11 ms·

Our Dutch softdrug policy was extraordinary 30 years ago but since then has become completely gridlocked in politics. Producing is illegal. Selling and using s

Our Dutch softdrug policy was extraordinary 30 years ago but since then has become completely gridlocked in politics. Producing is illegal. Selling and using sort of legal. This crazy policy has our police force waste all their time chasing a never ending line of illegal production facilities and kept the production in the hands of criminals. We need a completely legalised product chain for softdrugs so it can be safely produced and legally traded, bought and used.

CaptSpify 10y ago
I often complain that the US has a mindset of "We're different, so what works in other countries couldn't possibly work for us!". In this case, I'm finally proud to say the opposite: It does work for us, so why couldn't it work for them? I've only been to Amsterdam once, and I don't pretend to even begin to understand their culture or politics, but legalization here in the US has been great. We've got a lot of people looking for reasons legalization has destroyed our society, and they are coming up empty handed. Meanwhile, we're making a ton of money on taxes. Is there anyone who knows why they couldn't/shouldn't follow our example?
- beat 10y ago
  The US is also interesting in that we have a very Frankish-state model with powerful state governments that can set their own policies. So early movers like Washington and Colorado can try various things, and other states can learn from them (while also being at odds with antiquated, rigid federal policy). Success in the early-mover states will inform change in other states.
  - bsimpson 10y ago
    Idealistically, that's how the US is structured. Practically, the federal government has been centralizing control since the New Deal. Since the article is about marijuana, let's use that as an example. If you believe the US is a federal republic, then you ought to be able to grow whatever plants you want in the comfort of your own home - the federal government has no business regulating that. That precise case was brought before the Supreme Court during the Bush administration, and even Scalia (who famously championed states' rights in many other decisions) consented that the federal government could regulate the private, intrastate growth of marijuana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The states that legalized marijuana could only do so because Obama is personally tolerant of it. Had he not been, he could have directed federal authorities to enforce the federal ban on marijuana - federal laws trump local ones.
    - drvdevd 10y ago
      This is true, except the battle hasn't heated up enough yet to see whether this is actually true, with respect to Marijuana specifically, and then perhaps states' rights generally. The state of California might just, by itself, choose to challenge the feds on this for example, and that would be quite interesting.
      - civilian 10y ago
        I really really hope that California does something like this. Unfortunately, California Police don't have a history of supporting state law. When the feds were busting medical marijuana shops in California, they would routinely get help from local police, and the local police would act like their lapdogs.
      - dpark 10y ago
        > except the battle hasn't heated up enough yet to see whether this is actually true In what way is it not decided? The US Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that the federal government can indeed criminalize marijuana. This isn't something that they left kind of unclear. A 6 to 3 decision affirmed that the congress can completely outlaw marijuana nationwide.
        drvdevd 10y ago
        Clearly it's not actually a question then of what the supreme court decided in 1996, because marijuana is legal multiple US states now? Thus it is a classical state VS federal issue now.
        dpark 10y ago
        It was literally the same issue in 1996. California legalized medical marijuana in spite of the federal government criminalizing it. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government won over states' rights.
        10y ago
  - civilian 10y ago
    Nitpick: Shouldn't it be "Franken-state", if you're talking about a patchwork government stitched into one nation? I feel like "Frankish-state" references the French. :)
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      It's not patchwork, it's federated.
    - coldpie 10y ago
      It does reference the French! It's a reference to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangokratia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangokratia
    - beat 10y ago
      Nope, totally different reference. It's to Machiavelli, who distinguished between "Frankish kingdoms" and "Turkish kingdoms". Turkish kingdoms have strong central governments, with local administration subservient to the center. Frankish kingdoms have a much weaker central government, with much power and decision-making in the hands of local leaders. The US is a Frankish kingdom, in Machiavellian terms.
      - thatcat 10y ago
        It seems that the us is a hybrid of the turkish and frankish models considering the split income taxation structure with signigantly more going to federal level.
        beat 10y ago
        It's not about taxation. It's about control. The big difference between the US and a Machiavellian Frankish kingdom is that we have more or less a single military, rather than each state having its own army and lending that to the central government.
    - Anthony-G 10y ago
      I think the downvoting is uncalled for. When I hear Frankish, my associations are of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire and Romanesque building boom. I wasn't aware of the Machiavelli reference until civilian legitimately queried the use of the term (in a non-snarky way).
- johnchristopher 10y ago
  > I've only been to Amsterdam once, and I don't pretend to even begin to understand their culture or politics, but legalization here in the US has been great. We've got a lot of people looking for reasons legalization has destroyed our society, and they are coming up empty handed. Meanwhile, we're making a ton of money on taxes. Is there anyone who knows why they couldn't/shouldn't follow our example? Gonna play devil's advocate: shouldn't we wait a generation or something like 10 years to evaluate the situation ?
  - bwanab 10y ago
    Starting when? Marijuana use has been widespread in the U.S. since the 1960s.
    - jerkstate 10y ago
      And legal in California for medical use for 20 years now
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I don't disagree that more testing/research/evaluation needs to be done, but AFAIU, things seem to going well enough to push this out for now. EDIT: I'd be interested to hear studies of things not going well since legalization.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    It's also incredibly different in the US in weird ways. Amsterdam is a place where you can go into any coffee shop and smoke there on premises. If you don't need to buy more, many will let you smoke and use their toilets if you buy a beer, coffee or snacks. Smoking tobacco is a part of European culture and I was surprised to see smoking allowed indoors in many places, both in the west and east (several states in Germany seemed to allow it, or at least not enforce bans; same in Croatia, Montenegro, etc.) In the Pacific North West US, tobacco smoking bans are stricter than anywhere else I've seen in the US. Few bars even have outdoor smoking areas. I have never seen smoking areas outside pot stores (I think it's illegal). This actually makes for a vastly different culture. Also in the Pacific Northwest, very few pot stores will take a foreign drivers license, even for alcohol! (In other parts of the US, people don't normally card adults -- it's really weird), so you're not going to see the same type of marijuana tourism seen in The Netherlands. I'm curious what the culture is like in other places that have approved recreational cannabis. Anyone from Colorado or Maine want to chime in?
- IMTDb 10y ago
  "We've got a lot of people looking for reasons legalization has destroyed our society, and they are coming up empty handed". Most people looking for reasons to oppose legalization are actually not saying anything in the like of "This is going to destroy our society". If you want reasons why legalization is a bad idea. Here goes one : Legalization leads increased usage of pot amongst adults [0]. Combine this with the fact that usage (not abuse) of cannabis leads to permanent damage to the brain structure. Which negatively impact memory and cognitive abilities [1]. No one here is saying that by legalizing marijuana our society is going to the middle ages. I just don't think that it is wise to legalize one more substance that has known and proven irreversible long-lasting effects on cognitive abilites of people who are most likely going to live longer and longer. Ageism of the general population is a challenge in itself. Ageism of a population that is going to suffer from symptoms of partially altered brains on top of the cognitive challenges naturally coming with age is even more difficult. [0] : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/18/colorado-marijuana-law-report-adult-usage-increases-not-kids https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/18/colorado-mar... [1] : http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16913.full http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16913.full
  - gr3yh47 10y ago
    alcohol and cigarettes are both much, much worse for health. And the PNAS study itself says that while they measured changes in the brain, the effect of the changes is not known from the study.
    - IMTDb 10y ago
      Limited Alcohol usage (not abuse) has actually very little permanent effects on health. Alcohol abuse of course has very damaging known effects. Cigarettes mainly affect lungs and pancreas. The increased risk of cancer is reduced to that of a never smoker after 20years. I am sure cigarettes would not pass legalization laws if they were "invented" right now. They are legal for historical reasons and many countries are actively trying to fight them by increased taxation, advertising rules etc. So basically, we are creating a new product we will have to fight in the future once we measure how dangerous it is. We are playing a game of "let's fight back thats dangerous product we legalized 150 years ago when we did not know the adverse effects of it." and at the same time : "Let's legalize that new stuff that we never really could measure the long lasting effects of. It looks fun and kids love it.". The paper says that it can't precisely measure the effect of those changes to cognitive issues. They just link marijuana with modified brains. If you belive that an altered brain function exactly like a non-altered one, this is your choice. But any sound safety principle should tell you to take care with that stuff IMO. There are tons of papers measure the cognitive issues that arise with pot usage. Here is just one, but look it up. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/
- bogomipz 10y ago
  >"I'm finally proud to say the opposite: It does work for us, so why couldn't it work for them?" Does the U.S know that it works yet? It's early days yet. Colorado and Washington the two states to first pass legislation legalizing marijuana did so only 4 years ago. Compare this to Amsterdam which did so almost 30 years ago. I'm not making a statement for or against legalization, but rather that 30 years of a policy vs only 4 years to conclude that "its working" is maybe not enough to to know. The majority of the 28 states that legalized it did so much more recently than 4 years ago at that.
  - drvdevd 10y ago
    The real question to ask, in the US at least, is does this work economically, in a way that makes the Cannabis industry powerful enough to challenge policy? It would appear so. Note that US state systems are almost the opposite of the Dutch systems in this regard: regulated from "seed to sale", heavily taxed, operated legally (at the state level anyway).
  - jsjohnst 10y ago
    California legalized (for medicinal purposes) marijuana far earlier than Colorado and Washington. I only mention this because you stated 28 states later, but there isn't 28 states like Colorado / Washington. Most are more similar to California's original law.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      Right, absolutely. That has changed now though in California with Prop 64. The situation in California was a bit odd. In some cities like Los Angeles, "dispensaries", the name given to marijuana shops are pretty ubiquitous. Much higher than what the population of legitimate medicinal users could support. Getting a medical marijuana card was something of a running joke. It will be interesting to see if those states that now have the original California type legislation will move to full legalization for recreational or if they simply liberalize their view on what constitutes an ailment for which marijuana is prescribed - anxiety etc.
    - DrScump 10y ago
- heisenbit 10y ago
  From what I read in this and other articles there are striking similarities caused by inconsistent policies e.g.: Netherlands: Coffee shops can only store 500g causing multiple deliveries a day exposing couriers to robbery. US: Coffee shops are excluded from the banking system exposing them to an increased risk of robbery. Rules have to make sense and be somewhat consistent otherwise side effects can be severe.
  - Balgair 10y ago
    In CO the local credit unions that are in state only are the banks for pot shops and that is where the (federally) illegal money sits. You know, just like any other business really. Yeah they are restricted to certain credit unions, but those guys are head over heels for the very lucrative business accounts. So the pot shops are excluded from inter-state banking, but they are not excluded from all banking.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >So the pot shops are excluded from inter-state banking // For real. I thought pot had been legalised in some states, how does that work - you can work legally in a field but you're not allowed to bank your proceeds, was that bill sponsored by organised crime syndicates?? Anyway, they should probably do one of those tax-dodge deals that big corps do, buy trademark rights [ostensibly from themselves] and then send the money from the trademark licensing out of state. Surely there's already a similar "method" in place, investing in movies or some crock??
      - sigstoat 10y ago
        > I thought pot had been legalised in some states... what the states think is legal, and what the feds think is legal do not, and have never had to agree. the feds have massively longer lists of illegal things than most states. state legalization generally has no effect on the feds.
        pbhjpbhj 10y ago
- posterboy 10y ago
  ... b/c zero tolerance policies
aerique 10y ago
I want to add that, in the past, we (The Netherlands) could not legalize the whole chain because of pressure from the USA and France.
- cr1895 10y ago
  And currently the stubborn opposition to change from the national government is largely due to international treaties.
- drvdevd 10y ago
  I find this so incredibly ironic: - The Netherlands chooses to (kinda) allow softdrug use and thus gains tourist income throughout the 90s and 00s (and maybe earlier?) - The US pressures them to avoid full legalization and supply chain development - US states then partly legalize two decades later, and quickly surpass the Dutch system in size, scope, and income What should the Dutch learn from this?
  - funnyfacts365 10y ago
    Dutch should learn their adoration for the US is misguided and hurts more than helps.
    - pmoriarty 10y ago
      Why does this adoration exist, do you think?
drvdevd 10y ago
I predict that this will be a major issue in the US, very soon. We too, have a quasi-legal system, if very different from the Dutch policies. Our incoming administration will have to contend with an industry that has grown large reasonably quickly, and with a conflicting Federal policy. States that have chosen legalization want this money now. Many citizens from across the social spectrum have staked their livelihoods on it. If this becomes a states rights issue, and the Feds choose to switch policy and start raiding, things could go downhill quickly for the administration. Of course none of this has anything to do with softdrugs or cannabis. It's all about control and money. I suspect the Dutch policy shift has similar economic motives somewhere below the surface.
AndyMcConachie 10y ago
American-Dutch person here. This article misses a few key points. 1) Dutch softdrug laws are heavily influenced by other/bigger EU countries like France and Italy that don't like their citizens visiting NL and using, or bringing back drugs. Hence the closings of coffee shops in border areas. 2) Closing of window prostitution in Amsterdam is a completely different issue than closing of coffeeshops. There might be a moral argument for both, but in my cynical mind most of the windows being shutdown have more to do with snapping up key real estate in the middle of the city than anything else. Some people claim it is about cleaning up the criminality, but I think it's just connected people getting better access to good real estate. 3) There might be a real estate angle to the closing of coffeeshops as well, but I'm not as familiar with it to really say. Amsterdam, like other major cities, has started to see an influx in foreign capital buying up homes for investment purposes. It's rather disgusting and has lead to rises in home prices in the city.
- Freestyler_3 10y ago
  on 2. the official statements have always been that it is to stop human trafficking (indeed cleaning up criminals). If there is a conspiracy behind it, I don't know. on 3. I know that in my city the coffeeshop rents the building, rent protection law does not allow the owner to kick a renter out without very good reason (not going to get specific here). The owner (renting company) wants the coffeeshop out, it has tried more than once. They want to re-purpose the building and make more money of the big building in the centre of the city.
  - mercer 10y ago
    My guess would be that is that it's not an outright conspiracy, but opportunism by individual actors (circumvrenting rent protection for example, or populism) combined with a general push toward making the city center more proper for all sorts of reasons that affect a lot of popular cities (rising value, 'fancy' tourists, etc.). I think it's a sign of a bigger societal/urban change, and that the bigger, underlying problem is rapidly increasing segregation. My experience with any coffeeshop is that the vast majority of its clientele is, off the top of my head: 1) left-wingish 'hippie' type, 2) muslims/'ethnic' groups, 3) working-class individuals or 4) a certain subset of tourists. Most coffeeshops have at least a whiff of seediness. anyways, what all these groups have in common is that they're not particularly liked by those who have a stake in the future of urban centers. These places should be clean, expensive, commercial, and acceptable to as many people as possible.
pmyjavec 10y ago
I agree, after living there for a while I couldn't really see the sense in allowing people to consume or sell something that was produced illegally. Anyway, it's as shame to see things going backwards in Netherlands ;(
bgentry 10y ago
The Vice show Weediquette had a good episode [1] where they looked at these aspects of the cannabis industry in The Netherlands. It's bizarre that the coffee shops are fully allowed to sell something that there is no legal way to produce or acquire in the country. The government even prosecutes many distributors and growers. And they wonder why organized crime is having such an impact on that industry? [1]: https://www.viceland.com/en_us/video/half-baked/56fae505be4ad699153772c4 https://www.viceland.com/en_us/video/half-baked/56fae505be4a...
kelseydh 10y ago
It's funny, I was in Amsterdam this year and different from the experience of most of my international visitors, the whole place felt restrictive in terms of marijuana, not liberated. Denver, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver / Victoria (Canada) and parts of California now have what I believe to be much more liberal "marijuana cultures" than Amsterdam now. Vancouver literally has hundreds of marijuana dispensaries in its downtown even though pot is still technically illegal in Canada (for now.) The Dutch coffeeshop model was cutting edge back in the 90's when no one else was doing it, but as you said it's incredibly outdated compared to the explosion of high quality dispensaries we are seeing across the Pacific coastal areas of Canada and the U.S.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  I don't know about that. The dispensaries in California only allow sale to people for medicinal purposes, and only with permission from a doctor. California has recently legalized marijuana possession for non-medical (recreational) use, but there's still no legal way today to sell marijuana in California for non-medical purposes (though that should be coming in a couple of years). Meanwhile, in the Netherlands you didn't need permission from a doctor or anyone else to buy marijuana from a coffeshop. Recreational marijuana use was implicitly sanctioned -- something that most of the United States still has a problem with (though a handful of states are changing their mind). Then there's the Federal laws against any kind of marijuana use, a very hard-headed, close-minded policy that forbids even the use of purely medicinal marijuana derivatives without psychoactive effects, much less recreational use. Finally, there's the issue of drug testing, which no states (to my knowledge) have opposed. So you could still be effectively be prevented from using marijuana if you have to submit to drug tests or anti drug policies at your place of work.
  - kelseydh 10y ago
    I will clarify that most of my experience is with the Pacific Northwest of U.S. and Canada, most of which now enjoys defacto legalization driven in part by the medical loophole.
rmason 10y ago
The article sounds like they're not selling drugs on the street. That wasn't my experience when I visited Amsterdam. On certain streets every couple of hundred feet there was some pusher asking if I wanted drugs. By the third day or so I was getting really annoyed with them. I was also offered drugs in a couple of nightclubs that I visited. I don't ever remember visiting a place where the drug sellers were so aggressive. It's a very beautiful city and I recommended visiting. The people were friendly, the food fabulous and I would like to get back there some day.
- cr1895 10y ago
  >On certain streets every couple of hundred feet there was some pusher asking if I wanted drugs. By the third day or so I was getting really annoyed with them. Get out of the RLD! The street dealers are a truly obnoxious blight on the city, but they are really only concentrated in certain areas. They prey on the gullible, party-driven young tourists on stag-dos and the like. Most often what they sell is fake, and infamously some years ago one fool was selling white heroin as cocaine, leading to several deaths and a city-wide campaign to encourage people to ignore street dealers and not to fear punishment for seeking medical help.
  - mercer 10y ago
    Maybe things changed in the past year, but my experience is exactly as you describe. In my entire time in Amsterdam I was never approached by dealers, except when I was in the Red Light District. Even after almost a decade, entering the RLD is still a bit of a 'culture shock'. (and even much of the RLD is dealer-free; it's specific streets)
    - NamTaf 10y ago
      This was also my experience when I visited a few months ago. I didn't once get approached on the streets, but I certainly noticed that the RLD was a different culture (including one guy approaching someone else as a 'friend' then trying to start a fight with him in order to probably mug him). I can imagine that pushers are through that area but I guess I look big and ugly enough that they didn't bother approaching me. Certainly outside the RLD throughout greater Nieuwmarkt was more hustle-bustle than the rest of the areas of Amsterdam that I saw, but I never felt like I was in a place I shouldn't be.
mcv 10y ago
Dutch policy has become regressive, and has been overtaken by other countries. The semi-criminality of soft drugs in Netherlands still keeps the trade partially illegal and therefore of interest to organized crime. Complete legalization with healthy regulation would be a much better idea.

CaptSpify 10y ago

I often complain that the US has a mindset of "We're different, so what works in other countries couldn't possibly work for us!". In this case, I'm finally proud to say the opposite: It does work for us, so why couldn't it work for them? I've only been to Amsterdam once, and I don't pretend to even begin to understand their culture or politics, but legalization here in the US has been great. We've got a lot of people looking for reasons legalization has destroyed our society, and they are coming up empty handed. Meanwhile, we're making a ton of money on taxes. Is there anyone who knows why they couldn't/shouldn't follow our example?

beat 10y ago
The US is also interesting in that we have a very Frankish-state model with powerful state governments that can set their own policies. So early movers like Washington and Colorado can try various things, and other states can learn from them (while also being at odds with antiquated, rigid federal policy). Success in the early-mover states will inform change in other states.
- bsimpson 10y ago
  Idealistically, that's how the US is structured. Practically, the federal government has been centralizing control since the New Deal. Since the article is about marijuana, let's use that as an example. If you believe the US is a federal republic, then you ought to be able to grow whatever plants you want in the comfort of your own home - the federal government has no business regulating that. That precise case was brought before the Supreme Court during the Bush administration, and even Scalia (who famously championed states' rights in many other decisions) consented that the federal government could regulate the private, intrastate growth of marijuana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The states that legalized marijuana could only do so because Obama is personally tolerant of it. Had he not been, he could have directed federal authorities to enforce the federal ban on marijuana - federal laws trump local ones.
  - drvdevd 10y ago
    This is true, except the battle hasn't heated up enough yet to see whether this is actually true, with respect to Marijuana specifically, and then perhaps states' rights generally. The state of California might just, by itself, choose to challenge the feds on this for example, and that would be quite interesting.
    - civilian 10y ago
      I really really hope that California does something like this. Unfortunately, California Police don't have a history of supporting state law. When the feds were busting medical marijuana shops in California, they would routinely get help from local police, and the local police would act like their lapdogs.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > except the battle hasn't heated up enough yet to see whether this is actually true In what way is it not decided? The US Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that the federal government can indeed criminalize marijuana. This isn't something that they left kind of unclear. A 6 to 3 decision affirmed that the congress can completely outlaw marijuana nationwide.
      - drvdevd 10y ago
        Clearly it's not actually a question then of what the supreme court decided in 1996, because marijuana is legal multiple US states now? Thus it is a classical state VS federal issue now.
        dpark 10y ago
        It was literally the same issue in 1996. California legalized medical marijuana in spite of the federal government criminalizing it. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government won over states' rights.
        10y ago
- civilian 10y ago
  Nitpick: Shouldn't it be "Franken-state", if you're talking about a patchwork government stitched into one nation? I feel like "Frankish-state" references the French. :)
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    It's not patchwork, it's federated.
  - coldpie 10y ago
    It does reference the French! It's a reference to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangokratia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangokratia
  - beat 10y ago
    Nope, totally different reference. It's to Machiavelli, who distinguished between "Frankish kingdoms" and "Turkish kingdoms". Turkish kingdoms have strong central governments, with local administration subservient to the center. Frankish kingdoms have a much weaker central government, with much power and decision-making in the hands of local leaders. The US is a Frankish kingdom, in Machiavellian terms.
    - thatcat 10y ago
      It seems that the us is a hybrid of the turkish and frankish models considering the split income taxation structure with signigantly more going to federal level.
      - beat 10y ago
        It's not about taxation. It's about control. The big difference between the US and a Machiavellian Frankish kingdom is that we have more or less a single military, rather than each state having its own army and lending that to the central government.
  - Anthony-G 10y ago
    I think the downvoting is uncalled for. When I hear Frankish, my associations are of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire and Romanesque building boom. I wasn't aware of the Machiavelli reference until civilian legitimately queried the use of the term (in a non-snarky way).
johnchristopher 10y ago
> I've only been to Amsterdam once, and I don't pretend to even begin to understand their culture or politics, but legalization here in the US has been great. We've got a lot of people looking for reasons legalization has destroyed our society, and they are coming up empty handed. Meanwhile, we're making a ton of money on taxes. Is there anyone who knows why they couldn't/shouldn't follow our example? Gonna play devil's advocate: shouldn't we wait a generation or something like 10 years to evaluate the situation ?
- bwanab 10y ago
  Starting when? Marijuana use has been widespread in the U.S. since the 1960s.
  - jerkstate 10y ago
    And legal in California for medical use for 20 years now
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I don't disagree that more testing/research/evaluation needs to be done, but AFAIU, things seem to going well enough to push this out for now. EDIT: I'd be interested to hear studies of things not going well since legalization.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  It's also incredibly different in the US in weird ways. Amsterdam is a place where you can go into any coffee shop and smoke there on premises. If you don't need to buy more, many will let you smoke and use their toilets if you buy a beer, coffee or snacks. Smoking tobacco is a part of European culture and I was surprised to see smoking allowed indoors in many places, both in the west and east (several states in Germany seemed to allow it, or at least not enforce bans; same in Croatia, Montenegro, etc.) In the Pacific North West US, tobacco smoking bans are stricter than anywhere else I've seen in the US. Few bars even have outdoor smoking areas. I have never seen smoking areas outside pot stores (I think it's illegal). This actually makes for a vastly different culture. Also in the Pacific Northwest, very few pot stores will take a foreign drivers license, even for alcohol! (In other parts of the US, people don't normally card adults -- it's really weird), so you're not going to see the same type of marijuana tourism seen in The Netherlands. I'm curious what the culture is like in other places that have approved recreational cannabis. Anyone from Colorado or Maine want to chime in?
IMTDb 10y ago
"We've got a lot of people looking for reasons legalization has destroyed our society, and they are coming up empty handed". Most people looking for reasons to oppose legalization are actually not saying anything in the like of "This is going to destroy our society". If you want reasons why legalization is a bad idea. Here goes one : Legalization leads increased usage of pot amongst adults [0]. Combine this with the fact that usage (not abuse) of cannabis leads to permanent damage to the brain structure. Which negatively impact memory and cognitive abilities [1]. No one here is saying that by legalizing marijuana our society is going to the middle ages. I just don't think that it is wise to legalize one more substance that has known and proven irreversible long-lasting effects on cognitive abilites of people who are most likely going to live longer and longer. Ageism of the general population is a challenge in itself. Ageism of a population that is going to suffer from symptoms of partially altered brains on top of the cognitive challenges naturally coming with age is even more difficult. [0] : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/18/colorado-marijuana-law-report-adult-usage-increases-not-kids https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/18/colorado-mar... [1] : http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16913.full http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16913.full
- gr3yh47 10y ago
  alcohol and cigarettes are both much, much worse for health. And the PNAS study itself says that while they measured changes in the brain, the effect of the changes is not known from the study.
  - IMTDb 10y ago
    Limited Alcohol usage (not abuse) has actually very little permanent effects on health. Alcohol abuse of course has very damaging known effects. Cigarettes mainly affect lungs and pancreas. The increased risk of cancer is reduced to that of a never smoker after 20years. I am sure cigarettes would not pass legalization laws if they were "invented" right now. They are legal for historical reasons and many countries are actively trying to fight them by increased taxation, advertising rules etc. So basically, we are creating a new product we will have to fight in the future once we measure how dangerous it is. We are playing a game of "let's fight back thats dangerous product we legalized 150 years ago when we did not know the adverse effects of it." and at the same time : "Let's legalize that new stuff that we never really could measure the long lasting effects of. It looks fun and kids love it.". The paper says that it can't precisely measure the effect of those changes to cognitive issues. They just link marijuana with modified brains. If you belive that an altered brain function exactly like a non-altered one, this is your choice. But any sound safety principle should tell you to take care with that stuff IMO. There are tons of papers measure the cognitive issues that arise with pot usage. Here is just one, but look it up. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/
bogomipz 10y ago
>"I'm finally proud to say the opposite: It does work for us, so why couldn't it work for them?" Does the U.S know that it works yet? It's early days yet. Colorado and Washington the two states to first pass legislation legalizing marijuana did so only 4 years ago. Compare this to Amsterdam which did so almost 30 years ago. I'm not making a statement for or against legalization, but rather that 30 years of a policy vs only 4 years to conclude that "its working" is maybe not enough to to know. The majority of the 28 states that legalized it did so much more recently than 4 years ago at that.
- drvdevd 10y ago
  The real question to ask, in the US at least, is does this work economically, in a way that makes the Cannabis industry powerful enough to challenge policy? It would appear so. Note that US state systems are almost the opposite of the Dutch systems in this regard: regulated from "seed to sale", heavily taxed, operated legally (at the state level anyway).
- jsjohnst 10y ago
  California legalized (for medicinal purposes) marijuana far earlier than Colorado and Washington. I only mention this because you stated 28 states later, but there isn't 28 states like Colorado / Washington. Most are more similar to California's original law.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Right, absolutely. That has changed now though in California with Prop 64. The situation in California was a bit odd. In some cities like Los Angeles, "dispensaries", the name given to marijuana shops are pretty ubiquitous. Much higher than what the population of legitimate medicinal users could support. Getting a medical marijuana card was something of a running joke. It will be interesting to see if those states that now have the original California type legislation will move to full legalization for recreational or if they simply liberalize their view on what constitutes an ailment for which marijuana is prescribed - anxiety etc.
  - DrScump 10y ago
heisenbit 10y ago
From what I read in this and other articles there are striking similarities caused by inconsistent policies e.g.: Netherlands: Coffee shops can only store 500g causing multiple deliveries a day exposing couriers to robbery. US: Coffee shops are excluded from the banking system exposing them to an increased risk of robbery. Rules have to make sense and be somewhat consistent otherwise side effects can be severe.
- Balgair 10y ago
  In CO the local credit unions that are in state only are the banks for pot shops and that is where the (federally) illegal money sits. You know, just like any other business really. Yeah they are restricted to certain credit unions, but those guys are head over heels for the very lucrative business accounts. So the pot shops are excluded from inter-state banking, but they are not excluded from all banking.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >So the pot shops are excluded from inter-state banking // For real. I thought pot had been legalised in some states, how does that work - you can work legally in a field but you're not allowed to bank your proceeds, was that bill sponsored by organised crime syndicates?? Anyway, they should probably do one of those tax-dodge deals that big corps do, buy trademark rights [ostensibly from themselves] and then send the money from the trademark licensing out of state. Surely there's already a similar "method" in place, investing in movies or some crock??
    - sigstoat 10y ago
      > I thought pot had been legalised in some states... what the states think is legal, and what the feds think is legal do not, and have never had to agree. the feds have massively longer lists of illegal things than most states. state legalization generally has no effect on the feds.
      - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
posterboy 10y ago
... b/c zero tolerance policies

aerique 10y ago

I want to add that, in the past, we (The Netherlands) could not legalize the whole chain because of pressure from the USA and France.

cr1895 10y ago
And currently the stubborn opposition to change from the national government is largely due to international treaties.
drvdevd 10y ago
I find this so incredibly ironic: - The Netherlands chooses to (kinda) allow softdrug use and thus gains tourist income throughout the 90s and 00s (and maybe earlier?) - The US pressures them to avoid full legalization and supply chain development - US states then partly legalize two decades later, and quickly surpass the Dutch system in size, scope, and income What should the Dutch learn from this?
- funnyfacts365 10y ago
  Dutch should learn their adoration for the US is misguided and hurts more than helps.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    Why does this adoration exist, do you think?

drvdevd 10y ago

I predict that this will be a major issue in the US, very soon. We too, have a quasi-legal system, if very different from the Dutch policies. Our incoming administration will have to contend with an industry that has grown large reasonably quickly, and with a conflicting Federal policy. States that have chosen legalization want this money now. Many citizens from across the social spectrum have staked their livelihoods on it. If this becomes a states rights issue, and the Feds choose to switch policy and start raiding, things could go downhill quickly for the administration. Of course none of this has anything to do with softdrugs or cannabis. It's all about control and money. I suspect the Dutch policy shift has similar economic motives somewhere below the surface.

AndyMcConachie 10y ago

American-Dutch person here. This article misses a few key points. 1) Dutch softdrug laws are heavily influenced by other/bigger EU countries like France and Italy that don't like their citizens visiting NL and using, or bringing back drugs. Hence the closings of coffee shops in border areas. 2) Closing of window prostitution in Amsterdam is a completely different issue than closing of coffeeshops. There might be a moral argument for both, but in my cynical mind most of the windows being shutdown have more to do with snapping up key real estate in the middle of the city than anything else. Some people claim it is about cleaning up the criminality, but I think it's just connected people getting better access to good real estate. 3) There might be a real estate angle to the closing of coffeeshops as well, but I'm not as familiar with it to really say. Amsterdam, like other major cities, has started to see an influx in foreign capital buying up homes for investment purposes. It's rather disgusting and has lead to rises in home prices in the city.

Freestyler_3 10y ago
on 2. the official statements have always been that it is to stop human trafficking (indeed cleaning up criminals). If there is a conspiracy behind it, I don't know. on 3. I know that in my city the coffeeshop rents the building, rent protection law does not allow the owner to kick a renter out without very good reason (not going to get specific here). The owner (renting company) wants the coffeeshop out, it has tried more than once. They want to re-purpose the building and make more money of the big building in the centre of the city.
- mercer 10y ago
  My guess would be that is that it's not an outright conspiracy, but opportunism by individual actors (circumvrenting rent protection for example, or populism) combined with a general push toward making the city center more proper for all sorts of reasons that affect a lot of popular cities (rising value, 'fancy' tourists, etc.). I think it's a sign of a bigger societal/urban change, and that the bigger, underlying problem is rapidly increasing segregation. My experience with any coffeeshop is that the vast majority of its clientele is, off the top of my head: 1) left-wingish 'hippie' type, 2) muslims/'ethnic' groups, 3) working-class individuals or 4) a certain subset of tourists. Most coffeeshops have at least a whiff of seediness. anyways, what all these groups have in common is that they're not particularly liked by those who have a stake in the future of urban centers. These places should be clean, expensive, commercial, and acceptable to as many people as possible.

pmyjavec 10y ago

I agree, after living there for a while I couldn't really see the sense in allowing people to consume or sell something that was produced illegally. Anyway, it's as shame to see things going backwards in Netherlands ;(

bgentry 10y ago

The Vice show Weediquette had a good episode [1] where they looked at these aspects of the cannabis industry in The Netherlands. It's bizarre that the coffee shops are fully allowed to sell something that there is no legal way to produce or acquire in the country. The government even prosecutes many distributors and growers. And they wonder why organized crime is having such an impact on that industry? [1]: https://www.viceland.com/en_us/video/half-baked/56fae505be4ad699153772c4 https://www.viceland.com/en_us/video/half-baked/56fae505be4a...

kelseydh 10y ago

It's funny, I was in Amsterdam this year and different from the experience of most of my international visitors, the whole place felt restrictive in terms of marijuana, not liberated. Denver, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver / Victoria (Canada) and parts of California now have what I believe to be much more liberal "marijuana cultures" than Amsterdam now. Vancouver literally has hundreds of marijuana dispensaries in its downtown even though pot is still technically illegal in Canada (for now.) The Dutch coffeeshop model was cutting edge back in the 90's when no one else was doing it, but as you said it's incredibly outdated compared to the explosion of high quality dispensaries we are seeing across the Pacific coastal areas of Canada and the U.S.

pmoriarty 10y ago
I don't know about that. The dispensaries in California only allow sale to people for medicinal purposes, and only with permission from a doctor. California has recently legalized marijuana possession for non-medical (recreational) use, but there's still no legal way today to sell marijuana in California for non-medical purposes (though that should be coming in a couple of years). Meanwhile, in the Netherlands you didn't need permission from a doctor or anyone else to buy marijuana from a coffeshop. Recreational marijuana use was implicitly sanctioned -- something that most of the United States still has a problem with (though a handful of states are changing their mind). Then there's the Federal laws against any kind of marijuana use, a very hard-headed, close-minded policy that forbids even the use of purely medicinal marijuana derivatives without psychoactive effects, much less recreational use. Finally, there's the issue of drug testing, which no states (to my knowledge) have opposed. So you could still be effectively be prevented from using marijuana if you have to submit to drug tests or anti drug policies at your place of work.
- kelseydh 10y ago
  I will clarify that most of my experience is with the Pacific Northwest of U.S. and Canada, most of which now enjoys defacto legalization driven in part by the medical loophole.

rmason 10y ago

The article sounds like they're not selling drugs on the street. That wasn't my experience when I visited Amsterdam. On certain streets every couple of hundred feet there was some pusher asking if I wanted drugs. By the third day or so I was getting really annoyed with them. I was also offered drugs in a couple of nightclubs that I visited. I don't ever remember visiting a place where the drug sellers were so aggressive. It's a very beautiful city and I recommended visiting. The people were friendly, the food fabulous and I would like to get back there some day.

cr1895 10y ago
>On certain streets every couple of hundred feet there was some pusher asking if I wanted drugs. By the third day or so I was getting really annoyed with them. Get out of the RLD! The street dealers are a truly obnoxious blight on the city, but they are really only concentrated in certain areas. They prey on the gullible, party-driven young tourists on stag-dos and the like. Most often what they sell is fake, and infamously some years ago one fool was selling white heroin as cocaine, leading to several deaths and a city-wide campaign to encourage people to ignore street dealers and not to fear punishment for seeking medical help.
- mercer 10y ago
  Maybe things changed in the past year, but my experience is exactly as you describe. In my entire time in Amsterdam I was never approached by dealers, except when I was in the Red Light District. Even after almost a decade, entering the RLD is still a bit of a 'culture shock'. (and even much of the RLD is dealer-free; it's specific streets)
  - NamTaf 10y ago
    This was also my experience when I visited a few months ago. I didn't once get approached on the streets, but I certainly noticed that the RLD was a different culture (including one guy approaching someone else as a 'friend' then trying to start a fight with him in order to probably mug him). I can imagine that pushers are through that area but I guess I look big and ugly enough that they didn't bother approaching me. Certainly outside the RLD throughout greater Nieuwmarkt was more hustle-bustle than the rest of the areas of Amsterdam that I saw, but I never felt like I was in a place I shouldn't be.

mcv 10y ago

Dutch policy has become regressive, and has been overtaken by other countries. The semi-criminality of soft drugs in Netherlands still keeps the trade partially illegal and therefore of interest to organized crime. Complete legalization with healthy regulation would be a much better idea.