2009_new emphasis in dutch drugs policy_report of the advisory committee on drugs policy, 2009_33p

7/28/2019 2009_New Emphasis in Dutch Drugs Policy_Report of the Advisory Committee on Drugs Policy, 2009_33p

1/331

NEW EMPHASIS IN DUTCH DRUGS POLICY

Report of the Advisory Committee on Drugs Policy

Contents

Preface

1 Introduction

2 Developments and objectives

2.1 Developments in demand2.2 Developments in supply

2.3 Goal and methods

3 Young people, drugs and alcohol

3.1 Arguments for a more restrictive policy

3.2 More rigorous and embedded action

3.3 Prevention and care

4 Coffee shops4.1 Current situation

4.2 Framework for solutions: development and dynamic

4.3 Further development of national coffee shop policy

4.4 Further development of coffee shop policy through experimentation

5 A dynamic drugs policy5.1 The search for consistency: a dynamic drugs policy

5.2 Classification of drugs according to risk

5.3 Limiting damage

5.4 Care of addicts

5.5 Tackling the illegal market

5.6 Authorities

Appendix 1: Order establishing the Advisory Committee on Drugs Policy

Appendix 2: List of individuals consulted

Appendix 3: Literature
http://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/preface.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/preface.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/1-introduction.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/1-introduction.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/2-developments-and-objectives.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/3-young-people-drugs-and-alcohol.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/4-coffee-shops.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/5-a-dynamic-drugs-policy.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/appendix-i-order-establishing-the-advisory-committee-on-drugs-policy.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/appendix-2-list-of-individuals-consulted.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/appendix-3-literature.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/appendix-3-literature.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/appendix-2-list-of-individuals-consulted.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/appendix-i-order-establishing-the-advisory-committee-on-drugs-policy.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/5-a-dynamic-drugs-policy.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/4-coffee-shops.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/3-young-people-drugs-and-alcohol.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/2-developments-and-objectives.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/1-introduction.htmlhttp://www.drugtext.org/NEW-EMPHASIS-IN-DUTCH-DRUGS-POLICY/preface.html


2/332

Preface

Dutch drugs policy is currently the subject of debate. The clear successes achieved with the policy risk being overshadowed by a

number of negative side effects that necessitate changes to the instruments of drugs policy, reconsideration of some of the objectives

and a reformulation of responsibilities.

In the present report the committee presents a diagnosis of the situation based on recent studies and makes recommendations for

improvements to policy, as requested by the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the

Interior and Kingdom Affairs. The committee has concluded that such improvements are needed as a matter of urgency, and that some

provision is required to ensure that policy and leadership in this area keep pace with the sometimes complex and rapid developments

occurring in this highly dynamic and increasingly international field. Closed doors must be opened what we need now is decisive

action.

The committee was established in February 2009. Since then, we have talked to a large number of stakeholders and experts, and paid

several working visits in order to form an opinion of current Dutch drugs policy. We also studied the Dutch and international

literature, and were able to draw on the studies and evaluations listed in the order establishing the committee. The committee also

received a large number of memoranda, as well as more detailed studies specifically requested from relevant parties (local authorities,

the police, the Public Prosecution Service and the Tax and Customs Administration). We would like to thank Professor A. Klip of the

University of Maastricht and many others (listed in Appendix 2) for their support and advice. A.C. Berghuis and Ms W.M. de Zwart

ran the committees secretariat. The committee owes them a great debt of g ratitude for their expert support and dedication.

Wim van de Donk, chair

Piet Boekhoud

Wim van den Brink

Cyrille Fijnaut

Liesbeth Horstink - von Meyenfeldt

Dike van de Mheen

Henk Rigter

Albertine van Vliet-Kuiper


3/333

1. Introduction

An intractable problem: one hundred years of drugs policy

The first international conference on drugs was held in Shanghai in 1909. Thirteen countries, including the Netherlands, met to

consider the international implications of the Emperors ban on the growing and smoking of opium in China. Some aspects of the

deliberations of the Shanghai Opium Commission, as it was known, echo todays drugs debate: major differences of opinion on

whether drugs should be banned, made freely available or regulated; the need to reach international agreement; acknowledgement of

the risks to the health of users; and the use of drugs for medical purposes.

In the century that has passed since that conference, peoples desire to use psychoactive substances has created a difficult policy issue.

While the main concerns a hundred years ago were opium and morphine, in recent years national and international policy has come tofocus on other natural and synthetic substances. Some of these have been used for centuries, but the problems now associated with

them have made them the focus of scientific and public attention. The sometimes fierce debate on the best way to tackle drugs

continues unabated. Should we make them freely available or ban themor should we take one of the many middle roads, and

regulate their use in some way?

The Advisory Committee in Drugs Policy (referred to here as the committee) realises that the mere fact that the use of psyc hoactive

substances has always been with us suggests that we could not ban drug use outright even if we wanted tothere is no magic wand

that can simply make these substances disappear. Solutions to the problems associated with drug use will lie in balancing respect for

peoples freedom to make their own personal choices in such matters with measures to prevent and limit the dangers to the individual

and to society.

Terms of reference and procedure

The committee was asked to advise the government as to whether all or part of Dutch drugs policy needs to be reviewed and, if so, to

set out possible scenarios (see the Order establishing the committee, Appendix 1). The Ministers who commissioned this reportwanted to see a broadbased approach that would encompass both the national and the international perspective. In addition, the

Ministers asked for advice on four specific subjects: the scheduling of drugs under the Opium Act, improvements in care and

prevention, ways of limiting the Netherlands role in drugs trafficking and production, and ways of reducing drugrelated nuisance.

This advisory report commissioned by the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the

Interior and Kingdom Affairs is intended to serve as a basis for a policy document setting out plans for drugs policy, which the

government will present to the House of Representatives in September 2009. To ensure that the report and policy document are

supported by as much factual evidence as possible, the government commissioned a number of studies. The committee was asked to

consider the results of these studies in its deliberations, along with the study of drugrelated organised crime in the MeuseRhine

Euregion (see sidebar).

Background studies

Van Laar et al. (2009) Evaluatie van het Nederlandse drugsbeleid. Trimbos/WODC. (www.trimbos.nl)

This study examines the development of drugs policy, particularly in the period since the policy document was published in 1995. It

considers trends in drug use, looks at the role of coffee shops in separating the markets for soft and hard drugs, as well as at prevention

and harm reduction, the care and treatment of addicts, the crime and public nuisance associated with the use of and trafficking in

drugs, international cooperation and research and monitoring in support of drugs policy.

Van Amsterdam et al. (2009) De ranking van drugs. RIVM/AIAR (www.rivm.nl).

This study assesses alcohol, tobacco and a large number of drugs and the degree to which they differ in terms of the harm they cause.

CAM (2008) Risicoschatting cannabis 2008. CAM, (www.rivm.nl) Assesses various aspects of the harm caused by cannabis.

Fijnaut en de Ruyver (2008) Voor een gezamenlijke beheersing van de drugsgerelateerde criminaliteit in de Euregio MaasRijn

A study of different forms of serious organised crime in the MeuseRhine Euregion, with recommendations for further improvements

in measures to tackle transnational organised crime.

The committee also consulted a broad range of Dutch and international literature. It spoke to many parties concerned with the issue

(Appendices 2 and 3 list the individuals and literature consulted), in an attempt to obtain a broad, uptodate picture of the drugs issue

and the policy issues it raises. The committee was constrained by the time available, with less than five months to prepare its report. It

was therefore forced to focus on subjects that it felt most urgently necessitated a change of strategy. The other questions put to the

committee were considered in more general terms, and some require further study.


4/334

Basic principles

The committee took an openminded look at current drugs policy. This policy, and the principles on which it is based, date from the

1970s. In 1995 it was reviewed in a broadranging policy document on drugs, and in the intervening years only certain sections have

been modified. The Trimbos Institute/WODC evaluation report mentioned above gives a detailed description of the history of the

policy and recent changes to it. The committee does not intend to repeat this exercise here, preferring instead to refer readers to the

report itself. The changes have mainly involved a tightening up of measures and guidelines, and of the introduction of new statutory

instruments for tackling public nuisance and crime more effectively (such as Damocles and Victor, which enable local a uthorities

to tackle the negative impact of coffee shops and other premises used to sell drugs, and the Public Administration (Probity Screening)

Act). The role of prevention and treatment has not really changed in recent years, though efforts have been made to provide a more

varied service, and to raise standards.

The committee believes thatafter almost 15 yearsthere is indeed an urgent need for a thorough review of the policy, if only

because more scientific information is now available about the negative impact of substance use (particularly alcohol and drug

consumption). Changes are also needed in view of the shift in the social context in which drugs are used (resulting from open borders,

the involvement of criminal organisations in the production and trafficking of drugs, public nuisance, the rise of the Internet, mobility

etc.). This has given rise to a need for reconsideration not only of the instruments of policy, but also of its objectives.

It is clear that drugs policy has become increasingly interlinked with other policy areas, such as policy on public nuisance, organised

crime, young people and education. All these fields have their own dynamics, but because they overlap, any intervention (or failure to

intervene) in one area can have farreaching implications for another. The interrelated nature of all these different areas of policy will

colour the recommendations of the committee.

Drugs policy focuses on substances that are banned or may be used only under specific conditions for medical purposes. The

committee is of the opinion that, in view of the developments mentioned above, we must consider the policy in a new, broader

perspective. Attention must be explicitly refocused on the objectives of policy, and the social values and interests a t stake. Thecommittee believes that, in this respect, drugs policy must form part of a broader policy on substances that also covers alcohol and

tobacco. It is also likely that new drugs will continue to appear on the market. The committee will, where necessary, identify the

relevant links in its report, particularly with issues surrounding alcohol use.

The committee is aware of the moral dimension of drugs policy. It is keen to take account of the freedom of individuals who are

perfectly capable of making their own decisions to behave as they see fit, as long as they do not harm others. However, freedom is

never absolute and, like alcohol and tobacco, drugs require government policies that adequately reflect the need to restrict or ban their

use in certain circumstances. Constraints on personal freedom may be necessary where the use of substances causes serious harm to

the individual and/or to society. This is particularly the case with young people, or adults who are not capable of making sensible

decisions and properly estimating the risks of substance use (in the long term, for example).

From the very outset, drugs policy has had an important international dimension, not least because international agreements commit

their signatories to joint action, and also because of the role the Netherlands plays in the production, import and export of drugs, as

well as the sharp rise in drug tourism in recent years (though in border areas, in particular, the term tourism is not alwa ysappropriate). This international element has grown over the years, partly as a result of globalisation and increased European

cooperation on drugs policy.

Although the international dimension must be explicitly taken into account in shaping policy, the committee believes that a onesided

view of the issue, based only on international commitments, is not appropriate. The first international treaty on which our policy is

based (the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs) dates from 1961. Almost half a century later, the world has changed radically, and

we now know much more about all kinds of aspects of drug use and the problems associated with it. Furthermore, many countries now

view the issue in less blackandwhite terms, and take account of other points of view, showing more interest in ways of limiting the

risks to individuals (harm reduction), for example, alongside efforts to ban drugs. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and

Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in Lisbon has observed a de facto convergence in the implementation of drugs policy by European

member states in recent years.

International legal framework

The Netherlands is party to:

the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, as amended by the 1972 Protocol amending

the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961;

the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 and the 1988 United Nations Convention

Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances;

the Maastricht Treaty 1992 and the Schengen Agreement 1985, and the Schengen Convention 1990.

(See the Trimbosinstitute/WODC report for details of international cooperation)


5/335

Structure of the report

In chapter 2 the committee presents a brief summary of the latest developments involving drugs and the objectives of drugs policy. It

then sets out proposals for possible adjustments to those objectives, and the means that might be used to achieve them. In chapter 3 the

committee sets out its views on the links between drugs and alcohol policy and issues affecting young people, and the need for an

intersectoral approach. Chapter 4 is devoted entirely to coffee shops. In the view of the committee, the current policy on coffee shops

urgently needs to be reviewed. In chapter 5 the committee briefly addresses the other questions it was asked to consider. Chapter 6

contains the committees conclusions and recommendations.


6/336

2 Developments and objectives

The committee examined the broader developments surrounding Dutch drugs policy, drawing partly on information in the studies

mentioned above. At issue is not merely the demand for drugs (drug use, problems) but also the supply (production and trafficking),

and the context in which they arise. This chapter first briefly outlines the latest situation in terms of supply and demand, and the

associated problems. This is then used as a basis for the committees reflections on the future aims of policy and how they ca n best be

achieved.

2.1 Developments in demand

A balanced view of drug use

Levels of consumption and damage to health are still lower for drugs than for alcohol and tobacco. Drug use seems to have stabilised

on average in recent years. In pointing this out, the committee is by no means seeking to trivialise the problems associated with drug

use. It does however believe it is important to see them in perspective, to help avoid the onset of moral panic and prevent calls for

unnecessarily drastic general measures in response to the concerns about drug use expressed by many citizens of Europe. Though

many of those concerns are entirely justified, they appear to be prompted more by a concentration of intractable problems among

vulnerable groups of mainly young people who use drugs, than by figures on average use.

Eight out of ten European citizens regard drug abuse as a cause for concern. Among the Dutch public, the figure is seven out of ten.As such, this issue one of their chief areas of concern, alongside tackling organised crime and terrorism (Euroflash).

One in eight Dutch 15 to 16yearolds said they had were currently using cannabis (i.e. had used it within the last month), and one in 16

use it frequently. The level of use among Dutch adolescents is higher than in Ireland, France, the UK, Belgium, Italy and Germany,

but lower than in Scandinavia, Portugal, Austria and Greece (ESPAD 2008).

See the National Drug Monitor, which shows that, after a large increase in the preceding period, the proportion of 12 to 18yearolds

currently using cannabis (within the last month) fell from 14% to 10% between 1996 and 2003. The rate has since stabilised at this

level. Recent figures from Amsterdam appear to confirm this trend (Nabben et al., 2008).

In this country, recent use among the general population is lower than the European average for all drugs except ecstasy. Figures

presented to the committee suggest there has in fact been a slight downward trend in drug use among schoolchildren since 1996.Nevertheless, use of cannabis among young Dutch people exceeds the average for Western countries, in terms both of the proportion

of current users and of more frequent users of cannabis. It appears that cannabis use has become normal, at least among certain

sections of the young population. In comparison with their European peers, a relatively large number of young Dutch people regard

cannabis as easy to obtain, and perceive the associated risks as less severe.

However, the picture that emerges on the basis of average use statistics for certain age groups is less than reassuring. Drug use is

associated with certain social groups. This is particularly the case with cocaine and ecstasy, which are used in pubs and clubs and, in

combination with particular dress styles and musical preferences, form part of certain lifestyle trends. This is a dynamic process, in

which hype and fashion play a big role. As we shall discuss later, the use of soft drugs among certain groups of young people has

assumed problematically high levels, and is also associated with alcohol consumption.

Problems: m ixed picture

Rates of illness and death from use of hard drugs are relatively low in the Netherlands compared with other EU member states. This

applies both to deaths as a result of HIV infection from contaminated needles to deaths due to overdoses (though there are still around

a hundred cases a year). More generally, problematic use of both hard and soft drugs is relatively low compared with other countries.

For some time now, the problems associated with heroin consumption have been abating: the average age of addicts has risen, as

fewer young people take up the drug, and the mortality rate remains fairly low. Both here and in other countries, the number of people

seeking help for cannabis addiction has increased sharply over the past few years. The number of requests for help with cocaine

addiction has also risen. There have also been recent indications of a rise in problematic use of GHB.

Problematic use of cannabis appears to be particularly prevalent among young people who are disadvantaged by their background

and/or situation. These youngsters display a combination of characteristics: they use cannabis, play truant, are likely to have frequent

contact with care services or spend time in youth detention centres, have no stable home situation, and may even live on the streets.

Crime and dropping out of school appear to be strongly associated with problematic use of drugs and alcohol. As we have said, this

picture does not reflect the average Dutch youngster, but it is more prevalent, at problematic levels, among groups of young people

who are vulnerable in several respects. Cannabis use is part of street culture in large towns and cities with a higher than average


7/337

proportion of ethnic minority youth. Drug use is linked to boredom, and often becomes problematic among young people who are

vulnerable and already overburdened by other factors.

This concentration of cannabis useand indeed alcohol usehas implications for the education sector. Drug use is simply a part of

daily life for pupils at some schools, albeit by no means all. This situation is particularly prevalent in large towns and cities. Pupils

regularly attend class under the influence of drugs or alcohol, cannabis suppliers hang around near schools, and older pupils go to

coffee shops during the day. Drug use has therefore assumed a significance that transcends individual consumption, affecting the

ability of the school to impart knowledge to its pupils. Teachers trying to encourage pupils to go on to take vocational training

sometimes have to compete with the apparently more lucrative option of drug dealing. It is sometimes very difficult for parents and

carers to ensure that young people who get caught up in a negative spiral of problematic use and problematic performance at school

receive the help they need in time.

2.2 Developments in supply

Scaling up, professionali sation and criminalisation in the drugs market

In line with the growing demand for drugs over the past forty years, the drugs trade has expanded, becoming more professional and

commercial. Career criminals have discovered that drug dealing offers greater rewards, with less risk of arrest and long sentences, than

traditional forms of crime. The market has professionalised partly as a result of the fact that measures to tackle illegal trafficking were

slow to get off the ground, and were only stepped up at a much later stage. The commercialisation of the lucrative drugs market is a

development that can also be seen in the soft drugs market, where grow shops and coffee shops have managed to raise their public

profile, despite the ban on advertising. Street dealingwhich can cause a great deal of nuisance for local residentshas also taken on

a bigger role. Drug tourism in the border areas and in large towns and cities (which is sometimes also associated with smallscale

dealing) has risen sharply, fostering largescale cannabis production and trafficking in this country. Such operations have also

developed into major, innovative export enterprises.

Cannabis production has undergone major development, with the advent of modern technologies that allow highquality crops to be

produced on a large scale for both domestic consumption and export. Cannabis production is now no longer concentrated in this

country but has also spread to other European countries, often under the control of criminal organisations that are as enterprising as

they are criminal.

The Netherlands is a link in the international drugs trade, due both to its general role in transit (with important transport hubs like the

Port of Rotterdam and Schiphol) and its good infrastructure, and to the presence of groups from countries where drugs originate, or

through which they pass (North Africa, Turkey, the Caribbean). Both these factors facilitate and benefit the logistics and organisation

of drugs trafficking. The relatively light sentences handed down for such crimes are also cited as an additional explanation for the

Netherlands role in the production and trafficking of drugs, as is the high quality of the products (cannabis and ecstasy).

Trade patterns have changed as new information and communication technologies have become available. At the retail end of the

trade, physical points of sale (coffee shops and nontolerated points of sale) have become less important, as hard drugs are ordered by

mobile and delivered by couriers on scootersjust like pizza delivery services. The Internet is also playing an increasing role in the

drugs market, including in the distribution of equipment for growing cannabis.

Organised crime

All these developments have resulted in a much greater role in the production and trafficking of both hard and soft drugs for organised

crime. There is no separation of markets on the supply side. On the contrary: the two are becoming increasingly linked with serious

crime. The same applies to delivery and support services, such as grow shops which supply seeds, expertise, lamps and other

equipment for growing cannabis. There are indications that this is not a specialised crime. The organisations involved target anything

from which (in this country) they can easily earn large amounts of money, from exporting cannabis to trafficking in women. The

existence of organised criminal gangs means there is a great deal of violence (murder, physical abuse, intimidation of vulnerable

neighbourhoods and groups, such as people who are dependent on debt counselling services or who work in sheltered employment),

and poses major risks in terms of professional ethics (for notaries and lawyers, for example). The proceeds of crime are being

successfully invested, enabling criminal organisations to accumulate power in certain parts of some towns and cities and in the formal

economy (including the real estate sector).

Drug-related crime

Since the 1980s there has been a rise in drugrelated crime: addicts who steal from shops, cars and homes in order to buy hard drugs.

This used to be associated largely with the highly addictive drug heroin, and for decades a few thousand marginalised heroin addicts

were responsible for much of the drugrelated crime in this country. This type of crime is now declining sharply, as the addicts have

grown older, their numbers have fallen and a policy of detention and care targeted at these individuals has begun to enjoy some

success (thanks to the measures to tackle repeat offenders, the introduction of injecting rooms and treatment with methadone and

heroin). There is no other direct, substantive link between drug use and crime. Only specific forms of multiple drug use, combined

with alcohol consumption, potentially make users more likely to display aggressive behaviour (e.g. violence in the nighttime

economy, which is also caused by the liberal supplies of alcohol on offer: for many police officers, patrolling town and city centres at

night is anything but happy hour).

Nuisance


8/338

Besides the nuisance caused by drugrelated crime, drug use and drug dealing can cause severe annoyance to the people living and

working nearby. Street trading in drugs can also be a public nuisance, as can cannabisgrowing operations in residential properties

(odour nuisance, illegal tapping of electricity, couriers), large amounts of rubbish in and around the premises where drugs are bought

and sold, and traffic nuisance caused by visitors to drug houses and coffee shops. Although this can cause a great deal of annoyance to

local residents and businesses and should be tackled, in terms of the bigger picture this is only a minor issue that has in fact declined in

recent years. Public nuisance is currently associated mainly with drug tourism in the southern border regions, where drug runners also

operate. For example, one in eleven residents of South Limburg say they experience nuisance from drug users (Veiligheidsmonitor).

2.3 Goal and methods

Goal: to limit the damage to the individual and to society

As a result of the developments described above, drugs policy has come to overlap more and more with policy on crime, public order,

young people and education. Whereas, in the 1970s, it was virtually a matter of considering the health implications of indiv idual drug

use, the context of drug use has now changed to such an extent that the policy needs to be thoroughly reexamined. The committee

believes that a more integrated and comprehensive strategy is now required. This was already implied in the 1995 policy document on

drugs, and is needed now more than ever.

The situation outlined by the Hulsman working party of 1971, which partly formed the basis of our drugs policy, was one in which [a]

the use of cannabis was not known to lead to brain damage, [b] there was no organised drugs trafficking in the Netherlands, [c]

criminal prosecution appeared to do more harm than good, and [d] drug use did not lead to social problems, but was more an

expression of nonconformity in a society that was in itself unhealthy.

Ruimte in het drugsbeleid, report by the Central Office of Public Mental Health. Meppel: Boom, 1971.

The committee believes that the goal of drugs policy over the next few years should be to prevent and reduce drug use, certainly in so

far as it causes damage to health and to society, and to prevent and reduce the damage associated with the drugs trade. An integrated

approach is certainly needed, to prevent one specific aspect (e.g. nuisance) from dominating decisionmaking, and overshadowing

other aspects (e.g. health).

This definition of the goal of drugs policy is in line with the traditional objectives of the policy, which has always focused on harm.

Where there is no actual or likely harm, there is no need to make the use of psychotropic substances the subject of drugs policy. In

such cases, the personal freedom to decide whether or not to use such substances should take precedence. The committee does

however believe that the actual or potential impact on society must be more explicitly taken into account, alongside the actual or

potential impact on the individual.

Methods: balanced measures

There is no magic bullet, no simple solution for the problems associated with drugs. The longstanding war on drugs has not been a

great success (RAND Corporation, 2009). The same might be said of legalisation, which would not necessarily cause the personal and

social problems to disappear as use became normalised (consider, for example, the effects ofalcohol), and a legalised supply of

drugs would not necessarily mean the end of the illegal market. It might indeed make it more difficult to combat. But legalisation does

have certain advantages.

A balanced drugs policy is a matter of moderation, and cannot be expected to produce major successes in a short space of time.

Prevention, care, regulation and enforcement must be deployed in a wellconsidered mix. This country has undertaken certain

commitments in signing the international agreements that provide the framework for our drugs policy. In recent years, actual practice

in other countries has differed less from our policy than was previously the case. There has been a certain degree of convergence in

Europe in terms of member states efforts to achieve a more balanced mix of prevention, care and criminal law measures in drugs

policy, as the EMCDDA in Lisbon has observed. The same applies to countries like Australia and the US, where rates of cannabis

consumption are high. In many states in the US, reforms have been introduced in drugs policy that have helped shift the emphasis tolimiting the harm associated with drugs.

New substances: a watchf ul eye

People have an innate desire to use psychoactive substances, and therefore have a tendency to try new substances, or devise new uses

for existing ones. One example of the latter trend is young people buying a cheap dose of GHB a substance that until recently was

used only as a recreational drugand developing an addiction to it. Although this does not seem likely to quickly develop into a

national phenomenon, at local level the trend is causing concern and needs urgent attention.

Prescription opiates are becoming more and more prevalent on the drugs market in North America. This trend could spread to this

country, though it is not inevitable. A wider problem is prescription drugs leaking onto the illegal drugs market.
http://www.drugtext.nl/index.php/rapporten/8-hulsmanrapporthttp://www.drugtext.nl/index.php/rapporten/8-hulsmanrapport


9/339

Prescription drug abuse rises to epidemic level (Los Angeles Times, 11 July 2005)

The explosion in the prescription of addictive opioids, depressants and stimulants has, for many children, made the medicine cabinet

a greater temptation and threat than the illegal street drug dealer, as some parents have become unwilling and passive pushers,

according to a report published by Columbia University based on information supplied by doctors, pharmacists and members of the

public. According to the Washington Post (7 July 2005), teenagers arrange 'pharming parties' where they swop drugs spirited from

home or purchased off the streets or Internet.

A new class of substances is now emerging, known as cognitive enhancement drugs. They improve memory, and help users to thinkfaster or to comprehend complex problems. Similar to doping in sport, this is potentially attractive to students and highly educated

professionals who wish to maximise their concentration levels and stamina. Students and scientists at American universities, in

particular, are already taking substances to improve mental performance, and certain ethicists and lawyers who support such practices

have argued against a ban. The drugs in question were originally intended mainly for medical purposes, such as the treatment of

ADHD. They can easily find their way into areas outside medicine, however. Cognitive enhancement drugs are a new development

which present Dutch policymakers, too, with the challenge of devising an appropriate policy in good time: either to declare them

illegal and thus introduce enforcement measures under the criminal law, or take an approach based on harm reduction without

criminalisation (as with tobacco and alcohol). Experiences with this new approach could help with the adjustment of policy responses

to substances listed in the schedules of the Opium Act, if necessary.

Traditionally, policymakers monitor developments in the field of drugs, though they tend to focus mainly on traditional drugs. They

must also, however, be alert to new trends, and to the groups and subcultures where new uses emerge. Any futureproof drugs policy

must be capable of detecting problematic aspects of use in good time, and responding appropriately. See chapter 5.

Restrain t in tackli ng possession of drugs

One of the principles of Dutch drugs policy is that the use of drugs is not in itself a criminal offence. Possession of drugs is, however,

an offence, though possession of a small quantity that is clearly for personal use is not usually prosecuted (at the public p rosecutors

discretion). This principle was based largely on a desire not to criminalise drug users, which would give them a criminal record and

damage their prospects. There was also concern that users would fail to seek help when they needed it for fear of being arrested.

The committee has opted to retain this principle, because it clearly helps reduce the harm to individuals and society caused by drugs.

In its view, however, it does not mean that possession of drugs may never be prosecuted. It might well be appropriate to prosecute for

possession in certain circumstances, in order to stop young people sliding further into trouble, with timely interventions whereby both

criminal prosecution and care serve the same purpose. The threat of prosecution can also be used to set a care programme in motion

(see also chapter 3).

Conclusions

The committee concludes that the general trend in drug use does not give any great cause for concern. There are however major

problems in certain areas that do need addressing: the concentration and social implications of cannabis use among young people;

developments on the coffee shop scene, largely due to the numbers of foreigners they attract and to the links between some coffee

shops and organised cannabis production in this country;

the growing involvement of organised crime in the production and trafficking of cannabis, and links with the trade in hard drugs.

The committee also believes that the dynamics of drug use and trafficking is such that the authorities must be more vigilant, to enable

them to identify and respond to new trends in good time. The committee expects both researchers/academics and government to

become more alert to such trends.


10/3310

3 Young people, drugs and alcohol

Cannabis use among Dutch adolescents is above the average for Western countries. This applies both to the proportion of current users

and of more frequent users. It would appear that use of cannabis is regarded as normal, at least among a certain section of the Dutch

population. In comparison with their European peers, a relatively large proportion of young Dutch people regard cannabis as easy to

obtain, and, as pointed out earlier, regard the risks as low. Use of alcohol by young people is also relatively high in this country, and

excessive use is known to occur at a very young age. There would appear to be a climate in which heavy consumption of alcohol and

drugs is seen as normal. This is sometimes fostered by the happy hour phenomenon. In some town and city centres, the

combination of alcohol and drugs is a key factor in aggressive behaviour, notably towards police officers and care workers.

The committee therefore believes that a more restrictive approach is needed, based on clearly defined social norms. It highlights a

number of developments which have prompted it to call for protection of minors to be given greater priority in drugs policy. For the

sake of clarity: young people and youngsters refers here to people aged 18 or under, with a particular emphasis on the yo unger end

of the age range (12 to 16yearolds).

3.1 Arguments for a more restrictive policy

Damage to personal growth

In recent years, research has revealed more about the impact of substance use among young people. It was already clear that alcohol

and drug use during puberty can cause harm, impairing cognitive capacity and concentration levels, and that alcohol can cause

disinhibition of behaviour. More recently, it has been found that drug use and alcohol consumption can have a harmful impact on

brain development, which continues until roughly the age of 24. There are also indications that cannabis use can increase the

likelihood of psychotic episodes in individuals with a genetic predisposition.

Finally, there is evidence that alcohol and cannabis use at a young age can increase an individuals likelihood of developing

addictions, reduce their individual levels of happiness, and lead to lower social status in young adulthood. These effects may well be

linked with those described in the previous paragraph.

The younger a person starts using substances, and the more frequently they use them, the greater the longterm risks listed here. Both

these aspects of use have unfortunately become more common in this country in recent years.

The debate as to the causality between substance use and these negative effects continues in research circles. Nevertheless, the

committee believes that there is enough evidence of harm, and that the potential seriousness of these effects is sufficient reason to take

action. It advocates that we act on the basis of the precautionary principle, which is better known from environmental poli cy and

physical safety issues. This principle holds that, where there is a risk of serious and irreversible damage, the absence of full scientific

proof may not be used as a reason to delay action.

Harm to society

The second argument for taking measures is harm to society. Excessive use of substances by vulnerable young people can lead topsychological and behavioural disorders, truancy, failure to complete their education and contact with the world of crime. They

develop multiple problem behaviour, which has a negative impact on their future prospects. Substance use among such youngsters is

associated with stagnation in their development and social marginalisation. Drug use is not the cause of their social problems, but it

does exacerbate them, and addiction makes it more difficult for these young people to find a way out of their problematic situation.

Overburdened young people with few opportunities are most likely to face multiple problems, though they are by no means the only

ones. In todays fastmoving, unpredictable and complex society, it is a great challenge for young people to strike a balance as they

make their way along the road to work and active citizenship. This applies all the more when they lack structure in their lives (parents,

school, friends and family), are exposed to bad influences (the temptations of street life, easy rewards from or inadequate

punishment for certain behaviour) and apparently have no positive stimuli (membership of societies, sport, social activities, good

educational performance etc.). They may then find themselves on the road to a deviant lifestyle, involving drug use and the rejection

of institutions such as school and family, with no alternative structures or activities to take their place.

The conclusion that this mainly affects the weaker members of society chimes with a statement made in a recent advisory report onintersectoral health policy: When it comes to health, it is the weakest who shoulder the greatest burden: people with lower

socioeconomic status generally have more health problems.

3.2 More rigorous and embedded action

The committee believes that much more rigorous action is needed to protect vulnerable young people and prevent them from turning

to drugs and alcohol. Youngsters who nevertheless use drugs and alcohol, and thus develop problematic behaviour, must be given

adequate help to curb the negative impact of use.

L inks with other policy areas

Substance use among young people varies. Often, they use alcohol and drugs in the context of the experimentation that is a natural

part of growing up. They usually stop using them quite quickly, and of their own accord. Some continue, however, because they grow

accustomed to or dependent on the substance, or because it is part of the subculture to which they belong.


11/3311

Early and excessive use of substances appears to be associated with many other characteristics of the individual and his/her

environment. At least half of young people with problem behaviour have problems in many areas, including excessive consumption of

drugs and/or alcohol. Those problems, in turn, play a role in persistent problematic drug use. A majority of adolescents who commit

crime, for example, have addiction problems (alcohol, drugs). The vast majority of young people being treated for addiction or in

other forms of care have multiple problems. This requires a multifaceted strategy which takes into account the interaction between

different factors associated with the young person (inherited or acquired behavioural tendencies) and their family, peers and the wider

social and cultural context of their school, neighbourhood or workplace.

The committee believes that, given this link between substance use and the personal characteristics of young people who are still in

the process of maturing, any drugs policy targeting them will be unlikely to enjoy success unless it is embedded in a broader

framework of policy on young people, education and crime.

3.3 Prevention and care

It is best if use of alcohol and drugs by young people is prevented. This is especially true of excessive use, and use among the very

young. Three approaches are theoretically possible (according to the categorisation used in health care, and recently introduced by the

EMCDDA): universal prevention, targeting the entire population selective prevention, targeting groups and individuals who have

more risk factors predisposing them to drug use than others indicated prevention for individuals who run a major risk and who are

already showing the first signs (have started to use, for example).

Universal and selective prevention: norms and education

Universal prevention involves education campaigns in schools and in the mass media. Though they are useful in raising awareness,

they do not have a direct impact on actual behaviour. Such campaigns are used mainly in support of a broader prevention strategy,

enabling the authorities, for example, to provide the public with reliable information about the risks of substance use. At the same

time, such campaigns can communicate a clear message to reinforce the efforts of parents and schools (and other institutions) in thisarea.

The committee believes that the message that alcohol and drug use by young people is not desirable is best served by total avoidance

of any ambiguity. The message must be that use at a young age is not normal, and that it should be identified and tackled more

effectively, and at an earlier stage. It would help if there were a single minimum age for purchasing both alcohol and cannabis (in

coffee shops). The minimum ages are now 16 and 18 respectively. The committee recommends, in view of the medical indications,

that a minimum age of 18 be applied to both substances.

To underpin this norm, the committee believes it is essential to take an active, rigorous approach to tackling vendors and

intermediaries who help young people obtain drugs and alcohol. This will require adequate monitoring, and substantial penalties in the

event of violations. It appears that young people (including the very young) are able to obtain cannabis and alcohol through various

channels, despite official policy. The authorities must not tolerate illegal vendors who sell alcohol and drugs to young people, or

mediate in purchases of such substances or, even worse, actively promote drug use among young people for commercial reasons.

Minors often drink alcohol before they go out in the evening. It may be worth considering whether it is possible to take action againstthis under a General Municipal Byelaw or other legislation (such as the Road Traffic Act, as the Association of Netherlands

Municipalities has suggested).

The committee believes that drugs education for young people should tie in better with education on alcohol. Studies have shown that

clear rules can reduce the risks (even genetically determined risks) of excessive alcohol consumption and addiction. Stricter rules

within families have a preventive effect, particularly if children have not yet started drinking. Parents are currently much more strict

about drug use than about alcohol: 64% regard drinking under the age of 16 as unacceptable, compared with 98% for cannabis use.

The government uses the message no drinking under the age of 16 in its communications. It is however reluctant to use a sim ilar

message for drugs, as this might imply that there is nothing wrong with using them above a particular age. To make the goal of

protecting young people clear, a clear message on both drugs and alcohol would be more appropriate: use your brains, protect your

brain: no drugs or alcohol under the age of 18.

One targeted education programme for schools focuses on health and use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco. In international terms, it is

one of the best on offer, but it is taught in only 60% of secondary schools and a third of primary schools. The committee believes thatlocal authorities, and more specifically the municipal health services (GGD), should do more to improve prevention activities in

schools. The GGD can advise schools on prevention programmes for substance use, and ways of tying them in with programmes to

prevent truancy and improve safety in schools. Embedding alcohol and drugs prevention in a broader school programme can also help

schools to avoid giving the impression that substance use is a specific problem in their particular institution (cf. the Safe Schools

programme in Rotterdam:).

Prevention is not, of course, a matter solely for the GGD and care organisations for addicts. It should also be a natural and inseparable

element of broader policy on young people. This applies particularly when a certain type of drug use is associated with the identity of

certain groups (street culture and the drugs that form part of it, such as cannabis use among ethnic minority youth in large towns and

cities), and is often simply a way of dispelling boredom. Services such as youth work and recreational activities in the heart of urban

areas have unfortunately been discontinued or cut back in recent years. There is much to be gained here in terms of the healthy


12/3312

development of young people: improvements in leisure activities and community work (recreational facilities, sport) can help prevent

young people from turning to substance use, displaying other unhealthy behaviour or becoming a public nuisance.

Greater focus on indicated preventi on

The committee believes that particular benefit can be gained by means of indicated prevention, in cases where young people or

families have a specific risk of substance use (or continued substance use) which can still be averted.

There is a general need for indicated prevention when problematic situations arise as children are growing up, to support the young

person in question and his or her parents. Problem behaviour involving substance use does not generally occur until the final years of

primary school and the first years of secondary school. A general preventive programme such as that on health and drugs, alcohol and

tobacco use is not enough for these children. They need targeted prevention. According to the committee, this requires a structuredapproach that is lacking to some extent in the Netherlands, though the building blocks do exist here. This approach involves two

components: identification and care.

Step one is to identify the imminent development of problem behaviour. As soon as such a situation is identified by parents or

teachers, it will often be possible to respond adequately at home or at school. In other cases, this will not be enough. Pupil support

advisory teams in schools can play a key role in identifying and acknowledging the need for further action. Once problems have been

identified, help is not always automatically sought. It can be difficult to provide care for young people when many different bodies are

involved, each with their own rationale, leadership and logistical rules and constraints. This state of affairs does not favour alertness

and rapid action, which are essential. Care workers must get together with the young person in question, the school and the parents as

soon as possible to determine what can be done and to offer integrated care (targeted not at a single problem being experienced by the

youngster or the family, but at all the problems that have a bearing on the situation).

At the moment, things tend to go wrong because the different sectors (schools and various forms of youth care) are not sufficiently

coordinated. What is more, many care workers who work with young people (from school doctors to youth probation officers; frommunicipal health service prevention workers to psychotherapists) know little about addiction problems. They also often have no

knowledge of the impact of the most important systems in the life of young people on the emergence and perpetuation of prob lem

behaviour (the young person him/herself, family, school, work, peers, leisure activities etc.), and of possible ways of intervening. This

is unfortunate, as certain family and system approaches have proven effective in preventing and providing early treatment for multiple

problems. It is by no means necessary for all care workers to be trained in psychosocial system therapy. The committee would

however like to see local authorities train large groups of care workers (from the pupil support advisory teams, municipal health

services, youth care offices, including youth probation officers and the Child Protection Board, and others working in youth care,

mental health care, care of addicts and forensic care) in the principles of systembased care. Armed with this knowledge, they will be

better able to identify potential problems and refer youngsters for further assistance. The municipality of The Hague has already

adopted this approach.

Municipalities can play a prominent role here, helping bring about more integrated youth care, with teams of care workers who could

be rapidly deployed for preventive early care and for therapy, unhindered by compartmentalisation between different sectors of care. It

is however important to guard against fragmentation by making a single body responsible for the care offered.

Delinquency and care

The committee has observed that, over the past ten years, a more integrated approach has been taken towards young people with

problem behaviour who come into contact with the police and criminal justice system. Steps have been taken to ensure that the

response in such situations not only consists criminal sanctions, but also includes collaboration with child protection services and

youth probation officers to identify what approach would most effectively halt the young persons downward spiral, in line wi th the

educational approach taken in juvenile criminal law. Any punishment takes the form of a disincentive (suspended sentence,

conditional on cooperation with a care programme, and currently also measures designed to influence behaviour). The committee

regards this as a useful development, particularly if discussion of cases where the delinquent behaviour is associated with a pattern of

substance use involves professionals involved in the care of addicts.

Links between care services, the municipality, police and criminal justice authorities in cases of youth delinquency have been

strengthened by the introduction of community safety partnerships. The committee regards these partnerships as a promising

development, involving coordination between various parties, particularly if they also involve specific and timely preventive andtherapeutic interventions aimed at young people. Those with multipleproblem behaviour who have not yet committed any offence, or

at least have not been arrested, also need this type of approach.

The general principle of current policy, whereby use of drugs (or alcohol) is not regarded as an offence, and possession for personal

use is not prosecuted, should be maintained, in the committees opinion. This approach has the advantage that it does not rai se extra

barriers to accepting treatment. Nevertheless, there is sufficient reason to introduce a stricter and more compulsory approach in the

case of people under the age of 18 (and, where necessary, their parents) who clearly and persistently abuse these substances. Criminal

prosecution and care can serve the same purpose in such situations, supporting and complementing the efforts of the childs legal

carers and the school. Such a binding approach must however be designed in such a way that it keeps the channel for communication

on substance use open and lowers barriers to treatment as far as possible. A more stringent approach would also support parents and

teachers, whose position would be strengthened by clear social norms enforced rigorously and without delay.


13/3313

Conclusions

In the interests of healthy personal and social development, the committee believes it is necessary that steps be taken to counteract

drug and alcohol use among young people, particularly where this occurs at a very young age, and at excessive levels. The committee

envisages a combination of measures: clear and unambiguous norms concerning the undesirability of substance use, reflected in a

single minimum age of 18 for drug and alcohol use, and an active approach to prosecuting those who supply alcohol and drugs to

minors; a systemised approach to intervention as soon as young people display signs of developing problem behaviour involving

substance use (indicated prevention); when young people engage in delinquent behaviour, the criminal law can be used as a powerful

disincentive to prevent them descending further into harmful patterns of behaviour. In both education campaigns and other strategies,

it often makes no sense to take action simply on drugs (and/or alcohol). A more integrated approach is needed, in the framework of

general policy on young people.


14/3314

4 Coffee shops

The committee paid working visits, studied the literature and obtained information from key individuals involved with coffee shops

to gain an idea of how and in what context these facilities operate. The picture that emerged from this exercise differs markedly from

what was originally envisaged: coffee shops as smallscale facilities with a largely local/regional role in the production and use of

cannabis. The committee is convinced that the policy on coffee shops needs reviewing, in order to redress the balance between their

positive and negative aspects.

4.1 Current situation

Quiet and safe

Coffee shops have a role chiefly as places where adult consumers can purchase and, if they wish, use cannabis in a quiet, safe setting,

without coming into contact with individuals who deal in other drugs. In this sense, they play a role in the separation of the drugs

markets. They do not apparently lead to a different level of cannabis use among adolescents or lower cannabisdependence in the

Netherlands than in other European countries (Trimbos/WODC). It has also been found that minors, who are not allowed to use coffee

shops, can easily obtain cannabis from these establishments via adults. The existence of coffee shops allows the authorities to keep an

eye on consumers, make contact with them and provide information on the risks. Finally, coffee shops provide local government with

a safety valve that allows it to influence part of the cannabis market. Its ability to set criteria whereby cannabis production and

supply will be tolerated provides a way of reducing the public nuisance sometimes associated with coffee shops.

Public nuisance and disruption

In many of the 100 or more municipalities with coffee shops, they can be regarded as a relatively troublefree phenomenon, providing

within the existing policy framework a manageable facility that mainly supplies local users.In the border areas, however, particularly in the south of the country, the presence of coffee shops causes problems, due to the large

and evergrowing numbers of people crossing the border to buy drugs. The conflict this has caused has prompted a range of local, and

sometimes regional, interventions: the closure of a large coffee shop in Terneuzen, the closure of all coffee shops in Roosendaal and

Bergen op Zoom and plans in Limburg to impose major restrictions on access to coffee shops. The presence of large coffee shops

causes public nuisance in terms of traffic and noise levels. The influx of consumers from Belgium, France and Germany has given rise

to a market in which coffee shops have become permanent facilities serving customers from abroad, who come to buy drugs for their

own consumption, and also to deal in them back home.

In Amsterdam, on the other hand, where more than one in four of all coffee shops in the Netherlands are located, most tourists cause

virtually no problems in or near coffee shops. The nature of drugs tourism is different there. Many foreigners visit a coffee shop

during their stay in the city, with no intention of taking drugs home with them. The large number of coffee shops in Amsterdam has

been prompted by this type of incidental tourism, which occurs on a fairly substantial scale. Though their numbers have been

substantially reduced over the years, the concentration of coffee shops in certain areas of the city is so great, in the view of the city

council, that they have a negative impact on the neighbourhoods where they are located.

Over the past few decades Rotterdam has invested a great deal in counteracting major problems on the drugs market associated with

the combination of coffee shops, drugs runners and drug houses, caused partly by their attractiveness to foreigners from countries to

the south of the Netherlands.

This brief summary highlights the major local and regional differences in the coffee shop situation. We should also add that measures

in one municipality have an impact on others. The closure of coffee shops in one can, for example, cause the market to partially or

even completely relocate to another. Or a more stringent approach in one place can cause more problems elsewhere. Many drug

runners in Limburg, for example, have come from the Randstad conurbation in the west of the country.

Enforcement

Article 71, paragraph 2 of the Schengen Convention 1990 states that: The contracting Parties undertake to prevent and punish by

administrative and penal measures the illegal export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, including cannabis, as well as the

sale, supply and handing over of such products and substances, without prejudice to the relevant provisions of Articles 74, 75 and 76.'Despite this, however, selling of cannabis in coffee shops is tolerated, under strict conditions.

The distinction between soft and hard drugs was introduced by the Opium Act 1976. The phenomenon of house dealers, which soon

developed into coffee shops as tolerated points of sale for cannabis, was seen mainly as a way of keeping cannabis users away from

the world of hard drugs. The rules applying to coffee shops are laid down in Public Prosecution Service guidelines (see sidebar),

which define the conditions under which the selling of cannabistechnically a criminal offencewill not be prosecuted. They

include restrictions on the amount of cannabis that coffee shops are allowed to stock and the weight that may be sold, a measure which

is designed to curb crossborder drugs tourism.


15/3315

Public Prosecution Service criteria

The sale of soft drugs in coffee shops is tolerated, subject to strict conditions. Coffee shops that are tolerated on the basis of local

tripartite consultations (between the mayor, public prosecutor and chief of police) will not in principle be prosecuted provided they

comply with the following conditions:

no advertising: this means no advertisements other than a brief notice on the premises in question;

no hard drugs: this means that no hard drugs may be present or sold on the premises;

no public nuisance: this includes inconsiderate parking near to the coffee shop, noise annoyance, waste and/or customers hanging

around in front of or near the premises;

no selling to or admittance of young people: given the increase in cannabis use among young people, it has been decided that the

minimum age of 18 should be strictly enforced;

no sales of large quantities in a single transaction: in other words, amounts larger than are suitable for personal use (= 5 g).

Transaction is taken to mean any purchase or sale in a single coffee shop on the same day, involving the same purchaser.

the tripartite authorities may determine the maximum quantity of cannabis that tolerated coffee shops may stock. In principle, no

prosecutions will be brought against coffee shops stocking any amount up to the maximum. The stock may not in any event exceed

500 g.

Opium Act guidance (2000A019) (see www.om.nl)

The drugs policy document 1995 opted to enforce these criteria primarily under administrative law, so that the police and PublicProsecution Service could focus on enforcing the criminal law to tackle hard drugs and organised crime. As a result of this choice, the

focus of enforcement in the case of soft drugs has come to rest above all on the public nuisance caused by certain coffee shops. The

Trimbos/WODC evaluation report states that compliance with and monitoring of the maximum permitted stock of 500 g causes

particular problems.

The criminal and fiscal enforcement agencies say the same. It is also difficult to ascertain whether drugs are sold to customers several

times a day, and to prove that drugs have been sold on to minors.

The committee observes that, due partly to problems with enforcement (which is sometimes neglected), the original aims have not

been achieved. It has proved difficult to protect young people, some coffee shops are now much larger than was ever intended, and

some systematically supply the foreign market. As a result, commitments under the Schengen Convention and other international

agreements are not being fulfilled.

Maastricht has attempted to keep away foreign customers by setting out rules on access to coffee shops in a General Municipal

Ordinance. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State is currently considering an appeal against a decision bythe mayor of Maastricht to temporarily close a coffee shop on the grounds that it had contravened the provision in the General

Municipal Ordinance banning access to individuals who are not resident in the Netherlands. A request for a preliminary ruling has also

been submitted to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The issue at stake is whether the ban is compatible with the free

movement of goods and services. The crucial questions are whether cannabis can be regarded as a good under EC law, and how this

approach under administrative law relates to the EUs provisions on drugs in the Maastricht Treaty. It is likely to be some t ime before

a ruling is handed down.

Cannabis growing and organised crime

Permitting sales of cannabis in coffee shops has unfortunately given rise to the idea that soft drugs are not a big problem, with the

result that less priority has been given to investigating cannabis growers and traffickers. This has allowed hemp growing to develop on

a large scale, facilitated by legitimate commercial services (finance, consultancy, money laundering) and improvements in growing

techniques (agricultural science, industry), and with little hindrance from the police and criminal justice authorities, who were

focusing on the hard drugs market. A report recently compiled by Breda city council highlights a prime example of thesedevelopments.

The coffee shop sector is varied, and its character has changed dramatically. The image of small entrepreneurs who once opened

coffee shops for idealistic reasons applies to only a small proportion of the sector these days. It is now dominated by largescale and

often supraregional commercial operators, some of them with direct links to the world of organised crime. Largescale cannabis

growers and dealers are not always too concerned about the quality of the cannabis, and in recent years, use of pesticides and growth

enhancers that are damaging to the health of users has been on the increase. Substances added to the cannabis to increase its weight

and so increase profits are also detrimental to quality. This increases the health risks to consumers. Coffee shop owners have little

opportunity to screen the products supplied for this kind of contamination. It is also difficult for wellintentioned coffee shop owners to

buy cannabis from smallscale producers (some of whom grow cannabis in their own homes), as they have largely been driven away or

taken over by large producers whose objective is no longer to serve cannabis consumers but to protect their own financial interests, by

violent means if necessary.


16/33


17/3317

No ban, no legali sation

The committee believes that a total ban on coffee shops (option VI) would not be a wise course of action, as it would mean the loss of

the quiet, safe environment they offer adult cannabis users. They would then have to resort to the illegal market, bringing them into

contact with other drugs and the crime associated with them. Nevertheless, an overall ban would make this country less attractive to

foreign users. This can also be achieved by less drastic means, however. The other advantages of coffee shops (scope for monitoring

users, role as safety valve) would also be lost if an outright ban were instituted.

At the other end of the spectrum, the committee does not favour legalisation (option I) in the current circumstances. It is aware of the

calls for legalisation, on the grounds that the problems associated with cannabis are caused mainly by the fact that production and

trade are banned, and that full liberalisation of the market could be achieved without many problems. The committee does not

however believe that the advantages of liberalisation and the drawbacks of a ban are as blackandwhite as this would suggest.

Legalisation would not, for example, rid us of all the problems associated with substance use (cf. the major alcohol problem in this

country). And unilateral legalisation by the Netherlands would only serve to attract more foreign users, and possibly also producers,

since they could grow cannabis for export in this country freely and without risk. The debate as to whether to legalise or ban cannabis

must be conducted at international level. The committee believes it would be unrealistic for our country to go its own way on this

issue (by unilaterally withdrawing from the international agreements on the matter).

I n the current situation

The current situation corresponds to option II: coffee shops are open to the general public but subject to one sided regulation (of

sales, not of supply and the associated production and trade). As we have said, this causes few problems for many local authorities,

other than the crimeinducing nature of a nonregulated supply side. Though this is not an ideal situation, it could in principle persist on

condition that enforcement were tightened up. The committee does, however, have a few reservations.

The first concerns enforcement. As we indicated above, better criminal law enforcement, alongside administrative enforcement, isneeded to link toleration of coffee shops more closely to supervision of compliance with conditions, and more sanctions in the event of

noncompliance. This of course applies to the ban on hard drugs on the premises, but also to the number of transactions per client and

selling (or reselling) to minors.

The second concerns the question of whether some general conditions currently applying at national level are actually appropriate in

certain local circumstances. If not, the tripartite authorities must have the freedom to set local conditions within the national policy

framework. This applies to the recently introduced condition that coffee shops must be situated a certain minimum distance from

schools; having listened to the views of schools, the committee is not convinced that this national criterion is generally appropriate (or

effective).

Thirdly, there is the problem of how to enforce the maximum stock limit of 500 g. Both the coffee shop sector and the law

enforcement authorities (police, Public Prosecution Service, Tax and Customs Administration) have highlighted problems with this

rule. Measures to prevent coffee shops expanding in size and to reduce the influx of drug tourists will not resolve this issue, as

variation in the size of coffee shops will persist, depending on the local situation. The maximum quantity would then have to be based

on the size of the customer base and the coffee shops turnover. The tripartite authorities may agree to the introduction of a maximum

below 500 g; they may not exceed this limit, however. But prosecutions are rarely, if ever, brought against coffee shops found to be

exceeding the limit (on the basis of cannabis actually found, or deduced on the basis of transactions). Since the committee believes

that criminal enforcement needs tightening up, it might be worth considering adapting the rules on the maximum quantity of cannabis

kept on the premises to give the tripartite authorities some room for manoeuvre.

Since the supply of cannabis to coffee shops is illegal, the owner and staff theoretically run the risk of prosecution if they pick up and

transport cannabis to the premises. The halfway option would involve an undertaking that these individuals would be protect ed from

criminal prosecution if it were clear they were acting in accordance with the conditions for the operation of the enterprise and only

with the aim of selling within these constraints. This would tie in with current practice, though the rules would have to be made

clearer, in view of the desire to enforce the law more rigorously.

The committee strongly recommends that coffee shops once more become smallscale facilities. It is clear that the emergence of very

large coffee shops, or even mega coffee shops, quickly causes problems (cf. Terneuzen). However, the committee regards it as the

job of the local/regional tripartite authorities to strike the best balance between the size of coffee shops, their number and theirdistribution. Sometimes this will lead to the opening of more coffee shops, while in other cases coffee shops will have to close.

Fur ther development towards regulated supply not an automatic step (fr om I I to I I I )

The idea of proceeding from the current situation (option II) towards regulation of supply and also production of cannabis (option III)

has been put forward in various quarters. This would give the authorities more of a hold over production, which in some parts of the

country, like southeast Brabant, is occurring on such a huge scale that it is difficult to control. There would have to be a clear

distinction between tolerated, regulated cannabis growing operations for similarly tolerated and regulated coffee shops, on the one

hand and, on the other, the production of cannabis for the illegal market at home and abroad, which will have to be rigorously tackled.

The committee rejects the idea of such a development in the current circumstances. Coffee shop owners would have to serve a large

clientele (since there would be no restrictions on the number or type of visitors, who would include foreigners) from stocks supplied

hopefully by bona fide producers, who would have to operate in a market dominated by criminal organisations. It is difficult to drive


18/3318

organised crime out of such largescale, complex commercial processes, and it would take major efforts to keep them out. Given the

problems currently associated with this, the risks would be too great.

Furthermore, the regulation of cannabis supply on the larger scale referred to here would not be compliant with the international

agreements to which the Netherlands is party, and such a development wouldas with legalisation mean that the Dutch had to

withdraw from certain agreements, a prospect which the committee regards as unrealistic and undesirable.

Towards a more closed type of coff ee shop (fr om I I to IV)

As we have said, the committee would advise that coffee shops return to being smallscale facilities (or remain as such) serving the

local market (i.e. residents of the municipality where they are located and the immediate surrounding area). Measures to restrict flows

of customers to coffee shops are needed, as a matter of priority in regions where coffee shops systematically serve a crossbordermarket. Restricted access to coffee shops for crossborder consumers would reduce the influx of foreigners, many of whom come

because coffee shops give them a quiet, safe environment in which to consume cannabis. If they were to stay away, the coffee shop

market would shrink, and the associated sideeffects (drug runners, street dealing including in hard drugsand traffic nuisance)

would be reduced.

This could be tested in practical experiments such as those planned for Limburg, where the authorities hope to restrict access to coffee

shops by introducing passes (other places are planning to use iris scans and other methods of identification), limiting opportunities to

consume (daily limits), restricting opening hours, and introducing payment by electronic transfer, which would no longer be

anonymous, etc. If the desired effect is to be achieved, the regulations will have to be properly and consistently enforced. An attempt

to discourage drugs tourism using the Public Prosecution Service criteria failed. The committee is also in favour of experimenting with

other methods. The impact and results of the tests will however have to be closely monitored, supervised by experts and nationally

evaluated to establish whether they have been effective (a role that could be performed by the new drugs authority; see chapter 5).

A more radical version of option IV would be to set up a coffee shop club. This would be a closed enterprise, and all customers wouldhave to be members. The club would have a list of members (perhaps subject to a certain maximum) and nonmembers would not be

admitted. If the club were truly to be closed, it would have to be prohibited from offering day membership. The club would therefore

have a stable set of consumers who would all be members. One condition would be that membership would be open only to residents

of the region. This would bring us close to the situation originally intended: coffee shops as local facilities for local or regional

consumers. The committee believes this option is interesting enough for experiments to be set up.

The possibility of introducing a more closed version of coffee shops would reduce the problems in border areas. However, it would

take extra enforcement. It is not clear what implications this would have for the market in drug production. If it became less attractive

for foreigners to come to the Netherlands because they could no longer visit coffee shops, the illegal domestic target might shrink. But

this would require a clear, stringent policy; halfhearted attempts at regulation could in fact lead to more illegal production and trading

for the Dutch market. The vast majority of production and trade is now intended for export. Coffee shops play no role in this.

Closed coff ee shops with r egul ated supply (option V)

Only if closed coffee shops were introduced, along with checks on users, does the committee believe it would be possible to considerregulating cannabis supply and production. It believes such a step could be countenanced only if the club model, with a clearly defined

and fairly stable membership, were successfully introduced and maintained. Under option V, several plants could be grown for the

personal use of each member of the club, which would grow the cannabis independently in this country. This option would tie supply

to customer access, with no scope for supply of cannabis from abroad.

This idea is important, as it would help resolve one of the contradictions of current policy: the fact that coffee shops are allowed to sell

cannabis, while production and distribution of cannabis are banned. Experimenting with this on a small scale would enable us to

establish whether (in view of current developments in the market) this would be manageable, and identify any potential negative side

effects. An experiment of this kind would provide an opportunity to see whether the idea of a coffee shop for the local market,

supplied from smallscale growing operations, were viable.

The results of experiments might lead to regulation of cannabis production in a broader sense, if developments were to occur at

international level that made this possible, or even desirable (this would mean progressing from V to III).

The committee recommends that the possibility of establishing coffee shop clubs with regulated supply be investigated further toreveal what legal conditions would need to be introduced, and how the production and consumption of cannabis and their supervision

might be organised. If no insurmountable fundamental or practical problems were to arise, one or more experiments might be

conducted, followed by scientific evaluation.

4.4 Further development of coffee shop policy through experimentation

Recent years have seen mainly local initiatives in response to specific problems. While the committee understands the need for such

initiatives, it would call for a more systematic approach, with further development of drugs policy in a more systematic and controlled

manner than we have seen over the past few years, along the lines set out, and with more guidance from central government. Simply

responding to local developments would not be consistent with this approach. National policy will have to be more actively shaped,

and this will include the setting up and evaluation of experiments. Such a development will require a national authority (s ee chapter

5) to initiate and supervise experiments in close consultation with authorities at local level; to help define consistent administrative,


19/3319

health and legal conditions for local initiatives; to investigate the impact (including any displacement effects); and to translate any

information gleaned into further measures.

Contacts with neighbouring countries will have a major bearing on any further development of coffee shops, if only because any

changes to our policy will affect Germany, Belgium and France too. Our counterparts in those countries will have to be fully informed

of our plans, and it would be useful to identify the implications for them of any changes to our policy. It might also be useful to

involve them in evaluating our experiments, in view of the fact that this is a problem common to all EU countries.

The committee not only regards it as essential that we work on a structural basis, but also that we take an integrated approach to the

entire issue, to ensure that the concerns of the administrative authorities (public nuisance, administrative enforcement), police and

criminal justice authorities (crime and enforcement of the criminal law) and the health care sector are considered in a balanced way

both in setting up the experiments and in identifying their implications. Local coffee shop policy does not always comply with the

necessary conditions at present (these include input from and deployment of the police, and

2009_new emphasis in dutch drugs policy_report of the advisory committee on drugs policy, 2009_33p

Documents