Dutch Take Sober Look at Pot Laws

Marijuana can be sold and smoked in the Netherlands, but not grown or shipped. Wider legalization is debated.

Amsterdam -- Paul Wilhelm speaks about marijuana the way a vintner might discuss wine. He talks of aroma, taste and texture, of flowering periods, of the pros and cons of hydroponic cultivation. Wilhelm's connoisseurship might earn him a long prison sentence in the United States, but here in the Netherlands, he's just another taxpaying businessman. He owns a long-established pot emporium - the Dutch call them "coffee shops" - where customers can sidle up to the bar, peruse a detailed menu, and choose from 22 variations of fragrant marijuana and 18 types of potent hash.

Business got even better after Wilhelm's shop, the Dampkring, was featured in 2004 in the film Ocean's Twelve.

And yet life is not as simple for Wilhelm as it is for the pub owner down the street, thanks to the contradictory nature of Holland's famously liberal drug laws. Though the business is duly licensed and regulated, to run it properly he is forced to flout the law on a daily basis. While the Netherlands allows the sale of small amounts of marijuana in coffee shops, it is still illegal to grow marijuana, store it, and transport it in the kind of quantities that any popular shop requires.

Last month, the Dutch parliament began debating a proposal to change that by launching a pilot project to regulate marijuana growing. It was the brainchild of the mayor of Maastricht, a city near the German and Belgian borders that is plagued by gangs of smugglers. Proponents argue that legalizing growing will drive out most of the criminal element and boost responsible purveyors.

"The current policy is schizophrenic," Wilhelm said. "Under the rules, we can only keep 500 grams in the shop at any one time, so that means I have to have more delivered every few hours. And if the delivery guy gets stopped, they take everything, and he gets arrested."

For years, that odd state of affairs seemed to work well, because it allowed the Dutch to tolerate marijuana without having to risk the opprobrium that would come from legalizing it. But organized crime has come to play an increasing role in production, the government has found.

A majority in parliament has come out in favor of the bill to decriminalize growing, reflecting widespread Dutch comfort with a liberal marijuana policy. But the ruling Christian Democratic Party, which has increasingly tightened the rules on coffee shops, opposes it. Analysts expect the government to block implementation even if the measure passes.

"It won't solve anything," said Ivo Hommes, a spokesman for the justice ministry. "You will still have a large amount of people that will grow marijuana for illegal sales and for international export."

Though they consider the bill a good first step, Wilhelm and other coffee-shop owners agree. What they really want is full legalization of cannabis. Polls show that a majority of Dutch support that, but the government says it would run afoul of the international narcotics conventions that the Netherlands and most other nations have signed.

Whatever the fate of the legislation, the Dutch debate underscores a schism in the developed world over how to deal with drug use.

Even as the United States continues to spend tens of billions of dollars each year fighting a war on drugs that lately has included an increasing number of marijuana arrests, much of Europe and Canada have instead opted to treat drug use as a public-health problem.

While no country has gone as far as the Netherlands and allowed open sales of marijuana, in most of Europe possession of small amounts of cannabis, and even cocaine and heroin, merits only a fine. And penalties for drug dealing are far lower than in the United States.

Rejecting the approach that has filled America's jails with nonviolent drug offenders, Europeans and Canadians have embraced the concept of "harm reduction," which argues that illegal drug use is impossible to stamp out, and therefore the best public policy is to minimize the damage to society.

A central tenet of this approach is giving out clean needles to drug addicts to prevent the spread of HIV - something that remains controversial in the United States but is common in Europe and Canada.

But it goes further: Several countries allow government-funded "consumption rooms" for drug users, to provide them with social services and dissuade them from using drugs on the street. And at least four countries - Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain - have programs under which the government gives heroin to hard-core addicts and lets them inject themselves in a government-sponsored facility.

That idea is profoundly controversial, but the Swiss, who pioneered the practice a decade ago, insist that it has dramatically reduced drug deaths and street crime by addict participants, who no longer have to steal or mug to feed their habits.

Antonio Costa, an Italian who heads the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime in Vienna, has little patience for Europe's tolerant stance, which he believes is behind a recent upswing in cocaine use in the region. While overall European drug use has never been as high as that in the United States, American rates have been falling while European rates have been rising.

Many other Europeans, though, shake their heads at what they consider a moralistic, absolutist mind-set among America's drug warriors.

It's not that there is no common ground: Even the Dutch arrest drug smugglers (including marijuana traffickers), and in July the Dutch government signed a cooperation agreement with Washington.

But the Dutch coffee-shop policy is grounded in a belief that is anathema to American drug enforcers: that cannabis is no more harmful than alcohol. Dutch experts argue that this remains true even though much of the marijuana grown these days is far more potent than the kind smoked by the flower children of the 1960s.

American officials have long sought to discredit Europe's more liberal drug policies, and the Dutch experience in particular - sometimes with a selective use of statistics.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, for example, takes aim in an anti-legalization paper on its Web site under a subheading, "Europe's More Liberal Drug Policies Are Not the Right Model for America."

The agency points out that from 1984 to 1996, marijuana use doubled among 18- to 25-year-olds in Holland. What it doesn't say is that marijuana use in the Netherlands has been stable since then, and it remains lower than in the United States, which has seen use rise from a low in 1992.

Indeed, 30 years after the Netherlands began allowing open marijuana sales, only about 3 percent of the Dutch population - or 408,000 people - use marijuana in a given year, compared with 8.6 percent - or 25.5 million - Americans, according to the most authoritative surveys by both governments.

Dutch health officials say there is no evidence that the country's tolerant marijuana policy encourages use of harder drugs, which here is about average compared with the rest of Europe, and far lower than in the United States. To the contrary, proponents argue, the policy is designed to separate hard drugs from soft, because coffee shops found selling hard drugs are shut down.

In the United States, meanwhile, the war on drugs has increasingly become a war on pot.

A study of FBI data released last year by a Washington-based think tank, the Sentencing Project, found that between 1992 and 2002, marijuana arrests rose from 28 percent of all drug arrests to 45 percent, while the proportion of heroin and cocaine cases dropped from 55 percent of all drug arrests to less than 30 percent.

The rationale behind such a crackdown mystifies Dutch cannabis aficionados such as Wilhelm. He doesn't argue that marijuana is harmless. But he sees every day that it can be enjoyed recreationally and responsibly, just like alcohol.

"I've got three daughters, and I want to know that if they do try marijuana, they're not going to get it where someone is going to offer them some cocaine or an ecstasy pill," Wilhelm said. "I don't say that marijuana is healthy, but it's there. You can't close your eyes and think that if you lock everybody up, it's going to disappear."

"Yes RP we all must protect our neighbors rights"

Says who? The only rights we have to protect are those we said we would protect. You can find those protections in your federal and state constitutions.

Now, are those ALL your rights? Nope. They're just the ones we've decided, as a society, to protect.

"Says who? The only rights we have to protect are those we said we would protect. You can find those protections in your federal and state constitutions."

Actually RP the conatitution is not a list of the peoples rights, it is a numeration of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government. These powers are few and have been delegated by THE PEOPLE (the federal governments BOSS) if these powers are not listed they do not exist.

01

Well the ones discussing limited government in relation to drugs on these threads seem to at some point or another often mention they love their own use of recreational drugs.

Another thread last year not only had the drug confessions regarding use, but in some cases the parents willing exposure of drug use in front of their minor children with the traditional liberal gibberish that children should be able to make up their own minds. Of course that screws the kids up completely.

There is a pro-drug lobby here, don't doubt it for a moment, it just likes to dress up as mostly libertarians talking about any law against drugs as being illegal and bad.

"Again, I didn't say the constitutions were a source of rights. I said the constitutions listed the protections of rights.
We were discussing rights, not powers. Let's keep them separate."

Then you should not have brought the constitution into a discussion about rights.

If you will note Amendment 10 clearly states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Excluding the Bill of Rights the constitution only addresses Powers delegated to the federal government by the PEOPLE.

01

"Well the ones discussing limited government in relation to drugs on these threads seem to at some point or another often mention they love their own use of recreational drugs."

I'm sure you are correct about this in some cases, how many I can't say but I can tell you it's not all.

"Another thread last year not only had the drug confessions regarding use, but in some cases the parents willing exposure of drug use in front of their minor children with the traditional liberal gibberish that children should be able to make up their own minds. Of course that screws the kids up completely."

Exposure to minors is wrong, but I think the States are better equiped to handle this problem, don't you?

"There is a pro-drug lobby here, don't doubt it for a moment, it just likes to dress up as mostly libertarians talking about any law against drugs as being illegal and bad."

I see some of this too, but I also see people like me that think the fed has overstepped its boundaries. There is a process designed into the constitution to change it, and I think if we believe the states are incapable of dealing with an issue we should use the amendment process to expand the federal governments powers. To do otherwise opens up many paths for federal encroachment that neither of us would care for.

01

The recreational drugs are a national threat to our society as other terrorism is, so there can be ways of applying Federal law if you want to.

No, a parent who exposes their children to their drug use is not a state issue, it is a parenting/child endangerment issue. Those children should be pulled from those homes by child services.

In regards to law enforcement against drugs, discuss all we want to on this conservative forum, but those against the enforcement as it stands should at the same time be saying what cr@p recreational drugs are and that they should be avoided.

Actual recreational drug use is not conservative behavior. It is the practice of stupidity and irresponsibility.

What were the last two times you can remember the federal government stepping in to help children that made it to front page news?

Were you happy with the results?

With our American press, you can't EVER expect to read any good things. You have to have a fair press to even consider the question you asked. We do not have a fair or balanced press.

When was the last year the main stream press reported any news in a positive light that did not benefit leftist views or politics?

When was the last decade a conservative President or his administration got good press?

If you believe anything from the press in this day and age can be fair, or that we should wait to use the press as some proof of ANYTHING, then all I can say respectfully is "yikes"!

"No, a parent who exposes their children to their drug use is not a state issue, it is a parenting/child endangerment issue. Those children should be pulled from those homes by child service."

Child services are part of the states function now, I am not aware of any federal involvement.

"In regards to law enforcement against drugs, discuss all we want to on this conservative forum, but those against the enforcement as it stands should at the same time be saying what cr@p recreational drugs are and that they should be avoided."

I will agree with you that recreational drugs are bad. I will not agree that the federal government needs to be involved with intrastate drug issues. I think the feds interdiction effort should be at the borders where they might be able to actually protect us and stay within the the delegated powers of the constitution.

"Actual recreational drug use is not conservative behavior. It is the practice of stupidity and irresponsibility."

True, but keeping the federal government bound by the constitution is a conservative issue.

01

"With our American press, you can't EVER expect to read any good things. You have to have a fair press to even consider the question you asked. We do not have a fair or balanced press.

When was the last year the main stream press reported any news in a positive light that did not benefit leftist views or politics?

When was the last decade a conservative President or his administration got good press?

If you believe anything from the press in this day and age can be fair, or that we should wait to use the press as some proof of ANYTHING, then all I can say respectfully is "yikes"!"

I agree with you on the press being anything but ballanced. My questions were loaded ones as you know. For a hint I will say the last kid went to Cuba and the ones before did not fare as well, but you already knew this.

01

The drugs are coming and going from and to everywhere.

There is no way we can rely on the states alone except for the border because the bad guys would use the lack of cohesiveness in enforcement against all of America as a deadly weapon.

Leaving this to the states alone is exactly like Gorelick creating the wall that blocked information between the CIA and the FBI that allowed 9-11 and regarding drugs it would be at least as deadly for the American people.

It is not a constitutional issue, it is a survival issue against evil bastards that would love to addict all of America to become wealthy and to destroy this country, it's people, it's effect on the world and the values we have thrived on.

That was a total reflection of the will of President Clinton, Hillary and Reno and that would not be a fair reflection on the Federal government in general.

If you remember the press back then by the way, they made it seem great and that the Cubans in Florida against Castro were being political in keeping this poor kid from his dad.

The press was totally leftist there as well in my opinion from all I remember reading on the issue.

"The drugs are coming and going from and to everywhere"

True.

"There is no way we can rely on the states alone except for the border because the bad guys would use the lack of cohesiveness in enforcement against all of America as a deadly weapon.:

False, the states do most of the intrastate interdiction now, all I ask is the fed limit itself to the borders. They might even catch some group trying to come into the country that really means to hurt us.

"Leaving this to the states alone is exactly like Gorelick creating the wall that blocked information between the CIA and the FBI that allowed 9-11 and regarding drugs it would be at least as deadly for the American people."

False, once the traffic crosses state lines it would become a federal issue, just like most other crimes.

"It is not a constitutional issue, it is a survival issue against evil bastards that would love to addict all of America to become wealthy and to destroy this country, it's people, it's effect on the world and the values we have thrived on."

False, it is a constitutional issue, it's just one that's so important to you you don't mind bending the constitution a little to try to help stop it. Every time we take a chunk out of the constitution to support our own ends, WE are the ones destroying the country one little piece at a time.

01

Another thread last year not only had the drug confessions regarding use, but in some cases the parents willing exposure of drug use in front of their minor children with the traditional liberal gibberish that children should be able to make up their own minds.

They're scum.

"That was a total reflection of the will of President Clinton, Hillary and Reno and that would not be a fair reflection on the Federal government in general."

True, but GWB wont be there forever.

"If you remember the press back then by the way, they made it seem great and that the Cubans in Florida against Castro were being political in keeping this poor kid from his dad.

The press was totally leftist there as well in my opinion from all I remember reading on the issue."

Also True.

You did not answer my second question, "were you happy with the results?"

You are ignoring the issue IMO.

It is more important to have one policy on the Federal level that works in all states than 50 policies, one for every state.

The enemies that would bring drugs to us or would make drugs among us would use the various policies of 50 separate states against us as a weapon.

We need Federal control and enforcement. It is like having no Gorelick wall between the states.

There may be additional higher levels of enforcement in various states, but the Federal control ensures one minimum standard and makes sure enemies can't use a more liberal state drug policy as an inroad against the American people.

Like I said, this is a survival issue as the terrorism issue is. This is not a Constitutional issue when we are dealing with a threat at the national level it is.

The problem outgrew state only control long ago.
We can't afford the danger of various state policy enforcement. The problem is global in nature, it is not regional.

They sure are and it was disgusting to read here on FR.

Sometimes the only reason I post on a drug thread like this is so people visiting don't get the impression that conservatives believe it is normal or OK to take recreational drugs.
The people saying recreational drugs are good are dangerous and the people reading this website should know conservatives don't believe that recreational dangerous behavior is condoned.
Recreational drug use is a socially liberal behavior of the wildest kind.
To expose your kids is screwed up.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.