7. 1 The problem definition

The Baan Committee adopted the definition of drugs as formulated by
the Dutch pharmacist Dr Nelemans: "Drugs are substances that cause
psychological changes, which are perceived as pleasurable, by which
the taking up and/or absorbing of stimuli alters and that are used
without a medical indication" (Baan Committee 1972: x).
The big advantage, according to the committee, was the avoidance of
assumptions concerning harm and whether a drug was accepted in a
certain cultural pattern.
How did the Baan Committee define the drug problem? As a general
conclusion concerning drug use, the committee concluded that an
increasing number of people were trying to overcome psychological
conflicts with the aid of psychotropic substances. The drugs discussed
in the report (cannabis 55 and amphetamines) belonged to these
substances and, like alcohol and pharmaceuticals, should be subject to
state regulations (Ibid. 63).
The Baan Committee did not use the term epidemic to describe the
spread of drug use.56 Instead, it referred to the concept of diffusion,
meaning that innovations disseminate in a population like an S-shaped
curve. In the case of drug use, the dissemination of a certain drug would
increase after its introduction, and then its use would decrease and be
consolidated or decrease even further. Another hypothesis in this
concept is that individuals in a population are not passive recipients but
that their attitudes, values, and experienced needs influence diffusion
(Åberg 1977: 47).
The analysis of the drug situation was based on epidemiological
research among student populations in the Netherlands. Drug use was
defined as primarily a youth cultural phenomenon and the most
common drug was cannabis. Surveys showed that there was no
difference in social class among drug users (cannabis) and the problem
was spread out over the whole country. A survey among a randomised
sample of the population showed that in the population aged 16 and
above, approximately 140,000 had used a drug on some occasion.
Surveys conducted among students in 1971 showed a prevalence rate of
20% (11.5% in 1969). The number of persons who used cannabis and
incidentally used other drugs as well, but nevertheless worked or
studied was estimated at 40,000. The researcher to whom the committee
referred called this "integrated use" (Baan Committee 1972: 31).
The committee also outlined some possible future developments.
Other user groups would emerge; therefore every stereotype or
generalisation would become outdated fast. The hypothesis that a
saturation point among secondary school students in big cities soon
would be reached was underlined by the committee. However, it should
be taken into account that in certain secondary schools the prevalence
of incidental and experimental use of cannabis would reach 40­50%
and be on the same level as alcohol use (Ibid. 35). Concerning drug use
in other groups, the future was not rosy. Based on the theory of
diffusion it could be expected that drug use would seep through to
people with lower levels of education, without subcultural norms and
ideology and who often were in a problematic social situation. The
committee quoted Gadourek, professor of sociology and member of the
committee: "If this gloomy perspective comes out, we are likely to be
confronted with a high frequency of addiction to hard drugs, for it is in
the situation of isolation and rejection that hard drug use flourishes"
(Ibid. 35).
This situation was reported to already occur in sections of working
youth without contacts with youth centres or established drug scenes.
Research by the psychologist Herman Cohen (also a member of the
committee) showed a correlation between problematic drug use (opium
and amphetamines) and social variables such as gender, age, lower
social class, unemployment or not studying.57 The committee also
concluded that some indicators pointed to a stabilised situation
concerning "hard" drugs. Hard drugs were a relatively small part of the
problem (Ibid. 34).
Nevertheless, according to the committee, the dangers of
uncontrolled use of amphetamines were underestimated. Developments
in this field were described as very worrying. Trade in amphetamines
had extended while illegal manufacturing probably took place in the
Netherlands as well. Amphetamines had been offered on the illegal
drug market in small quantities with incidental peaks (Ibid. xiii).
Regulations from 1968 stipulating that amphetamines should only be
available on prescription had been replaced by new regulations in 1969.
According to the new regulations, illegal possession or delivering of
amphetamines was made a misdemeanour and could be punished by
maximum of six months imprisonment or a fine of 500 fl. This meant
that offenders could not be taken into preventive custody, or could be
extradited. Drug traffickers exploited this condition and started to
operate from the Netherlands. Since 1970, a worrying increase of
amphetamines on the illegal market had been noted (Ibid. 25) At the
request of the under-secretary of state for health, the Baan Committee
recommended new regulations concerning amphetamines. A new
regulation on amphetamines came into force in 1972 and illegal import
and export of amphetamines could be punished by a maximum of six
years' imprisonment.


The concept of risks

The committee elaborated the "risk concept", meaning that the risks of
drug use were not determined solely by the pharmacological properties
of the substance. Other factors, such as personal, psychological, social
conditions, and the social circumstances under which a drug was used,
were just as important. This also included actions and reactions by
society to limit drug use. These factors were:

1. The pharmacological properties of the substance (e.g. causing addiction). The
effect is also very much dependent on:
a. the dosage;
b. the method of administration (oral, injection, smoking);
c. the frequency of use;
d. the personality of the user (sensitivity to the substance, personality structure,
mood, expectation).
2. The potential to dose (depending on the potential to standardise).
3. The group of the user (age, profession).
4. The circumstances in which use is inadmissible in connection with harm to others
(work situation, traffic).
5. The potential to regulate and to channel production and supply, and to set norms
for use.
6. The potential to evaluate and observe the use as mentioned under 4 at that
moment or afterwards.

"All these factors together constitute the risk that using a substance can
have for the individual but most of all for society". This risk ought to be
the starting point for the drug policy (italics in original, Ibid. 65).
This line of reasoning implied a rejection of the stepping stone theory
in which the pharmacological properties of one substance are supposed
to lead to the use of stronger drugs. This theory was founded on
research in the US that showed that a large majority of heroine users
had started to use illegal drugs by smoking cannabis. The Baan
Committee referred to Dutch research that showed that one could speak
of a social stepping stone theory, i.e. stepping from cannabis to other
(hard) drugs was determined by social factors. The fact that cannabis
smokers, in order to buy cannabis, were forced to visit locations where
hard drugs were used and sold was seen as essential for stepping to
other drugs (Ibid. 26). The concept of risks would have a large impact
on the development of the Dutch drug policy.
The Baan Committee managed to formulate a goal for a drug policy
that was acceptable to all members (and departments). The goal would
be to:

Contribute to the prevention of the use of drugs as part of the total public welfare.
Each prevention programme ought to consider reality. One would give priority to
combating the biggest risks. According to the working group integrated use of drugs
is possible and occurs. This does not mean that risks do not exist, but that these
sometimes can be regarded as acceptable (Ibid. 66).

The statement is crucial because it implies that a governmental drug
policy could help to improve the situation but had little potential to
steer developments. The statement also implies that some ways of using
a drug and some kinds of drugs are more problematic for the user and
society than others. This would have great consequences for the control
system as proposed by the committee.

55 In the report, the term "hemp" is used. To avoid confusion I will use the term
"cannabis".
56 In fact, I have found the epidemic metaphor only once in policy documents from
this period. Dr P. Siderius (director-general of the Department of Health) stated that
"we have to deal with an epidemic and some schools and youth centres are the
source of infection" (Meeting Ministry of Justice 24 May 1971).
57 Cohen published his report in 1969 in which he advocated a milder legal
approach to cannabis in order to keep soft drug users out of deviant subcultures (de
Kort 1995: 193).