Dutch Take Sober Look at Pot Laws

Philadephia Inquirer ^ | Jan. 01, 2006

[Wolfie]

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."

[JTN]

"American rates have been falling while European rates have been rising."

Buried in the middle of the article.

Which is appropriate if it needs to be mentioned at all (it doesn't). The rates have been falling only in the last three years; before that they were rising. All this sentence means is that American use is down from a peak. This hardly makes the prohibitionist case however, since it is a peak that occurred under prohibition.

And longer term, this statement is not true. As the article states, "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."

Your response? "Yes, JTN, a low that occurred under prohibition." Usage rates now however are pretty much the same as they were 30 years ago in spite of much higher federal spending on prohibition.

What's to be gained by legalizing marijuana?

Lower rates of property crime and violent crime.

[md2576]

I understand. I'm asking you if it isn't a better idea, as the article suggests, to give your crackhead methed-out thieves free drugs (well, free in the sense that your tax dollars pay for them) so they won't have to steal your radio and tools to feed their habit?

No. I thought this answer was clear.

Oh. Do you think family men should be doing illegal drugs? You know, kids and all.

No, but I would rather him be smoking pot in the other room instead of drunk and beating them or passing out while watching them. Drugs, alcohol or many things, even smoking cigarettes, might not be best if done in front of children but that is the parents decision. I am comparing drinking and pot smoking. Not shooting up heroin in front of them or murdering someone as many here will portray.

[JCEccles]

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.

Who's picking up these costs?

Taxpayers.

Not a very good advertisement for libertarianism.

[dennisw]

Pot smoking makes you soft, stupid and full of illusions about life. Muslims love to prey on such loser societies. Pot may make you artistic but the Muzzie Jihad has no use for such crap. Pot heads will be the Eloi for the Muslim Morlocks

[Freebird Forever]

Antonio Costa, an Italian who heads the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime in Vienna, has little patience for Europe's tolerant stance

As if we didn't already have enough reason to dispise the UN.

[robertpaulsen]

Hmmm?

Do you think those numbers would be equal if we adopted the same laws?

[robertpaulsen]

"A smaller percentage of the Dutch smoke pot than of Americans."

Yes. And ...?

A larger percentage of Japanese drink saki than of Americans. Should we conclude anything about that?

The Dutch would rather drink than smoke pot. Big deal.

[robertpaulsen]

"instead of drunk and beating them or passing out while watching them"

I'd rather he either drink responsibly or not at all. But at least alcohol is legal.

As to beating his kids, well, he can do that stone cold sober and it'd still be wrong.

[bankwalker]

Pot smoking makes you soft, stupid and full of illusions about life. Muslims love to prey on such loser societies. Pot may make you artistic but the Muzzie Jihad has no use for such crap. Pot heads will be the Eloi for the Muslim Morlocks

I think you nailed it, dennis.

[dennisw]

You can live soft and nice and stupid and tolerant for a few decades or a few generations but a predator WILL come along who doesn't see you as nice. He sees you as dinner.

The Dutch-
Enabling homosexuality, low marriage rates and many abortions don't help your people or their demographics. Islam has large families and zero abortions. Islamic family structure is well suited to waging war in that if the father dies fighting the extended family will DEFINITELY help with the children and so will Muslim charities

[bankwalker]

Your freeper homepage is outstandingly useful. I especially like the pc security links near the bottom. Thanx.

[robertpaulsen]

"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."

Well, let's take a look at that. If you have different numbers, let's see 'em (or give me a link).

Yep. You're right. Marijuana use is higher today than in 1992.

Then again, one can look at that same chart and also state that marijuana use in the United States has been relatively flat for almost 20 years (while, during the same period, doubling in the Netherlands). I suppose it depends on how honest you want to be in presenting the statistics.

Marijuana use has been up only recently, and I submit that's due to the recent trend in decriminalization and the legalization of medical marijuana by some states.

"Usage rates now however are pretty much the same as they were 30 years ago in spite of much higher federal spending on prohibition."

You do realize that our population is growing and that every year the federal government spends more on everything. The article is comparing TOTAL federal spending with "usage rates" -- what a crock. Look at this garbage:

But the TOTAL NUMBER of marijuana users in 1992, for example, was 9.6 million and in 2002 was 14.6 million -- essentially a parallel line.

"What's to be gained by legalizing marijuana?
Lower rates of property crime and violent crime."

Is that what they found in the Netherlands? Where are you getting your facts?

We can also achieve lower rates of property crime and violent crime by giving everyone a free car, free housing, free food, and $100,000 each year. Also a good idea?

[Trailerpark Badass]

"A smaller percentage of the Dutch smoke pot than of Americans."

Yes. And ...?

I think the point is rather obvious.

[robertpaulsen]

"I think the point is rather obvious."

I'd rather you finish the point. Were you going to say that, "A smaller percentage of the Dutch smoke pot than of Americans, and it's due solely to the liberal Dutch laws on marijuana?

Go ahead. Don't be afraid. Finish the point -- you posted it.

[dennisw]

Thanks ... and the PC security links come from another freeper, he may have updated them. http://www.freerepublic.com/~holymoly/

A quick to load PDF reader another freeper told me about -->>
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

[Wolfie]

Hey, taxpayers in this country pay for old men to get erections. Doesn't say much about us, does it?

[Wolfie]

ping

[pepsionice]

Well...lets be honest...the number of murders in Amsterdam...probably corresponds to the city of Ripley, Mississippi. There just aren't murders in the town. Robberies are somewhat common...but thats a long-step away from murder or violent crime.

[JTN]

Marijuana use has been up only recently, and I submit that's due to the recent trend in decriminalization and the legalization of medical marijuana by some states.

Possibly, but it could be that increasing usage rates and decriminalization have a similar cause - changing attitudes about marijuana.

"Usage rates now however are pretty much the same as they were 30 years ago in spite of much higher federal spending on prohibition."

You do realize that our population is growing and that every year the federal government spends more on everything. The article is comparing TOTAL federal spending with "usage rates" -- what a crock. Look at this garbage:

The line in bold was actually my statement. It's not from the article. I was referring to per capita federal spending.

Lower rates of property crime and violent crime.

Is that what they found in the Netherlands? Where are you getting your facts?

From the research I have posted previously.

Homicide Rates and Substance Control Policy

Violence and the U.S. Prohibitions of Drugs and Alcohol

Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure

We can also achieve lower rates of property crime and violent crime by giving everyone a free car, free housing, free food, and $100,000 each year. Also a good idea?

Well, I very much doubt that would work. Socialism really isn't very good for standards of living. Witness the double digit unemployment rates in some of Europe.

Besides, redistribution on that scale would be pretty criminal itself.

[robertpaulsen]

"Possibly, but it could be that increasing usage rates and decriminalization have a similar cause - changing attitudes about marijuana."

Changing attitudes? Really? Why then did marijuana proponents in the city of Denver have to resort to subterfuge to pass their most recent marijuana proposition (I-100) with their "battered women" campaign, saying "Reduce family and community violence in Denver. Vote Yes on I-100"?

"I was referring to per capita federal spending."

Per capita? So if the population doubled and drug use quadrupled, you would only tolerate a doubling of anti-drug money because the population doubled? And that makes sense to you?

"From the research I have posted previously."

Let's see. Your link #1 makes a connection between illegal drugs and homicide rates. Hmmmm. Your author never isolates any one drug and makes any claim as to a reduction in violent crime.

Your link #2 is the same.

Your link #3 says nothing about marijuana's link to property crime and/or violent crime. WTF is going on here?

Maybe you should just support your statement with an actual cite instead of pointing me to these articles, forcing me to waste my time figuring out that they're totally irrelevant. You got nothing.

"Besides, redistribution on that scale would be pretty criminal itself."

Be that as it may, I thought your driving goal was to achieve lower rates of property crime and violent crime and screw everything else.

Gee, if you willing to consider the downside of socialism (like unemployment and the immorality of wealth redistribution), then maybe you'd be willing to consider the downside of drug legalization.