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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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).
A very interesting and valid comparision between the EU and the American states.
What seperates them is that America is a defined country with the states already there and the EU model seems to be about borging anybody nearby who wants to sign up, least these days. Almost akin to office politics empire building. Then the whole cultural aspect as you rightly put it is maybe more varied than what the States have to accomodate. Could even look at language barriers on that one as a definition of cultural divides. Fact esperanto has not taken off would also indicate the types of issues any one rule fits all approach takes as being flawed.
It is also worth noting that the States has/does have a bit of a North/South divide and that is true of many countries and with that I see the whole EU evolving into a formal two-tier system in some form as the current expansion/change rate is not sustainable without many negative side effects.
Bit like developing on a green feild or upgrading existing buildings the end result and ideals are often two seperate results even if sold as being the same in the budgeting/planning.
That's unfortunate and possibly the downfall of many good things. Much of the objection to the EU has come form nationalists around Europe. We have many.
The worst case scenario is when/if European politics gets dichotomized into Eurocrat vs Nationalist. Instead i would like to see the EU go back to basics. I don't think it's too late. A reaffirmation of basic principles. Free movement. Free trade. The core tenants of a united Europe. I don't give much of a damn about sovereignty, but I do care about local lawmaking.
unfortunetly some EU countrys "no names no pack drill" take the farm subsidy but when it comes to establishing basic common rights basically stick two fingers up to the EU.
ah ah, in France, we kinda had the same problem with the eu 'constitution'. the referendum result was 'no'. So, the name was changed, and it was voted by the parliament. Democracy at its finest. never bothered to vote since.
The Irish people rejected the EU Constitution(Lisbon Treaty) in a referendum as well[1]. The Irish government laughed at the people, deployed a bunch of scare-mongering tactics in the media, and held another vote to get the "right" result. Democracy in action. I get the feeling that a lot of EU treaties would be rejected by many countries if put to popular referendums.
After seeing the way in which Germany bullied Ireland into keeping the insane bank bailout which has crippled Ireland's sovereign balance sheet, I've become doubtful about some elements of EU membership.
It's important to vote if only to make a statement that you care about the issue. Your silence is a vote of approval for the politicians to do whatever they want (of course they pretty much do already, but one should never implicitly vote for that).
The roots of the EU come from the steel industry. Capitalism runs the world thus rules the people. To think that any government actually subscribes to any idea of universal betterment of humanity that doesn't fulfill the coffers is naive.
It is interesting to note that the European Union officially establishes the Principle of Subsidiarity in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht. So theoretically we should never have EU regulations which breach this principle. In practice, things might be different!
I find that in practice, the exact opposite happens.
A fine example to illustrate how difficult this is, is differences in attitudes towards homosexuals. One country, e.g. Croatia, where homosexuality is not as accepted as it is in my country (the Netherlands), might decide to forbid a Gay Parade because the risk of its participants being beaten up is too big. This, in turn, would cause great political turmoil in a country like the Netherlands, because of discrimination.
In such cases, I've seen Dutch MEPs try to make Brussels enforce that the parade takes place and is properly protected by police.
Who is right? My sense of values says the Dutch. My sense of politics (subsidiarity) says that the Croatians can figure it out for themselves. Who are we to export our morals to other member states?
But this is an unpopular view. I suspect that the majority of Dutchmen would support strong European laws and guidelines to protect homosexuals. But what if Brussels starts to similarly override our drug policies, which many other member states find immoral? Suddenly this whole centralization thing doesn't sound so nice anymore.
All forms of governance must be forced to uphold human rights. No political argument can counter that without arguing that not all humans have the same rights.
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.
>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.
Doesn't sound like ketamine completely. Whilst it'll zombify you pretty quickly, it won't prevent you from passing out from other drugs as you can 'k-hole' on it pretty quickly and pass out. Butorphanol is what seems more likely from a bit of internet sleuthing (but I imagine it'll have a more jazzy name in the club).
Interesting. It's not available from the front page of erowid, so it must be somewhat new. It doesn't appear to have an interesting street name from this handful of reports. At least its prescription, so it's not some god-awful thing, but it is an opiate, so somewhat dangerous.
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.
>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."
This is quite an instructive thread on why it has taken so long for sensible drug policies to be put in place around the world. One person makes a generalization, another person counters with a broader generalization, someone throws in their n=1 experience, and now suddenly we're off the topic of drugs and onto dictating what is "reasonable" discussion for a public forum.
The bottom line: you are responsible for 1) your own intelligence and 2) your own body. Having done research on Ketamine, I was well aware that 70forty's comments were inaccurate, but I chose not reply because he may very well be right by his own definition of "safe" and "non-addictive" based on his knowledge and experience. I would hold anyone who chooses to try any chemical to the same standard -- do your own fact-finding, draw your own conclusions, and be your own authority over your body.
Suggesting that we should suppress any comment that has some remote potential for catastrophe, though, is a bit much.
The problem is, it is "safe" in the sense that it is a medical drug with a known set of effects. You cannot cause breathing to cease with ketamine. People aren't allergic to it. It is used on battlefields and in road traffic accidents for these reasons. It doesn't really cause vomiting, at least not in the lethal combination with total unconsciousness that leads alcohol and heroin to take so many lives. So it is "safe," especially in the context of occasional use.
When you get a community of people with constant, cheap access to large amounts, it's a different story. Ironically, if the acute effects were slightly more severe, the long-term effects might not be such a problem, as chronic abuse would be less prevalent.
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.
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.
That's not a good criteria for safety at all (and the conclusion of non-addictiveness is totally unwarranted by the number of deaths). Lots of chemicals are damaging without killing you: lowering your IQ, organ damage, etc.
> Ketamine is exceptionally safe and relatively non-addictive
Ketamine may be physically non-addictive, but it's definitely not psychologically non-addictive. I'm aware of a few people in my wider social circle who are clearly problem users. It's also becoming clear that long term regular use can lead to serious bladder damage.
Dutchmen here. No you cannot have or grow plants. This is still illegal.
They might shelve the case when you are having 5 plants or less. But above 5 they always make a case of it.
And yes Ketamine (Special K / Vitamin K / Kokaine) is used as party drug, but alcohol, weed and nicotine are used most followed by XTC and cocaine.
Another Dutchman here. Indeed it's true that it's illegal to grow pot. Growing pot is completely illegal apart from some medicinal use, where they try to grow a variety that will not get you super high but still has medicinal value.
Let me make it clear: THERE IS NO WAY A COFFEESHOP CAN GET THEIR WEED IN A LEGAL WAY
Since the turn of the century we have seen a string of conservative governments, elected because other problems in our society, that like to clamp down on drugs and other liberal things because it makes them look tough without having to deal with the true problems in this country.
Indeed it is very strange that a country that has a vast majority of people in favor of legalization, as we have been the witnesses of the fact that regulated drugs have a positive effect on society.
Just to sum up how clueless our governments were in the last 12 year or so, an image of a former president that just says it all:
Until not that long ago we had similar 'non-enforcement in practice' for small amounts of XTC pills and under a gram of cocaine.
In general Dutch policy is/was about allowing and educating towards responsible use which means that, especially in big cities and certain big parties, there is a subculture where hard-drug use is condoned and to some degree par for the course.
Culturally minimal responsible use (a tablet once or twice a year, a line of cocaine to extend a party once) is considered as 'your choice and I'll try not to look down on you for it,' but any form of dependence is heavily frowned upon and discouraged.
In general it's part of a broader theme of giving you the freedom to make your own mistakes as long as they don't negatively impact others, which comes with a lot of implicit cultural experience in how to let people experiment and come to their own terms with these drugs without losing them to the drug.
In practice it tends to take the form of most people 'going through a phase' and growing out of it, a small amount of people becoming high-functioning long-term addicts and an even smaller percentage of in-the-gutter destroy-your-life type addicts.
Would not surprise me at all. Despite the well-known image of the street filled with coffee-shops, really a few Dutch people smoke: less than 5% of them use the coffee-shops, and less than 10% of 15-24-year-olds.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not really because the limits of what is and what is not tolerated are not arbitrarily decided by individuals. There are clearly understood and published local guidelines, effectively this is often an end-run around national level laws that the local community collectively chooses not to enforce. A prosecution brought against someone who was within the understood, tolerated guidelines wouldn't be successful because it would contravene the principle of the rule of law (quite central to Dutch political and judicial thinking).
The crucial elements of the rule of law, predictability and detachment from individual judgement outside of established and controlled channels is maintained in the Dutch system because there exist universally understood and judicially binding methods of disseminating the local guidelines.
I'll admit that it usually isn't explained very well because it's mostly lay Dutch people explaining their understanding.
Notably, I've never heard of a case anywhere in the Netherlands where this principle has been abused.
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.
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.
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.
Greek bars, really? I've been to Thessaloniki in November, and there were few bars/restaurants with a smoke-free zones, and I cannot imagine a completely non-smoking bar there.
I remember a while ago there was suddenly many States in the US to enact smoking bans in bars/restaurants mostly one right after another. I remember when I was in high school they passed the law in my State and they had some people interviewed on the news about it. However, while I heard about "smokeasys" existing (term comes from prohibition era speakeasys) I have never seen one and I've been to a lot of bars in many areas and various States. Some people complained but compliance was basically a non issue.
As a result, I think younger smokers are now just used to going outside to smoke, I don't know hardly anyone who smokes in their house and those that do seem to be really old. Very very few non-smokers let smokers smoke in their house, and hardly any smokers ask, they just walk outside. This wasn't the case even 15 years ago.
It wasn't really that long since the law had passed, but several (probably 6) years ago I went to the American South and I was asked "smoking or non-smoking" and it was so weird, even though that's basically how I grew up! When I was a kid teachers smoked in the teacher's lounge, in school.
However hookah bars are allowed to exist almost everywhere as far as I can tell, and I really never understood how that fits into the law.
Also a few States allow exceptions for private clubs so places like the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) allow smoking.
Also, some except casinos, for whatever weird reason.
> However hookah bars are allowed to exist almost everywhere as far as I can tell, and I really never understood how that fits into the law.
In my city, they have a simple rule that decides whether or not smoking indoors can happen: whether or not a majority percentage of retail revenue comes from the sale of tobacco products. So, things like cigar, pipe, and hookah shops can allow indoor smoking, but virtually no bar in the city can. (Who, by law, must put a sign up indicating a majority of sales come from the sale of alcohol for consumption on-premise. You can't have both a majority of sales from alcohol and from tobacco at the same time, so cigar bars all had to create patios.)
These laws are not loosely enforced in the city, to the extent that there is a team of bureaucrats tasked with enforcing action in regards to complaints. However, whether or not every customer reports infractions, is a different story. =)
Good examples, except for downloading: Dutch law recognizes intellectual property, broadcasting/selling copyrighted material is forbidden, but obtaining it is not illegal.
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?
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.
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.