Transcript Infancias vulnerables

The Dutch drug policy: an effective policy under
threat
Dick Reinking
Municipal Health Centre
City of Utrecht
San Sebastian, Oct. 26 2011
1
The Dutch policy: peculiar or above all effective?
Themes addressed:
•
Does the Dutch Drug Policy work?
•
•
•
And in the meantime
•
Criminal involvement, nederwiet, risks of cannabis
•
... and an unsolved problem at the back door,
Leading to:
•
•
Indicators: cannabis use, coffeeshops to separate drug markets
A policy shift and an initiative from Utrecht as a way out
Closing remarks
2
Dutch Drug Policy 1976:
pragmatic, tolerant and liberal
• Not repressive towards users
• Cannabis is a drug with lesser harm for the user
• Possession (< 30 gr, later < 5 gr) and use tolerated
• Coffeeshops to separate drug markets
• A social medical perspective on use and (problem) users
• Added by a repressive approach towards production and
trafficking
In sum: an exemplary balanced approach
3
Does it work? Cannabis use
Cannabis use, ever:
2.500.000
Cannabis use, actual:
363.000
Cannabis use, daily
80.000
Cannabis use, problematic
30.000
Main conclusions:
•
A rise followed by stabilization in use since 1997
•
Prevelance rates cannabis are below EU average, except for youngsters (15-16
yrs)
•
Increase in care for problematic cannabis users 15 -39 yrs
(main sources: Van Laar, 2010; Van Laar and Van Ooijen-Houben (eds.) 2009)
4
In the meantime: Changes in THC 2002 -2009
Nederwiet: A rise from av. 10 to av > 20% in 2002,
Followed by a gradual decrease, averaging 15-16% in 2008/2009.
Comparisons
Dutch hash: fluctuating THC concentrations (26-39%)
Imported hash: between 16 - 19%
Source: Rigter et al., 2009
5
And an assessment of risks of cannabis
Individual health:
small, risk groups excluded
Public health:
small, risk groups excluded
Public nuisance:
small to average (border area)
Criminality:
average to considerable
“Regulation of supply of cannabis for personal use can help to force
back organized crime.”
Source: CAM, 2008
6
And the ranking of harms of 20 (illicit) drugs
Top 3 indiv harm:
heroin, crack-cocaine, metamfetamine
Top 3 harm to others:
alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine
Overal top 3:
alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine
Cannabis scores:
indiv. 11, others 8, overal 9.
“considering the harm it would make a great deal of sense to legalize the
production of cannabis”
(Sources: Nut et al. 2010, Nutt 2011)
7
Resulting in reaction from the government
Cannabis with > 15% THC will be considered a hard drug
Coffeeshops are forbidden to sell hard drugs
Having an impact on:
•
Enforcement
•
+ 75% of the cannabis sold in coffeeshop at the present
•
Users mainly interested in strong cannabis
•
The coffeeshops themselves (?)
Sources: Ministery of Health, TK 2011/3-10-2011
8
Does it work? Coffeeshops to divide drug markets
1980: publication of guidelines for coffeeshops
Resulting in a sharp rise of coffeeshops
1999:
846 shops in 105 of 441 municipalities
2009:
666 shops in 101 mun., no still dropping
Unequal distribution (f.i. Amsterdam + 250 shops)
Source: Bieleman and Nijkamp, 2010
9
In the meantime in the Netherlands
Large scale, professionalized cultivation of hard drugs, followed
by high potency THC cannabis
Involvement and increased market domination of criminal
network in production and distribution
Estimates uncertain but alarming
Leading to more intensified investigation, prosecution and
increased instrument for law enforcement (national and local)
Main source: Van Ooyen-Houben, 2009
10
Resulting in the 2009 version of coffeeshop guidelines
A No advertising
H No hard drugs present or sold
O No public nuisance
Y No persons under 18
G No large quantities (> 500 grams)
Additional, a.o.: no alcohol, 250 m from schools
Main source: Guidelines Opium Law from the Public Prosecutor
11
Does it work? The coffeeshop policy
Coffeeshops are the most important selling place
Cannabis users seldom arrested for possession
No hard drugs in coffeeshop, great compliance of coffeeshop owners
Scientific proof for effects coffeeshops on combined use cannabis and
hdu and cannabis prevalence rates impossible: positive effects can
not be proven, nor excluded (Source: Van Laar and Van Ooyen-Houben, 2009)
NB: a good practice or ‘just’ no adverse / unintended effects
12
In the meantime: the back door as unsolved issue
Government (2000): no regulation of back door, due to
incompatibility with international treaties, enforcement
problems and organizational problems in an open economy
Audit Authority of parliament (2005):
“taking strong actions [..] against the professional cultivation of
hennep is hard to combine with the explicit tolerance of the
retail trade of cannabis and the implicit tolerance of purchases
made for retail trade by coffeeshop owners, because this
implies a certain acceptance of cannabis.”
13
The back door issue: a way out?
Advisory Committe on Drug Policy (2009):
• Return to coffeeshops as small scale selling points for local
users
• Experimenting with user controlled closed circuits of
production for own use as an option to break the ties with
criminal networks
Conditions: good possibilities for enforcement, clarity about legal
grounds
14
Resulting in a reaction from the government
Announcing changes in the cannabis and coffeeshop policy
(Drug Policy Letter, 2010):
• Increase of the distance criterion to school to > 350 meters
• Cannabis with > 15% THC is a hard drug
• Introduction of a wietpass: at least for a year, for local users
only, with maximized no of passes per shop (1500 as
maximum(?)).
15
In the meantime in Utrecht
Initiative for a scientific experiment with a cannabis club for adult
recreational users that produce cannabis for own use.
Possible within National Law and international treaties (both UN and EU),
because:
1.
It is a scientific experiment
2.
It wil have a closed circuit of production for own use
16
Reactions and expected impact of policy changes
Cities doubting what local problems are solved by the new policy
Large no of coffeeshops will disappear
80% Coffeeshop visitors against wietpass or registration altogether, at
most 30% will apply for a pass.
Alternative routes for purchase of cannabis expected.
In sum: a policy shift from public health to Justice and Safety
leading to drastic changes
Sources: numerous, a.o. Korf et al. 2011, Wouters and Korf, 2011)
17
In sum, by the vice mayor of Utrecht
”The drug policy is effective [..], all reason to continu it [...], with
adjustments to face actual trends and problems. The contrary
is true. In this government I see that the Min. Of Justice and
Safety has taken over the lead from the Min. Of Health and I
see that in policy measures a repressive, legal perspective has
become dominant [...] Furthermore it seems as if scientific
knowledge and expert opinions are traded for a policy based
on previously taken positions and views”
18
Closing remarks
A policy that works traded for ...?
The Dutch cannabis policy: from front runner to back bencher?
Negative, disapproving reaction from the government about the
Utrecht experiment.
Support for Utrecht from national experts ...
19
And indirect support from
The UN Global committee on Drug Policy that advices to ...
‘encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal
regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime
and safeguard the health and safety of their citizens. This
recommendation applies especially to cannabis ...”
Source: War on drugs has failed. UN Global Committee on Drug Policy, june 2011
20
Final closing remarks
The Utrecht model has a lot of similarities with the Spanish social clubs
There is a variety of initiatives aiming at normalization of cannabis (US,
the Americas, Europe),
Learning us that initiatives are always possible within national and
international frameworks
A lot is about preparedness and determination
What about a learning network?
21