9. 2 Summary


The policy domain

As in the first generation, the Department of Justice held a key position
together with the Department of Health that had merged with the
Department of CRM. Furthermore, the international pressure on the
Dutch policy can explain the involvement of the Department of Foreign
Affairs.
Co-ordination at the departmental level was realised by the
interdepartmental steering group on drugs that possessed a central
position between the government and the cities and organisations. For
co-ordination on the local level, tripartite deliberations between the
Public Prosecutor, Chief of Police, and Lord Mayor were established.
Deliberations between the 4-G and the central state on drug policy
matters took place in regular consultations. Co-ordination and co-
operation between assistance agencies was a harder nut to crack for the
central government. Ideological contradictions on the methods and
goals of assistance were pointed out as an explanation. NGOs that were
not easy to steer by central or local governments were the main actors
in assistance and prevention.

Action groups in neighbourhoods and `junkiebonds' put pressure the
local government.


The problem definition

Heroin addiction had become the main problem and was perceived as
confined to marginalised groups and related to their social position.
Paired to the existence of a heroin structure, the subcultures constituted
the basic preconditions for the heroin problem. The situation was
perceived as severe but not as a crisis. It was a problem for some groups
of the population, but depicting it as a threat to the nation would have
been an implausible story. The drug problem was a phenomenon that
society had to cope with for an unforeseeable length of time. Strategies
to constrain the heroin problem by curing addicts had failed. Instead, a
new strategy was adopted. The normalisation and social integration of
heroin addicts in society could contribute to the reduction of the risks
for the user and society. One risk for society was nuisance caused by
certain categories of heroin addicts.
Data from the police and assistance agencies showed that the
situation had deteriorated and the number of heroin addicts was
growing fast. Data on the incidence and prevalence of cannabis use
were not mentioned and did not seem to be of any interest.


Assistance

The category of "integrated users" was excluded as a target group for
the action programme. Instead, assistance was to give priority to
developing methods adjusted to problematic drug users who
encountered difficulties in adjusting to society.
The distinction between categories of users, addicts and extreme
problematic addicts had consequences for the assistance system.
Compulsory treatment of adult addicts by psychiatry was ruled out for
practical reasons and on principle. Instead, coercion by Justice and
executed by the CADs was pronounced as an alternative. Other
possibilities for coercion were considered "weird". Municipal plans to
deal with extreme problematic addicts by heroin dispensation were
rejected by the government. The government had to decide its position
on the practice of methadone prescription. In the methadone letter from
1981, an effort was made to structure the practice of dispensing
methadone to addicts. Methadone should in principal only be prescribed
as part of other social assistance and oriented at abstinence. However,
methadone became accepted as a legitimate means in assistance aimed
at social recovery as well. Low-threshold methadone programmes were
established as a means to establish contact with addicts and to reduce
nuisance. The government legitimised the practice of separating
treatment aiming at abstinence from social rehabilitation without
demands for abstinence.


Control

Justice and police concentrated on trade in drugs with an unacceptable
risk (heroin, cocaine). Controlling the borders was not discussed as an
important contribution to reduce demand; instead, resources were
expended on intelligence activities. However, this does not imply that
no endeavours were made at all to counteract traffic in drugs. New
legislation was on its way, new techniques for intelligence were
introduced and manpower increased. This reinforcement of the control
apparatus was, however, aimed at combating organised crime in which
trade in drugs was an important part. Police measures at the street level
were directed at the category that caused nuisance to the general
population, the extreme problematic addicts.


Prevention

Selective information on the drug problem was still considered
undesirable and even a hinder to solving drug-related problems.
Information should contribute to demythologise and destigmatise heroin
addiction and enable reasonable public discussions about drug-related
problems. Information on drugs to school pupils would be integrated in
the curriculum aiming at healthy lifestyles.
Another type of prevention was to divide the market for cannabis
from markets for other drugs. Through this, it could be avoided that
cannabis users would switch to use of drugs with an unacceptable risk.


The international context

The Netherlands played down its diplomatic efforts to persuade other
countries to support a change of the provisions on cannabis in the
Single Convention. According to the government, it was not the right
time. However, providing information to rectify misconceptions about
the Dutch drug policy had to continue. The commotion about the
Kokerjuffer was a reminder that developments in the Netherlands were
looked at with Argus eyes abroad.