7. 3 Summary


The policy domain

Abuse of drugs such as opiates and amphetamines was a matter for the
medical profession in the Netherlands as well. However, the modern
drug problem was initially not constituted by the use of such
substances. Instead, cannabis was the problematic drug. Due to its lack
of medical usage, it was mainly a matter for the legal control system.
This also meant that the medical profession had no monopoly on
information about the effects of cannabis, and the arena for discussion
was open for other actors as well. Contradictory opinions on the harm
of cannabis undermined the enforcement of the Opium Act and
consequently, jurists were firmly represented in the Baan Committee
together with officials with a medical background. Noteworthy is the
presence of two Amsterdam City officials, so that the Lord Mayor of
Amsterdam, being one of the initiators of the committee, could assure
the city's representation. When the committee was expanded social
scientists such as psychologists and sociologists were added. The
influence of social sciences was enforced by the participation of
officials from the Department of CRM, which advocated a social-
cultural view of the drug problem. The unanimous conclusions from the
Baan Committee were acceptable to all members of the governmental
policy domain and could therefore become a starting point for the
Dutch drug policy.

Civil servants within departments played an important role in the
development of national policy matters. To co-ordinate departmental
activities in drug policy matters, the interdepartmental steering group
on drugs (ISD) was established. During the formative years of the
Dutch drug policies, it would occupy a key position.
Other important actors in the Netherlands that have no Swedish
equivalent are the big cities. At the beginning of the definition process,
the City of Amsterdam was the most important but was soon
accompanied by cities that also experienced substantial drug problems,
namely, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht.
Concerning issue groups, there were no organisations in the
Netherlands similar to the Swedish. Critics of the drug policy on
cannabis were part of loosely organised protest movements that
operated on the local level or as individuals. It was on this level that
drug policy matters could be influenced. This is in line with the Dutch
tradition of subsidiarity and the fact that the drug problem was not
perceived as a national crisis.


The problem definition

The Dutch committee's explanatory theory was that of diffusion
meaning that drug use would spread in certain populations. The Baan
Committee used a biblical phrase, proselytising, i.e. to convert a person
to another religion, to describe the mechanism of dissemination. The
formation of drug-centred subcultures was perceived as a basic
condition for the dissemination of drug use and its preservation.
However, norms and rituals to control drug use could also develop in
subcultures. Furthermore, not all kinds of use and drugs carried the
same risks, and integrated use was possible. An assessment of the risks
would guide the drug policy.
The problem definition was adopted by the Parliament. Based on the
risk concept, a differentiation between soft and hard drugs was made
with the latter as the most serious problem for the user and society. The
problem was related to other changes in society that occurred
simultaneously. Drug use was but one consequence of the difficulties
experienced by the post-war generation in finding a place in the welfare
state. Obviously, if undesirable and worrying, it was part of a new era
in Dutch society; it was the spirit of time. This implies that no external
enemy was blamed for the drug problem. The notion of drug use as a
national disaster is totally absent in policy documents. On the contrary,
the government was in favour of playing down selective attention to the
drug issue.
The number of drug users (experimental and regular) was known to
be increasing but not explosively, and experimental drug use (primarily
of cannabis) was widespread among students throughout the country.
These findings did not cause panic but the conclusion was rather that
the repressive policy had failed and other strategies should be tested.
There was a concern that drug use could diffuse to segments of the
population which, due to their already marginal social position, would
have difficulties controlling drug use. However, even when this
eventually occurred and use of heroin disseminated fast, no image of
crisis appeared. According to the government, the phenomenon of drugs
had become a fact that society had to adjust to.
The problem population contained three categories: experimental
users, regular (integrated) users, and addicts. Society's reactions would
be aimed at preventing the first two categories from switching to the
use of drugs with an unacceptable risk.


Assistance

The Dutch committee's recommendations on assistance were quite
diffuse. The implementation of assistance was left to non-governmental
assistance organisations and it abstained from setting goals for
assistance. The governments, on the other hand, stated explicitly that
the goal for treatment of addicts would be abstinence. However, in 1976
the government added the possible goal of stabilising drug use and
outlined the structure of a categorised organisation with specified roles
for both traditional and alternative agencies. Traditional treatment-
oriented assistance would aim at ending addiction. Alternative
assistance would aim at encountering addicts and if possible motivating
them to enter treatment. The CADs were assigned an important role in
regional assistance systems and co-ordination with prosecution offices
and police was regarded as essential, especially for users of drugs with
an unacceptable risk. Furthermore, the government tried to sharpen the
practice of methadone prescription to heroin addicts by allocating it
within categorised assistance and excluding GPs and other physicians
that did not co-operate with assistance. The government was sceptical
towards the use of methadone as a means to reduce drug-related crime.
Psychiatric compulsory care of addicts was an option but was seldom
applied to addicts because psychiatrists did not consider addiction a
mental disease. Instead, penal law provisions on conditional indictment
or conditional sentence could be used to persuade addicts to enter
treatment.
Concerning juvenile care there were no institutions for treatment of
young abusers. Admission to regular juvenile care solely for drug abuse
was not known.


Control

In the Dutch Opium Act, penalties for trade in drugs with an
unacceptable risk were sharpened considerably. Concerning cannabis,
special provisions were created. Possession of cannabis up to 30 grams
was made a misdemeanour. However, possession of such quantities
would receive low priority according to guidelines from the Chief
Prosecutor. The provisions on cannabis in the Dutch Opium Act can be
considered a compromise. The Dutch government was squeezed
between massive criticism against the harsh prosecution of drug users
and those who advocated the traditional hard line and compliance with
the obligations of the Single Convention.
Resources for police and in particular intelligence service were
reinforced. Cutting off the supply of drugs was not perceived as a
realistic solution to the drug problem. The central position of the
country in the international trade and transport system made this
practically impossible. Consequently, customs were hardly mentioned.
Nevertheless, actions against trade in drugs, and hard drugs in
particular, were important to confine the problem. Addicts were
victims, in need of treatment.
A policy of dividing the drug markets was adopted to prevent young
people who experimented with cannabis from encountering dealers in
hard drugs. The phenomenon of house dealers in youth centres could
not be dealt with in the Opium Act but was a matter for guidelines from
the Chief Prosecutor.


Prevention

The Dutch government judged that it had limited ability to change
unfavourable social conditions that were perceived as a causal factor of
the drug problem. Concerning prevention by legal measures to prevent
the availability of illegal drugs, the Dutch government referred to the
failure of the repressive control policy to prevent the emergence of the
drug problem. Information was regarded as a weak means to prevent
addiction but could change the attitudes and behaviour of the
population. However, the content of information would be neutral and
provide people with knowledge that would enable them to make their
own decision on drug use. Information that presumably could stimulate
drug use was undesirable. However, different opinions were inherent in
a democratic society and the state had no mandate to interfere.
Organisations that propagated scary messages, however, would be
excluded from governmental funding.
Selective attention to the drug problem was a troublesome
development because it could distract attention from other forms of
risky behaviour. Selective information would be restricted to risk
groups.


The international context

The obligations imposed by the Single Convention were regarded as an
obstacle to the elaboration of a national drug policy. The conclusion
that integrated use was possible and did occur, was a definite break with
the view expressed in the preamble of the Single Convention in which
all illegal drug use is described as evil. The Dutch government aimed at
a change of the Single Convention in order to enable a policy that
would fit the Dutch situation. Similar arrangements concerning
cannabis in other countries, e.g. the US, were cited to underpin the
Dutch policy proposals.
The Netherlands did not sign the Convention on Psychotropic
Substances that in Sweden was considered an important improvement.
The formal reason for not signing the Convention was that national
control was sufficient. Furthermore, the new Convention required a new
administration and bureaucracy that according to the Dutch government
did not outweigh its benefits. One may also presume that discussions on
the restrictions implied by the Conventions on the possibilities to pursue
a national drug policy at that time were an underlying reason.