Talk:Drug policy of the Netherlands
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drug policy of the Netherlands article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Policy of tolerance
- 2 Zero-tolerance policy source
- 3 History
- 4 Implications of policy on drugs use statistics
- 5 Re: hard/soft distinction
- 6 Treaties
- 7 Fatality figures
- 8 some info missing
- 9 psilocybe?
- 10 Bicycle theft
- 11 Political context of Netherlands drug policy
- 12 Use of the four tildas
- 13 Unclear
- 14 give me a break
- 15 References?
- 16 On leading producer of amphetamines
- 17 Recent Developments: stronger cannabis
- 18 Statistics from Netherlands
- 19 What sources should be used?
- 20 Question
- 21 Copyvio or not?
- 22 Drug use, or illicit drug use?
- 23 gedogen
- 24 Specification of legal and illegal.
- 25 Terminology
- 26 Reactions to the 2011/2012 changes (drug tourism ban)
- 27 Splitting hairs
Policy of tolerance
Gedoogbeleid refers to more than just drugs. it means "policy of tolerance"
Zero-tolerance policy source
"However, such zero-tolerance policy at dance parties are now becoming common in the Netherlands and are even stricter in cities like Arnhem."
Yeah! When did the Netherlands become a drug liberal country? --126.96.36.199 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- In an attempt to answer your question, I'll relay the story as it was taught at the Dutch college for police senior officers during the seventies:
During the sixties, when Amsterdam was the only capital in Europe that tolerated the so-called hippies who travelled through Europe, drugs started flooding Amsterdam and the drugs mafia got rich and well-organized long before the police understood what was happening. You see, during those days most police chiefs were elderly, conservative, Christian men and they had no idea what drugs were all about.
A certain police chief realized police work against drugs had started way too late, and he realized the war against drugs could not be won on all fronts at the same time. Though he himself was strongly opposed to drugs, he started working on a half solution: tolerating so-called soft drugs under certain guidelines, and concentrating police work on the fight against hard drugs. After a long, hard struggle with the rest of the police force and the political world, his logic and pragmatism eventually won over enough police chiefs and decision makers.
So, possibly contrary to popular belief, the tolerance line was not started as a result of feelings of tolerance but due to a sad realization, and at the core was about police work - not about political views.
As written, this is what we were taught. I have no references to back it up with, and will abstain from trying to write a history section. A history section is badly needed though. Wurdnurd (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Implications of policy on drugs use statistics
Cannabis use in the Netherlands jumped 300% between 1984 (when coffee shops became abundant) and 1996. The rate in 1984 was 15% of 18-20 year olds; in 1996 it was 44%, according to MacCoun and Reuter (who themselves are not against soft cannabis policies).
As the coffee shops boomed between 1984 and 1996, marijuana use among Dutch youths aged 18 to 25 leapt by well over 200 percent. (source: Larry Collins, Foreign Affairs, "Holland's Half-Baked Drug Experiment," 1999)
There are no proper citations to back these statistics. The reporting is also clumsy at best case. "rate in 1984" refers to the rate of what? One time use? Use in the last month?. The Larry Collins (1999) article does not cite any sources for the statistics produced. Since it is clearly written from a prohibitionist point of view, it should be used for the purpose of reporting that perspective, but the use of its flawed statistics as a general truth is certainly unacceptable.
--Orionorbit 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: hard/soft distinction
The lines "Large suppliers tend to be criminals motivated by profit who do not make the distinction between hard and soft drugs. Hence, the soft drug policy, by failing to address the issue of supply, has made the Netherlands the main centre for hard drug trafficking in Europe." edge rather close to editorializing. A reference to some stats proving they're "the main centre for hard drug trafficking" and a removal of the line about "the issue of supply" would correct this, if someone has access to statistics on the matter. --188.8.131.52 00:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Also, the city of Rotterdam is the biggest seaport in the world. Even if the Netherlands were the main centre for hard drug trafficking in Europe (I don't find that hard to believe), then still the causality between the Dutch drug policy and that fact needs to be proven.SQB 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the Netherlands party to some international treaties which forbid it to legalize cannabis? If yes, then the official policy of toleration of an otherwise illegal practice (as currently practiced) seems to be the most that they are allowed to do. --AxelBoldt
Correct. There are international treaties in place that prevent most countries from legalising the drug. If http://www.smokedot.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/7/2/35918/10894 is to be belived I think it was due to pressure put on countries by the USA. However other sources (very vauge now) pointed to it being raised at the UN/League of Nations by Pakistan?
The Dutch government is indeed using the UN treaties as an argument against full legalisation. I still think this is hypocrisy though (both on the side of the international community and on the side of the Netherlands). Some argue BTW that the international treaties are less strict in reality than the way in which they are implemented in most countries. For instance, the "mother of all narcotic drugs treaties", the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (http://www.incb.org/e/conv/), leaves room for countries to set up a national agency for the production and sale of narcotic substances (both hard and soft drugs) if it thinks this is "the most suitable measure [...] for protecting the public health and welfare and preventing the diversion of drugs into the illicit traffic". -- Herman
Well, it is clear of course that this is the intention of the International Narcotics Control Board and the UN Treaties that created it. The article 22 I refered to is only what a few creative people think might be a way out ;) but the best thing (from a legalisation viewpoint) would still be to abolish the Single Convention altogether. According to an article on the history of the Dutch policy I found on http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen.case.html, trying to change the UN Single Convention was indeed suggested to the Dutch government when it adopted the tolerance policy in the early seventies, but ignoring the strictest parts of the Convention turned out to be easier. Interestingly, the Dutch government did consider decriminalising cannabis altogether at that time, but did the reverse instead (increasing maximum penalties) because of pressure from the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Arab countries were boycotting the Netherlands at that time because of its support for Israel in the Yom Kippur war, and it was feared that neighbouring countries from which the Netherlands now depended would also cut down their oil supply.
The Netherlands also postponed signing the Vienna 1971 Psychotropic Substances Convention until the spring 1993. -- Herman
Hey, a netherlands citizen here... sounds like someone is jealous...
- It is legal to hurt yourself even if it is harmful to society; however you remain liable for the consequences of your actions.
That sentence doesn't parse too well. It implies that hurting one's self is harmful to society and then opposes that to being liable for consequences? Confusing run-on sentences... I'd ask the author but it seems it was added by an anonymous (from 184.108.40.206). --Shallot 20:38, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That statement makes perfect sense to me. Let's say that you cut off your own arm. Perfectly legal, if stupid. But society has to pay for the ambulance and the hospital bill, and you'll use blood donated by people to the Red Cross that could be going to other patients. Obviously, your bad personal choice takes a cost on society. Although what you have done is legal, there are consequences that you will incur that the governemnt should not have to help you with. Besides use of an arm, you will also pay higher health insurance because you are a higher risk to them.
Sorry for the unorthodox example, but I think it illustrates the point.
When the article says "The number of drug-related deaths in the country remains the lowest in Europe", is that absolute or per capita? Tualha 02:24, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- What you're saying: "The number of drug-related deaths in the country remains the lowest in Europe" is untrue. The dutch have always been good at hiding stuff. This is a perfect example. Because the dutch are not fighting the use of drugs, they also don't have a good system of registering deaths caused by drugs. They're mixing up the numbers on drugs related deaths on purpose as a way to justify their stupid drugs policy. (and I'me from Holland) Wiki213ip 14:10, 30 jun 2005 (CEST) Yeah, 'their stupid drug policy' and you are from Holland. Tha6t should be 'our stupid drug policy'... Brusegadi 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are not from Holland at all Wiki213ip. Stating that we're not fighting the use of drugs is untrue, we're just not fanatically after people that use alcohol, nicotine or cannabis. Drugs like cocaine, heroine & XTC, for example, are highly illegal in Holland. Holland is not a drugs paradise, it's the same here as in most other countries, with the exception that people are allowed to use cannabis in addition to alcohol and nicotine. And even that is not entirely true, because cannabis is still illegal, you can't create a 1000 plant farm for example, people are just not prosecuted if they have small quantities in their possesion.
For every death a death certificate has to be signed, but I don't know what happens with any statistical data that could be or is being harvested from these certificates.
2 suggests that overdoses are considered non-natural deaths, which means a forensic autopsy will be performed, which will lead to more data. I don't know if these data could be collected through some transparent government scheme.
3 claims that in half of the E.U. countries, the percentage of unknown causes of death is unknown itself. In the Netherlands, that percentage is 10; 90% of the causes are known.
As for what Wiki213ip claims, I have no knowledge of any cover-ups, and I am Dutch too. If there is a cover-up, it is certainly not widely know. There is every reason to believe that the numbers our government come up with are accurate.220.127.116.11 00:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Only deaths directly caused by a drug should be recorded as a drug-related death. You definitely want to avoid the ridiculous situation that existed in the US where you could be killed by something totally unrelated, say a satellite falling out of the sky, and that would be recorded as drug-related if you had a drug in your system.
- Aren't hallucinogenic drugs and drugs like MDMA that are known to be relatively safe also largely ignored by the Netherlands police?
After looking at statistical data provided by EMCDDA, I could not find anything supporting the claim that drug-related deaths (either absolute, or per capita) are the lowest in Europe. However, they appear to be lower than the EU average. I modified the article to reflect this. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
some info missing
I'm searching for information about the history of drug legalization in the Netherlands and think that the article is missing data about: when did the general movement start and what parties (leftwing, rightwing etc.) where ruling.
Can someone add information on the legal change around psilocybe mushrooms in the Netherlands? I think they were relabeled as 'hard' in late 2003, what was the motivation around this, etc?
- There was no legislation before 2003. Sometime in 2003 the active substances psilocine and psilocybine where labeled as hard drugs under the Dutch Opium law. It is therefore illegal to posses, grow or trade any product containing these substances (this includes dried mushrooms). The law makes an exception for fresh mushrooms. They can be used and sold legally, but not grown for commercial purposes. Mushrooms fall under the gedoogbeleid, meaning users of dried mushrooms will not be activly prosecuted. --R.Koot 14:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Shrooooms are considerd harddrugs
In a way, the following sentence from this page is really stupid
Most policymakers in the Netherlands believe that if a problem has proved to be unstoppable, it is better to try controlling it instead of continuing to enforce laws that have shown to be unable to stop the problem
Now bicycle theft, as all people from the lowlands know, is rife in their cities. And they'll admit, its pretty much unstoppable
Warped rhetoric is what I call it.
>>It might be stupid, it is however true. Simply catching bike thieves proved not to work, so the society tries to control the problem. Most popular are guarded bike parkings, extremely heavy and expensive bike locks (a 20 euro bike with a 50 euro lock is not uncommon), tagging your zip code on your bike, and a nationwide database with frame numbers of stolen bikes.
If your bike still gets stolen, it's more or less considered as having bad luck. (Just as having bad luck with rain on your day off or having bad luck when catching a flue).
Of course you can report your stolen bike to the police (happens about a million times a year since insurancies demand that), but the police won't do anything about it. Simply because also the police have to admit that it is impossible to track down the person who stole that bike. (Thieves do not tag their names on the crime scene pavement). Since people know that, probaby several millions of stolen bikes are never reported. (Hence: total population is about 16 million)
The only reason why there is no official condone policy for bike theft (as there is for soft drugs), is because using drugs is considered a victimless crime (in a narrow sense). Bike theft is obviously not a victimless crime. Of course, when your bike is stolen, and there accidently happens to be some evidence, the thief wil get prosecuted and sentenced. Usual punishment is a few months in jail, a heavy fine, and/or community service.
Political context of Netherlands drug policy
It would be very interesting to me to know more of the domestic political forces at work influencing the course of the Netherlands drug policy, particularly with respect to the fate of coffee houses, which I understand to be shrinking in number. What is driving this? Can anyone provide links to discussion of this in English (het spijt me, mijn Nederlands is te slecht en te langzaam)? -SM 12:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Will no one answer my question? -SM 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know the exact details, but it has a lot to do with the conservative forces in the current government (mainly the Christian Democrats, CDA) led by Minister Donner. They want to reduce the number of coffeeshops, while most mayors (especially of Maastricht, and also in Utrecht and Amsterdam) want to keep most of them alive. 22.214.171.124 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Use of the four tildas
If you add to this talk page, please use the four tildas that will be replaced with your name and the time of your posting. Some entries only become clear to be from two different persons after reading a whole section.
Also, neither the main page nor this talk page are intended to share your views on Dutch narcotics policy. The main page actually quite well represents an overview of this policy from a neutral point of view. However, the section that describes reported successes of the policy needs references, comparison with European averages, etc.
Regarding the comparison with bike theft, that doesn't make sense at all. You'd be doing that from your own point of view - which is that use of 'soft drugs' is a crime - and this is not the Dutch policy. And as said, it's a victimless crime. I suffer financial disadvantage if my bike is stolen; I don't suffer anything at all if someone else smokes marijuana.
As to where the policy is going, that would be speculation and again, that doesn't belong on these pages. Personally, I think that the Dutch government is slowly moving towards a policy of discouraging, followed by stricter regulation. But again, this is speculation. So your question is difficult to answer, unless you start looking at the programmes of political parties, and presume that they will actually stick to them. SeverityOne 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is not clear at all in the attitude of the Netherlands towards this issue. If I understood correctly:
- Possetion of personal use amount of "soft" drugs is legal or an unenforced crime?
- possetion of larger amounts in "coffe shops" is legal or unenforced?
- Import supplies to the coffe shops is NOT legal? making their daily supply unenforced..?
--Procrastinating@talk2me 10:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Well, the legal stuff behind it isn't easy, must Dutch don't understand it completely as well. -All soft drugs are illegal. However, possetion of small amounts (5 grams I believe) is officially unenforced and allowed. -Same goes for coffeeshops, IIRC 500 grams is de maximum. -Import supplies tot the coffee shops is not legal at all indeed, and (more or less) heavyly enforced.
A lot of politicians want to change this legal mess, but in the end they won't. Politicians huh :P
Possetion of any amount of softdrugs is NOT legal in the Netherlands! You may only posses and use canabis in the so called coffeeshops! But when you get caught with a small amount of canabis all you have to do is sign a paper and give your stash to the police. It's even written in some coffeeshops that transportation of canabis is not legal! Consumation MUST take place at the coffeeshop! That's how it really is, please correct it!!!!!
- That's not true. It's completely legal to buy cannabis and take it home for personal use. It's illegal to use it outside, just like drinking outside, which is illegal too. But it's completely acceptable to bring your cannabis to your own place.
>>>Depends an what you can call "legal". The Dutch Drug Act (opiumwet) is very clear on this. Article 3:
Het is verboden een middel als bedoeld in de bij deze wet behorende lijst II dan wel aangewezen krachtens artikel 3a, vijfde lid:
A. binnen of buiten het grondgebied van Nederland te brengen; B. te telen, te bereiden, te bewerken, te verwerken, te verkopen, af te leveren, te verstrekken of te vervoeren; C. aanwezig te hebben; D. te vervaardigen.
Short English translation:
Prohibited for List II substances (for instance cannabis): A. to smuggle B. to grow, prepare, modify, process, sell, deliver, supply, transport C. to have in hand range D. to make
BUT: the justice department have made some guidelines on what will be procecuted and what will not. However, one has to distinguish the official condone policy and the pracitcal condone policy: Officially, coffee shops are allowd, but carrying a gram of pot is not. In practice, carrying some pot is ok, but the police MAY confiscate it.
give me a break
- Most policymakers in the Netherlands believe that if a problem has proved to be unstoppable, it is better to try controlling it instead of continuing to enforce laws with mixed results. By comparison, most other countries take the point of view that drugs are bad and must be outlawed, even when such policies fail to eliminate drug use
just a tiny bit of editorializing there, not to mention the weaseal words. this is an encyclopedia for god's sake.
- I don't think it's that bad. I mean, it's pretty true that drug use is not completely "eliminated" in the US, especially cannabis. I get why some might view this as as slightly POV, but I think it's the most NPOV way I can see of stating the fact that the Netherlands has reacted differently to an inability to "eliminate" certain drugs than other countries have. Also note that while the phrase "most other countries" does cover, well, most other countries, the phrase "even when" does actually leave open the possibility that some of them have effectively "eliminated" drug use, and since no names are named on the "failed to" list, I say it's not all that bad. It's possible there's a better way of putting it that wouldn't have even a vague hint of POV, but I can't think of one myself at the moment. Nonetheless, something close to that (comparing and contrasting the Netherlands policy with other coutnries') is kind of hard to avoid and should be there to begin with. 126.96.36.199 18:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so there's a section tagged with the "this section does not cite its references", but there is no clear list of references for the entire page, only a vague list of sources (that the information may or may not have come from). If I knew how to make a "this page does not cite its references" tag thingy, I would, but I don't, so I can't. I would much prefer to see someone add some of those little superscript numbers that link to references, rather than having the page come with a massive disclaimer... but I don't know how to do that either.
On leading producer of amphetamines
I changed that because the source provided placed the Netherlands FAR behind Russia. I mena, the Netherlands had single digits as many of the other countries. In addition, the source mentioned (the page provided) "labs destroyed", which might not be a good proxy to claim that the country is a major exporter given that countries with poor rule of law might export more and have few or even no "labs destroyed." Thus, I decided to revert that change. Brusegadi 22:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Fig. 106: Origin of amphetamine, 2003-2005 (Information based on 177 mentions on the origin of domestic amphetamine seizures from 38 countries over the 2003-05 period)" on page 131 in the reference puts Netherlands as number one as origin of amphetamine. Dala11a 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. Thats good. The only thing is that we should keep the sentence very close to what the report says. I'll make the change and let me know if you agree. Thanks! Brusegadi 00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I saw that you have changed it and it looks good. I thought about mentioning the proxy used for the claim but it would be too much. The interested reader would probably check it for herself. Ciao, Brusegadi 00:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. Thats good. The only thing is that we should keep the sentence very close to what the report says. I'll make the change and let me know if you agree. Thanks! Brusegadi 00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Russia?! Are you bloody well serious? Russia has a (somewhat ridiculously) heavy crackdown on all precursors to amphetamines, from everything containing ephedrine/pseudoephedrine to dry iodine and red phosphorous, and even solvents used for extraction in methamphetamine production are banned. Try the States instead, that place is flooded with amphetamines... In the 90's, Russia did suffer from heavy amphetamine use, but the vast majority of it was "kitchen-baked" by users for immediate consumption from medications and chemicals made from various household products, not from black market dealers and not smuggled. Recent urban legends and online sites even mention users using matchbook strikers as a source of iodine - hardly a mass-production method, wouldn't you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent Developments: stronger cannabis
"The higher levels of the active ingredient in marijuana in Netherlands create a growing opposition against the traditional Dutch view of cannabis as a relatively innocent soft drug." (Reference #8 in article).
"In fact, since the primary health risk of marijuana comes from smoking, higher potency products can be less dangerous because they allow people to achieve the desired effect by inhaling less." (Quoted in an article in marijuana.com.)
1. I have seen reports that the "increase" in cannabis potency of recent years is exaggerated because potency earlier was underreported. Hopefully an encyclopedia can contribute research that fends off bad policy based on false information.
2. If in fact the potency is higher, then "joints" and wide-bowl pipes that promote overdose servings burned hot (most smoking equipment advertised to date) are obsolete and dangerous, not the cannabis. When I was in the Netherlands I noticed that the word "joint" meant a giant spliff made with three (3) rolling papers with tobacco mixed in. Won't do!
What the encyclopedia can do is remind everyone of a basic physics issue: the narrower the diameter of your pipe, the cooler you can burn your herb, wasting less THC and causing less health damage. 1/4 inch (ca. 6 mm) is ideal! The easiest way to make a utensil is with a 6 mm, 1/4" or 6.5 mm. socket wrench with a screen in the hex end and a flexible long, long tube in the square (driver) end.
If all users learn this the "side stream smoke" problem will be reduced to zero and the carbon monoxide problem minimized. With its plethora of shops now legally selling equipment (not always the best kind) the Netherlands can take the lead and revolutionize the smoking procedure in a way that will be widely imitated resulting in (a) worldwide legalization of cannabis and (b) elimination of the 5.3 million deaths a year now attributed to tobacco cigarets (WHO 2003).Tokerdesigner 23:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Statistics from Netherlands
Comparison of statistics is not easy. For example: Netherlands has a lot of drug tourist but they exclude these people from their drug statics when they compare with other countries. Other countries include all kinds of people. The source is only from Netherlands. If you use a source from UN or from other governments you will have a diffrent picture of Netherlands.---- Dala11a (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
== Policy principals ==e s
The statement about the principals of the policy is wrong. 1. Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter 2. A distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists 3. High drug related public expenditure, the highest drug related public expenditure per capita of all countries in EU (139 EUR per capita, 2004) Should be: 1. Drug use is a public health issue first and a criminal matter second. 2. A distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists, when looking at the social consequenses and health risks 3. - Delete - Its BS. Because they spend a lot of money on cannabis we should allow it ??? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The source does not tell if the expenditure is the main cause. I'll say delete. Ssteinberger (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What sources should be used?
The source "UNODC: SWEDEN’S SUCCESSFUL DRUG POLICY: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE" should be replaced by the standard EMCDDA statistics or more specialized reports on the Netherlands. The report don't discuss the situation in the Netherlands other in comparisons towards Sweden, and it mentions Netherlands very little even then. If I have interpreted the wikipedia policy on sources correct, the way its presently presented constitutes original research, as the source is too off-topic. Even if it brings relevant statistics, there must be better sources on the facts it brings. For example, in the beginning of the article its stated that the Netherlands spend second most (as a percentage of BNP) on drug related issues. Later in the text, one learns that the Netherlands have real problems stemming from drug trafficking and drug tourism. I believe that it would be more correct and more neutral to set the high public expenses in that context rather then presenting it as a key feature of the dutch policy, which the source don't state anyway. Ssteinberger (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Who is the provider of Netherlands' drugs? I mean, marijuana for exemple must be cultivated at tropical soil, like in Brazil, Colombia or Peru. But in these countries to cultivate drugs is one of the worse crimes.
Most Cannabis is grown in the Netherlands. Some is grown outside, but most inside because that gives higher THC levels. Because production is only legal for a maximum of five plants per person, growers do so in secret in attics, basements, unused parts of greenhouses or houses especially rented for the purpose. The Outdoors varieties, locally known as "nederwiet", grow without any extra light or warmth. Coffee Shops are technicly seen not allowed to buy any weed, so there is no control over where it comes from.
The raw materials for hard drugs are mostly imported. Cocaine comes from Central Europe and is imported by passengers of commercial airlines by means of ingesting quantities packaged in plastics.Nerd66 (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- "The raw materials for hard drugs are mostly imported. Cocaine comes from Central Europe and is imported by passengers of commercial airlines by means of ingesting quantities packaged in plastics." I can't believe that someone agrees about this! It's not about liberalism or individual rights . It's awful, disgusting. Those drugs consumers and the dutch government (which one encourage this) are stimulating not only drug trafficking, but all kind of mafia, murders, urban violence, money laundering and human being exploration. What a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The Dutch government does NOT encourage the smuggling or use of Hard Drugs. Nor does it encourage the use of Soft Drugs but that has been giving the needed leeway. Try researching before you make a silly comment please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio or not?
The use of drugs in traffic is expressly prohibited. This includes all hard drugs and soft drugs including party drugs like XTC and amphetamine. Drug use can be proven by a blood or urine test which you have an obligation to take if a police officer suspects you of driving while on drugs. The punishment varies from a 3 month prison sentence or a fine of € 4,500,- to possibly a driving ban for a maximum of 5 years (10 years for repeat offenders).—European Consumer Centres Network: A word-document-brochure on tourism and driving in the Netherlands. 
The use of drugs in traffic is expressly prohibited. This includes all hard drugs and soft drugs including party drugs like ecstacy and amphetamine. Drug use can be proved by a blood or urine test which you have an obligation to take if a police officer suspects you of driving while on drugs. The punishment varies from a 3 month prison sentence or a fine of € 4,500,- to possibly a driving ban for a maximum of 5 years (10 years for repeat offenders).—From Dala11a latest (but reverted) edit in the main article as of now
They are obviously the same, but Dala11a states that it does not exist any copyright problem with his source as the responsible organisation for this issue and the probable author is funded by the justice department in the Netherlands. Is this true? Steinberger (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dala11a when he reposted the direct quote: "Copyright, i have asked ECC From: firstname.lastname@example.org Sö, 2008-06-15, 16:55 "Bericht: Is it allowed to quote your web site in Wikipedia ot course with a reference to t" 
- Why don't you paste the whole of that email here, Dala11a? Steinberger (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Från: email@example.com Datum: Sö, 2008-06-15, 16:55 Till: xxxxxxxxxxxx Prioritet: Normal
Het Juridisch Loket heeft de volgende informatie van u ontvangen:
Geslacht: De heer Naam: xxxxxxxxxxxx Postcode: 11111 E-mail: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- I have never stated that, I just sent the question to this page . EEC is a part of juridisch loket . "The ECC is funded by the European Commission and the Ministry of Justice and is part of the Legal Service Counter." The question was if it was allowed to quote its webb page.Dala11a (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you might have done so. But the document is made by the same agency in Austria. Look at the address, it seems like they add the national European consumer organisation for each country, at least they have in there brochures on Poland. Just look at the misspelled headline in the one on Netherlands: "Tourism in France". Steinberger (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Drug use, or illicit drug use?
Seems to me this:
- To prevent drug use and to treat and rehabilitate drug users.
- To reduce harm to users.
- To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighborhood).
- To combat the production and trafficking of drugs.
should read thus:
- To prevent illicit drug use and to treat and rehabilitate illicit drug users.
- To reduce harm to illicit users.
- To diminish public nuisance by illicit drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighborhood).
- To combat the production and trafficking of illicit drugs.
I removed the above cited phrase for the following reasons:
- because it is presented as fact and is not a neutral point of view;
- the reference does not directly refer to the drug policy as "pragmatic" only the attitudes of Dutch policymakers to the problem;
- it was wikified to "Pragmatism", which is a philosophy and not to what would be synonymous with "practical".Gary Joseph (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Specification of legal and illegal.
This article mentions illegal cannabis and a vague definition of this (such as "one must not grow it for oneself", I reckon). This subject could need some elaboration: The definition of legal cannabis, for instance, is actually completely absent. When is it legal and when is it not? A set of rules, laws, or restrictions could be added, I know they exist. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
"...whereby members can buy up to three grammes of hash or weed..."
"hash" and "weed" are slang terms for hashish and marijuana and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Someone with editing powers please delete the slang and insert the appropriate terms.
- Well the word "marijuana" (which is a slang term in Mexican Spanish) is not really used in Europe. In the UK or Netherlands, I have only heard American tourists use this term. What you mean is cannabis, or "herbal cannabis" to be precise. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Reactions to the 2011/2012 changes (drug tourism ban)
I think it should be mentioned that many mayors and coffee shop owners are against the new regulations, as the tourism in general is softly declining and illegal drug trade (between natives and tourists) is becoming a problem. I believe the mayor of Amsterdam claimed he would rather pay fines for not complying with the new laws rather than spend money on crime prevention. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
In the part about the weed pass it says "this was promptly adopted by several provinces including Maastricht and Eindhoven" However, neither Maastricht nor Eindhoven is a province, they are both cities. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)