Drugs in the Netherlands [Archive]

ajaxfetish

02-05-2008, 22:51

Ice

02-06-2008, 00:23

I'm looking for input mostly from our Dutch members, but others are of course free to contribute as well. This is for a class assignment, comparing laws and attitudes toward drug use in several countries and analyzing the US 'War on Drugs.'

For those familiar with it, how would you characterize Dutch attitudes toward drug use? Why are the Dutch more open to legalizing (at least in part) soft drugs than other nations? How do you feel about the distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' drugs? Have Dutch attitudes about drugs changed in recent years as a result of either changing laws or other causes?

Thank you in advance for any perspective you could help provide.

Ajax

Well I'm not Dutch, but I've been to Amsterdam twice.

From my experience, all Dutch don't love drugs, but they tolerate them. I think the theory behind the law is, like protestation, that since it will always be there, they might as well regulate and tax it. It makes it safer and brings government revenue.

As for hard/soft drugs, I was told to never try to buy illegal hard drugs (which I wouldn't anyway. I don't really have an passion to try them). I believe they are much more strict on those.

As for laws changing, I don't think they are issuing any more coffee shop permits, so those are getting rarer. I know they just banned mushrooms in Amsterdam.

Hope that helps.

By the way, I plan on returning to Amsterdam many more times now that I actually know a little bit about "wacky tobacky"

Fragony

02-06-2008, 03:48

Mushrooms weren't banned, they should be though. As fot the destinction, mixed feelings, because with technological adavcements you have to wonder how soft soft is. Fact remains that we have the lowest cannabis (and other)usage in Europe so we must be doing something right. With harddrugs, there is this other destinction, if you have a small amount it is for 'personal use' and they just take it from you, if you have a lot it's for dealing purposed and they are less lenient.

Mikeus Caesar

02-06-2008, 04:38

Why pay to go Amsterdam when it's just a case of having the right (or as some people would think, wrong) friends?

I've enjoyed...'researching' wacky tobaccy many times for free thanks to my friends, rather than spending a small fortune going to another country and then spending a small fortune getting the research material.

Ice

02-06-2008, 06:23

Fragony

02-06-2008, 11:49

There is more to amsterdam then coffeeshops and hookers you know.

Mooks

02-06-2008, 12:05

Iv always viewed it as the netherlands having a little bit of common sense, and not joining the bandwagon which chooses ignorance and suppression of freedom because its conveniant.

Moros

02-06-2008, 12:19

Adrian II

02-06-2008, 12:42

Thank you in advance for any perspective you could help provide. AjaxHi Ajaxfetish, great assignment you have there. I am not going to debate drug policies with you or anyone else because of the 'been there, done that' factor. But I would love to help you out of course. So I have been looking for some good English language sources.

You are probably aware that this issue is an ideological minefield where most mines are stacked against the Dutch drug policy based on tolerance, individual liberty and emphasis on the health aspects of drugs versus the criminal aspects. Nearly all reading materials must be treated with extreme care, particularly if they pretend to contain the magic bullet that solves all drug problems. Furthermore, no policy or issue can be studied in isolation from the wider context of a country's health and education policies, its type of society (religious, communist, etcetera), its neighbouring countries, international agreements and aggressive propaganda campaigns.

Even UN institutions are highly biased toward the repressive view. The UNODC for instance like to hold up Sweden as a prime example of a repressive drug policy resulting in low substance use. However, if you look at the statistical measures they use, you will find that they refer only to drug use among army conscripts and 15 year old schoolchildren. Hence the promising Swedish statistics.

For that reason I have looked for decent sources that explain the background and motivation for present Dutch drug policy. Treat them with equal care. As always, in the end you will have to judge for yourself.

The American-based Drug Policy Alliance have a decent overview of Dutch policy here (http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/). For detailed analyses we have the Dutch Center for Drug Research, subsidized but not overseen by the Dutch Department of Health. They have a nice online English-language library (http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/). In particular this article (http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen.case.html)does a nice job of explaining the influential "Baan Commission" report which essentially shaped Dutch policy for decades to come.

Hope this is useful to you.

Geoffrey S

02-06-2008, 12:50

In general, soft drugs are considered fine as long as it interferes with no-one else: keep within regulated shops or homes, much like smoking in general. I, and I think quite a few others, don't really see any harm but also don't see the point. Hard drugs are a bit double. In theory they're illegal, in practice only combated in the most visible places. Most disapprove.

Fragony

02-06-2008, 13:03

Well coffeeshop shops are getting rarer indeed. I'm surprised that the Netherlands has the lowest cannabis useage of Europe. But then again I wouldn't be surprised if the bigest part of cannbis that gets sold, ends up in to the hands of Belgians lol.

Cannabis usage is generally frowned upon, here it's 'cool' to have a healthy lifestyle. Coffeeshops are fine because we are mature enough to have them, works for us but it's no magic pill. For the english for example it would be a big mistake to follow the dutch example.

Geoffrey S

02-06-2008, 13:22

For the english for example it would be a big mistake to follow the dutch example.
Key point. This particular system works in Holland; I find it strange that a lot of people seem to point to that and say 'That means it'll work for us too'. It doesn't, and probably won't.

Banquo's Ghost

02-06-2008, 14:49

Cannabis usage is generally frowned upon, here it's 'cool' to have a healthy lifestyle. Coffeeshops are fine because we are mature enough to have them, works for us but it's no magic pill. For the english for example it would be a big mistake to follow the dutch example.

That's a good point. For example, there is currently a big hoo-hah in the UK (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/surge-in-skunk-adds-to-pressure-for-reversal-of-cannabis-downgrading-778666.html) about statistics showing a fairly substantial increase in cannabis related crime and psychological damage following the down-grading of the drug a couple of years ago.

As ever, instead of taking it easy with a mild recreational drug, the Brits have binged themselves on high potency skunk.

LittleGrizzly

02-06-2008, 15:13

I can only speak from my personal experience here.

Cannabis resin (thats the solid brown stuff right ?) used to be widely available in my area and it was the drug of choice for me and my friends then about a year ago (maybe more) there where some huge cannabis factorys busted (they where producing resin) and then in my local area people could no longer get thier hands on resin but skunk was available in the area so me and my friends started smoking that.

Through my own personal experience and keeping an eye on the news this is how i think this happened.

Edit: The article doesnt seem to mention an increase in crime related to skunk ?

could this increase in crime be more people getting caught wiuth skunk because of the strong smell of skunk, in whch case it would be more people getting caught for the crime rather than commiting it.

Idaho

02-06-2008, 15:13

Most of the hoo-hah in the UK is nonsense. Headline claims that 500 people a week are being hospitalised because of cannabis actually turn out to be 30 people a week have spoken to a drugs counsellor about cannabis. Other claims that it is 30 times stronger have also been rubbished as average strength/quality has actually doubled.

However the papers and moralisers smell a quick (and totally pointless) win by pushing for reclassification "to send a message" (as if anyone listens to messages from such people). The govt will go along as they couldn't give a toss and want an easy win.

And then you have poor misinformed folk like the two posters above. Who think that smoking poor quality adulturated cannabis resin is milder than smoking unpollenated herbal cannabis (commonly known as skunk). They are the same drug just different concentrations. Like one is weak beer and the other is wine - so drink less of it.

Unfortunately the illegality of drugs means that you get the quickest growing strains. It is'nt grown for quality - just profit.

Imagine going into a pub and asking for "a drink" and being given a glass of cloudy liquid of unclear strength and providence. Would that make alcohol a bad thing?

Fragony

02-06-2008, 15:13

Almost all plants are of the skunk variety, it's a strong plant that needs little care and it can be harvested after 3 months. What I mean is that the english aren't ready for our system, for example it's not-done to be as drunk as the english tend to get, women hardly drink at all and men are supposed to not drink too much it's bad taste to be absolutily pissed. It's a bit different in student clubs but the usual dances and bars you will not see any drunk people. That is why we can afford to do it like we do, we are responsible enough to have this.

LittleGrizzly

02-06-2008, 15:30

Most of the hoo-hah in the UK is nonsense. Headline claims that 500 people a week are being hospitalised because of cannabis actually turn out to be 30 people a week have spoken to a drugs counsellor about cannabis. Other claims that it is 30 times stronger have also been rubbished as average strength/quality has actually doubled

From that original link of Banqou and to another article it actually said the number of admissions linked to cannabis had gone down in the last year

And then you have poor misinformed folk like the two posters above. Who think that smoking poor quality adulturated cannabis resin is milder than smoking unpollenated herbal cannabis (commonly known as skunk). They are the same drug just different concentrations. Like one is weak beer and the other is wine - so drink less of it.

Im assuming you don't mean me there... its like me drinking a few shots of vodka to get drunk rather than god knows how many barcadi breezers, skunk means you would need less joints or bongs so its healthier and im pretty sure resin has got to be terrible for your lungs much worse than skunk, that is an educated guess though...

Banquo's Ghost

02-06-2008, 15:43

And then you have poor misinformed folk like the two posters above. Who think that smoking poor quality adulturated cannabis resin is milder than smoking unpollenated herbal cannabis (commonly known as skunk). They are the same drug just different concentrations. Like one is weak beer and the other is wine - so drink less of it.

I apologise for my ignorance. It's a cultural thing. You see, in my language, milder means a weaker concentration and over here, if one drank ten pints of weak beer one would be in better shape than having drunk ten pints of wine.

:shrug:

Viking

02-06-2008, 17:52

Cannabis...worsens the ability to remember things.

LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/health/060313_pot_brain.html)

If you can't remember the headline of this article or are already struggling to recall some of the words at the beginning of the story, try hard to recall how much pot you smoked in your youth.

A new study finds those who've used a lot of marijuana have worse memories and don't think as quickly.

It's not the first study to suggest pot hurts memory, but the findings are stark.

In one memory test, long-time uses remembered seven of 15 words, on average. Non-users remembered 12 of 15. On a decision-making test, those who had rarely smoked pot had impaired performance 8 percent of time, while long-term tokers had 70 percent impairment.

The results are detailed in the March 14 issue of the journal Neurology.

Cannabis is not an innocent drug; but is it worse than normal cigarettes that causes, among other things, lung cancer?

KukriKhan

02-06-2008, 20:30

Gum disease (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7226969.stm), possibly. But then the BBC and AMA are

papers and moralisers (who) smell a quick (and totally pointless) win by pushing for reclassification "to send a message" (as if anyone listens to messages from such people). The govt will go along as they couldn't give a toss and want an easy win.

Probably right. Just propaganda from 'the man' trying to stop we wee folk from enjoying our harmless, recreational temporary-mind-altering substances of choice. Puritans.

Idaho

02-06-2008, 20:44

The point is not that cannabis is harmless. But that we are adults who can make informed choices about the risks we take for pleasure.

Parachuting isn't proscribed. Neither is rock climbing, having sex with strangers, scuba diving, etc. In these areas it is assumed that we take our own risks.

Likewise for narcotics, the two biggest narcotic killers (by a country light-year) are considered fair enough, but other drugs (and there is often a racist element too this) are forbidden. In the US cannabis was thought of as a Mexican's drug, Opium as a Chinese drug - and hence prohibition was made easier.

When cannabis was classified as class B - there were millions of smokers who took it every week. And when it gets reclassified it will make no difference. Just typical of the mealy-mouthed moralising politicians (who of course all drink, smoke and take god knows what else) who see an easy opportunity for political capital on one side, and on the other an opportunity for society to grow up and accept it's desire to take drugs for pleasure.

Idaho

02-06-2008, 20:46

Cannabis...worsens the ability to remember things.

LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/health/060313_pot_brain.html)

Cannabis is not an innocent drug; but is it worse than normal cigarettes that causes, among other things, lung cancer?
I'll bet it does. Although can we ever tell whether these are problems innate to cannabis, or because of quick and dirty criminal production?

Mooks

02-06-2008, 20:46

Cannabis...worsens the ability to remember things.

LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/health/060313_pot_brain.html)

Cannabis is not an innocent drug; but is it worse than normal cigarettes that causes, among other things, lung cancer?

Lung cancer for marijuana

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer

O sorry, thought you said that marijuana DOES cause lung cancer. I looked those sources up and then re-read your message. Meh, I cant decide to take them down or not.

The funny thing is though, is that scientific data for marijuana is unrealiable. As a marijuana smoker myself, iv tried to look to science to determine wether the weed is killing my body or not. Iv searched the net for hours at a time. Theres just too much conflicting data. And it doesnt help that the studies done in america are completely unreliable (The goverment has to give permission, and it obviosly has too much to lose if it is proven that it's been lying for so long). Everyone has a damn agenda and bias. Those 2 sites that I found may be completely false, I accept that.

The best conclusion for analyzing marijuana that I can think up of. Is experimenting with it yourself, or asking long time smokers yourself.

EDIT: as for myself, I find that stuff while I did while high is a little hard to remember, but while im high I can accurately recall previous events. I can remember stuff that I do while really drunk too, unlike everyone else I know that gets drunk and cant remember a thing. So im wierd in that regard.

KukriKhan

02-06-2008, 20:54

Off-t: Where are my manners?

Welcome Back, Idaho. Long time no read. :)

Missus & kids well?

Ice

02-06-2008, 23:37

There is more to amsterdam then coffeeshops and hookers you know.

Yeah, my bad, I forgot the beer factory. :2thumbsup:

Reverend Joe

02-07-2008, 00:13

When it comes to memory loss, from what I have read, cannabis DOES cause some long-term memory and learning ability loss, but it is far less severe than the permanent brain damage brought on by a roughly equal alcohol habit:

Cognitive effects

The long-term heavy use of cannabis does not produce the severe or grossly debilitating impairment of memory, attention, and cognitive function that is found with chronic heavy alcohol use.[ 2] Electrophysiological and neuropsychological studies show that it may produce more subtle impairment of memory, attention, and the organisation and integration of complex information.[ 41-43] The longer cannabis has been used, the more pronounced the cognitive impairment.[ 41] These impairments are subtle, so it remains unclear how important they are for everyday functioning, and whether they are reversed after an extended period of abstinence.

Link (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=117&sid=55e15da9-db0b-42f1-9764-8a2ebbcad46c%40sessionmgr107)

Edit:

There is more to amsterdam then coffeeshops and hookers you know.

https://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6480/amstelwindmilljk8.jpg

You asked for it. :jester:

Shahed

02-07-2008, 03:25

HOLLAND RULES !

Strike For The South

02-07-2008, 03:36

Likewise for narcotics, the two biggest narcotic killers (by a country light-year) are considered fair enough, but other drugs (and there is often a racist element too this) are forbidden. In the US cannabis was thought of as a Mexican's drug, Opium as a Chinese drug - and hence prohibition was made easier.
.

It was actually thought of as black mans drug which would enable them to steal our women and look us in the eye. but far be it from me to split hairs.

Idaho

02-07-2008, 14:18

I thought it was originally outlawed because Mormons brought it back from Mexico.

Welcome Back, Idaho. Long time no read. :)

Missus & kids well?

Hi there - how's it going? Yeah all of mine are fine. I dropped by thinking there might be a bit of US insight into the US election process - but barely a sausage!

KukriKhan

02-07-2008, 15:22

I thought it was originally outlawed because Mormons brought it back from Mexico.

Hi there - how's it going? Yeah all of mine are fine. I dropped by thinking there might be a bit of US insight into the US election process - but barely a sausage!

Doing well, thanks. True, not a bunch of insight into US elections yet - it's early days. Two things seem clear:
1) the next leader won't be GWB
2) the next leader will be a current Senator or former state Governor. Any outsiders haven't gained a foothold.

So: back to Dutch drugs. (Or are we arguing the provenance of various drugs now?).

Idaho

02-07-2008, 15:43

Definately arguing for provenance.

Drug policy at the moment is based on moralising, hypocracy and denial. The US leads the world in the war on drugs and yet is the biggest consumer (sorry to bash you lot again - but your government is openly hostile and obstructive to any attempts at a different solution).

We need a policy based on harm minimisation.

The problems we have with illegal drugs are:
- Crime to fund habits (product of prohibition not the drugs themselves)
- Criminal gangs profitting (product of prohibition not the drugs themselves)
- Health problems caused by drugs, contaminated drugs, poor doseage control (partly product of prohibition not the drugs themselves)
- Social exclusion lack of routes to rehab and support (partly product of prohibition not the drugs themselves)

No, they cry, just think of all the people who will go and take drugs if they are allowed to! We would be condoning it.
Well no. I don't go scuba diving even though it's legal. I wouldn't take crack if someone gave it to me.

Also people completely ignore the truth that drugs are currently everywhere. Anyone on this board could go and get pretty much whatever they wanted with a day or so of asking around. And after that first day it would probably take a lot less time. Prohibition is merely a moral fig leaf to say "this isn't happening because of us - We don't approve". Rather than government taking responsibility for managing the situation, they prefer to ignore a difficult truth about our societies. Journalists are even worse. They really piss me off. Happy to write the same old guff, yet at the weekends they all have a straw up their noses.

Fragony

02-07-2008, 16:39

We need a policy based on harm minimisation.

Prohibiting is a policy to minimalise it as well, you can't beat it but you can fight it no? Trying to destroy the supply of what is bad is just as much a sound strategy as allowing what is less harmfull, depending on the country. You can say that you are allowed to shim with sharks without the government caring but people swimming with sharks isn't a part of a bigger problem. Drugs isn't just a substance it is also a sub-culture and some will not use it, either way.

Vladimir

02-07-2008, 19:06

Doing well, thanks. True, not a bunch of insight into US elections yet - it's early days. Two things seem clear:
1) the next leader won't be GWB
2) the next leader will be a current Senator or former state Governor. Any outsiders haven't gained a foothold.

So: back to Dutch drugs. (Or are we arguing the provenance of various drugs now?).

:idea2: We could talk about Obama's drug use. :jumping:

Idaho

02-07-2008, 19:09

Prohibiting is a policy to minimalise it as well, you can't beat it but you can fight it no? Trying to destroy the supply of what is bad is just as much a sound strategy as allowing what is less harmfull, depending on the country.

That's plain nonsense. Just like your belief that only Dutch people are mature enough to handle decriminalised drugs.

You yourself take a drug that you believe to be harmless. A drug that personally I wouldn't touch with a bargepole.

I don't agree with the soft drugs ok, hard drugs ban idea. Personally although I like to smoke weed now and again, I don't think that it is that important to legalise it. It is far more pressing that we provide heroin and cocaine users with a clean supply, and thereby stop thousands of crimes, take millions (billions?) out of the hands of gangsters and get people treatment that they need.

Idaho

02-07-2008, 19:10

:idea2: We could talk about Obama's drug use. :jumping:
I imagine that all the candidates are drug users of one sort or another. As, no doubt are you Vladimir.

Reverend Joe

02-07-2008, 19:11

Prohibiting is a policy to minimalise it as well, you can't beat it but you can fight it no? Trying to destroy the supply of what is bad is just as much a sound strategy as allowing what is less harmfull, depending on the country. You can say that you are allowed to shim with sharks without the government caring but people swimming with sharks isn't a part of a bigger problem. Drugs isn't just a substance it is also a sub-culture and some will not use it, either way.
Prohibition is a drug policy that doesn't work. As you (seem to) say, some people are going to use drugs whether or not they are illegal. Making drugs illegal just funds organizations that undermine both the legal economy and society at large, not to mention removing legal regulations on drugs. Removing these regulatory systems inevitably leads to a system of production akin to the illegal alcohol producers of 1920's America, where standardized production techniques that ensured safe alcoholic beverages gave way to bathtub gin and backwoods stills, many of which produced alcohol that was so lethal that one drink of it could kill almost instantly. In addition, Marijuana's illegal status turns what could be a huge source of tax revenue (which could at least pay for its own regulatory systems at a break-even pace) into a giant drain on the government's budget.

So, yeah... fighting it is just... silly.

And Idaho: :stare: Watch it. I am a print journalism major. And I damn sure ain't no coke head.

Edit: whoops... little slow on the draw...

LittleGrizzly

02-07-2008, 19:18

Idaho raised a point i had been thinking of.. alot of the problems to do with drugs are due to the prohibtion and these could be controlled through the goverment controlling and selling.

Think of the money!!

all the money wasted, police time, jail cells, the user could be less productive with a record, wasted time at customs and all the money that dealers make that goes to unfriendly sources. We could also make money by taxing these goods.

ajaxfetish

02-07-2008, 22:16

Thank you to all contributors. We had our presentation today. It went well, and the contributions from this thread (and from Dutch Guy) were very helpful.

Personally, I think the Dutch model is among the most rational in the world. I think marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated immediately. While I'm less sure of my footing in terms of 'hard drugs,' I tend to think eventual decriminalization and regulation would likely be the best solution there, as well.

Overall, I consider the 'War on Drugs' among the most epic failures of US policy in recent years. I also think a change of tune will be difficult for our government for the same reason there is so much resistance to improved relations with Cuba: after so many years of bold assertions of absolute certainty, a change of policy would be acutely embarrassing. There's an inertia of morality and reputation standing in the way of rational response.

Ajax

Vladimir

02-07-2008, 23:00

I imagine that all the candidates are drug users of one sort or another. As, no doubt are you Vladimir.

I'm high on life thank you very much!

Mooks

02-08-2008, 05:27

That's plain nonsense. Just like your belief that only Dutch people are mature enough to handle decriminalised drugs.

You yourself take a drug that you believe to be harmless. A drug that personally I wouldn't touch with a bargepole.

I don't agree with the soft drugs ok, hard drugs ban idea. Personally although I like to smoke weed now and again, I don't think that it is that important to legalise it. It is far more pressing that we provide heroin and cocaine users with a clean supply, and thereby stop thousands of crimes, take millions (billions?) out of the hands of gangsters and get people treatment that they need.

Why should a country take away its citizens freedom unless it has too? You might think its fine to just keep it the way it is because "its not important enough" to go through the hassle of legalising it. But theres people in jail or having their life ruined by smoking a little harmless weed.

P.S: I wrote this while completely blazed, sorry if it makes no sense.

Reverend Joe

02-08-2008, 06:40

P.S: I wrote this while completely blazed, sorry if it makes no sense.
:shame:

Fragony

02-08-2008, 10:12

That's plain nonsense. Just like your belief that only Dutch people are mature enough to handle decriminalised drugs.

Didn't say that, I said it isn't a magic pill that works for everyone, just like democracy I guess.

Idaho

02-08-2008, 13:02

Yeah well everyone on this board has seen enough of your 'destiny of races' take on the world.

Holybandit - what I meant was that cannabis didn't have as devastaing an effect on public health and crime as the other drugs.

I think decriminalisation is disasterous. Drugs not controlled but still in the hands of gangs. No real responsibility taken for them and their effects.

Fragony

02-08-2008, 13:23

Awwwwwwwwwwwww an angry lefty how absolutily adorable! Are you radicalising Idaho?

Banquo's Ghost

02-08-2008, 15:26

Let's stick to the topic at hand rather than posting personal provocations.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Kralizec

02-08-2008, 15:42

It is far more pressing that we provide heroin and cocaine users with a clean supply, and thereby stop thousands of crimes, take millions (billions?) out of the hands of gangsters and get people treatment that they need.

In the big cities over here they provide methadon for heroine addicts (or even the real stuff for those who are really far gone), the idea being that since some of those people will never stop you might as well do some damage control. It seems only rational to me, though I don't know how well it works in practice.