To demystify and decriminalize

The current licit drug economy in Amsterdam already lies in tentative balance. With Mayor Halsema’s recent proposal to ban international visitors from purchasing marijuana, the regulation of controlled substances hangs in balance.

Known internationally for being a city of tolerance, Amsterdam’s tolerant drug policies still create only loose guidelines for the acquisition and distribution of ‘soft drugs’. While visibly more effective than criminalization at curbing substance-related repercussions such as addiction, co-morbid use, and overdose, they do not reach the problem at its core. At the moment, the general attitude of law enforcement is to allow coffeeshops to operate as long as they observe certain rules.

Current audits of coffeeshops as done by the municipality include the following requirements in order for their allowance to be kept running:
• Discouraging the use of soft drugs by young people
• Preventing criminal involvement in the sector
• Preventing public nuisance
• Protecting the health of cannabis users
• Maintaining regular contact

However, by introducing an international ban the municipality does not actually mitigate any of these issues. All of the bulleted arguments point to issues that cannot be solved by an avoidance of the problem through further criminalization, but rather through integration into a governmental system where the substances can be monitored and regulated.

The issue is that Amsterdam has been running on these tolerance policies and drug tourism for quite a long time. Although tolerance does not allow for the same control of quality and quantity as measures like decriminalization or legalization, it provides at least some amount of supervision and regulation. By implementing rules that would ban tourists or international visitors from acquiring cannabis, these individuals are more likely to turn to their unregulated counterparts. As summarized by Machteld Busz of Mainline, an Amsterdam-based harm reduction organization, “As demand won’t decrease, the market will adjust and move to spaces where there is no quality control or opportunity to provide young tourists with prevention and health messages. Moreover: when young tourists need to turn to street dealers to buy cannabis, they are more likely to get offered other, harder drugs, such as cocaine.”

On one hand, this turn poses a public health issue– lack of quality control makes it easier for dealers to sell synthetic cannabinoids (K2, Spice) instead, which are more likely to induce effects of paranoia, anxiety, and psychosis. Moreover, unregulated dealers might be less likely to provide advice for dosage and safe consumption due to a lack of accountability.

On the other hand, the ban also poses an issue of increased influence and integration of crime. At the moment, any sale of over 5 grams of a ‘soft drug’ in the Netherlands is considered illegal and could be subject to penalty; however, an aspect of the tolerance policy is that most coffeeshops, which clearly buy in a bulk quantity over the 5 gram limit, are not subject to these sourcing regulations. To increase the lack of information and transparency within a sector already accustomed to functioning beneath the level of government regulation is, quite frankly, a recipe for increased blind spots on criminal activity. Furthermore, it is simply unjust that the government accepts tax revenue from coffeeshops when the coffeeshops themselves are not fully legal enterprises.

A counterproposal includes an immediate decriminalization of all psychoactive substances. As seen when put into effect in Portugal, by turning the focus from drug use as a criminal offence to a public health issue, overdose deaths, transmissions of diseases such as HIV, and of course, incarceration rates all lower drastically. The 2022 municipal budget plan explicitly states that the security budget focus will switch to more ‘hidden crimes,’ among which they list the drug economy. If the drug economy were simply regulated instead of hidden, perhaps that would not be so much of an issue.

The Gementeeraad has also expressed specific concerns over the disproportionate amount of drug paraphernalia souvenirs sold in the city; perhaps the concerns about drug tourism should be reallocated to the portrayal of drug use through its profiteers as opposed to lingering with the sale of the substance itself.

Of course, simultaneously allocating funding to improved mental health services and social housing is essential for Amsterdam residents; availability of substance use information and continuous internal reviews and regulations of coffeeshops and smartshops are equally as essential for mimizing substance-related harm and nuisance in terms of visitors. By decriminalizing psychoactive substances it will be easier to investigate the ramifications of substance use on a larger scale in order to come up with a comprehensive plan for potential legalization. This would help not only identify the sourcing of these materials and estimate their purity, potency, and the profiteers in their distribution, but would also allow for studies on the environmental impact of of cannabis growth and cultivation, a curbing of illict importation to be replaced with government-funded cannabis farms, and more job vacancies to be filled and stimulate the economy– this time not just one reliant on drug tourism, but one with increased opportunities for innovation in sectors such as medicine, cosmetics, and horticulture.

Amsterdam’s relationship to the drug industry is already culturally ingrained; attempting to reverse it, even if by beginning with an international ban on cannabis sales, could and likely will bring around a heap of unintended consequences. No matter their legal status, drugs always have been and always will be done– it is not a matter of trying to criminalize or cut down on drug use, but rather a matter of demystifying it, providing accurate information, and innovating novel responses for an integration of the drug economy into the city’s legal circuit instead. Although the Mayor’s current plans have been postponed and are under scrutiny from other party officials, the probelmatics are clear: for Amsterdam to truly be a ‘City of Tolerance’ it must accept the fact that drugs aren’t going anywhere, and instead take the steps necessary to ensure that their use poses the least amount of harm to its residents.