8 ms·

“You will not be arrested for using drugs”

111 points by bartkappenburg 12y ago

johnm1019 12y ago
Bravo to the Dutch authorities for using public information and a focus on public health to try and keep the public, and tourists, safe. I like this approach a lot more than throwing everyone in jail. TLDR; Sign says tainted cocaine is on the streets, call for help you won't be arrested if you need it.
fmsf 12y ago
Over a decade ago Portugal decriminalized drug use. You will not be considered a criminal if you use drugs, and will be treated like a sick person and provided help, by the government, if you want to cure your addiction. On the other hand, selling will take you straight to jail. If you carry drugs with you, the distinction between carrying for usage or for selling is the maximum amount allowed (in grams) which varies from drug to drug.
- corin_ 12y ago
  I think Portugal's policy is great, but it's worth noting that they don't quite treat you just "like a sick person" - there are mandated treatments/etc. that they can (and will) force on drug users, rather than just saying "hey we're opening the doors to treatment should you want it". They released a 10 year report in 2011 that basically showed drug use had gone down by nearly any metric since they changed the laws in 2001. Not sure the best source to link to, but Forbes have an easy-reading brief piece [1] and tdpf.org.uk has some more detailed stats with references cited [2] (from a quick google for the report's findings) [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-af... [2] http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-...
corin_ 12y ago
The UK isn't (obviously) as free with drug laws as Amsterdam, but here it's illegal to possess but not to use - aka if you walk into a police station smelling of weed and high as a kite on coke they can't arrest (or caution or anything) you for it, unless you actually have drugs on you that you haven't yet taken. As such, if I witnessed a drug-caused medical issue, I'd get rid of whatever drugs were around (frankly I imagine if you put them in your pocket you'd be fine - doctors aren't allowed to inform the police about it unless they have a reason to believe you're a threat to the safety of yourself or others, and being a drug addict, short of being really close to killing yourself, isn't what that mean) and have no worries whatsoever about calling an ambulance. edit: side-question, is there anyone on here who a.) knows what coke and white heroin are like and b.) would be willing to comment (with a throwaway if preferred) on: is it hard to tell them apart? I've never seen any form of heroin in my life, but find it hard to believe I could sniff it without knowing.. so wonder is it an easy mistake, or were these victims people who didn't know what to expect cocaine to be like in the first place? edit 2: For anyone who hasn't been to Amsterdam, or at least the red light district... I've never taken them up on their offers, but the number of street dealers there... last time I was over there for work went out in the evening for a few drinks and some smoking, must've been offered coke over 10 times just while walking along streets. (And MDMA a couple of times, but not as frequently.) Never known anywhere easier to get coke if you wanted it, never known anywhere that I'd trust the quality of drugs on the street less if I had wanted it.
- joopxiv 12y ago
  I have no idea if this is an accurate depiction, but there's an impression of what snorting heroin as if it were cocaine looks like in Pulp Fiction.
- tarpherder 12y ago
  The GGD site has information on how to tell them apart: "Test it by placing a pinch of the powder on your tongue. If, within a few minutes, this does not have a numbing effect, it is not cocaine. It could be heroin instead." http://www.ggd.amsterdam.nl/english/drugsalert/more-information/ http://www.ggd.amsterdam.nl/english/drugsalert/more-informat...
refurb 12y ago
I'll give Amsterdam credit for not legally punishing drug users who need medical help, but it's not like the US doesn't offer warning when unsafe drugs are being sold[1]. Even as authorities await tests confirming heroin as the culprit in the latest deaths, the police and health departments are distributing fliers to community health and addiction service centers warning that “preliminary testing indicates that contaminated heroin may be available on the streets.” The fliers also list resources for patients and families struggling with addiction. [1]http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/06/worcester-officials-issue-advisory-after-string-overdose-deaths/xcgLjpHvU9JAUsYXgEPobO/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/06/worcester-offici...
gk1 12y ago
I'm glad to say some states in the US are enacting similar laws, called "Good Samaritan" laws. In essence, the laws "shield a person who calls 911 from arrest and prosecution for drug use or possession, underage alcohol use and similar crimes." According to this NY Times article (from 2013), 11 states and DC have passed such laws: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/opinion/calling-911-shouldnt-lead-to-jail.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/opinion/calling-911-should... (The article quotes someone I know, who sadly lost his son to an overdose.)
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  The reality of drug laws in America is cops and prosecutors mainly use them to target criminals actually causing the community problems. It very rarely happens that an otherwise innocent casual user does time for possession. The system is arguably less broken than internet libertarians think. It's often surprisingly difficult to prosecute somebody for repeat breaking and entering or gun violence, but the cops generally know who is causing the problems, so they get them on drug possession. This is where the crack cocaine sentencing disparity comes from. Crack affected communities demanded the law get the gang bangers off the streets, and crack possession was the obvious way to pop them.
  - gohrt 12y ago
    [Citation needed]
tedks 12y ago
Is nobody else on hacker news scared shitless of the convergence of militarized police forces, pervasive surveillance, and now legalized drugs? Why is drug policy "liberalizing" now? There's no new information. We've known about the risks involved in marijuana and other drugs since it was first scheduled. Harm reduction is not a novel concept. It seems suspicious to me that drugs are being released into the population, under the watchful eye of regulators of course, now that we're in a permanent recession/permanent war rather than, say, during the Clinton years when the economy was great and we were temporarily not locked in conflict. Optimists say that ending the "war on drugs" will stop surveillance and overpolicing, but that doesn't seem like such a sure bet to me.
- undersuit 12y ago
  Removing the war on drugs is taking away one of the many legs that state surveillance and military police force rely on. Eventually they won't be able to stand up(or pay for fancy weapons).
  - tedks 12y ago
    Most police departments don't pay for their weapons systems, they're gifts from the DoD. State surveillance is officially motivated by terrorism, with the drug war only an ancillary motivation. The war on terrorism can never be won and can never even be stopped, because terrorism can only be suppressed, not eliminated. So I don't think there's a compelling argument to be made that the end of the drug war will cause an end to surveillance. Militarized police are currently primarily justified because of the drug war, but there's always terrorism to fall back on in the even that the drug war liberalizes. And if the populace is on drugs, who's going to speak out against militarized police? Or against anything else for that matter?
    - jobposter1234 12y ago
      > Most police departments don't pay for their weapons systems, they're gifts from the DoD. Needs some evidence for a claim this strong. Yes, the DoD sold excess hardcore equipment to police forces. This still required money to buy them, in my understanding, even at reduced prices. And police departments are responsible for the costs of most of their equipment. Think hand guns, batons, etc. I'm willing to listen to your perspective if you can put together a cogent, evidence-supported argument. As it stands, you're alluding to things that may or may not be the case, with little evidence, and hinting at some sort of a conspiracy without actual logic, other than some predilections for suspicion of authority.
joeguilmette 12y ago
Quite the juxtaposition. Here in Thailand the police are now giving random drug tests on the street and extorting money from you.
- alxndr 12y ago
  Wow, that's interesting. Here's a month-old reddit post discussing it: http://www.reddit.com/r/Thailand/comments/2j9xln/random_drug_tests_on_tourists_in_thailand/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Thailand/comments/2j9xln/random_drug...

111 points by bartkappenburg 12y ago

Bravo to the Dutch authorities for using public information and a focus on public health to try and keep the public, and tourists, safe. I like this approach a lot more than throwing everyone in jail. TLDR; Sign says tainted cocaine is on the streets, call for help you won't be arrested if you need it.

fmsf 12y ago

Over a decade ago Portugal decriminalized drug use. You will not be considered a criminal if you use drugs, and will be treated like a sick person and provided help, by the government, if you want to cure your addiction. On the other hand, selling will take you straight to jail. If you carry drugs with you, the distinction between carrying for usage or for selling is the maximum amount allowed (in grams) which varies from drug to drug.

corin_ 12y ago
I think Portugal's policy is great, but it's worth noting that they don't quite treat you just "like a sick person" - there are mandated treatments/etc. that they can (and will) force on drug users, rather than just saying "hey we're opening the doors to treatment should you want it". They released a 10 year report in 2011 that basically showed drug use had gone down by nearly any metric since they changed the laws in 2001. Not sure the best source to link to, but Forbes have an easy-reading brief piece [1] and tdpf.org.uk has some more detailed stats with references cited [2] (from a quick google for the report's findings) [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-af... [2] http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-...

corin_ 12y ago

The UK isn't (obviously) as free with drug laws as Amsterdam, but here it's illegal to possess but not to use - aka if you walk into a police station smelling of weed and high as a kite on coke they can't arrest (or caution or anything) you for it, unless you actually have drugs on you that you haven't yet taken. As such, if I witnessed a drug-caused medical issue, I'd get rid of whatever drugs were around (frankly I imagine if you put them in your pocket you'd be fine - doctors aren't allowed to inform the police about it unless they have a reason to believe you're a threat to the safety of yourself or others, and being a drug addict, short of being really close to killing yourself, isn't what that mean) and have no worries whatsoever about calling an ambulance. edit: side-question, is there anyone on here who a.) knows what coke and white heroin are like and b.) would be willing to comment (with a throwaway if preferred) on: is it hard to tell them apart? I've never seen any form of heroin in my life, but find it hard to believe I could sniff it without knowing.. so wonder is it an easy mistake, or were these victims people who didn't know what to expect cocaine to be like in the first place? edit 2: For anyone who hasn't been to Amsterdam, or at least the red light district... I've never taken them up on their offers, but the number of street dealers there... last time I was over there for work went out in the evening for a few drinks and some smoking, must've been offered coke over 10 times just while walking along streets. (And MDMA a couple of times, but not as frequently.) Never known anywhere easier to get coke if you wanted it, never known anywhere that I'd trust the quality of drugs on the street less if I had wanted it.

joopxiv 12y ago
I have no idea if this is an accurate depiction, but there's an impression of what snorting heroin as if it were cocaine looks like in Pulp Fiction.
tarpherder 12y ago
The GGD site has information on how to tell them apart: "Test it by placing a pinch of the powder on your tongue. If, within a few minutes, this does not have a numbing effect, it is not cocaine. It could be heroin instead." http://www.ggd.amsterdam.nl/english/drugsalert/more-information/ http://www.ggd.amsterdam.nl/english/drugsalert/more-informat...

refurb 12y ago

I'll give Amsterdam credit for not legally punishing drug users who need medical help, but it's not like the US doesn't offer warning when unsafe drugs are being sold[1]. Even as authorities await tests confirming heroin as the culprit in the latest deaths, the police and health departments are distributing fliers to community health and addiction service centers warning that “preliminary testing indicates that contaminated heroin may be available on the streets.” The fliers also list resources for patients and families struggling with addiction. [1]http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/06/worcester-officials-issue-advisory-after-string-overdose-deaths/xcgLjpHvU9JAUsYXgEPobO/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/06/worcester-offici...

gk1 12y ago

I'm glad to say some states in the US are enacting similar laws, called "Good Samaritan" laws. In essence, the laws "shield a person who calls 911 from arrest and prosecution for drug use or possession, underage alcohol use and similar crimes." According to this NY Times article (from 2013), 11 states and DC have passed such laws: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/opinion/calling-911-shouldnt-lead-to-jail.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/opinion/calling-911-should... (The article quotes someone I know, who sadly lost his son to an overdose.)

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
The reality of drug laws in America is cops and prosecutors mainly use them to target criminals actually causing the community problems. It very rarely happens that an otherwise innocent casual user does time for possession. The system is arguably less broken than internet libertarians think. It's often surprisingly difficult to prosecute somebody for repeat breaking and entering or gun violence, but the cops generally know who is causing the problems, so they get them on drug possession. This is where the crack cocaine sentencing disparity comes from. Crack affected communities demanded the law get the gang bangers off the streets, and crack possession was the obvious way to pop them.
- gohrt 12y ago
  [Citation needed]

tedks 12y ago

Is nobody else on hacker news scared shitless of the convergence of militarized police forces, pervasive surveillance, and now legalized drugs? Why is drug policy "liberalizing" now? There's no new information. We've known about the risks involved in marijuana and other drugs since it was first scheduled. Harm reduction is not a novel concept. It seems suspicious to me that drugs are being released into the population, under the watchful eye of regulators of course, now that we're in a permanent recession/permanent war rather than, say, during the Clinton years when the economy was great and we were temporarily not locked in conflict. Optimists say that ending the "war on drugs" will stop surveillance and overpolicing, but that doesn't seem like such a sure bet to me.

undersuit 12y ago
Removing the war on drugs is taking away one of the many legs that state surveillance and military police force rely on. Eventually they won't be able to stand up(or pay for fancy weapons).
- tedks 12y ago
  Most police departments don't pay for their weapons systems, they're gifts from the DoD. State surveillance is officially motivated by terrorism, with the drug war only an ancillary motivation. The war on terrorism can never be won and can never even be stopped, because terrorism can only be suppressed, not eliminated. So I don't think there's a compelling argument to be made that the end of the drug war will cause an end to surveillance. Militarized police are currently primarily justified because of the drug war, but there's always terrorism to fall back on in the even that the drug war liberalizes. And if the populace is on drugs, who's going to speak out against militarized police? Or against anything else for that matter?
  - jobposter1234 12y ago
    > Most police departments don't pay for their weapons systems, they're gifts from the DoD. Needs some evidence for a claim this strong. Yes, the DoD sold excess hardcore equipment to police forces. This still required money to buy them, in my understanding, even at reduced prices. And police departments are responsible for the costs of most of their equipment. Think hand guns, batons, etc. I'm willing to listen to your perspective if you can put together a cogent, evidence-supported argument. As it stands, you're alluding to things that may or may not be the case, with little evidence, and hinting at some sort of a conspiracy without actual logic, other than some predilections for suspicion of authority.

joeguilmette 12y ago

Quite the juxtaposition. Here in Thailand the police are now giving random drug tests on the street and extorting money from you.

alxndr 12y ago
Wow, that's interesting. Here's a month-old reddit post discussing it: http://www.reddit.com/r/Thailand/comments/2j9xln/random_drug_tests_on_tourists_in_thailand/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Thailand/comments/2j9xln/random_drug...