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.

Let the games begin!

Our first formal meeting began at 09:30 this morning in the C building. The classroom space is very modern and clean-cut, a somewhat significant change from the rest of the city. Clifford and Jessica gave us a bit of an introduction and Mirjam Schieveld of the Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) went over our schedule and provided a more formal orientation, including a lecture entitled "Introduction to the Netherlands"

After a few days of roaming around the city, I have several notes on Dutch culture. First, the Netherlands is an extremely densely populated country; this is noticably manifest in all of the sandwiched "townhouses" lining every street. While in the city itself, the street level is packed with retail shops, restaurants and cafes, the second through fifth or sixth stories are all apartments. Interestingly, while there is a housing shortage in the areas surrounding Amsterdam, most of these apartments remain empty; at present, the government is trying to find a way to defer the housing crisis by filling these apartments. It is interesting to note, too,that all of the houses and buildings lean in on each other because, like old Seattle, the city is built on a swamp buy pounding in wooden stakes (approximately similar to telephone poles) upon which the city stands.

The Dutch: liberal and tolerant or controlling?

Mirjam Schieveld, professor at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, developed this thesis: the Dutch regulate tolerance to exercise control.

The Dutch people are "pragmatic" (a term which they frequently use, and as Mirjam notes almost over-use, to describe themselves) which leads to forced tolerance, which in turn eventually leads to condonation. Cooperation is a necessity and the composition of the population requires a consensus (poldermodel). For centuries the Netherlands has been a mercantile country (remember the Dutch East India Company?) which historically empowers the merchants moreso than most other countries.

Sex, drugs and... gay marriage?:
Principle socio-cultural differences between the United States and the Netherlands (as a function of legislation)

The legality of sex work, soft drugs and gay marriage. Two main points to keep in mind: the Dutch pride themselves on their pragmatism but also the idea of compassion instead of punishment. While sex work is legal in the Netherlands, this does not mean that it has social/societal approval. Just because it is not criminalized as it is in the United States does not mean that it is a fully accepted practice or profession. The emphasis is on work, prostitution is seen as a necessity: the oldest profession in the world (another example of Dutch pragmatism). There are main concerns for the population (both for prostitution and soft drugs): abuse of minors and public nuisance. With such a densely populated country, most Dutch laws are to "keep the peace" and prevent/reduce any public disturbances.

Finally, while gay marriage is legal here (in the Netherlands), it is a purely secular practice. This, to me, is the fundamental issue in the United States: it seems to me that US citizens are unable to separate civil marriage from holy matrimony. I'm not about to dictate your religious practices or comment on your spirituality, and while I feel that same-sex couples should be granted the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, maybe that's just my pragmatism speaking. If gay couples are going to exist anyway, why discriminate against an unavoidable situation? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are not preventing homosexuality or preventing the formation of same-sex couples; not providing basic rights is not preventative, so how can you justify this type of legal discrimination?

The whole legal issue surrounding soft drugs originated in the 1970s and they certainly provide a health/medical issue. Drugs are seen as a reality: people are going to use them, so do not criminalize them. The original goal of this legislation was to separate the worlds of 'normal use' and criminality. A lot of people are able to use (soft) drugs without becoming addicted, and of course, coffeeshops pay specific taxes for operation. While it is legal for coffeeshops to have up to 500g of cannabis on the premises, and only able to sell 5g per customer, it is illegal to grow marijuana. While seven plantations are shut down every day, seven more are opened. If the local government wants to enforce the law, they can do so (the iron fist in the velvet glove), it looks liberal and tolerant, but is actually a highly controlled and regulated practice. This applies not only to the drug policies, but also policies concerning sexwork.

We watched this video from 2006, which is a song written by (and featuring) the may of Amsterdam, Gerd Leers (of the Christian [protestant] Democratic Party), about the Netherlands drug culture:


Heideroosjes feat. Gerd Leers "Da's Toch Dope Man!"

He sings: "A coffeeshop can sell, but where it comes from, no one knows. You can smoke it, but you can't grow it, that's odd, how can you distribute something that doesn't exist?" He also specifically says: "Legalisation to Control"

The Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, also a Christian Democrat, responded to Gerd Leers clip with one of his own:


"De Don" Piet Hein Donner

While I'm terribly amused by these innovative forms of propaganda, I'm almost embarrassed on behalf of the Dutch Parliament. Who can take these public officials seriously if they are rapping on YouTube?

Netherlands Politics:
In the 1960s the Netherlands underwent a very sudden and very fast depillarization and secularization of the government. The current government is a pariliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. This means that while the monarch (at present, Queen Beatrix) is head of state and has considerable constitutional power, this has mostly fallen into a ceremonial role. This is not to say Queen Bea has no control: she acts as the neutral party to determine the composition of the cabinet and to moderate between the parties. The major parliamentary players are: the CDA (Christian Democratic Party), the PvdA (Dutch Labour Party), the SP (Socialist Party) and the VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) which are centre/right liberals who advocate both private enterprise and public welfare. Hmm...

We closed out our lecture oriented portion of the day with a nice lunch, and a trip over to ARCAM: architectuurcentrum amsterdam, an independent architectural centre for the city of Amsterdam. We received an exceptional lecture on the history of Amsterdam and its architecture, from 1200CE to present. As you may know, the entire "province" of Holland is below sea level (which prompted Al Gore to predict in "An Inconvenient Truth" that the Netherlands will be completely underwater in 2015-2025) but what you may not know is that the Netherlands is composed of 12 provinces, of which Holland (technically a combination of two provinces: North and South Holland) holds the three most important cities: Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague. Amsterdam is the capitol and largest city (but, ironically, is not the capitol of North Holland), Rotterdam (the lowest point in the country at 7m below sea level) is the largest and most important European port (both historically and at present) and the Hague which is the parliamentary seat.

We spent the next few hours touring Amsterdam with Dick Weeda, our temporary tour guide. For more details, see my inaugural entry in the Amsterdam 2008 Daily Video Blog.