water was seen as encouraging drug use. The US pressured the Netherlands to change drug policies regarding ecstasy;

Early 2000s - conservative wind, growing repression.

Late 2000s - care regime dissolved. Repressive approach, even in Amsterdam.

Mushrooms

Timeline:
1980s - not regulated.

Early 1990s - growing numbers of smart shops (herbal supplements). Trade was highly regulated and professionalized: pamphlets distributed at purchase with information.

Late 1990s - trade expands beyond smart shops; to tourist locations.

2000s - Many incidents, exclusively involving tourists. After the death of an 18 year old French girl who jumped off the NEMO while on mushroom, her parents attacked the Netherlands drug policies.

2008 - Mushrooms in the process of being banned.

Ironically, the prevalence of drug use (across the board) in the US is significantly less than in the Netherlands.