|Own your ow legal marijuana business||
Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry
|Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy|
|Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs|
|Volume 3 - Public Policy Options|
Chapter 20 - Public Policy In Other Countries - The Netherlands
Essential expert reports
Unlike most other countries where commissions of inquiry produced reports in the 1970s, the Netherlands is the only country that has implemented the recommendations of its commission.
The Hulsman Commission(1968-1971)
In 1968, the National Federation of Mental Health Organizations<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> established a commission with a broad mandate to "clarify factors associated with the use of drugs" and "to suggest proposals for a rational policy."<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> Chaired by criminal law professor Louk Hulsman, the Commission had a diverse membership including law enforcement officials, alcohol treatment experts, psychiatrists, a drug use researcher and a sociologist.
The commission’s final report, presented in 1971, provided an analysis of drug use and the social mechanisms behind drug problems. New approaches were suggested, including:
In recommending the gradual decriminalization of all drugs, the report noted that illicit drugs can be used in a controlled and limited way and that marginalizing drug-using subcultures has significant negative repercussions. Specifically, becoming a member of the "drug scene" may familiarize a cannabis user with other drugs and patterns of use. Although the commission found no evidence of a "stepping stone" sequence of drug use – what in other contexts has been referred to as "gateways" – it accepted the notion that one kind of drug user (e.g., heroin user) will contaminate another kind of drug user (e.g., cannabis user) when the two kinds of drug use are forced into one marginalized subculture.
With respect to the issue of law enforcement, the commission concluded that once started, drug policing would have to be constantly enlarged to keep pace with the never-ending escalation of drug use. It referred to the criminal law option of opposing drug use as inadequate and "extremely dangerous":
Time after time it will show that the means will fall short, upon which those who favour punishment will plead for increase of law enforcement, until it will be amplified a hundred fold from the present situation…This will boost polarization between the different parts of our society and can result in increased violence. <![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]>
Although it had no immediate impact, the Hulsman report nevertheless influenced the government report of the Baan Commission.
The Baan Commission (1968-1972)<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]>
A State Commission was also established in 1968 by the Under Secretary of Health. This commission contained some members of the Hulsman Commission, as well as officials from the Ministry of Justice, the Amsterdam Chief of Police, and additional psychiatrists and sociologists. In 1970, Pieter Baan, the Chief Inspector of Mental Health, assumed the chairmanship of the commission and a final report was presented in 1972.
The report suggested dividing drugs into those with acceptable and those with unacceptable risks. Further research would be needed to create a greater consensus among the experts as to how some individual drugs should be classified, but the report described cannabis products as relatively benign with limited health risks. However, even for those drugs that pose unacceptable risks, the report concluded that use of the criminal law is not an adequate approach. The Commission suggested the long-term goal of complete decriminalization once a good treatment system had been created. In the interim, the justice system should just be used as a tool for manoeuvring heavy users into treatment.
Other notable findings include:
The Baan report formed the basis of what was to become the system of tolerance toward cannabis in the Netherlands as part of a concern for public health and the separation of drug markets.
The Engelsman Report (1985)<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]>
Taking notice of the limits of a public health policy essentially based on young people (the principal cannabis users) and of the evolution of heroin use, as well as the declining condition of users, the Engelsman report proposed to extend the Baan Commission's tolerance approach to other drugs. It also went further than the Baan report on the need to rely on the experience and word of users in determining policies, proposing in particular to exclude non-users from the circle of experts. In Engelsman's view, drugs and drug use were no longer the only factors involved in explaining the problems of drugs - hard drugs in this case - and that new factors included the perverse effects of repressive action (care and police) on users. Public policy proposals should therefore not be based on the panic reactions of society and should aim to integrate users and "normalize" their drug use. The state should therefore arbitrate between users and non-users with a view to protecting users. The Engelsman report, which was considered too radical in certain circles, remained a dead letter.
"Continuity and Change" Report – 1995<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]>
In 1995, the Dutch government published a report entitled Drugs Policy in the Netherlands: Continuity and Change. This policy document was sponsored by: the Minister of Justice; the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport; and the Secretary of State for the Interior. To some extent, this report was the Dutch response to international pressure (from both neighbouring countries and the USA) as well as an opportunity to make its cannabis policy clearer and to some extent stricter.
The report begins by noting that the Netherlands has always attempted a pragmatic approach to drug use, recalling that prohibitionist policies throughout the world have proven to have a limited effect. Thus, the modest objective in Holland is to limit the health and social problems that result from the use of dangerous drugs. This harm reduction approach has led the Dutch government to distinguish between "hard drugs," i.e., those that pose an unacceptable risk to health, and "soft drugs" such as cannabis products, which although still considered "risky" do not present similar concerns. The underlying assumption made in the Netherlands with respect to cannabis is that people are more likely to make a transition from soft to hard drugs as a result of social factors, not physiological ones. Separating the markets by allowing people to purchase soft drugs in a setting where they are not exposed to the criminal subculture surrounding hard drugs is intended to create a social barrier that prevents people experimenting with more dangerous drugs.
The report goes on to review the effects of the Dutch drug policy, the treatment of addiction in the Netherlands, and enforcement under the Opium Act. Key conclusions and findings include:
The report also notes three negative implications that need to be addressed: the nuisance caused by hard and soft drug users; the increasing presence of organized crime in the Netherlands; and the effect of Dutch policy on other countries.
Three major principles have characterized the Dutch approach since 1976:
· Harm reduction: attenuation of risks and dangers related to drug use rather than prohibition of all drugs, the key elements of which are:
· Policy of normalization: social control is achieved through depolarization and the integration of deviant behaviour rather than isolation and removal, as is typical of the deterrence model. This paradigm also suggests that drug problems should be seen as normal social problems rather than unusual concerns requiring extraordinary treatment.
· Market separation: by classifying drugs according to the risks posed and then pursuing policies that serve to isolate each market, it is felt that users of soft drugs are less likely to come into contact with users of hard drugs. Thus, the theory goes, users of soft drugs are less likely to try hard drugs.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> In the Netherlands,
public and private agencies have jurisdiction over mental health based on
political affiliation and religious denomination. The National Federation of
Mental Health Organizations was a coordination agency.
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> Louk Hulsman, Ruimte in het drugbeleid,
Boom Meppel, 1971, page 5, mentioned in Peter Cohen, "The
case of the two Dutch drug policy commissions: An exercise in harm reduction
1968‑1976" (1994, revised in 1996), Article presented to the 5th
International Conference on Drug Harm Reduction, March 7‑11, 1994,
Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, available online at: www.cedro‑uva.org/lib/cohen.case.html.
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> In Peter Cohen,
"The case of the two Dutch drug policy commissions", supra, page 3.
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> Working Party, Department of Justice, The Hague, 1972.
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> Interdepartmental Task
Force on Drugs and Alcohol, The Hague: Department of Justice, 1985.
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> Department of Foreign
Affairs (1995), Continuity and Change.
1995. The report is available online at: www.drugtext.org/reports/wvc/drugnota/0/drugall.htm.
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> As
noted in the section on current legislation, this reduced limit is now in
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> As
noted in the section on current legislation, trials began in 1998.
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> This concern was addressed subsequent to the Report by the "Damocles bill" of 1999, discussed herein, which provides greater powers to municipalities to shut down coffee shops that are a local nuisance.
<![if !supportFootnotes]><![endif]> M. Grapendaal,
E. Leuw and H. Nelen, A World
of Opportunities: Life‑Style and Economic Behaviour of Heroin Addicts in
Amsterdam. New York, S.U.N.Y. Press, 1995, mentioned in T. Boekhout
van Solinge, "Dutch Drug Policy in a European Context", Journal of Drug Issues Vol. 29, No 3,
1999, page 511. Available online at: www.cedro‑uva.org/lib/boekhout.dutch.html.
Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
Major Studies of Drug and Drug Policy
Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding - The Report of the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Licit and Illicit Drugs
Short History of the Marijuana Laws
The Drug Hang-Up
Congressional Transcripts of the Hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
Frequently Asked Questions About Drugs
Basic Facts About the Drug War
Charts and Graphs about Drugs
Information on Alcohol
Guide to Heroin - Frequently Asked Questions About Heroin
LSD, Mescaline, and Psychedelics
Drugs and Driving
Children and Drugs
Drug Abuse Treatment Resource List
American Society for Action on Pain
Let Us Pay Taxes
Marijuana Business News
Reefer Madness Collection
Medical Marijuana Throughout History
Drug Legalization Debate
Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition
Marijuana, the First 12,000 Years
DEA Ruling on Medical Marijuana
Legal References on Drugs
GAO Documents on Drugs
Response to the Drug Enforcement Agency
|Drug Information Articles|
Taking a drug test:
How To Pass A Drug Test
Beat Drug Test
Pass Drug Test
Drug Screening Tests
Drug Addiction Treatment