Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
Some quotes:
No matter how much opinions on drugs policy may vary, there is a broad consensus on the ultimate
criterion according to which the effectiveness of any national drugs policy should be measured. This is of
course the number of hard drug addicts, especially the number of hard drug users under the age of 21,
and changes in those numbers.
All estimates suggest that the number of addicts in the
Netherlands is relatively low.
What is particularly pleasing is that in the Netherlands the number of heroin users under the age of 21 is
relatively low, even among vulnerable groups, and has continued to fall in recent years.
3.1. The importance of the renewal of care
The number of hard drug addicts in the Netherlands is stable and relatively low (annex I). The average
age of heroin addicts is over thirty and rising. There is therefore no reason to assume that the policy on
soft drugs has resulted in a large increase in hard drug addicts. The fact that according to various
statistics, including those of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, young people in the Netherlands
rarely start using hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine before the age of 20 rather suggests the opposite in
fact.
The fact that there are virtually no young people under 20 using heroin or cocaine in the Netherlands is
extremely gratifying, especially as experience shows that the later in life a person starts using a drug the
greater the chance of their overcoming their addiction at some stage.
4.1. Extent and nature of cannabis use
The decriminalisation of the possession of soft drugs in 1976 did not result in increased use. The level of
consumption stabilised in the first few years after the Opium Act was amended. According to national
figures, use again increased somewhat between 1984 and 1994, a trend which has also been observed
elsewhere. Indeed, the United States has experienced a considerable increase in recent years. Both as
regards the extent of cannabis use and trends in use, the Netherlands differs very little from other
countries.
As already indicated, the number of users of soft drugs has increased after falling in the 1970s. Patterns
of consumption are overwhelmingly recreational, though among certain specific categories of young
people, such as chronic truants and street children, the use of cannabis can be described as very
substantial and intensive.
The policy pursued by the Netherlands does not appear to have led to an increase in use, though there are
indications that the existence of freely accessible coffee shops means that certain users continue to use the
drugs for longer.
Conclusions and policy intentions
The decriminalisation of the possession of quantities of soft drugs for personal use and the existence of sales
points tolerated under certain circumstances by the authorities have not resulted in a worryingly high level
of consumption among young people. Moreover, users of soft drugs do not as a rule tend to experiment
with hard drugs, such as heroin or cocaine; this is indeed the intention of the policy of keeping the
markets separate. There is little use of heroin and cocaine among minors in the Netherlands, and the
trend is towards even less.
The gratifyingly small and still falling number of addicts under the age of 21 represents an
achievement which should not be jeopardised. The small number of minor addicts in Dutch towns and
cities is after all one of the great successes of the Dutch drugs policy.
The situation is somewhat different as regards soft drugs. Dutch experience with coffee shops has shown
that the greater availability of such drugs does not give in itself lead to increased use.
The Australian Institute of Criminology,
The National Task Force on Cannabis,
Commonwealth of Australia, 1994
Monograph No. 26
Australia's National Drug Strategy is widely acclaimed as a world leader, as it attempts to minimise
the harmful effects of all drugs, licit and illicit, in Australian society. It does not have the
impossible-to-achieve goal of eliminating drug use nor the simplistic approach of addressing just
one class of drugs (the currently illicit ones), the approaches taken by some other nations. As part of
the drug strategy, the National Task Force on Cannabis was formed, to under-take a review of current
knowledge about cannabis use, so that Ministers could develop a national statement on cannabis. The
National Task Force commissioned four separate reports, on the health impacts of cannabis use, the
consumption patterns in Australia, on public opinion concerning cannabis, and this paper, on the legislative options
available for cannabis.
The interdisciplinary research team drew on legal, criminal justice and social science perspectives.
They first set out goals which a drug policy should try and accomplish, then reviewed a great deal of
factual information about cannabis, including examples of other countries legislation. They then set
out five possible options for legislation, and considered how each would meet the policy goals.
The five options they identified were
- total prohibition
- prohibition with civil penalties for users (fixed penalty fines)
- prohibition of production, but not possession (decriminalisation)
- regulation (legal but licensed)
- free availibilty (legal and unlicensed)
They concluded that neither total prohibition or free availability were suitable for Australia, and noted that the choice
between the other three would have to be a political decision, taking into account the results of the
three other studies. They concluded that cannabis law reform is required, and they believe that
there is scope within the options for a policy that will satisfy societies concerns.
The report includes a very useful history of cannabis and the national and international treaties
that govern it, and an appendix touching on its medical and horticultural/industrial uses.
The Drug Policy Foundation's
Legislative Forum on Drug Policy
The report states that prohibition has a more harmful effect on society and individuals than illegal
drugs themselves. "It is the reaction of society to the use of certain drugs rather than the drug effects themselves
that cause the problems and damage that concern us." It recommends that all drugs should be decriminalised, and
puts forward three first steps for the first year of legislation. These include allowing the growth of personal
quantities of cannabis.
In The Matter Of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket No. 86-22
Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative
Law Judge Francis L. Young, September 6, 1988
In 1987 the US Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency held hearing to see whether cannabis should
be moved from Schedule I to Schedule II, effectively allowing cannabis to be used a medicine, but nothing
else. Contesting the decision were NORML, ACT,
the Cannabis Coporation of America and Carl Olsen, versus
The DEA, the Parents for a Drug Free Youth and the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
The parties agreed beforehand to only contest 2 questions: whether cannabis had a currently accepted medical
use and whether there was a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision. The parties
prepared exhibits and called witnesses, and copies of their testimonies and the exhibits were exchanged
beforehand. Then the parties were allowed to object to the evidence of the other side, and Judge Young ruled
which evidence should be excluded. Then hearings were held where the witnesses were cross-examined. Final oral
arguments were held in 1988, and Judge Young prepared his report.
Judge Young's report "accepted as fact" that cannabis had a medical use. It lists many examples of individual
doctors, hospitals and patients use of cannabis in the treatment of cancer chemotherapy nausea, glaucoma
and multiple sclerosis. It established as fact that cannabis is "far safer than many foods we commonly
consume" and that "in its natural form it is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known
to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of
medical care."
Unfortunately, despite this recommendation from their own judge, the DEA administrator refused to
reschedule cannabis, and he didn't even have to give a reason. His successor also refused and continues
to do so to this day despite strong public support for such a move. These men are truly evil, denying
relief to hundreds of thousands of seriously ill Americans and brutally criminalising them if they
provide medicine for themselves.
An Analysis of Marihuana Policy,
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 1982.
The NAS Committee on Substance Abuse and Habitual Behaviour was composed of some of the leading
American experts on medicine, addiction treatment, law, business, and public policy. These
experts reviewed all of the available evidence on every aspect of the marijuana question. The
committee then recommended that the country experiment with a system that would allow states to
set up their own methods of controlling marijuana as is now done with alcohol. Under this
approach, federal criminal penalties would be removed, and each state could decide to legalise
the drug and impose regulations concerning hours of sale, age limits, and taxation.
In the same vein as all the previous major objective studies, this report stated that excessive marijuana
use could cause serious harm, that such use was rare, and that, on balance, the current policy of total
prohibition was socially and personally destructive. The report placed great emphasis on building up
public education and informal social controls, which often have a greater impact on drug abuse than
the criminal law. Regarding the possibility of disaster for our youth under legalisation, the report
observed: There is reason to believe that widespread uncontrolled use would not occur under regulation.
Indeed, regulation might facilitate patterns of controlled use by diminishing the "forbidden fruit" aspect
of the drug and perhaps increasing the likelihood that an adolescent would be introduced to the drug
through families and friends, who practice moderate use, rather than from their heaviest-using, most
drug-involved peers.
Shafer Commission (US federal government, 1973)
Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective,
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.
This commission was appointed by President Nixon in the midst of drug-war hysteria (Nixon repeatedly
described drugs as Public Enemy number one). It was directed by Raymond P. Shafer, former
Republican governor of Pennsylvania, and had four sitting, elected politicians among its eleven
members, and also contained leading addiction scholars among its members and staff.
While the commission supported much existing policy, it also recommended research, experimentation,
and humane compromise. The commission recommended that possession of marihuana for personal use
should be decriminalised, as should casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no or
insignificant remuneration.
The Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Interim Report.
The distinguished Canadian experts on this governmental commission were led by law school dean,
later Supreme Court Justice, Gerald LeDain. The report was similar to the other great commission
reports in terms of its non-martial, calm approach to the facts and in its belief that marijuana
use did not constitute a great threat to the public welfare. The official governmental commission
was remarkable in the extent to which its report portrayed casual drug users as decent, thoughtful
citizens whose views deserved the fullest possible hearing by the government in the process of
developing drug control strategies.
A mother of four and school teacher was quoted in the report as saying: "When I smoke grass I do it
in the same social way that I take a glass of wine at dinner or have a drink at a party. I do not feel
that is one of the great and beautiful experiences of my life; I simply feel that it is pleasant, and I think
it ought to be legalized." The commission did not ask for that change immediately but instead
recommended that serious consideration be given to legalization of personal possession in the near
future. The report also urged that police and prosecutors go easy on casual users and keep them out
of jail as often as possible.
Cannabis - Report By the Advisory Committee On Drug Dependence
The Committee: this report was compiled by the Hallucinogens Sub-Committee
of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, chaired by Baroness Wootton,
who, among many other activities, had been a Governor of the BBC for six
years, a Justice of the Peace for sixteen years, a Deputy Speaker in the
House of Lords since 1967, and who had served on four previous Royal
Commissions. The nine other members of the sub-committee included K.J.P.
Barraclough, a Metropolitan Magistrate since 1934 and Chairman of the
Poisons Board, and Peter Brodie, Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan
Police, formerly a Chief Constable and one of H.M.'s Inspectors of
Constabulary, plus four doctors. Typical findings included
"there is no evidence that ... serious physical dangers are directly associated with the smoking of cannabis", and "cannabis use
does not lead to heroin addiction", and "the evidence of a link with violent crime is far stronger with alcohol than with the
smoking of cannabis". They also stated that there was no evidence that smoking cannabis produced "conditions of dependence
or psychosis, requiring medical treatment".
Conclusions: "We are... convinced that the present penalties for possession
and supply are altogether too high."
Recommendations: "We recommend that in the interest of public health, it is
necessary for the time being to maintain restrictions on the availability
of cannabis." "Possession of a small amount of cannabis should not normally
be regarded as a serious crime punishable by imprisonment."
The report of the sub-committee was
endorsed by the Advisory committee, with a few minor reservations. The
report states in its introduction that, while the report was being
prepared, "Government spokesmen made it clear that any future development
of policy on cannabis would have to take account of the Advisory
Committee's report."
However, Home Secretary James Callaghan and the Labour government ignored the committee's recommendation's
and brought in the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) which continued the cannabis prohibition.
The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York,
prepared by the New York Academy of Medicine, and published by the City of New York, 1944
In 1938 New York's Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia gathered a team of scientists to study the medical, social and
psychological aspects of marijuana use in the city. The committee contained 2 interns, 3 psychiatrists,
2 pharmacologists, 1 public health expert and the Commissioners of Correction, Health and Hospitals and
the director of the Psychiatry Division.
Work began in 1940, and included some in-depth scientific study of a group of 77 prisoners, who were
long-term cannabis users. Results were first published in the scientific press in 1942, where they initially
received good reviews. However Harry Anslinger went on the offensive, accusing the authors of immorality in
such strong terms that by the time the full report was published, the reviews were scathing.
The social part of the report noted that marijuana was mainly used by "negroes and latin americans" in Harlem. It
concluded that "The practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical
sense of the word", and "The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine
addiction." It also noted that there was no connection between marijuana and crime: "Juvenile
delinquency is not associated with the practice of smoking marihuana" and that "the publicity
concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded."
Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (US Military, 1929)
After an exhaustive study of the smoking of marijuana among American soldiers stationed
in the zone, the panel of civilian and military experts recommended that "no steps be taken by
the Canal Zone authorities to prevent the sale or use of Marihuana." The committee also concluded
that "there is no evidence that Marihuana as grown and used [in the Canal Zone] is a 'habit-forming' drug."
Following a question in the House Of Commons concerning the harmful effects of the production and
consumption of hemp drugs in Bengal, ("the lunatic asylum are full of ganja smokers"!!) the Government of India convened a seven-member commission
to look into the matter. 1455 witnesses were cross-examined in 86 meetings in 36 cities, throughout 1893-4.
The report, comprising some nine volumes and 3,698 pages, is the most completed and systematic
study of marijuana undertaken to date, written in a timeless and lucid language, which has gathered praise
for the British civil servants who wrote it: "It would be fortunate if studies undertaken by contemporary commissions, task force
committees and study groups could measure up to the standards of thoroughness and general
objectivity embodied in this report."
The report recommended that indian hemp should be controlled by taxes rather than prohibition. It
recognised that moderate use of cannabis was the rule: "and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional.
The moderate use produces practically no ill effects." The Indian government were happy to accept
the recommendations (and hence the tax revenue) which went into force quietly, standardising laws
and tariffs on cannabis in all the provinces. In March 1895, the Indian Government passed a
resolution after reviewing the report. It said that for the last twenty years their policy had
been of "restraining use and improving the revenue by the imposition of suitable taxation" and
"imposing as high a rate of duty as can be levied without inducing illicit practices" on the
grounds that "the best way to restrict the consumption of drugs is to tax them..." So,
"to that policy the Governor-General... has decided steadily to adhere."
|
