

How smoking weed is still legal for tourists in Amsterdam - nsaparanoid
http://travel.stackexchange.com/q/12942/101

======
skrebbel
Independent of the actual subject matter, I think that recent drug policy
changes in the Netherlands is a great example of how the common push for
centralization can be countered by local demands.

At some point, drug enforcement was pretty much the same across the country,
but now, because different cities have different problems and influences, it
is enforced differently in cities. As a strong believer in the "subsidiarity
principle" (things should be decided as locally as they can), I've been
appalled at the push towards centralization of policies and control in many
European countries the last decade.

It seems that everybody thinks that if local issues are made national policy,
and national issues European policy, things will automatically be better.
Usually it starts because in one locality, something goes wrong, resulting in
media outrage and a call for more regulation by a higher government. If we
don't watch out, small town sidewalk planning will be done in Brussels.

The recent Dutch drug policy changes show that with enough effort, the
subsidiarity principle can still win. This gives me some confidence for the
future. We need to keep underlining that not every place is the same.

~~~
netcan
I am very pro EU. The original purpose was to avoid wars, long teem. That goal
is still relevant. Free trade and free movement were both considered tools. I
consider them (especially the often neglected free movement) ends themselves.

That said, the EU has issues. Lots of political traditions and very few basic
principles to guide how things should be done. What EU is and isn't
responsible for isn't clear. There has been lots of recent pieces of
legislation and precedents created in a panicky environment as a response to
the banking crisis.

Personally I believe that is possible and preferable to maintain free movement
and trade without that being translated into centrally insured and regulated
banking, just like it should apply to local drug policy. I also think that's
the only way it will work.

~~~
bowlofpetunias
I have become very anti-EU in recent years.

I am very much pro open borders with neighboring nations, but the EU has
become a vehicle for creating a fundamentally undemocratic centralized federal
state.

And I especially detest the way the EU tries to shift the balance of power by
allowing impoverished, corrupt nations into the EU without any kind of
democratic process.

In the Netherlands, there is a clear majority against the expansion of the EU,
and we are being railroaded. We voted against the EU "constitution" in the
only meaningful referendum in the history of our nation, and they simply
changed the fucking name.

The fact that an originally very strongly pro-European nation like the
Netherlands said "no further" should have been a clear signal to reform the
EU, but instead things have just become worse.

I'm still pro-European, but consider the EU the enemy of our freedom,
democracy and sovereignty.

~~~
bane
You know, as an American, it's interesting to see how the EU experiment plays
out. Many of these issues have parallels to the American federal vs. state's
rights debates. Early on, the U.S. was much more individual state-centric.
Outside of slavery, the American civil war was largely about individual
Southern states keeping their local rights vs. a more federal North. Over time
the major political parties have largely separated on this issue with the
American Left more federal and the Right more interested in state rights.

Lots of the befuddlement non-Americans feel towards sometimes arcane, mixed
"American" policy (e.g. taxes, guns, gay rights, etc.) is a result of this.

Regardless, the US model has quickly moved towards a more national policy even
though it's still a very active debate here.

The EU is a grand experiment, but long histories and complex cultural
differences and interactions will make it very interesting to watch how it
plays out.

~~~
bunderbunder
> Over time the major political parties have largely separated on this issue
> with the American Left more federal and the Right more interested in state
> rights.

My perception has been that they're both extremely federal about some things,
and extremely anti-federal about others. To take an example of Republicans
taking the federal side and Democrats taking the more subsidiary side of an
issue, about 10 years back there was an interesting point in Wisconsin state
politics where municipalities were starting to enact bans on smoking in
taverns, and some folks in the state legislature responded by attempting to
enact a statewide ban on smoking bans.

Of course, smoking in bars still became illegal statewide about 3 years ago. .
. which I think illustrates the real guiding principle in American politics,
which is political pragmatism: Election season politicking (read: dishonesty)
aside, neither party truly takes a principled stance on the big government
issue. In practice, they freely flip-flop between pushing big-government
policies and stumping for smaller governments' right to be free from meddling
depending on which approach better suits their goals in a particular
situation.

To take another example, the two main parties' relative opinions on the
desirability of using great heaping piles of taxpayer money to fund government
programs in order to create jobs does this sudden, dramatic and complete
inversion when the topic of military contractors gets raised.

~~~
bane
That's also true. Different people have differing opinions about what should
be national policy vs. state policy, and it can actually be counter-
intuitive/paradoxical until you really look into it.

For example, most American conservatives favor strong national defense, but
minority pockets of conservative areas are strongly anti-federal and favor
local militias. It seems odd, but you'll find that most of that bent veer that
way from both the Constitutional right to bear arms in a well regulated
militia (unspecified as to who regulates it, but that's a small technical
quibble), combined with an American leeriness about government (that the same
amendment seems to voice) and you can kind of see how that kind of thing
arises.

And there's similar sentiments all over the political spectrum.

As an American, the E.U. looks similar in this respect. Politics are tied up
in originator theories (the E.U. was meant for xxx) and a European nation vs.
local nationalism. With Europe being perceived as being very liberal from an
American perspective, it's interesting to see politics that would be framed
here as extreme conservatism as part of the normal modern European political
debate and it's a good lesson that not everybody is wholly liberal or
conservative on all issues.

As to what I support, this current overly complicated system, of overlapping
but non-equal areas of trade, borders and monetary systems (the EEA, EU, ESDP,
EFTA, EuroZone, Schengen, and on and on and on) seems unsustainable in the
long-term.

It simply makes more sense to say "if you're in Europe, you are part of the EU
which implies you are part of common defense, common trade, common monetary
policy and so and so forth" and not worry about which part of the venn diagram
a particular nation is. My prediction is that this _will_ happen within the
next 50 years. And 50 years after than everybody will look back and wonder
what all the fuss was about.

From an outsider's perspective, Europe today is better than Europe was even
just a couple decades ago and I think it's largely due to this unification
movement. Having a larger government override local concerns seems
particularly difficult for Europeans right now, but as an American we're quite
used to it and find it _generally_ tolerable.

As a frequent visitor to Europe over the last few decades, I enjoy the more
unified Europe more, it's just easier to get around and do things, even if
some of the local flavor has been lost (I used to love collecting all the
various currencies, now it's just Euros, bleh).

------
digitalengineer
Dutchmen here. You can grow your own weed as well. Just not more than 5 plants
and only for your own consumption. I'm no user, but I understand weed is for
tourists and younger kids just chillin'/relaxing.

There's a much larger user base for all those chemically created drugs for
partying. Lately there's a new thing, it's actually for horses needing surgery
and keeps them on their feet. Kids use it to prefent passing out from all the
other drugs. Funny thing is: They look like walking zombies stumbling about.

~~~
013
>Lately there's a new thing, it's actually for horses needing surgery and
keeps them on their feet. Kids use it to prefent passing out from all the
other drugs. Funny thing is: They look like walking zombies stumbling about.

Ketamine. [0]

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine)

~~~
70forty
Ketamine is hardly a new trend in recreational drug use and I've never heard
of it being used by anyone to prevent "passing out from all the other drugs".
Ketamine in high but still sub-anesthetic doses induces a semi-conscious state
referred to as the "k-hole", more or less giving the appearance of being
passed out. At lower doses it does strongly effect balance and coordination,
so the "stumbling" bit is probably justified.

Ketamine is exceptionally safe and relatively non-addictive BTW, though in my
experience not all that enjoyable. GP needs to save the horror stories and
fear mongering for MDPV, NBOMEes, etc. which arose as alternatives to much
safer but highly contraband substances like LSD, MDMA, etc. with difficult-to-
source precursors.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> Ketamine is exceptionally safe and relatively non-addictive BTW_

This is dangerous misinformation. I've had more than one friend almost die
from compulsive ketamine use. Just because it might not be physiologically
addictive like opiates, doesn't mean that you won't be wiping it from around
your nose every morning while you wait for the bus at 8:30 to go to classes,
losing all your friends and so much weight that your body starts shutting down
completely. People end up needing their bladders removed surgically from the
sheer amount of extremely alkaline solutions they are putting into their
bodies. Tolerance builds _very_ quickly and with a sharp curve, so users end
up having to shovel huge quantities of this very caustic material into their
faces just to feel normal.

(Thankfully the people I know managed to come back from the brink, but only by
completely shutting themselves off from the world for a long time.)

The problem is, its effects are "light" enough that it is possible to use it
all day every day, and still be functional enough to carry on. People who
enjoy the effects and have a compulsive personality will probably end up using
it constantly if the have access to it. In this respect it is similar to weed,
and alcohol, although that has a physiological component too.

Plus it turns you into a drooling moron and ruins parties. We call it
"twatnip."

~~~
adobriyan
Any reasonable public forum will flat out ban any drug discussions because of
experts like 70forty who tell kids it is safe.

~~~
70forty
And I stand by what I said.

It's tough to find statistics but the article below says that between 1993 and
2006, 23 deaths were tied to ketamine use. That to me qualifies as safe and
relatively non-addictive in the context of recreational drug use.

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ketamine-
tops...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ketamine-tops-cocaine-
as-new-drug-of-choice-1366714.html)

Oh yeah, and banning discussion of recreational drug use will do wonders for
harm reduction, lol.

~~~
shawnz
I don't see where you are getting "relatively non-addictive" from. I have had
many positive experiences with Ketamine, but I will be the first to say that
it takes a lot of self-control to not overdo it.

EDIT: To be clear, I am aware ketamine is not physically addictive. However I
find it to be one of the most psychologically addictive drugs I have taken.

~~~
sizzle
as in, you crave the feeling of being on it?

------
josefresco
From the thread: "recognize the difference between tolerated and allowed" What
a horrible way of governing, almost worse than the US's state vs. federal
legality (at least it's officially "legal" on the state level and not just
_tolerated_ ). Telling people that something is illegal but "tolerated" is a
license for potential abuse by authorities. It essentially makes all
prosecution a _judgement call_ for individual authority figures. Sounds like a
recipe for potential abuse to me.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I agree with you completely. If my very shallow understanding of the issue is
correct, I think it may be because US foreign policy strongly pushes drug
prohibition with its trade partners. By keeping cannabis "illegal" nations get
to sort of feign compliance with US demands while having as little domestic
effect as possible.

~~~
josefresco
Interesting, I didn't even think of that angle. Is there any reference to
support this hypothesis? I would love to read more about how US foreign policy
or aid potentially effects the laws of other countries. I could see the US
getting involved with big drug export countries (e.g. Columbia) but I wonder
how involved they are with others that don't play a large part in the global
drug trade.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Is there any reference to support this hypothesis?

There are anecdotes and news stories floating around. How close are they to
the truth? I don't know.

------
pacifika
As you can read from the article it's still ILLEGAL but allowed; not 'still
legal' as in the link description.

It makes clarifying a confusing matter more confusing.

------
Cthulhu_
There's a lot of laws like this that don't get enforced as much as 'law' would
imply. Another example is the ban on smoking in workplaces to protect the
employees; in the Netherlands, a couple of years ago, this law was
implemented, meaning that smoking was effectively banned from bars and pubs as
well. Outrage ensued from all sides. Two 'workarounds' were created:

* People just donate to the pub owner to pay the fines if the inspector came around * Certain bars had no personnel, just the owner; ergo, no personnel, so no requirement to create a smoke-free environment for personnel, so, smoke away.

Others are things like speeding (everyone does it, gets a fine on rare
occasions, only the extreme ones get their license impounded), downloading
music/software, etc.

~~~
_delirium
Interesting, is smoking still common in bars in the Netherlands? That's one of
the laws that actually is pretty widely followed in other countries. One of
the more surprising was that in a period of about 3 years, Greek bars and
nightclubs went from being 100% smoke-filled to being essentially smoke-free.

~~~
andreasvc
In my experience many bars do adhere to the ban, but there are exceptions
where the ashtrays are on the tables in plain sight. If they get caught x
number of times they have to close down though.

------
StudyAnimal
What is the current situation in towns like Maastricht and Heerlen that
decided to implement the residents only restriction? Was that rolled back or
not?

~~~
Heliosmaster
Nope. Here in Eindhoven you have to be a member to geet weed, or so I am told.

~~~
dep_b
That's true. They have limited amounts of memberships as well so a buddy that
still smokes regularly visited them all in the first day he could register
just to be sure.

I am now firmly convinced that the dopeheads of France will shave off their
dreadlocks and start looking for a job now the cesspool of evil influence that
was the Dutch liberal stance on drugs has been eradicated.

------
mcv
It's sad that as most of the world is moving towards legalization, we're
suddenly moving backwards.

------
chimeracoder
Good explanation, but this title is incredibly misleading. Marijuana was
_never_ legal in the Netherlands[0], for tourists _or_ residents. As the
linked answer itself points out, it was only tolerated.

Until November 2012, there was no place in the world where marijuana was truly
legal, except (possibly) North Korea[1]. Even still, it's a stretch to say
that marijuana is legal in Washington State and Colorado, since the Feds could
easily decide tomorrow that they want to crack down on it, and you could be
arrested[2].

The distinction between legality and tolerance is important. Decriminalization
and/or tolerance provide only a small subset of the benefits of true
legalization. Without true legalization, you cannot have (ex.) quality control
via local regulators, nor can you choke off drug cartels by undercutting one
of their most profitable products. (Instead, you may even end up putting money
_into_ their pockets, depending on where you source the marijuana from -
thankfully, this is less of an issue in Colorado and Washington).

Anyway, marijuana is now clearly less illegal in Colorado than in the
Netherlands (in Denver, it is allowed under _both_ city[3] and state law,
though not federal law). Personally, I'm glad that the US now has its own
place to go for marijuana tourism (similar to Tijuana for alcohol) - one could
say that this is US protectionism at its finest!

[0] Well, at least not since the US started exporting its drug policy
worldwide several decades ago.

[1] Alaska has a similar policy in private residences since 1977 due to a
state court ruling on the right to privacy, but it is still illegal. North
Korea has been cited as the one exception to this rule (ironically), but
reports of its legality there are mixed.

[2] Look at what happened in Harborside and Oaksterdam (when cracking down on
medical dispensaries, the Obama administration has used an underhanded tax
catch-22 as political cover for busting shops that he previously said he'd
allow, but the effect is the same).

[3] Denver legalized marijuana by city vote in 2006, and Breckenridge, CO
legalized marijuana by town vote in 2009

~~~
malka
US strategy : -Make weed illegal in the entire world -Legalize weed -???
-Profit !

~~~
Crito
That is an amusingly cynical way of looking at it, but of course the reality
is that there is not a single cohesive US strategy.

~~~
malka
My comment was to be taken as a joke ;) Given how the federal state give a
hard time to coffee shop in california, colorado, etc. I'm pretty sure they
did not plan it this way. However, as an external observator, it is funny to
see that things went this way.

