Drug Abuse

Drugs policy in the Netherlands: The history of drugs policy in the Netherlands

1. Introduction and definition of problem

1.1. The history of drugs policy in the Netherlands*

In the 1960s and 1970s the use of drugs such as cannabis products and opiates increased considerably in Western Europe and North America and there were fears in many quarters that this would result in an explosive health problem. It was partly for this reason that new international and national policy frameworks were established during this period to combat drug abuse. Since then, levels of consumption of the various types of drugs in the countries in question have fluctuated considerably; shifts in consumption from one drug to another have also occurred. In some countries, total use has increased; in others, including the Netherlands, drug consumption appears to have stabilised at the level it reached around 1980.

The use of cannabis and opiates has not fallen dramatically, let alone been eradicated. For those who hoped that firm government policy would achieve this the results are disappointing. However, given previous international experience of tackling markets in illegal products or services it seemed likely that government intervention would have only a limited effect. It is partly for this reason that the policy pursued in the Netherlands has always had the more modest objective of bringing or keeping the use of dangerous drugs, as a health and social problem, under control. In terms of this objective drugs policy in the Netherlands has achieved some success. The use of the drugs in question has not become much more prevalent in the Netherlands than it was in the 1970s and from a medical point of view consumption has also not become a more serious problem. The use of nicotine and alcohol takes an incomparably higher toll on people's health in the Netherlands (as indeed it does in other parts of the Western world) than the use of all the drugs covered by the Opium Act together*.

Following the recommendations of the Working Party on Narcotics (1972)*, the government of the day saw no reason to base its policy on the idea that any use of the drugs concerned in itself represented an unacceptable risk to society. Whether or not such a risk existed would depend partly on the circumstances in which the drugs were used and the extent of their use. It was in the light of these factors that the prevention and control of the risks of drug use to society and individuals were made the primary objective of policy.

This drugs policy has never been amended*. It means that the government's role is to prevent young people in particular from unthinkingly starting to use drugs without knowing enough about them or under the influence of other people, and to make medical and/or social assistance available to drug users with problems, in order to alleviate their plight (harm reduction).

On the basis of scientific criteria, legislation in the Netherlands distinguishes between drugs which present an unacceptable risk to health and cannabis products, the risks arising from which are considered less serious (i.e. between hard and soft drugs). The Dutch view is that the interests which have to be protected by the criminal law are primarily health interests. In the Netherlands drugs policy is therefore differentiated according to the seriousness of the potential damage to health which may be caused by the use or abuse of the drug in question.

As in many other countries, the use of drugs in itself is not an offence in the Netherlands*. Users of hard drugs are regarded as patients rather than criminals. Accordingly, a comprehensive, differentiated set of preventive measures and care facilities has been established. The judicial authorities have always followed the principle that drug addicts should undergo medical treatment rather than serve a custodial sentence. Despite the sometimes disappointing results of treatment and/or the recidivism that occurs, this standpoint has been firmly adhered to and new ways of putting it into practice have constantly been sought.

Dutch policy on drug addicts aims to limit the risks and damage caused by drugs and so to ensure the integration of drug users in society. Prevention, out-patient care and residential care are all in the hands of experts who work within professionally managed organisations. The Netherlands spends approximately NLG 160 million per annum on the care of addicts (including clinics and out-patient care). This is a large figure compared with what other countries spend. The treatment concerned is not aimed exclusively at ensuring the total abstinence of all addicts (i.e. that all ex-addicts keep away from drugs altogether); the intention as far as certain closely defined target groups are concerned is to improve their medical condition and the way they function in society. This can be achieved, for example, by providing good medical care, by providing methadone, by operating needle exchange systems and by providing various kinds of day and night reception centres.

As elsewhere, however, drugs policy in the Netherlands is also aimed at raising the threshold for the use of hard drugs as much as possible by the strict use of the criminal law. In the Netherlands as elsewhere the purchase of hard drugs is illegal and the detection of criminal organisations involved in trafficking in any drugs (hard or soft) has for many years been a top priority of the Dutch criminal investigation authorities. The considerable efforts made by the investigation and surveillance services are apparent, for example, from the large quantities of drugs which have been seized (cf. section 5.2). The main elements of the policy are thus in line with international models. Production and trafficking are dealt with severely under the criminal law, in accordance with the UN Single Convention. Each year the Public Prosecutions Department deals with an average of 10,000 cases involving infringements of the Opium Act.

The work involved in the detection and prosecution of offenders imposes considerable burdens on the police and the judiciary. In monetary terms NLG 270 million a year is spent on tackling drug trafficking. At least a further NLG 370 million is spent tackling the crime committed by drug addicts (often property offences). The capacity of the Dutch prison system has been increased in the last ten years from five thousand to twelve thousand places. It is no exaggeration to say that efforts to curb drug trafficking using the criminal law are the most important reason for the increase in the prison population.

While the Netherlands government regards the use of soft drugs as risky, the control strategy is more differentiated than that for hard drugs because the risks are less serious. As in a number of states in the United States and certain other places, the possession of a small quantity of soft drugs for personal use has been decriminalised; that is to say that it is classified as a summary offence rather than an indictable offence. The legislation thus emphasises that the use of the criminal law to tackle the use of soft drugs should not result in the stigmatisation and social marginalisation of users.

Dutch policy on the use of cannabis is based on the assumption that people are more likely to make the transition from soft to hard drugs as a result of social factors than because of physiological ones. If young adults wish to use soft drugs - and experience has shown that many do - the Netherlands believes that it is better that they should do so in a setting in which they are not exposed to the criminal subculture surrounding hard drugs. Tolerating relatively easy access to quantities of soft drugs for personal use is intended to keep the consumer markets for soft and hard drugs separate, thus creating a social barrier to the transition from soft to hard drugs.

After a while the practical result of this principle was that the judicial authorities came to tolerate the sale of soft drugs in youth clubs by bona fide house dealers. This was followed by the establishment of "coffee shops", where soft drugs are sold commercially to people who have reached the age of majority.

In almost all countries which suffer from drug problems the police and judicial authorities are forced to set priorities in the detection and prosecution of offenders who have committed drug-related crimes. Large-scale, cross-border trafficking in hard drugs has the highest priority everywhere, the lowest being assigned to small-scale trafficking in and the possession of soft drugs. This system of priorities is shared, for example, by large parts of the United States of America, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. Only rarely are people still prosecuted in these countries for the possession of small quantities of soft drugs. To all intents and purposes the possession of a few grammes for personal use is no longer an offence there.

In Germany, for example, in accordance with the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe (9 March 1994) a person will no longer be prosecuted on the grounds of having committed an indictable offence if he or she is found to be in possession of a quantity of cannabis deemed to be for personal use. Soft drugs are bought and sold and used on a large scale in and near places of entertainment frequented by young people in the big cities in all the above-mentioned countries. Soft drugs are readily available to young people in towns and cities all over the Western world*. As stated above, to protect these users from criminal circles, small-scale trafficking in "soft" drugs which meets certain strict criteria is also given such low priority as regards detection and prosecution that essentially no action is taken against it in the Netherlands. In other places too the buying and selling of small quantities of soft drugs is allowed to go on more or less unhindered (in neighbouring German Länder for example) but, in accordance with national principles of criminal procedure this low priority is set out in the Netherlands in detailed published guidelines from the Public Prosecutions Department.

This official policy of tolerating soft drugs does not mean that the Netherlands has a more lenient, let alone a more positive attitude to the use of soft drugs; rather it is based on the consideration that tolerating the sale of soft drugs under clear conditions helps prevent the use by young people of more dangerous drugs. The Netherlands' policy on coffee shops is also based on the idea of harm reduction.

Drugs policy in the Netherlands: Note 1

Drugs policy in the Netherlands: Current situation and evaluation

1.2. Current situation and evaluation

In assessing drugs policy in the Netherlands the main consideration must be the results achieved in practice. Because of the illegal nature of drug use, statistics on it depend on estimates compiled on the basis of information from the police and care agencies, among others. However, there is an unknown "dark number" of drug users who have no contact with any official body. Estimates of the real extent of drug use are often based in part on population surveys. Those questioned may not always admit to drug use, however, again because of its illegality. Moreover, the most problematic groups in particular are often under-represented in the sample populations used.

In general, it can be assumed that the less illegal the use of a drug is, the more complete the picture will be which the authorities and researchers have of such use. As stated previously, the use of soft drugs was decriminalised in the Netherlands in the 1970s. It is true that the use of hard drugs does involve some illegality but care is easy to obtain throughout the Netherlands. Care agencies assume that they have regular contact with at least two-thirds of all drug addicts. As a result, the authorities in the Netherlands has a much better picture of the extent and nature of drug use than do those in other countries.

If one considers the available statistics on the use of drugs in various countries against this background, the following picture emerges.

The extent and nature of the use of soft drugs in the Netherlands does not differ from the pattern in other Western countries*. In recent years use has once again been considerably higher in other countries (including the United States) than in the Netherlands. This is also true as far as use among minors is concerned*. The decriminalisation which took place in the 1970s did not lead to an increase in the use of soft drugs among young people then either. The Dutch objective of protecting young adults who wish to use soft drugs at a certain stage in their lives from the world of hard drugs has also proved to be a realistic one. Only a very small proportion of the young people who use soft drugs make the transition to hard drugs.

The view held by some that the use of cannabis products alone causes a physiological or psychological need to use hard drugs as well - what is known as the stepping stone theory - has been belied by actual developments in the Netherlands*. Dutch young people who use soft drugs are perfectly well aware of the greater dangers of using hard drugs such as heroin and have no great desire to experiment with them. In the Netherlands the percentage of soft drugs users who also go on to use hard drugs is relatively low. In the light of these findings the stepping stone theory should be regarded as one of the many myths in circulation about the use of drugs, though one which under certain circumstances could become a self-fulfilling prophecy: by treating the use of cannabis products and hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine in the same way may in fact make it more likely that cannabis- smokers will come into contact with hard drugs. Moreover, equating the one with the other undermines the credibility of the information provided about drugs to young people.

No matter how much opinions on drugs policy may vary, there is a broad consensus on the ultimate criterion according to which the effectiveness of any national drugs policy should be measured. This is of course the number of hard drug addicts, especially the number of hard drug users under the age of 21, and changes in those numbers.

Tabel 1 provides an overview of the estimated number of hard drug addicts in various countries.

 

International comparative prevalence figures on hard drug addicts

---

 

	Number of Addicts	Inhabitants (millions)	Per 1000 of population
Netherlands	25,000	15.1	1.6
Germany	100,000/120,000	79.8	1.3/1.5
Belgium	17,500	10.0	1.8
Luxembourg	2,000	0.4	5.0
France	135,000/150,000	57.0	2.4/2.6
United Kingdom	150,000	57.6	2.6
Denmark	10,000	5.1	2.0
Sweden	13,500	8.6	1.6
Norway	4,500	4.3	1.0
Switzerland	26,500/45,000	6.7	4.0/6.7
Austria	10,000	7.8	1.3
Italy	175,000	57.8	3.0
Spain	120,000	39.4	3.0
Greece	35,000	10.1	3.5
Portugal	45,000	10.0	4.5
Ireland	2,000	3.5	0.6

 

Sources: Bosman and Van Es (1993); Bless, Korf, Freeman, Urban drug policies in Europe 1993 (1993); WHO regional office for Europe, European summary on drug abuse, first report: 1985-1990 (1992); Commis- sion of the European Communities, Second Report on drug demand reduction in the European Community (1992); Bossong (1994); Van Cauwenberghe et al. 1993 (Belgium).

---

Various experts estimate that there are about 25,000 hard drug addicts in the Netherlands*. This is equivalent to 0.16 percent of the population. As stated above, this estimate is reliable, partly because in the Netherlands care agencies manage to maintain contact with a relatively high proportion of drug addicts.

It is not possible to make a clear comparison with estimated numbers of hard drug addicts in other European countries because of methodological uncertainties but it is likely that the "dark number" is higher in certain other countries, where care agencies reach fewer addicts, than it is in the Netherlands. The estimates which do exist, however, suggest that the number of hard drug addicts per 100,000 inhabitants in the Netherlands is low in comparison with the European average of 2.7 and indeed considerably lower than in France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Switzerland, for example. Annex I contains an overview of the estimated numbers of drug addicts in a number of European countries, according to a number of sources. All estimates suggest that the number of addicts in the Netherlands is relatively low.

What is particularly pleasing is that in the Netherlands the number of heroin users under the age of 21 is relatively low, even among vulnerable groups, and has continued to fall in recent years*. Nor has the use of cheaper forms of cocaine made any real inroads as was feared a few years ago on account of developments in the United States and elsewhere*.

Increases in the numbers of young users are probably partly prevented by the "loser" image which has come to be attached to heroin addicts. The presence of older addicts who are in a serious state of degeneration in some socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods constitutes compelling propaganda against the use of heroin. The lack of repressive action by the police against addicts purely on account of their drug use and the ease with which they can obtain the substitute methadone prevent the lifestyle of addicts being seen by young people as an expression of social or cultural rebellion.

The number of fatalities resulting from drugs overdoses in the Netherlands is small. According to a report by the United Nations, 42 people died in the Netherlands from drugs-related causes in 1991. The figure for Belgium was 82, Denmark 188, France 411, Germany 2,125, Italy 1,382, the United Kingdom 307 and for Spain 479. In the United States there were 5,830 such deaths*. The number of deaths from drugs per 100,000 of the population is thus at least twice as high in other countries as it is in the Netherlands and here, unlike in other parts of the world, it is not rising.

The Netherlands also has a relatively small number of people suffering from AIDS among its drug addicts. In southern European countries in particular, the percentage of drug users who are infected is considerably higher. The accessibility of care services, including needle exchange systems, and the broad public information campaigns which have been conducted, have resulted in considerable risk reductions in intravenous drug use. The proportion of drug addicts in the total HIV positive population is relatively small*. Research has shown that almost 60% of heroin-addicted prostitutes now use condoms, as against 20% in 1986*. This also has the effect of helping to prevent the spread of AIDS outside high risk groups.

The Netherlands thus also compares favourably with neighbouring countries as regards mortality and morbidity among addicts. The harm reduction policy, including the large-scale methadone programmes and needle exchange systems, which was started in the Netherlands in the 1970s, has been relatively successful. It has also helped limit the spread of the AIDS epidemic.

All in all, it may be legitimately concluded that the Netherlands' policy on drugs has had some practical success in health terms.

Drugs policy in the Netherlands: Complications and new trends

1.3. Complications and new trends

Despite the fact that in international terms the situation as regards public health is not unfavourable, the use of drugs and everything that goes with it constitutes an acute, major social and administrative problem in the Netherlands as elsewhere. In tackling this problem three complications arise: the nuisance problem, the involvement of organised crime in drug trafficking, and criticism from abroad of imagined and real external effects.

Firstly, a small proportion of hard drug addicts cause a considerable nuisance to their fellow citizens. They commit a large number of property offences, in order to obtain the money to buy drugs. Contrary to expectations, the fact that methadone is easily obtainable as a substitute has scarcely improved the situation at all. Approximately twenty percent of addicts have an extremely unconventional lifestyle, in which living on the streets, multiple drug use and crime form mutually reinforcing elements*. The sale of drugs, drug-related crime and certain types of anti-social behaviour by addicts, such as throwing away used needles in public places, mean that the tolerance levels of residents in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the big cities in particular are chronically exceeded. In some cases this has resulted in residents taking the law into their own hands by, for instance, removing drug addicts from their neighbourhood by force (and/or closing the street to French drug tourists).

Of course, the use of drugs can never excuse damage and nuisance to other people. The government must set limits to the criminality of and nuisance caused by some addicts, irrespective of the objectives of its drugs policy. Partly because the size of the target group makes it a manageable one - about 5,000 addicts indulge in extremely anti-social behaviour - the government regards it as its duty to achieve results in this area in the short term and thus to provide some prospect of a permanent solution to this problem.

The residents of some municipalities have also complained about the nuisance caused by the presence of coffee shops, such as the attraction of large numbers of noisy visitors (including some from abroad) indulging in anti-social behaviour*. The nuisance caused by coffee shops is different from that caused by the hard drugs scene. In part it is the same as that caused by catering establishments in general, but in some municipalities residents living near coffee shops are subjected to excessive nuisance, partly because of drug tourists from abroad. There is no justification at all for this. These undesirable side-effects of the policy on coffee shops are undermining public support for the policy and for this reason too they must be eliminated. This is particularly true in the case of nuisance caused by bars licensed to sell alcohol where, in contravention of the local authority policy on catering establishments, cannabis is also sold. Strong measures will also have to be taken against coffee shops where illegal activities are conducted, such as trafficking in hard drugs, arms trading or handling stolen goods. The limits to official toleration must be more stringent.

The second complication is the rise of criminal organisations involved in the supply and sale of drugs. Although by definition there are no exact figures as regards such organisations, there is no doubt that professional criminals involved to some extent or mainly in drug trafficking have been able considerably to expand their activities over the last ten years, both internationally and in the Netherlands. It is estimated that worldwide profits of some 500 billion guilders are made from drug trafficking each year*. Estimates of the annual turnover of hard and soft drugs in the Netherlands vary somewhat. It appears that the estimate of NLG 5.5 billion per year made in the policy document "Georganiseerde criminaliteit: dreigingsbeeld en plan van aanpak" (Organised Crime: Analysis of the Threat and Plan of Approach) (Parliamentary papers II 1992-93, 22838, no. 1) should now be regarded as a minimum estimate. More up-to-date estimates are of NLG 10 billion*.

The increasing economic importance of organised crime is also evident from the fact that in 1994 2,600 reports were made by financial institutions to the Unusual Transactions Disclosures Office ("Meldpunt Ongebruikelijke Transacties") which were then passed on to the judicial authorities as "suspect". About half of these suspicious transactions were related to drug trafficking.

The increasing activity and economic power of what are in many cases international criminal organisations are a threat to democracy and the rule of law and naturally evoke a response from the government, for instance in the form of greater powers and extra resources for the police and the judicial authorities. The banks and relevant professions are also brought in to help in the prevention and detection of money laundering. The amounts of money involved have reached such enormous proportions that the integrity of certain parts of the economy is increasingly being put to the test. One factor which complicates policy is the fact that money movements pay less and less heed to national frontiers.

The scope of measures taken under the criminal law and of preventive action is gradually increasing. This development inevitably means that companies and individuals are asked to make sacrifices, in the form of additional burdens and limitations to civil rights and freedoms, in the public interest. In order to protect themselves from this joint offensive, criminal organisations in turn attempt to corrupt police officers, members of the judiciary and bank staff, as well as those in the professions. This then leads to the introduction or tightening up of codes of ethics. The vicious circle which has arisen around drug trafficking imposes ever greater costs on society. In some parts of the United States prison costs are such a burden on the government budget that other public provisions, such as education, are at risk.

According to some critics the cost of drugs policy is no longer in any way proportional to the benefits it produces. Looked at in this light, the parliamentary inquiry which is currently being conducted into such issues as the admissibility of the detection methods used in investigating criminal organisations is also concerned with certain controversial side-effects of the policy on drug trafficking.

The third complication is the effect Dutch policy has in other countries. The sometimes fierce criticism of that policy from foreign governments is in part due to an inadequate understanding of what is going on. This means that the background to and objectives and actual effects of the Netherlands' policy on drugs must be communicated more effectively to an international audience. Criticism also arises on account of fundamentally different views on the role of government as regards the use of substances which may pose risks by adult members of society. Such differences are also revealed in the policies of European governments in respect of the regulation of markets in alcohol and cigarettes. There are also differences of opinion as regards the medical risks of certain drugs.

The Netherlands' view that cannabis products entail less serious health risks than hard drugs and thus require a different approach, is not even shared by all the countries of the European Union. Recent reports from abroad by authoritative experts on drugs support the distinction made in Dutch law between soft and hard drugs*. Criticism based on views about the health risks for which no support can any longer be found in the scientific literature can of course not be grounds for amending Dutch policy. The response should rather be exchange programmes involving scientists and government officials.

The ideological nature of some foreign criticism should not be allowed to conceal the fact that the Dutch policy does entail problems which affect other countries. The Netherlands and the Dutch are indisputably responsible for a more than proportional share of trafficking in certain drugs.

The police estimate that there are about a hundred criminal organisations active in the Netherlands, the vast majority of which are involved in drug trafficking*. Residents of the Netherlands of foreign origin, who maintain close links with criminal organisations in their country of origin, are heavily over-represented in those criminal organisations engaged in trafficking in hard drugs. Organisations comprising primarily residents of Dutch origin traffic mainly in soft drugs. Supplying the home market forms only a small part of the activities of these organisations. They are also involved in the transit of soft drugs through the Netherlands and in international trafficking. Lastly, the Netherlands is an important country of production for amphetamines and ecstasy.

Part of the reason for the Netherlands' involvement in drug trafficking stems from the country's geographical position. The Netherlands is the main gateway to Europe for a great many goods. Moreover, partly because of its cosmopolitan atmosphere, Amsterdam in particular is an international meeting place. The use of the existing infrastructure for drug trafficking cannot entirely be prevented, as was pointed out in 1985 in the policy document on society and crime (Samenleving en Criminaliteit).

The Netherlands government puts a great deal of effort into the detection and prosecution of international drug trafficking via Dutch ports and Schiphol airport. In the years ahead there will be greater participation in international investigations, partly as a result of the establishment of a national investigation team. However, given the volume and speed of the flow of goods, it will never be possible to make the port of Rotterdam, for example, completely free of drugs, any more than any other international port.

The governments of some neighbouring countries are concerned about the cross-border effects of Dutch policy. The bones of contention are in particular the relatively low prices at which it has been possible to buy certain hard drugs in the Netherlands in recent years (though the same is now also true in Belgium), and the export of supplies of soft drugs bought in coffee shops in the Netherlands.

The lower prices on the illegal heroin market cannot simply be attributed to Dutch policy on production and supply. Contrary to what is sometimes believed abroad, considerable efforts go into the detection of trafficking in hard drugs in the Netherlands, as explained above, and those convicted of this offence are punished severely. The rapid expansion of Dutch prison capacity bears witness to this. The crucial factor is the massive supply of hard drugs on the international market, as has been confirmed by regular reports from the UN. The consumer market price is in part determined by local demand for certain drugs. As in a number of other countries, so in the Netherlands the popularity of heroin has declined quite considerably recently, while at the same time the existing population of older addicts is supplied on a large scale with substitute substances such as methadone.

It may be assumed that the falling demand for heroin has pushed prices down. This is not to deny that the low prices do attract foreigners seeking out hard drugs; for that reason, among others, they are a cause for concern. Detection efforts in respect of hard drugs in particular, including ecstasy, must be stepped up. Policy intentions in this regard are discussed in detail in chapter five of the present policy document.

It is undeniable that in municipalities along the borders the coffee shops do attract foreign customers. Where countries have different policies on the sale of strong drink or other goods, such as weapons, there is also cross-border traffic specifically geared to those goods. While differences in policy exist such "smuggling" cannot entirely be prevented. Now that it has been decided in the framework of the Schengen Agreement that existing differences between the states concerned as regards their drug policies will be respected, these side-effects must to a certain extent be accepted.

However, under the Schengen Agreement the Netherlands government took upon itself the obligation to do all it could to combat the undesirable international side-effects in the implementation of its own policy*. The Netherlands government may be expected to do everything within its power to keep the export of soft drugs bought in coffee shops to a minimum. The Netherlands' neighbours have every right to call it to account in this regard.

Drugs policy in the Netherlands: Principles of future policy

1.4. Principles of future policy

Given the relatively good results which have been achieved, we do not believe that there is any reason for a fundamental re- examination of drugs policy in the Netherlands, which is primarily geared to controlling the harm done to people's health. Equally there is no need for any major amendments to it. Radical amendments might even have the reverse of the intended effect and harm health. However, the three complications discussed above - the nuisance problem, the involvement of organised crime in drug trafficking, and foreign criticism of certain external effects of the policy - do mean that a careful analysis of the problems which arise from the way in which the policy is implemented must be carried out, and adjustments made where necessary. It was agreed in the government policy accord that the relatively successful Dutch approach to the drugs problem should be continued, although new nuances should be introduced and new avenues explored. The control of nuisance was to receive particular attention.

The policy also needs to be amended in line with the constantly changing circumstances as regards both supply and demand in the various drugs markets. Changes in the composition and social background of user groups and the arrival of new drugs mean that new measures are required. The stabilisation of the heroin addict population in the Netherlands now means that care for addicts must be directed at older clients with serious physical and psychological problems. As has already been said, the popularity of heroin among young people has declined enormously; at the same time, the number of people addicted to primary cocaine appears still to be small. "Designer drugs", such as ecstasy, on the other hand, are increasing in popularity, both at events such as raves and elsewhere. These drugs require a different approach.

Finally, the attitude of the general public to drug addicts also appears to have changed. On the one hand, people have to some extent got used to certain forms of drug use; on the other, drug addiction is less and less regarded as an excuse for causing damage or harm to others. People are now less tolerant of crime, nuisance and other anti-social behaviour from drug addicts.

Precisely because drugs policy in the Netherlands is so pragmatic we must be very open, critical and flexible in our response to these changes. Appropriate - that is to say realistic - answers must be found to the complications which have arisen and to the new trends.

As part of the debate in the Netherlands on the complications arising from drugs policy, it has been suggested by various commentators that the sale of both soft and hard drugs should be largely or even totally legalised*. The government has consulted on the desirability and feasibility of the legalisation proposals and has reached the following conclusions.

In accordance with Dutch views on the harmfulness of the various forms of drugs, a distinction should be made between the legalisation of hard drugs and that of soft drugs. The harmfulness of hard drugs means that there must be overwhelming objections to any policy amendment which might result in an increase in the number of users, on account of the health risks. Those in favour of legalisation are too inclined to ignore this objection. Although we cannot be certain about this, there must be a danger that legalisation, irrespective of how it was carried out, would increase the availability of the drugs in question and act as a signal to young people that such drugs were not so harmful after all. There would then be a risk that more young people would start to use hard drugs and so become addicted. The government is not prepared to take that risk. There are other arguments against legalisation too. After any form of legalisation it is probable that prices on the legal and any remaining illegal markets for hard drugs in the Netherlands would be considerably lower than in neighbouring countries. In such a situation it is inevitable that the "drug tourism", which is already so bitterly resented by the governments of neighbouring countries and indeed by local authorities in the Netherlands, would increase. The nuisance caused by drug addicts would not then fall but might even increase further.

It must also be feared that the aim of reducing criminal drug trafficking by selling hard drugs legally would turn out to be unattainable if it was only in the Netherlands that such drugs were legalised. At present, supplying the domestic market in the Netherlands is only one of the activities of the large criminal organisations. While a lucrative market for illegal drugs continues to exist elsewhere in Europe, the Netherlands, as a centrally situated transit country, will continue to have to deal with illegal drug trafficking by Dutch and international criminal organisations, and the need to take measures to combat this. Any advantages of legalisation would probably only emerge if other countries followed the same path. Moreover, it is anything but certain that even in that situation the criminal organisations would become less active. Many would simply shift their criminal activities to other sectors. In short, the government rejects the idea of legalising hard drugs.

The Netherlands believes that the health arguments play a role in respect of soft drugs too but they are less serious than in the case of hard drugs. It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of quantities of soft drugs for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy in this regard. The difference lies in the fact that cannabis users - often young people - are not regarded as criminals in the Netherlands. The effects of using cannabis are less harmful than those of using hard drugs. Nevertheless, there are dangers attached which can affect young people in particular.

The obvious comparison is with substances such as nicotine and alcohol and this will have to be reflected in policy. We endeavour to curb the use of nicotine and alcohol by limiting supplies to a certain extent and by discouraging people from using them through information campaigns and in other ways, but there is no general prohibition. Nor do we considerable it desirable for all coffee shops to be closed, but the complete legalisation of the sale of cannabis would be equally undesirable. Policy will aim to discourage the use of soft drugs as far as possible, for example by limiting the number of coffee shops, imposing a minimum age for persons wishing to buy soft drugs, prohibiting the establishment of coffee shops near schools and by providing more public information on the negative effects of cannabis.

Against this background, the preferred option might be a model in which supply was monitored by the state or strictly regulated in some other way. The analogy with the old opium monopoly of the authorities in the Dutch East Indies springs to mind. However, the introduction of any kind of permit system for the cultivation of cannabis would mean that it would have to cease to be a criminal offence - in other words, it would have to be legalised. After all, the Netherlands government cannot issue permits for or itself be involved in the commission of an offence.

As explained in annex III to this policy document, experts in the field of international criminal law are of the opinion that the international agreements ratified by the Netherlands leave no scope whatsoever for legalising the sale of drugs for recreational purposes. The 1988 UN Convention in particular compels states party to it to make the cultivation of cannabis a criminal offence. Under the terms of the Schengen Agreement the UN opium conventions must be complied with in full. Other states party to those agreements and the international organisations concerned cannot be relied upon to be accommodating in their interpretation of the Netherlands' international obligations. Legalisation would require the Netherlands not only to denounce the UN conventions in question, but also the Schengen Agreement, which requires that those conventions be adhered to. The introduction of a permit system is a route which cannot be followed on account of current obligations under international law. At the same time, it must be remembered that it is neighbouring countries which would be affected by the external effects of such a policy. For example, it is to be feared that some of the regulated supplies would always illegally be siphoned off to other countries. Legalisation of the cultivation of, trade in and sale of soft drugs would also, because entrepreneurs would no longer run any risk of prosecution, result in still lower prices on the Dutch market, which would in turn result in more drug tourism. For the municipalities along the borders that too is likely to be a prospect which is anything but attractive.

Both because of international obligations and the high level of mobility of people within the European Union, which continues to increase, the degree of availability of drugs in the Member States can only continue to differ within certain limited margins. The debate on the legalisation of drugs has thus become an intrinsically European one and one which must also be pursued within the European framework. The Netherlands can of course play an active role in that debate, for example in cooperation with certain of the German länder and in response to the above- mentioned report from the French Henrion committee. We will continue to do all we can in this context. Given the current situation, however, the government does not believe it would be acting responsibly if it were to go it alone and legalise the supply of soft drugs while neighbouring countries did not. We do believe, however, that the time has come for clarification of the limits within which people running coffee shops may carry on their activities, taking into account the options available under international law*. The coffee shops have justified their existence in the Netherlands over the last twenty years and now need to be regulated. This does not only mean refining the Public Prosecutions Department guidelines on the detection of offences and prosecution of offenders under the Opium Act, but also the introduction of administrative regulations*.

Drugs policy in the Netherlands: Conclusions

1.5. Conclusions

Improving the current policy, which from the health point of view has been successful, is preferable to a radical shift in policy with all the uncertain advantages and disadvantages that might involve. Within the parameters set by international agreements, policy on drugs in the Netherlands will continue to be primarily aimed at prevention and harm reduction. On the basis of a careful evaluation of the results which have been achieved and of the current problems, proposals will be set out in this policy document for changes to policy.

The nuisance caused by Dutch and foreign addicts must be reduced by effective means as quickly as possible. This will require coordinated efforts from administrators, the Public Prosecutions Department, care services, the police and aliens departments.

Severe measures must be taken where necessary.

The rise of organised crime constitutes a threat to democracy and the rule of law. The Dutch constitutional state must continue, both domestically and internationally, vigorously to defend itself against this threat, without of course denying its own normative principles. The detection and prosecution of drug traffickers will continue to be a top priority for the Dutch police and judicial authorities.

New and different kinds of care will be provided for addicts, partly because the problems have changed - e.g. the aging of heroin addicts and the emergence of "designer drugs".

The following chapters discuss policy on the use of hard drugs, the necessary changes in care for addicts, policy on soft drugs, and the enforcement of the Opium Act by the criminal-authorities. The policy document closes with a short summary of the most important conclusions and policy intentions.

 

 

 

 

 

< Prev		Next >