July 14, 2009
Inside Holland's "Half Baked" Pot Policy
Amid Calls for Marijuana Legalization in the U.S., CBSNews.com Looks at the Lessons of the Dutch Approach
-
Play CBS Video Video Amsterdam's Controversial Pastime Dr. Frederick Polak tells CBS News that there is no relationship between the legalization of cannabis and increased use. Polak says that Amsterdam's legal consumption of cannabis is less than in some countries where it is illegal.
-
Video Cannabis Tour Guide On Amsterdam An American cannabis tour guide talks to CBS News about how Amsterdam needs to look at whether it is encouraging drug tourism or liberal ideals.
-
(CBS/iStockphoto)
-
Photo Essay Celebs Busted for Marijuana Which stars have had run-ins with the law for possessing pot? Some may surprise you.
When it comes to the debate over legalizing marijuana, even the president of the United States has a hard time keeping a straight face.
After legalization questions got high ratings in an online town hall in March, Mr. Obama couldn't suppress a grin and a joke about what the popularity of the topic "says about the online audience." To the disappointment, if not the surprise, of marijuana advocates, he went on to say that he doesn't think legalizing and taxing marijuana "is a good strategy to grow our economy."
Yet there are many Americans - and public officials - who are taking the issue more seriously. In a CBS News poll released Monday, 41 percent of Americans said they favor marijuana legalization. Other polls put that figure as high as 52 percent.
Meanwhile, Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul co-authored a bill to end federal penalties for possession of small amounts of pot. Sen. Jim Webb has put forth legislation to create a commission examining drug policy and problems in the criminal justice system.
In California, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano introduced a bill to legalize recreational use of the drug in order to generate desperately-needed tax revenue - and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he is open to a debate over doing just that.
These are significant steps for American politicians, who have long been loath to take on drug legalization for fear of being labeled soft on crime. But they mark little more than an early effort to prompt discussion around the issue.
For a more substantive look at how politicians are grappling with decriminalization, one must cross the Atlantic and take a look at Holland, where casual marijuana use has been de facto legal since 1976.
Where Pot Is Both Legal And Illegal:
Despite what the typical backpack-toting college student might think, pot exists in something of a legal netherworld even in Amsterdam. While coffee shops in some areas of the country can sell marijuana without risk of punishment, proprietors cannot legally obtain the product for sale. And possession and production are technically misdemeanors that can prompt a fine.
"The Dutch model is a little half baked," quips Tim Boekhout van Solinge, a drug policy expert at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. "The supply side is still illegal, the production is illegal."
Experts on both sides of the issue lament the ambiguity of marijuana policy not just in Holland but also in places like California, where there are not clear rules about the distribution of medical marijuana.
Dutch drug policy is grounded in the separation of soft drugs like marijuana from harder drugs like cocaine and heroin. "The policy has evolved slowly over time," said Craig Reinerman, a sociology professor and drug policy expect at the University of California Santa Cruz. "At first they had a national commission, much like the Nixon administration had. And their national commission said, 'look, all drugs have risks, even legal ones. Some are acceptable, and some are just too high.'"
Because history suggested people would use marijuana regardless of the limits imposed by the government, the Dutch tried to manage use as part of an attempt to keep transactions as safe as possible. (They have a similar philosophy when it comes to prostitution).
Dutch law enforcement will not go after coffee shops that sell small amounts of marijuana (up to five grams) to people over the age of 18, though the coffee shops can only operate if the local municipality allows it. The coffee shops can only keep 500 grams of marijuana onsite at any one time, can't advertize, can't sell alcohol or hard drugs and can be shut down if they become a nuisance to the neighborhood. Customers are permitted to consume the drug on the premises or at their home.
WATCH: Dutch Doctor Frederick Polak talks to CBSNews.com about the relationship between repression and use.
WATCH: An American cannabis tour guide talks to CBSNews.com about drug tourism in Amsterdam.
In addition, if not for international treaties designed to restrict supply, the Dutch may well have crafted a policy in which the supply side is (at the very least) de facto legal as well, according to Boekhout van Solinge. In the current system the state can only generate tax revenue indirectly, via the incomes of those who run the coffee shops. And many proprietors have little choice but to engage in somewhat shadowy transactions in order to secure the product.
"The fact that production and supply are still left in the underground certainly creates some problems," said Bruce Mirken at the Marijuana Policy Project.
Over the years, Dutch policy has prompted serious grousing from neighbors. In the 1990s, French president Jacques Chirac suggested the country's position was weakening Europe-wide efforts to combat drug use. One of his allies in the legislature went so far as to dub Holland a "narco-state." Holland has long fought illegal drug trafficking, yet remains a significant producer of a number of drugs and a key entry point for narcotics into Europe.
Yet as defenders of the Dutch policy are all too happy to point out, the Dutch actually smoke less pot than many of their neighbors - the French included. According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 22.6 percent of Dutch citizens between ages 15 and 64 reported having used cannabis in their lifetime. In France, the percentage in that age group who reported using the drug was nearly four points higher - 26.2 percent.
Among Spaniards the lifetime usage rate for this age group is even higher - 28.6 percent - while among Italians it sits at a relatively robust 29.3 percent. In the United Kingdom, where the sample included 16 through 59 year olds, the percentage who said they had used cannabis was above 30 percent.
For the record, the country with the most liberal drug policy in Europe is actually Portugal - which happens to have the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in the entire European Union. (But that's a different story.)
In the United States, meanwhile, more than 40 percent of people 18 and older have used marijuana or hashish. America boasts one of the highest pot usage rates in the world.
"If you look at the data, it really dispels any notion that allowing adults to possess marijuana creates a nation of potheads," Merkin said.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
More From U.S.
Michelle Obama tells how her role as the First Lady has changed her perspective.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 10
- next
See all 187 CommentsDon't think so? You should look up Rick Steves... the travel guy from PBS.
It isn't if it is better or worse... it is about HARM REDUCTION. We Americans are ignorant if you think we can stop people from doing something they WANT TO DO.
Decriminalize cannabis and legalize industrial hemp.
And remember, all that violence in Mexico is largely about marijuana. The 'cartels' report 60-70% of their profits are from pot. Another study found 2/3 the grass in America is from Mexico.
Would America spend 11,000 lives to fight a war over grass in.....Cuba? or Canada? or the Philippines ?
C'mon, let's stop facilitating genocide in Mexico. Where is your conscience, America ??
you are not a mother of two- you are certainly either a cop or in the DEA- NO DOUBT. you are so full of it. pull your head out!!
Joel Hay is another vow breaking doctor. Doctors take a vow to do no harm. What is more harmful to the patient:
arresting, fining, and imprisoning people who use substances the doctor thinks they shouldn't
OR
letting the patient decide for themselves what is put into their own bodies (patients are still allowed too refuse treatment last time I checked)
Are we free or are we slaves, what's it gonna it be?
You greatly need to find something more constructive to do with your time.
But hey- keep propping up the stereotypes, it seems to be all you are good at.
I counted 57 responses from itoldyouso!!!!!
Good job!
Out of the current 187 posts you have posted 57 times! Roughly A THIRD of the comments here are from you- any chance you are on meds for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? ....OR are you affiliated with an organization that supports prohibition? I strongly suspect the latter. At any rate you definitely seem to have an incredible amount of time on your hands to have been posting 57! comments from 8:30 am to after 6pm with such diligence. I guess there has to be SOMEBODY to respond to the overwhelming number of posters supporting legalization.
So much to say about something you yourself have posted you have NEVER tried.
You did say that if it was legal you would probably try it to see what the fuss is about. In another post you say you live in Holland-- where you can smoke it for all intents and purposes "legally", yet you haven't. IF you are in Holland as you claim, I'm curious how the timestamps of all your posts correspond to a US time zone and not one that is hours ahead of New York. -- Or do you frequently stay up all night in Holland to stay glued to this message board when you have an alleged 2 kids to take care of. GREAT PARENTING.
Your story doesn't add up, and you spend too much time ignoring factual arguments choosing instead to vomit your own repeatedly. It kind of makes me think you are somebody with a vested interest in the continued prohibition of one of the safest substances ever ingested by mankind(I'd say outside of food and water, but both of those can kill you), but ill let that go. It doesn't matter anyway as you are on the losing side of this argument. It is simply a matter of time.
You do so much talking for someone with zero personal experience of the matter. At least most all of the people in here that support legalization know what hell they are talking about, by experience.
57 posts? You seem so uptight that you could probably use a joint or two.
But hey, I used to be exactly like you- my mind just could not justify the use of this plant. Then, I started traveling around the world, opening my eyes to what was really happening outside of the indoctrination I received growing up in my conservative christian city. I tried pot a few times. I didn't like it at first, but doing it socially I began to realize that my notions on the matter were completely backwards, as yours are. But herein lies the crux when it comes to this legalization argument. I DONT CARE that you can't wrap your head around why pot should be legal. You, however, with 57 posts at last count, are so intent on getting your view across, even though nobody is really listening to you. The thing is, no matter what the current laws say, provided I am not harming anyone with my actions, it is my RIGHT as a SOVEREIGN HUMAN BEING to put whatever substance I choose into MY OWN body. You can spout off all you want, but NOTHING will change this fact, and this is the reason why there is so much cannabis use in this country despite FAILED prohibition.
Considering you have posted 57 times today, consistently ignoring the arguments that could correct your flawed thinking, I am sure it would be nothing short of stupidity to try to reason with you, so, I'll offer up a few core-beliefs instead:
1-Keeping things illegal for adults because kids may use it is stupid. Particularly when regulation will keep it better out of their hands.
2-Using the DUI argument to keep cannabis away from ADULTS is stupid too- Potential DUI's is NOT a strong enough argument to keep it away from the MAJORITY OF RESPONSIBLE ADULTS who want to partake.
3-Puritanical and moral arguments. You CANNOT legislate morality. I find NOTHING wrong with getting high. Just because YOU do is NOT enough justification for keeping ME from doing it. If I had my way we'd make all your invisible sky gods with unqualified promises of some afterlife illegal. Good thing for you, eh?
4- It can be taxed. Most domestic growers would gladly do it legally and pay for an annual permit instead of facing all the serious repercussions of getting raided. They would be registered and would transfer their product to dispensaries where it would be taxed by the unit.
I know this will fall on deaf ears, and that you will excitedly scribble your post # 58, 65, 77, or whatever number you are up to at the moment back at me with another inane argument that you think is perfect. Knowing that I'm talking to a brick wall who won't see the truth in my words, it is time for me to ---OOOOOOH, go smoke a bowl, finish the the book I'm reading on conceptual physics, and eat some health food.
The negative effects of marijuana include lung damage and problems with concentration and short term memory. It seems to make people self-absorbed and want to do nothing but get high rather than partake in any kind of achievement or plan for the future. The effects are fairly subtle, which can be deceptive, because people think it is benign, but for some people it can really make one waste his/her life away being stoned.
I'm sure that being hooked on meth or cocaine or heroin would be more tragic--and many marijuana abusers do go on to those drugs--but marijuana abuse can itself be a tragic waste of a life.
Most people get off marijuana in their 20's because they have to move on with their lives and they lose opportunities because of drug testing, they have kids and have to take on responsibilities of the adult world. But some have already moved on to other drugs and some just remain in a state of arrested development.
Since marijuana wouldn't be legal for under 21, legalizing would send the wrong message to the young people that start it when their brains and lungs are still developing.
How much more wrong could you be?
I've always noticed the complete opposite. MOST people have no idea when a person has smoked pot. And that is why quite a few of you are so frightened by it. Besides, I've also seen plenty of people who act high or just aren't the brightest bulbs in the box. With alcohol a person can clearly see you are under the influence of something. Same goes for prescription drugs. I can pick a pill head out of any crowd.
You run into and know people who smoke pot every single day. They know how you feel about it and do not wish for you to know. Obviously.
How frustrating it has got to be to have fought for so long, lost so many good people along the way, and spent so much of our tax dollars only to realize, oh the horror of it all, no has budged an inch. LIES get you no where quick. And that's why it won't work.
They should have counted those under 18. The percentage would be closer to 75% to 80%. It's only a matter of time, now. I believe it will be *effectively* legal by the end of Obama's first term and completely legalized within a decade.
---------------
Yeah, so's a cheeseburger. What's your point?
You have taken my idea out of context here.
I believe that pot is illegal because it directly flies in the face of those in power. Like a Muslim woman wearing make-up or showing a bit too much calf. Get it. It's called civil disobedience.
Of course if you're from the "any use is abuse" camp, then there really is no argument here. You have clearly shown that a person can train themselves to ignore a basic human need. Congratulations.
"When the government thinks it may be even more detrimental (social problems, robbery, broken homes, etc) they don't fine or simply ticket or take away licenses--they jail--that is because for some--simply telling them that their actions may endanger another person...only elicits the same kinds of remark like you made--which shows a complete disregard of anyone or anything except yourself and since such a self centered person cannot self regulate--the gov has to do it for you."
And you assume a lot about me based on a few sentences.
None of the reasons you listed are the reason pot is illegal today. Pot's legal status has absolutely nothing to do with it being a detriment to society. I can see where your argument would work for murder or rape- but pot? Come one.
I can sum up what you're, in a round about kinda' way, saying. Why doesn't everyone just quit? That is your VERY SIMPLE answer and it would work if we didn't possess a little thing called free will. And people who suffer the personality disorder, control freakism, hate this.
No one is quitting, no one is going to stop because you say it will make us a better nation. People are tired of that lie.
It has become the habit of many (and you know who you are) to quote someone famous and long dead or famous and alive as if for some reason--"if a famous person said it, it must be:
right
more relevant
more interesting
more intelligent
Did or did each and every human slide out of someone's vag1na just like you did? Then why in the world would anyone quote others to validate or underline or make a point? Your own words or opinions are worthless?
I seldom quote people--not because I don't like some of the stuff they said--but in reading the words of others, I place no more stock in their opinion than I do in my own and what they have done to become famous or what they haven't done has no bearing in trying to make a point by using their words as some sort of validation.
Another sign of a sort of weakness--perceiving the worth or value of someone else's opinions to be superior (and therefore more worth quoting) than your own. Just what is up with that? :)
When usage or practices become generational, it is difficult to legislate or restrict what people have grown up around and consider normal or acceptable. Many dope users are from families where the parents also used or tried reefer or worse. These people are not inclined to to not try the same drugs which they KNOW their parents tried freely or are still using. It IS hypocritical for people to expect one thing from you while they do something else. It is not hypocritical to try to restrict things in society which one suspects will be detrimental--but it IS hypocritical to restrict one person's supposedly detrimental substance while allowing others to exist and flourish.
Smoking causes cancer--we know this--it also affects others who also can get cancer--it costs billions in health care related problems--yet it is still legal. Same with alcohol--so why not marijuana? Start with the fact that most of it cannot be controlled, that those who sell may also sell other narcotics and use marijuana selling as a front and laundering mechanism, that growing it yourself cuts the government out from a very lucrative business...
The US gov does not allow any business to exist in the states that they can't get their cut of and decide who can operate that business. Dope selling is not controllable.
As long as people want it for use or selling, there will be someone willing to sell it on the black market--making it legal will not change this. If we ever were going to control drugs, it should have been done when it first came on the scene and before use shifted to middle class America.
Like guns it is almost impossible to manage the genie after the fact--logistics and sheer human nature works against this--and like you said--those who would want to control this cannot afford to let you or anyone else grow their own--there would be little profit for them in that. which is why Obama may smile--but he would never consider legalizing marijuana, it is not in the interest of government to let citizens do what they want--gov exist to control people not accommodate them.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 10
- next
See all 187 Comments