Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Dutch Coffee Shops-2

•Download as DOCX, PDF•
•
M
Michael Plotkin

The document discusses the Dutch model of tolerance for soft drugs like marijuana through "coffee shops" and examines whether a similar model could work in the United States. Key points made include: 1) The Netherlands policy separates soft and hard drug markets and focuses on public health over criminalization, resulting in fewer prosecutions and social harms; 2) Decriminalization does not necessarily lead to increased drug use; 3) The U.S. "war on drugs" is not effective and disproportionately criminalizes nonviolent drug offenders, while legalization could generate tax revenue and reduce enforcement costs; 4) Other countries are also questioning prohibition-focused drug policies due to rising violence and other unintended consequences.

1 of 9
The Dutch Coffee Shop – Would It Work in the United States? Michael Plotkin -10639381 Social Policies and Pragmatic Tolerance in Amsterdam Dr. Leon Deben and TessaDikker August 4, 2013 By
1 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Chapter 1 – The Dutch Coffee Shop .........Error! Bookmark not defined. Chapter 2 – Lessons Learned ...................Error! Bookmark not defined. Add a Bibliography ..............................Error! Bookmark not defined. INTRODUCTION Marijuana is like a good kid who has fallen in with a bad crowd. Throughout most of the world, it is treated like its bad cousins, the hard drugs1 – heroin, LSD and various amphetamines, and is illegal. Users, possessors and purveyors of marijuana are treated as criminals. In the Netherlands, however, marijuana is treated differently. It is tolerated. Although not legal, it is decriminalized. Like a rebellious teen, it is kept away from the more dangerous influences and directed to more wholesome locales…the Dutch coffee shop. In this essay I try to answer the question: Could the Netherlands policy of tolerance for marijuana work in the United States? This is not a simple yes or no answer because there are significant differences in the two countries. The Netherlands has a population of 6 million people compared to the United States, which has over 300 million people. The country is small and has a single legal system. In contrast, in the United States, each state has its own criminal laws and enforcement process and the federal government has another set of criminal laws and enforcement process. Currently, use, possession and sale of marijuana is illegal under federal law, and under most state laws. Two states, Colorado and Washington have legalized recreational use of marijuana, while twenty states allow some form of 1 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013)
2 medical use.2 Clearly the United States is beginning to reassess its “War on Drugs” with respect to marijuana and perhaps the Netherlands can provide the model. CHAPTER 1 – THE DUTCHCOFFEE SHOP The Dutch policy of tolerance for soft drugs has been in effect for about 40 years.3 The tolerance for marijuana use grew out of the recognition that cannabis was not a “gateway” drug that inevitably led to the use of hard drugs, as well as the recognition that drug use should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal issue4 . A significant report by the Baan Committee in 1972 distinguished between soft drugs, such as cannabis and hard drugs and recommended that penalties should reflect the risks a particular drug poses to individuals and society. The report noted that the negative effect of arrest and prosecution on cannabis users and society outweighed the benefit of criminal prosecution. 5 The Netherlands apparently considered legalizing marijuana in the early 1970s but because of pressure from neighboring countries, had to settle for decriminalizing cannabis. In 1976, revisions to the Opium Act created two categories of drugs, those that presented an unacceptable risk to health and cannabis products.6 As a result of the decriminalization, prosecution of small scale cannabis sales was left to the discretion of the municipalities. This discretion was exercised in accordance with the expediency principle in the Dutch legal system. Under this principle, if the public prosecutor deems that a criminal prosecution is not in the public interest, he or she may instruct the police to act accordingly.7 The expediency principle helped foster the growth of the coffee shops. 2 (USA Today, 2013) 3 (Breeksema, 2013, pp. 21-23) 4 (Breeksema, 2013, p. 17) 5 Id. at 17-18. 6 Id. at 18. 7 Id. at 19.
3 There are general guidelines for coffee shops that give both the police and the proprietors the necessary understanding of what activity is tolerated. The criteria are identified as AHOJ-G, an acronym for A – no Advertising, H – no Hard drugs, O – no nuisance (Overlast), J – no sales to youth (Jeugdigen) and G- limiting of daily sales to 30 Grams per person.8 The coffee shops in the Netherlands operate on a quasi-legal environment where it is ok to sell marijuana out of the coffee shops to locals and tourists, but the process for the shop to get its supplies through the back door, is illegal. Even though cultivation of cannabis is illegal, there are an estimated 200 wholesalers and 375 grow shops in the country.9 Moreover, it is surmised that crackdowns and more stringent enforcement on growers has driven small entrepreneurs out and increased the influence of criminal organizations in cultivation.10 Part of the impetus for decriminalization of cannabis was the increasing problem in the Netherlands with heroin and cocaine. By separating cannabis use from the milieu of hard drugs, policy makers hoped prevent cannabis users from moving on to more destructive drugs. By and large, the coffee shop system has succeeded in that regard. The Netherlands has experimented with more stringent regulations on coffee shops, particularly in the southern border areas. The government experimented with the “weed club pass” in three southern provinces in an attempt to make the coffee shops “members only” and restricted to residents. It is generally conceded that the experiment was a failure. Local residents refused to register, nuisance related to illegal street sales increased.11 8 Id. at 23. 9 Id. at 24. 10 Id. at 31. 11 Id. at 39.
4 When drug use in the Netherlands is compared to its more restrictive European neighbors, it is generally below the average.12 In one aspect, the Dutch model is clearly superior. Criminal records for cannabis users in the Netherlands are extremely rare.13 Given the social costs of a criminal record in terms of stigma and employability, this is a major achievement. There are costs to the policy of toleration. It is estimated that approximately €160 million per year is spent on prosecution of soft drugs crime, presumably related to the supply side. The Dutch earn about €400 million in corporate taxes from coffee shops.14 It is estimated that if the supply side of the cannabis market was decriminalized, the government would not only save the €160 million in prosecution expenses, but the legalizing the businesses would generate approximately €260 million in tax revenues. LESSONS LEARNED The lessons from the Dutch policy of tolerance are significant. First and foremost, decriminalization does not lead to increased numbers of users. Separating the drug markets was practical and it worked in removing the soft drugs from hard drugs. As a result, there were fewer prosecutions for soft drug use and therefore less social disruption. Focusing on drug use as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue helps reduce drug caused harms. The drug policy and decriminalization should be comprehensive, covering cultivation, wholesale and retail. DRUG POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES The United States locks up a greater percentage of its citizens than China, Russia and Iran, countries not noted for exemplary criminal 12 Id. at 47. 13 Id. at 49. 14 Id. at 52.
5 justice systems.15 Much of the increase in prison populations comes from harsher prison sentences and criminalization of victimless crimes, like drug use, possession, and minor distribution.16 The prisons thus become warehouses for problems the states do not want to deal with in other ways. It is estimated that over half of America’s current prison population is incarcerated for drug-related offenses.17 Non-violent drug offenders sentenced to prison are given an education in violence and crime. When they are released, they lack employment skills and carry the stigma of criminality. Lacking good employment, they are likely to employ the criminal skills learned in prison and embark on a career in crime. In 2010, Jeffrey Miron, the Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University, estimated that legalizing marijuana would save $13.7 billion a year in enforcement costs.18 His estimate was related to state and local expenditures. Last year, three leaders of Latin American countries in their addresses to the UN General Assembly, called for debate and discussions on new ways to combat drug trafficking.19 In May, 2012, the President of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina, in an op ed piece in the New York Times, called for an end to the failed drug prohibition policy. Citing to increased bloodshed in his country and other Central American and Caribbean countries, he called for a “discrete and more nuanced approach that may allow for legal access to drugs currently prohibited.” While he wasn’t calling for outright legalization, he was advocating for a solution based on “institutional and market-based frameworks.” 20 Although the drug trafficking that the Latin American leaders are concerned about includes more than marijuana, the issue is the same, the current war on drugs is not working and has created unintended consequences. The criminal enterprise involved in bringing illegal drugs to the United States is international in scope and pervades 15 (Carter, 2012, p. 46) 16 Id. at 51. 17 (Bahr, 2011 (Kindle Ed), p. 4360) 18 (Reuteman, 2010) 19 (Associated Press,2012) 20 (Molina, 2012)
6 even the elite levels of international banking. Even major international banks, such as HSBC, have been investigated for money-laundering drug money. Clearly, the war on drugs in the United States is not working. It is hemorrhaging money while drug use and sales are not decreasing. Violence is increasing, especially in the counties affected by drug trafficking. In addition, prisons in the United States are expensive and overcrowded. Researchers on drugs and drug policy have noted that policies intended to control drugs by making them illegal, create their own harms. When legal markets are cut out, black markets pop up and some of their business methods are as devastating as the drugs.21 Citing to Prohibition, the researchers pointed out that “When alcohol was illegal in the United States, alcohol dealers competed with submachine guns, not advertising slogans.” 22 From 1920 to 1933, the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol in the United States was barred by the Eighteen Amendment and enforced by the federal Volstead Act. Although the Prohibition Era was called a “noble experiment,” history views it largely as a failure.23 It created negative economic impacts by decreasing use of restaurants and other amusements, eliminating thousands of jobs in the distillery and related businesses, cutting state and federal tax revenues and costing millions in enforcement. It also created many opportunities for corruption on the state and federal level both in politics and law enforcement. It made many ordinarily law-abiding individuals into criminals. 24 More importantly, it did not end alcohol abuse, but may have increased consumption, and in some cases of substandard and hazardous concoctions. Ultimately, the “noble experiment” created by the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment. 21 (Kleiman, 2011 (Kindle Ed), p. 282) 22 Id. 23 (Bahr, 2011 (Kindle Ed), p. 167) 24 (Morison, 1980, p. 439)
7 We should remember of the wise words of the philosopher George Santayana, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The United States appears to be repeating Prohibition, but this time with marijuana and with many of the same problems. Indeed, some experts have come to the same conclusion. Bakalar and Grinspoon state: “Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and marihuana prohibition today may have produced the same nasty side effects: costs of arrest and punishment, growing disrespect for the law, organized criminal violence, police corruption and oppression, poisonous adulteration and misrepresentation.” 25 State and federal governments are spending billions of dollars on enforcement and losing the opportunity for tax revenues and job creation. Users and growers who would otherwise be law-abiding are criminalized. Some experts have estimated that the annual incarceration costs for inmates in state and federal facilities serving time for marijuana charges run about $1.3 billion. 26 Just as the Volstead Act had an exemption for medical use of alcohol, states are attempting, with more justification, to make marijuana available for medical purposes. Currently, twenty states have approved medical marijuana use and two states, Colorado and Washington, have legalized recreational use.27 However, because marijuana is illegal under federal law, a state licensed operator of a medical marijuana dispensary is still subject to arrest and prosecution by federal authorities under federal law. Criminalizing marijuana has not reduced demand and since ordinary businesses cannot meet that demand, criminal organizations have filled the void. As the leaders of Latin American countries have explained, these criminal organizations have used violence and bloodshed as part of their business plans. They have infiltrated the banking industry with money laundering activities. Society in the United States tolerates recreational use of seriously dangerous drugs like tobacco and alcohol. It regulates who can sell 25 (Bakalar, 1984, p. 33) 26 (Caulkins, 2012 (Kindle Ed), p. 912) 27 (USA Today, 2013)
8 these drugs and who can purchase and use them. It also taxes the tobacco and alcohol industries. Surely the way society treats alcohol and tobacco provides a workable model for marijuana, a drug with recognized medical benefits and far fewer health hazards that either tobacco or alcohol. The United States should learn from history. The basis for Prohibition was “noble,” namely to address what was considered a public health problem and a moral issue. Similarly, the concerns about marijuana are well intentioned, to prevent drug addiction. The comment of one writer about Prohibition is equally applicable to marijuana laws. “That [Prohibition] did them instead untold harm – that America has never fully recovered from the legacy of those thirteen years – should come as no surprise. As history keeps telling us – but do we ever listen? – the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”28 28 (Bahr, 2011 (Kindle Ed), p. 167)

More Related Content

Dutch Coffee Shops-2

  • 1. The Dutch Coffee Shop – Would It Work in the United States? Michael Plotkin -10639381 Social Policies and Pragmatic Tolerance in Amsterdam Dr. Leon Deben and TessaDikker August 4, 2013 By
  • 2. 1 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Chapter 1 – The Dutch Coffee Shop .........Error! Bookmark not defined. Chapter 2 – Lessons Learned ...................Error! Bookmark not defined. Add a Bibliography ..............................Error! Bookmark not defined. INTRODUCTION Marijuana is like a good kid who has fallen in with a bad crowd. Throughout most of the world, it is treated like its bad cousins, the hard drugs1 – heroin, LSD and various amphetamines, and is illegal. Users, possessors and purveyors of marijuana are treated as criminals. In the Netherlands, however, marijuana is treated differently. It is tolerated. Although not legal, it is decriminalized. Like a rebellious teen, it is kept away from the more dangerous influences and directed to more wholesome locales…the Dutch coffee shop. In this essay I try to answer the question: Could the Netherlands policy of tolerance for marijuana work in the United States? This is not a simple yes or no answer because there are significant differences in the two countries. The Netherlands has a population of 6 million people compared to the United States, which has over 300 million people. The country is small and has a single legal system. In contrast, in the United States, each state has its own criminal laws and enforcement process and the federal government has another set of criminal laws and enforcement process. Currently, use, possession and sale of marijuana is illegal under federal law, and under most state laws. Two states, Colorado and Washington have legalized recreational use of marijuana, while twenty states allow some form of 1 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013)
  • 3. 2 medical use.2 Clearly the United States is beginning to reassess its “War on Drugs” with respect to marijuana and perhaps the Netherlands can provide the model. CHAPTER 1 – THE DUTCHCOFFEE SHOP The Dutch policy of tolerance for soft drugs has been in effect for about 40 years.3 The tolerance for marijuana use grew out of the recognition that cannabis was not a “gateway” drug that inevitably led to the use of hard drugs, as well as the recognition that drug use should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal issue4 . A significant report by the Baan Committee in 1972 distinguished between soft drugs, such as cannabis and hard drugs and recommended that penalties should reflect the risks a particular drug poses to individuals and society. The report noted that the negative effect of arrest and prosecution on cannabis users and society outweighed the benefit of criminal prosecution. 5 The Netherlands apparently considered legalizing marijuana in the early 1970s but because of pressure from neighboring countries, had to settle for decriminalizing cannabis. In 1976, revisions to the Opium Act created two categories of drugs, those that presented an unacceptable risk to health and cannabis products.6 As a result of the decriminalization, prosecution of small scale cannabis sales was left to the discretion of the municipalities. This discretion was exercised in accordance with the expediency principle in the Dutch legal system. Under this principle, if the public prosecutor deems that a criminal prosecution is not in the public interest, he or she may instruct the police to act accordingly.7 The expediency principle helped foster the growth of the coffee shops. 2 (USA Today, 2013) 3 (Breeksema, 2013, pp. 21-23) 4 (Breeksema, 2013, p. 17) 5 Id. at 17-18. 6 Id. at 18. 7 Id. at 19.
  • 4. 3 There are general guidelines for coffee shops that give both the police and the proprietors the necessary understanding of what activity is tolerated. The criteria are identified as AHOJ-G, an acronym for A – no Advertising, H – no Hard drugs, O – no nuisance (Overlast), J – no sales to youth (Jeugdigen) and G- limiting of daily sales to 30 Grams per person.8 The coffee shops in the Netherlands operate on a quasi-legal environment where it is ok to sell marijuana out of the coffee shops to locals and tourists, but the process for the shop to get its supplies through the back door, is illegal. Even though cultivation of cannabis is illegal, there are an estimated 200 wholesalers and 375 grow shops in the country.9 Moreover, it is surmised that crackdowns and more stringent enforcement on growers has driven small entrepreneurs out and increased the influence of criminal organizations in cultivation.10 Part of the impetus for decriminalization of cannabis was the increasing problem in the Netherlands with heroin and cocaine. By separating cannabis use from the milieu of hard drugs, policy makers hoped prevent cannabis users from moving on to more destructive drugs. By and large, the coffee shop system has succeeded in that regard. The Netherlands has experimented with more stringent regulations on coffee shops, particularly in the southern border areas. The government experimented with the “weed club pass” in three southern provinces in an attempt to make the coffee shops “members only” and restricted to residents. It is generally conceded that the experiment was a failure. Local residents refused to register, nuisance related to illegal street sales increased.11 8 Id. at 23. 9 Id. at 24. 10 Id. at 31. 11 Id. at 39.
  • 5. 4 When drug use in the Netherlands is compared to its more restrictive European neighbors, it is generally below the average.12 In one aspect, the Dutch model is clearly superior. Criminal records for cannabis users in the Netherlands are extremely rare.13 Given the social costs of a criminal record in terms of stigma and employability, this is a major achievement. There are costs to the policy of toleration. It is estimated that approximately €160 million per year is spent on prosecution of soft drugs crime, presumably related to the supply side. The Dutch earn about €400 million in corporate taxes from coffee shops.14 It is estimated that if the supply side of the cannabis market was decriminalized, the government would not only save the €160 million in prosecution expenses, but the legalizing the businesses would generate approximately €260 million in tax revenues. LESSONS LEARNED The lessons from the Dutch policy of tolerance are significant. First and foremost, decriminalization does not lead to increased numbers of users. Separating the drug markets was practical and it worked in removing the soft drugs from hard drugs. As a result, there were fewer prosecutions for soft drug use and therefore less social disruption. Focusing on drug use as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue helps reduce drug caused harms. The drug policy and decriminalization should be comprehensive, covering cultivation, wholesale and retail. DRUG POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES The United States locks up a greater percentage of its citizens than China, Russia and Iran, countries not noted for exemplary criminal 12 Id. at 47. 13 Id. at 49. 14 Id. at 52.
  • 6. 5 justice systems.15 Much of the increase in prison populations comes from harsher prison sentences and criminalization of victimless crimes, like drug use, possession, and minor distribution.16 The prisons thus become warehouses for problems the states do not want to deal with in other ways. It is estimated that over half of America’s current prison population is incarcerated for drug-related offenses.17 Non-violent drug offenders sentenced to prison are given an education in violence and crime. When they are released, they lack employment skills and carry the stigma of criminality. Lacking good employment, they are likely to employ the criminal skills learned in prison and embark on a career in crime. In 2010, Jeffrey Miron, the Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University, estimated that legalizing marijuana would save $13.7 billion a year in enforcement costs.18 His estimate was related to state and local expenditures. Last year, three leaders of Latin American countries in their addresses to the UN General Assembly, called for debate and discussions on new ways to combat drug trafficking.19 In May, 2012, the President of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina, in an op ed piece in the New York Times, called for an end to the failed drug prohibition policy. Citing to increased bloodshed in his country and other Central American and Caribbean countries, he called for a “discrete and more nuanced approach that may allow for legal access to drugs currently prohibited.” While he wasn’t calling for outright legalization, he was advocating for a solution based on “institutional and market-based frameworks.” 20 Although the drug trafficking that the Latin American leaders are concerned about includes more than marijuana, the issue is the same, the current war on drugs is not working and has created unintended consequences. The criminal enterprise involved in bringing illegal drugs to the United States is international in scope and pervades 15 (Carter, 2012, p. 46) 16 Id. at 51. 17 (Bahr, 2011 (Kindle Ed), p. 4360) 18 (Reuteman, 2010) 19 (Associated Press,2012) 20 (Molina, 2012)
  • 7. 6 even the elite levels of international banking. Even major international banks, such as HSBC, have been investigated for money-laundering drug money. Clearly, the war on drugs in the United States is not working. It is hemorrhaging money while drug use and sales are not decreasing. Violence is increasing, especially in the counties affected by drug trafficking. In addition, prisons in the United States are expensive and overcrowded. Researchers on drugs and drug policy have noted that policies intended to control drugs by making them illegal, create their own harms. When legal markets are cut out, black markets pop up and some of their business methods are as devastating as the drugs.21 Citing to Prohibition, the researchers pointed out that “When alcohol was illegal in the United States, alcohol dealers competed with submachine guns, not advertising slogans.” 22 From 1920 to 1933, the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol in the United States was barred by the Eighteen Amendment and enforced by the federal Volstead Act. Although the Prohibition Era was called a “noble experiment,” history views it largely as a failure.23 It created negative economic impacts by decreasing use of restaurants and other amusements, eliminating thousands of jobs in the distillery and related businesses, cutting state and federal tax revenues and costing millions in enforcement. It also created many opportunities for corruption on the state and federal level both in politics and law enforcement. It made many ordinarily law-abiding individuals into criminals. 24 More importantly, it did not end alcohol abuse, but may have increased consumption, and in some cases of substandard and hazardous concoctions. Ultimately, the “noble experiment” created by the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment. 21 (Kleiman, 2011 (Kindle Ed), p. 282) 22 Id. 23 (Bahr, 2011 (Kindle Ed), p. 167) 24 (Morison, 1980, p. 439)
  • 8. 7 We should remember of the wise words of the philosopher George Santayana, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The United States appears to be repeating Prohibition, but this time with marijuana and with many of the same problems. Indeed, some experts have come to the same conclusion. Bakalar and Grinspoon state: “Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and marihuana prohibition today may have produced the same nasty side effects: costs of arrest and punishment, growing disrespect for the law, organized criminal violence, police corruption and oppression, poisonous adulteration and misrepresentation.” 25 State and federal governments are spending billions of dollars on enforcement and losing the opportunity for tax revenues and job creation. Users and growers who would otherwise be law-abiding are criminalized. Some experts have estimated that the annual incarceration costs for inmates in state and federal facilities serving time for marijuana charges run about $1.3 billion. 26 Just as the Volstead Act had an exemption for medical use of alcohol, states are attempting, with more justification, to make marijuana available for medical purposes. Currently, twenty states have approved medical marijuana use and two states, Colorado and Washington, have legalized recreational use.27 However, because marijuana is illegal under federal law, a state licensed operator of a medical marijuana dispensary is still subject to arrest and prosecution by federal authorities under federal law. Criminalizing marijuana has not reduced demand and since ordinary businesses cannot meet that demand, criminal organizations have filled the void. As the leaders of Latin American countries have explained, these criminal organizations have used violence and bloodshed as part of their business plans. They have infiltrated the banking industry with money laundering activities. Society in the United States tolerates recreational use of seriously dangerous drugs like tobacco and alcohol. It regulates who can sell 25 (Bakalar, 1984, p. 33) 26 (Caulkins, 2012 (Kindle Ed), p. 912) 27 (USA Today, 2013)
  • 9. 8 these drugs and who can purchase and use them. It also taxes the tobacco and alcohol industries. Surely the way society treats alcohol and tobacco provides a workable model for marijuana, a drug with recognized medical benefits and far fewer health hazards that either tobacco or alcohol. The United States should learn from history. The basis for Prohibition was “noble,” namely to address what was considered a public health problem and a moral issue. Similarly, the concerns about marijuana are well intentioned, to prevent drug addiction. The comment of one writer about Prohibition is equally applicable to marijuana laws. “That [Prohibition] did them instead untold harm – that America has never fully recovered from the legacy of those thirteen years – should come as no surprise. As history keeps telling us – but do we ever listen? – the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”28 28 (Bahr, 2011 (Kindle Ed), p. 167)