Drug use within society has often carried a stigma within society due to the ills caused to the fabric and cohesion of society. In order to reduce drug use among the population, authorities legislated
and enforced policies with the intention of containing drug markets and reducing the availability and consumption of drug products in society. However, as the ban on alcohol within the United States during the Prohibition period has shown, proponents of drug reforms cite that prior and existing prohibition policies have not adequately addressed the issues caused by drug usage in society arguing that these policies have led to greater negative externalities instead (Nadelmann, 1989; Block, 1993;).
The push for the liberalization of drug policies on a global landscape coincides with an increase in the number of jurisdictions within the world that are implementing drug policies that favor decriminalization and, in certain cases, the legalization of recreational marijuana. One model that is often used as an example of the effectiveness of drug policies focused on decriminalization is the ”Dutch Model” which focuses on reducing the penalties of drug possession and usage for users under the auspice of harm reduction (Duncan et al., 1994).
The Netherlands thus provides a unique opportunity to not only understand the impact of ever increasing conservative drug policies but also whether such policies may lead to negative spill-over effects in areas such as crime, nuisance, or disruption of commercial activities. The analysis of these policies would provide insight for other policy makers on the possible repercussions when prior tolerated or legalized drugs are constrained due to a changing political and public opinion.
In the 1970s, the Netherlands was dealing with an epidemic of drug usage among the population of illicit drugs such as cannabis, heroin, and amphetamines. The Dutch government revised the Opium Act in 1976 to focus on the harm reduction of drug users. The change in the Opium Act of 1976 divided illicit drugs into two categories based on the risk posed to drug users and the degree of addiction associated with consumption of the drug. This distinction would help with reducing the harm factor towards drug users by isolating soft drug- and hard drug users. The reason for this change was partially based on a 1975 study by Herman Cohen that disputed the dominating thought that cannabis usage would eventually lead to users adopting hard drugs. Additionally, the separation of soft and hard drug users would reduce the marginalization of soft drug users and increase harm reduction by removing soft drug users from hard drug users. After severely decriminalizing the usage and possession of cannabis within Dutch society, it did not take long before establishments started to offer cannabis products for commercial intent after receiving a license from the Dutch government.
Existing research on drug policies prior has been primarily focused on the issues of drug pro-hibition policies. Costa (2008) defines five classes of unintended consequences because of drug prohibition policies. First is the creation of criminal black markets due to no legal channel to purchase drugs. Studies such as Miron (2002), Jiggens (2005), and Taylor et al. (2016), argue that the prohibition of drugs creates black markets on the basis that the scarcity of drug prod-ucts incentivizes the cultivation, production, and distribution of illegal drugs due to rising prices.
Therefore, rather than impeding agents within the drug market, drug prohibition policies may encourage further participation and thus work as an economic multiplier. Often, the origin of activities associated with cultivation and production happens in countries final destination (Otis, 2014; Giommoni et al., 2017). Therefore, drug prohibition policies tend to create negative spillover effects that affects neighboring areas.
Second, introduction of drug prohibition leads to producers and users to switch to substitute drug products and shifts in the governmental policy from health care and harm reduction to public order and enforcement of drug prohibition policies. If the drug prohibition policy aims at strictly controlling a specific drug product, there may be a shift in the supply and demand to alternative drug products.
Andersson and Kjellgren (2016) researched the aspect of substance displacements. Through extensive qualitative research, the authors found that drug prohibition policies led to drug users shifting to other drug products where herbal cannabis was replaced by synthetic cannabinoids.
They conclude that substance displacements will lead to an increase in risk to drug users high-lighting that drug prohibition may unintentionally lead to more harm than good.
On the topic of a shift in policies, Maher and Dixon (1999) examined the relationship between enforcement of drug prohibition policies and public health on street-level drug markets found that the results came at substantial costs. Using interviews and fieldwork on drug-use and quantitative data on drug use, crime, and policing efforts, findings revealed that as a response to increased enforcement, producers within the drug market adopt riskier practices in storing, distributing, and administrating heroin. In addition, Maher and Dixon argue that there will be a geographical, social, substance, and temporal displacement and that trust between the police and the public may
deteriorate.1 Follow-up study by Maher and Dixon (2005) on the enforcement of drug prohibition policies in Sydney, Australia found that there was a decrease in public health due to the increase in the number of users who tested positive for hepatitis C because of needle sharing.
Geographical displacement is the third aspect by Costa (2008) that defines the displacement of activities such as drug cultivation, production, distribution, and consumption of drugs as a reaction to drug prohibition policies. While Costa does not mention it, another issue of drug prohibition policies is that drug users and products may relocate to other places to consume and produce drugs. In the case of drug users, they may travel to alternative places to purchase or consume drugs.
Valdez and Sifaneck (1997) defines drug tourism as ”the phenomenon by which persons become attracted to a particular location because of the accessibility of licit or illicit drugs and related services”. The increase in tourism provides gains for the regional economy that they are visiting, it also tied with the increase of nuisance such as sound pollution, loitering, (van Ooyen et al., 2009;
Beke et al., 2010; , Snippe et al., 2013; Benschop et al., 2015; Bieleman et al., 2017). As a reaction to increasing scrutiny by Dutch authorities, Decorte and Boeckhout Van Solinge (2006) and De Ruyver and Surmont (2007) found that the cultivation and production went towards neighboring countries of Belgium and Germany allowing them to continue supplying the illicit drug market.
Substance displacement is the fourth aspect as outlined by Costa (2008). Substance displace-ment happens due to a mismatch between the supply and demand of drug products within the drug market. If drug prohibition policies are aimed at supply of a specific drug, existing drug users of that drug would switch to alternatives due to less control on the supply. Costa uses the example of cocaine and amphetamines where the production of cocaine is tied to the natural product of coca leaves. Therefore, governments can directly disrupt the supply of cocaine through taking specific targeted measures. In the case of amphetamines, the production is more difficult to target, as the place of production is ubiquitous. Andersson and Kjellgren (2016) as mentioned earlier established that drug users switch to alternative sources with similar effects.
The last and fifth aspect is the perception of drug users by the government and society on how drug users and drug should be dealt with.2 Askew and Salinas (2018) researched the status, stigma, and stereotypes of drug takers and suppliers through analyzing a sample of 26 drug users and 25 suppliers and found that a small minority are arrested and a likely cause for as they term
”the collateral consequences of a criminal and deviant label”.
After legislating the 1976 Opium Act, the Netherlands experienced the following issues by adopting a drug decriminalization approach. First, the decriminalization led to expansion of the cannabis market within the Netherlands where according to Bieleman and Snippe (2009) coffee shops generate a profit of between 211 and 283 million euros in 2006. This has since substantially increased because van Laar et al. (2010) suggests that 10% of the tourists that visit Amsterdam do so to experience soft drugs. indicating that an increase in the number of drug tourists where in coffee shops were making between 875 million euro and 1.25 billion euro in 2013.3.
Second, the decriminalization only targeted the purchase and possession of cannabis but the supply of cannabis or the ”backdoor” into the drug market was still illegal. Drug policies within the Netherlands have often targeted the front door (commercial activity of sales) portion of the coffee shop for regulating the cannabis market. Korthals in 2000 addressed the problem of the
”backdoor” in a letter titled ”The path to the backdoor” which discussed the issue of illegal cannabis cultivation by criminal organizations that used empty real estate to start large cannabis cultivation operations (TK 24 077, 2000).
Third, decriminalization led to tourists from foreign countries to visit the Netherlands as the consumption of cannabis within coffee shop establishments was tolerated by the government. While earlier data on the number of drug tourists is not available, since 2000s, studies have focused on the issues associated with drug tourism and drug tourists because of drug decriminalization.
According to Bieleman et al. (2009), the coffee shops within Roosendaal en Bergen op Zoom received approximately between 10,000 and 12,000 drug tourists per week. The city of Terneuzen which allowed two coffee shops to be established to combat the problem of drug dealing experienced
1The effect on drug prohibition and the relationship between the public was already documented by previous research studies such as Tonry (1995), Snyder and Sickmund (2006), and Moore and Elkavich (2008) show that minorities are especially vulnerable to the effects of drug prohibition.
2Research has shown that the media plays a crucial role in shaping the thoughts of society on how certain themes are perceived. In the case of drugs and drug users, research by Postman (1986), and Boyd (2002) indicates that movies and television series may spread myths or half-truths to viewers which may influence future drug policies.
3https://www.trouw.nl/home/nederlandse-coffeeshops-zetten-een-miljard-euro-om a52ac31d/
that 90% of the coffee shop customers in the city of Terneuzen come from Belgium or France in 2007 (Bieleman et al., 2007). Venlo, a Southern municipality close to the German border, 75% of the coffee shop customers in 2006 came from Germany and 64% in 2009 (Snippe et al., 2013).
As mentioned before, while drug tourism does generate benefits for the regional economy through an increase in tourism, employment, and additional tax revenues for the government, it does come with its own negative externalities.4 Previous studies on the impact of drug tourism and tourists highlight that municipalities with coffee shops experience nuisance which strains the relationship between residents in the local area (Uriely and Belhassen, 2007)
In the 1990s, due to the large illegal production and export of cannabis within the Netherlands, the Dutch government implemented the AHOJ-G criteria where the criteria stands for: A indicates no advertising of the coffee shop or commercial drugs, H prohibits the sales of hard drugs which were deemed illegal by the 1976 Opium Act, O covers that coffee shops should not create nuisance, J prohibits the sale to minors under 17 years old, and G limits the sale the quantity per transaction.5 In 2009, the Van den Donk committee gave its report on the existing drug policy and the changes required to address the changing drug market within the Netherlands. In their report, they advised that the use of drugs by minors had to be controlled more tightly, that coffee shops should return to their original purpose where coffee shops should only service the local market, tackle the problem of the illegal drug market and associated threats to society from organized crimes, more comprehensive and permanent form of monitoring, and whether the drug policy should continue with the separation of soft- and hard drugs. Prior to 2012, the Ministry of Justice wanted to add two additional requirements to the drug: the closed club membership system and local resident criteria. The closed club membership would limit the the purchase of cannabis to only registered members. The local resident criteria restricted sales to coffee shop customers that are located within the local municipality. Therefore, the combination of these two conditions would eliminate the purchase of cannabis by foreign tourists through coffee shops. In 2012, the Southern provinces of Limburg, Noord-brabant, and Zeeland were chosen to be the first provinces to implement as a trial.
Even before the implementation of the policy to reduce the issue of drug tourism, researchers discovered several concerning opinions among coffee shop clientele. First, by trying to implement the closed club membership system for Southern coffee shop municipalities, Maalste and Hebben (2012) uncovered that a large portion of existing coffee shop visitors did not desire to register citing privacy concerns. Approximately 15% registered at coffee shops after the introduction of the policy in the coffee shop municipalities of Breda, Den Bosch, Oss, Roermond, Sittard, Tilburg, Venlo, Waalwijk, and Weert indicating that most of the clientele possible resorted to alternative sources. Besides citing the privacy concern, there is also the difference between the illegal street price and coffee shop prices with regards to drug products. Additionally, drug users also went to coffee shop municipalities that did not yet implement these new requirements.
Though the intention of the closed club membership system and local registry were intended to reduce to nuisance associated with drug tourism, drug tourists, and cannabis production, the initial reaction was the exact opposite. Preliminary research on the short-term impact of the policy was done by Maalste and Hebben (2012) and van Ooyen-Houben et al. (2013) found that while drug tourism to the Southern region significantly declined, the illegal drug market expended, neighborhood residents in close proximity experienced a greater amount of nuisance prior to the implementation of the policy. van Ooyen-Houben et al. (2013) conducted the study in several stages and interviewed coffee shop owners, coffee shop visitors on their purchase behavior and use, and neighborhood residents on the nuisance they experienced.
Coffee shops visits decreased by 76% in 2012 when compared to coffee shop visits prior to the policy. 91% of drug users bought cannabis from coffee shops within the municipality in 2011 but declined to 52% in 2012 eventually rising back to 82% in 2013. Coffee shop cannabis held a market share of 73% prior to 2012, a reduction to 38% in 2012 and rose to 50% in 2013. van Ooyen-Houben et al. reported that drug tourism was significantly reduced because of implementing the policy where 39% of the clientele for Southern coffee shops was not registered within the Netherlands.
Benschop et al. (2015) continued research on the development of Southern coffee shop munici-palities. Benschop et al. investigated the issue of drug tourism in connection with coffee shop and
4Due to a European Court ruling, the Dutch government cannot issue VAT over the sale of cannabis products as these are deemed as illicit products within the European Union. Therefore, coffee shops pay income taxation based on the total amount of revenue generated from business activities.
5The quantity was 30 grams in the 1990s which was reduced to 5 grams to try combat the nuisance associated with drug tourism.
the crimes associated with drug tourism to map the geographical distribution. Their study used nationwide crime data in combination with interviews of local informants, municipal-, and police officials with knowledge on the soft drug market.
Their sample included 31 coffee shop municipalities dispersed over 11 judicial regions across the Netherlands. Their findings revealed strong geographical variation in the crimes associated with drug tourism and coffee shops. Municipalities close to the Southern border area ranked the levels of soft drug tourism, coffee shop nuisance, and illegal soft drug dealing as moderately to high levels. Five municipalities in the Southern border regions that restricted coffee shop access to non-residents resulted into drug runners and street dealers recruited tourists for illegal soft drug purchases. This was reflected in the high number of police reported soft drug incidents and prosecutions of soft drug crimes.
van Ooyen-Houben et al. (2014) on the relationship between coffee shops, drug tourism, nui-sance, and the illegal sales of soft drugs. They did an in depth survey in five coffee shop municipal-ities with three of them located within the Southern provinces. Their survey results revealed that residents in the three Southern coffee shop municipalities experienced nuisance from traffic, sound, loitering, and ”shady characters”. According to their survey, 40 - 50% of respondents answered that traffic and parking were significant problems.
Large portion has seen drug usage on the street but only a small percentage (7%) experienced it as nuisance. Respondents in three Southern coffee shop municipalities experienced the problem of drug runners, though only a small percentage of the respondents experienced them as a significant nuisance. Dealers were also frequently sighted on the street and a larger percentage of respondents experienced these as nuisance. In total, coffee shop and soft drug tourists were experienced as a nuisance by 4 and 8% by respondents.
Therefore, while the policy failed its intended purpose in the year of introduction, drug tourism within Southern coffee shop municipalities had been significantly reduced it came with a short-term cost of increased crime and an expanded drug market. However, it should be noted that the majority of studies on this topic are qualitative in nature. The adoption of an empirical approach approach in determining the relationship between the act of restricting soft drug sales within Southern coffee shop municipalities and whether the subsequent reduction in drug tourism had a significant impact on the number of drug crimes committed within Southern coffee shop municipalities would provide further evidence on the effectiveness of this policy.
The implication of this study could be significant in a political landscape where a larger num-ber of countries are adopting the perspective of harm reduction for drug users and the general public, understanding whether specific policies can adequately address new issues that arise due to changing to drug prohibition or legalization. Thus, the possible findings of this chapter could have significant theoretical and practical importance for further policy makers about to dealing with the nuisance of drug tourism.