What are the downfalls of the drug policy in the Netherlands?

Question

...are there even any?

I've been looking around and I found to be fascinated by the fact that there are apparently no downfalls on the legalization of so-called "soft drugs" in the Netherlands.
This even seems to be helping the people, as their rate of addiction is one of the lowest in the world.

Perhaps this could be an example for the rest of us...

Or am I missing something?

Answer 1

The Dutch government has a pragmatic policy towards soft drugs (marihuana), rather than one based upon moral considederations. Possession of all drugs, including marihuana, is punishable by law in the Netherlands. However, since it is practically impossible to ban drugs from society, the Netherlands has opted for a policy that decriminalizes the possession for personal use of small amounts of marihuana. Someone found in possession of less than 5 grams will not be prosecuted. Trafficking however, is an altogether different matter and those caught dealing drugs may face severe consequences, unless its a so-called coffee shop selling marihuana under strict conditions and tolerated by municipal authorities.

Drug addiction in the Netherlands is a matter of the ministry of Health and not that of Justice. The Dutch government and society in general does not believe in an all-out war on drugs, with its emotional crusade-like overtones. It doesn't fight the use of drugs, it channels it into manageable proportions. Most researchers concur that Dutch society is proof that the Gateway or Stepping Stone theory is a fallacy: the use of soft drugs does not automatically lead to large scale use of hard drugs.

Other European countries experiment and even try to incoporate some elements of the Dutch drugs policy into their legal system, notably Belgium, Germany and Switzerland. The Dutch problems with drugs do not signifcantly deviate from the neghbouring countries, but the Dutch have an unequalled view on the scale and distribution of drugs in their country, which lets them react to new developments a lot sooner. Besides, making soft drugs semi-legal allows a form of quality and age control that keeps underage teenagers effectively away from marihuana, and -as an economic commodity- inspires competition amongst pot growers thus keeping prices down and drug-related criminal behaviour somewhat under control.

For a socio-cultural view on the matter, see link below.

Answer 2

Ain't nothing 100%. I agree that the coffee houses provide a legal venue to indulge in what appears to be recreational marijuana use.

Does this mean that heroin addiction is lower because pot is available? I'm not sure I could make that leap of hippie faith. Or are we talking about addiction to pot? Hard to say, since in this country, we prosecute possession, not addiction.

I think we're both missing something- more reliable data. With incomplete data, I'm on the side of legalizing pot. Lots of regulatory tweaking to ensue, but I think it's a good idea. Thanks for the question.

Answer 3

Netherlands has a more comprehensive policy than just legalizing soft drugs. It is those extra things that they do that mitigate the bad effects of drug use.

Answer 4

The downfalls are cookies and potato chips are less available due to high demand.

Answer 5

The United States would never go for it because they are making too much money keeping it illegal.