Up in smoke! Dutch to ban tourists from buying pot

jspun said:
Anyway, like has been pointed out, Holland, and Amsterdam in particular have enough beautiful cultural sights and a diversified economy that won't miss the tourist Euro's that much.
Click to expand...

Diversified economy? What? Our economy relies heavily on export, to a lesser degree, tourism. The tourism, in Amsterdam at least, massively consists of cannabis tourism, likewise with many of the border towns. For example, our biggest coffeeshop (Checkpoint) got closed last year due to growing concerns of cannabis tourism. Thousands of people visited this one shop daily, they had an annual turnover of several millions (>10). This brought in a lot of cash economically, neigbouring villages and businesses relied on this tourism. Not anymore though.

That's just one shop. Can you imagine what would happen if this ban goes through? All coffeeshops would be affected, with them, our economy. Rough estimates already say that's several billion (!) going down the drain, a huge number for a small country like the Netherlands. Not everyone in Holland smokes, only a small percentage of people do. You really underestimate the impact cannabis has on our economy, it will make a dent in it at the very least. What's the first thing that pops into your mind when you say Holland or Amsterdam? Cannabis. Only the Chinese and Japanese tourists come here for the clogs and tulips, maybe the Germans for the sea. Other than that, it's cannabis what's our main attraction, not our cultural heritage, that's really a misnomer imo.

You should not make assumptions based on opinions that have been drawn by those rightwing fucks that make up our government nowadays. They will use any means to bring down our current stance on cannabis and other drugs, including making up numbers and silly predictions about what we might expect will happen when this goes through.

It won't go through though, because another thing that's already been pointed out in this thread I believe, is that it's EU law that people cannot be denied services based on religion, colour of their skin or nationality, that's blatantly illegal, it's pure discrimination. Laws would have to change, which is also not going to happen.

This dumb ass idea from Opstelten will never fly.. Such an idiot.
 
Since Cannabis is a controlled substance, it cant be considered a good or service. But that said, i still dont beleive the ban will take hold...

But hey, the upside is they are proposing to allow coffee shops to grow 5 plants for each of there members. Now thats a good idea!
 
Blowmonkey:
You should not make assumptions based on opinions that have been drawn by those rightwing fucks that make up our government nowadays. They will use any means to bring down our current stance on cannabis and other drugs, including making up numbers and silly predictions about what we might expect will happen when this goes through.
Click to expand...

Politicians on the right, left, and evrywhere in beteween have been doing this for years. The is the result of the ascent of Political Action Commitees (basically lobbyists working for self interest) have an enourmous inflience over policy. Talk about silly predictions, you should have heard the radio adds during the leadup to prop 19- with spooky, forboding music and all. To give an example, the new Freshman Congressman, people that were voted in, beating incumbents to enact change and "clean up washington." As part of their orientation, they had "workshops" in 5 star hotels in Maui, and Kauai. Who sponsored this: The enourmously powerful and influencial Prison Guards Union. You guys may need the money but we desperately do, plus we have better weather.:p
 
Blowmonkey: Here is an argument for legalization (the topic is cannabis but this guy believed all drugs shouls be legal because drug prohibition up to that point had been a complete utter failure. He should know, he was a cop for 35 and Chief of Police for Kansas City and then San Jose from 1976-1992. I've posted this several times on Bluelight. Whats cool about this guy is that he was a vocal proponent of ending prohibition while holding his post as Chief of San Jose (The biggest city in Northern California and the main city in the Silicon Valley. What is great is that while he was chief and made fighting the drug war a low priority, San Jose, a city then of 850,000 was consistently ranked as the safest major city by the US FBI. LA were the chief of police believed during this time that drug users are traitors who should be shot presided over one of the most violent cities in America were race tensions were high. This is long but worth reading because Chief McNamara makes several good points and this explains why drug prohibition is so entrenched, even in more progressive and sadistically authoritarian countries alike

4. Joseph D. McNamara

We turned next to a former police chief-Mr. McNamara was chief of police in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif.-to inquire into the special problems of the war on drugs on the street. Mr. McNamara, who has a doctorate in public administration from Harvard, is the author of four books on policing and is currently a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

T'S THE money, stupid." After 35 years as a police officer in three of the country's largest cities, that is my message to the righteous politicians who obstinately proclaim that a war on drugs will lead to a drug free America. About $500 worth of heroin or cocaine in a source country will bring in as much as $100,000 on the streets of an American city. All the cops, armies, prisons, and executions in the world cannot impede a market with that kind of tax-free profit margin. It is the illegality that permits the obscene markup, enriching drug traffickers, distributors, dealers, crooked cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, bankers, businessmen. Naturally, these people are against reform of the drug laws. Drug crooks align themselves with their avowed enemies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, in opposing drug reform. They - are joined by many others with vested economic interests. President Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex that would elevate the defense budget unnecessarily. That military-industrial complex pales in comparison to the host of industries catering to our national puritanical hypocrisy-researchers willing to tell the government what it wants to hear, prison builders, correction and parole officers' associations, drug-testing companies, and dubious purveyors of anti-drug education. Mayor Schmoke is correct about the vested interests in the drug war.

Sadly, the police have been pushed into a war they did not start and cannot win. It was not the police who lobbied in 1914 for passage of the Harrison Act, which first criminalized drugs. It was the Protestant missionary societies in China, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and other such organizations that viewed the taking of psychoactive substances as sinful. These groups gradually got their religious tenets enacted into penal statutes under which the "sinners" go to jail. The religious origin is significant for two reasons. If drugs had been outlawed because the police had complained that drug use caused crime and disorder, the policy would have been more acceptable to the public and won more compliance. And the conviction that the use of certain drugs is immoral chills the ability to scrutinize rationally and to debate the effects of the drug war. When Ethan Nadelmann pointed out once that it was illogical for the most hazardous drugs, alcohol and nicotine, to be legal while less dangerous drugs were illegal, he was roundly denounced. A leading conservative supporter of the drug war contended that while alcohol and nicotine addiction was unhealthy and could even cost lives, addiction to illegal drugs could result in the loss of one's soul. No empirical proof was given.

The demonizing of these drugs and their users encourages demagoguery. William Bennett, the nation's first drug czar, would cut off the heads of drug sellers. Bennett's anti-drug rhetoric is echoed by Joseph Califano, the liberal former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, now chairman of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Last June, the Center hysterically suggested (with great media coverage) that binge drinking and other substance abuse were taking over the nation's colleges, leading to an increase in rapes, assaults, and murders and to the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The validity of the research in Califano's report was persuasively debunked by Kathy McNamara-Meis, writing in Forbes Media Critic. She was equally critical of the media for accepting the Center's sensational statements.

Conservatives like Bennett normally advocate minimal government. Liberals like Califano ordinarily recoil from the draconian prison sentences and property seizures used in the drug war. This illustrates why it is so difficult to get politicians to concede that alternative approaches to drug control need to be studied. We are familiar with the perception that the first casualty in any war is truth. Eighty years of drug-war propaganda has so influenced public opinion that most politicians believe they will lose their jobs if their opponents can claim they are soft on drugs and crime. Yet, public doubt is growing. Gallup reports that in 1990 only 4 per cent of Americans believed that "arresting the people who use drugs" is the best way for the government to allocate resources.

It was my own experience as a policeman trying to enforce the laws against drugs that led me to change my attitude about drug-control policy. The analogy to the Vietnam War is fitting. I was a willing foot soldier at the start of the modern drug war, pounding a beat in Harlem. During the early 1960s, as heroin use spread, we made many arrests, but it did not take long before cops realized that arrests did not lessen drug selling or drug use.

I came to realize just how ineffective we were in deterring drug, use one day when my partner and I arrested an addict for possession of a hypodermic needle and heroin. Our prisoner had,already shot up, but the heroin charge we were prepared to level at him was based on the tiny residue in the bottle cap used to heat the fix. It was petty, but then-and now-such arrests are valued because they can be used to claim success, like the body counts during the Vietnam War.

In this case the addict offered to "give" us a pusher in exchange for letting him go. He would lure the pusher into a hallway where we could then arrest him in the act of selling drugs. We trailed the addict along Lenox Avenue. To our surprise, he spoke to one man after another.

It suddenly struck me as humiliating, the whole scene. Here it was, broad daylight. We were brilliantly visible, in uniform, in a marked police car: and yet a few feet away, our quarry was attempting one drug transaction after another. The first two dealers weren't deterred by our presence-they were simply sold out, and we could not arrest them without the goods. We finally arrested the third pusher, letting the first addict escape, as we had covenanted. The man we brought in was selling drugs only to support his own habit.

Another inherent difficulty in drug enforcement is that violators are engaging in consensual activity and seek privacy. Every day, millions of drug crimes similar to what took place in front of our police car occur without police knowledge. To enforce drug laws the police have to resort to undercover work, which is dangerous to them and also to innocent bystanders. Drug enforcement often involves questionable ethical behavior by the police, such as what we did in letting a guilty person go free because he enticed someone else into violating the law.

Soldiers in a war need to dehumanize the enemy, and many cops look on drug users as less than human. The former police chief of Los Angeles, Daryl Gates, testified before the United States Senate that casual users should be taken out and shot. He defended the statement to the Los Angeles Times by saying, "We're in a war." New York police officers convicted of beating and robbing drug dealers (their boss at the time is now Director of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy) rationalized their crimes by saying it was impossible to stop drug dealing and these guys were the enemy. Why should they get to keep all the money?

Police scandals are an untallied cost of the drug war. The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and even the Coast Guard have had to admit to corruption. The gravity of the police crimes is as disturbing as the volume. In New Orleans, a uniformed cop in league with a drug dealer has been convicted of murdering her partner and shop owners during a robbery committed while she was on patrol. In Washington, D.C., and in Atlanta, cops in drug stings were arrested for stealing and taking bribes. New York State troopers falsified drug evidence that sent people to prison.

And it is not just the rank and file. The former police chief of Detroit went to prison for stealing police drug buy money. In a small New England town, the chief stole drugs from the evidence locker for his own use. And the DEA agent who arrested Panama's General Noriega is in jail for stealing laundered drug money.

The drug war is as lethal as it is corrupting. And the police and drug criminals are not the only casualties. An innocent 75-year-old African-American minister died of a heart attack struggling with Boston cops who were mistakenly arresting him because an informant had given them the wrong address. A rancher in Ventura County, California, was killed by a police SWAT team serving a search warrant in the mistaken belief that he was growing marijuana. In Los Angeles, a three-year-old girl died of gunshot wounds after her mother took a wrong turn into a street controlled by a drug-dealing gang. They fired on the car because it had invaded their marketplace.

The violence comes from the competition for illegal profits among dealers, not from crazed drug users. Professor Milton Friedman has estimated that as many as 10,000 additional homicides a year are plausibly attributed to the drug war.

Worse still, the drug war has become a race war in which non-whites are arrested and imprisoned at 4 to 5 times the rate whites are, even though most drug crimes are committed by whites. The Sentencing Research Project reports that one-third of black men are in jail or under penal supervision, largely because of drug arrests. The drug war has established thriving criminal enterprises which recruit teenagers into criminal careers.

It was such issues that engaged law-enforcement leaders-most of them police chiefs-from fifty agencies during a two-day conference at the Hoover Institution in May 1995. Among the speakers was our colleague in this symposium, Mayor Kurt Schmoke, who told the group that he had visited a high school and asked the students if the high dropout rate was due to kids' being hooked on drugs. He was told that the kids were dropping out because they were hooked on drug money, not drugs. He also told us that when he went to community meetings he would ask the audience three questions. 1) "Have we won the drug war?" People laughed. 2) "Are we winning the drug war?" People shook their heads. 3) "If we keep doing what we are doing will we have won the drug war in ten years?" The answer was a resounding No.

At the end of the conference, the police participants completed an evaluation form. Ninety per cent voted no confidence in the war on drugs. They were unanimous in favoring more treatment and education over more arrests and prisons. They were unanimous in recommending a presidential blue-ribbon commission to evaluate the drug war and to explore alternative methods of drug control. In sum, the tough-minded law-enforcement officials took positions directly contrary to those of Congress and the President.

One hopes that politicians will realize that no one can accuse them of being soft on drugs if they vote for changes suggested by many thoughtful people in -law enforcement. If the politicians tone down their rhetoric it will permit police leaders to expose the costs of our present drug-control policies. Public opinion will then allow policy changes to decriminalize marijuana and stop the arrest of hundreds of thousands of people every year. The enormous savings can be used for what the public really wants-the prevention of violent crime.
Click to expand...

The cool thing is that he got to keep his job despite high profile opposition to prohibition that made national news in the 80s during the Reagan years full of rediculuos anti drug propeganda. Other high profile American leaders against the war on dugs were Mayor Kurt Scmoke of Baltimore, Marion Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbia (but got arrested smoking crack with hookers.) He did 6 months in prison but then was elected to the Nations capital (I think he might have gotten reelcted mayor too. Also Congresseman Ron Paul, MD (Rep)- former presedential candidate in the last Republican primaries. But politicians are controlled by special interest. You can see that in prop 19. Most for were current office holders. Most against were most often retired politicians, judges, cops, police chiefs, narcotics officers, even a former Surgeon General of the United States.

http://www.drugtext.org/library/spec...ugs/wodmcn.htm
 
Last edited:
Mooreover, we, both cities have hot girls but our girls on average wear less layers of cloathing.
 
Mooreover, we, both cities have hot girls but our girls on average wear less layers of cloathing.
 
[QUOTEbecause drug prohibition up to that point had been a complete utter failure. He should know, he was a cop for 35 and Chief of Police for Kansas City and then San Jose from 1976-1992. I've posted this several times on Bluelight. Whats cool about this guy is that he was a vocal proponent of ending prohibition while holding his post as Chief of San Jose (The biggest city in Northern California and the main city in the Silicon Valley. What is great is that while he was chief and made fighting the drug war a low priority, San Jose, a city then of 850,000 was consistently ranked as the safest major city by the US FBI. LA were the chief of police believed during this time that drug users are traitors who should be shot presided over one of the most violent cities in America were race tensions were high.][/QUOTE]
and

Worse still, the drug war has become a race war in which non-whites are arrested and imprisoned at 4 to 5 times the rate whites are, even though most drug crimes are committed by whites. The Sentencing Research Project reports that one-third of black men are in jail or under penal supervision, largely because of drug arrests. The drug war has established thriving criminal enterprises which recruit teenagers into criminal careers.
Click to expand...

This is true. Back when the bellow song came out in 87' black and Latino youths were routinely stoped and serached without probable cause, and were sometimes taken to alleys to beat. This was all in the name of the War on Drugs and the preceived threat from minority gangs. San Jose, by contrast has few gangs (mostly indie dealers in the hoods) and was a peaceful, sedate place were this city and its suburbs thrived in their lack of strife and relative ratial harmony to produce semiconductors, home computers, Apple, HP, Sun systems, Yahoo, google, ect... The songs of NWA were an accurate portrail of street life and what happens when you fight the war on drugs using militant tactics- helicopters regularly patrolled streets we rarely police saw helicoptersin SJ) and their was much less racial profiling by the police. NWA gives an acurate idea of ehat life for the typical youth (affliated with drugs or not.) Also, around this time they began to use Tanks with battering rams and damaged all kinds of innocent peoples' home in the Ghettos of South Central LA/ Watts, Compton.


NWA FuCk DA Police

Is this gives a great insight of the views of Black youth against the police. A relationship drug war undermined. Be aware, this song is (or was illegal in the UK), Thaks good for the 1st Ammendment to our constitution, We have that atleast despite our other problems.
 
Last edited:
no

I doubt it will happen, too much damage on the Dutch cash revenues.

Maybe London will be the new Amsterdam? :|
 
^ You think it will stick? Seems I've been seeing articles like this since I started reading bluelight about four years ago.
AmsterTram said:
Good analysis but you are off on the bars. The place you went to may have seemed underground for allowing weed at the bar, but really you can smoke weed in 100s of bars in Amsterdam, daytime, night-time and no one gives a shit. Its quite 'legal', in fact more legal that the cigarette smoking that NEVER STOPPED in most 'real' Amsterdam bars, especially neighborhood joints.

As for cops and drugs, don't be naive and take coke or xtc into a bar or coffeeshop PLEASE. I say that mostly for the owner of the bar or coffeeshop. If they catch a patron in a coffeeshop with hard drugs, they will be shut down on the spot. If you get caught with hard drugs in cafe or bar, the owner will get in huge trouble. Be subtle about it at a club and simply do not bring it into a coffeeshop. If a bag of powder falls out of your backpack at a coffeeshop, all hell will break loose.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure dude was saying that he could do this where he lives now, in the US. :)

Hey Jspun, love your repping the best coast. You should apply for a position at the tourist department. :)
 
It will probably stick. New cabinet has really gone apeshit. They're even talking about using military resources to "fight the war on drugs"..

Yeah. Bye bye tolerant Netherlands. Welcome to a new era of religious fanaticism.
 
I'm fairly confident that they won't be able to make the ban stick. The European Union is quite fanatical about EU citizens having equal access to goods and services. However, the fact that cannabis remains illegal and is merely tolerated may complicate the issue.
 
Blowmonkey said:
It won't go through though, because another thing that's already been pointed out in this thread I believe, is that it's EU law that people cannot be denied services based on religion, colour of their skin or nationality, that's blatantly illegal, it's pure discrimination. Laws would have to change, which is also not going to happen.

This dumb ass idea from Opstelten will never fly.. Such an idiot.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is incorrect. Since cannabis is technically illegal in Holland, the EU law you refer to does not apply. A court reoresentative in Luxembourg (home to many EU courts) bascially admitted this.

I think the pass is coming. Sad but true.
 
Well nothing is final yet. They are fast-tracking the pass system in the south, as there have been 2 or 3 murders over the past week. Of course, the reason there are murders around the soft drug trade is that while its ok to sell cannabis at the coffeeshops, it has never been ok to supply the shops. So from day one, the bulk sale of weed was controlled by the underworld.

I still say I have to see it to believe it.

Jspun, while I appreciate you love your home state of CA, I hate to get into this place vs that place conversations. Or whose weed is better, etc.

The truth is, the US is getting more and more difficult for a European to enter. The visa waiver program exists, but the truth is anyone with any small conviction can and does get denied entry. And they can deny entry if they think you will overstay the 90 day limit (DON'T) of if you are carrying records (assume you will be DJing for money, again illegal without a visa).

I do love California, much more for its natural beauty than anything else.
 
AS I appreciate your country for both the beauty Natural and Man made, more than anythinbg else

I do love California, much more for its natural beauty than anything else.
Click to expand...

I wont get into the discussion of who weed's better although true outdoor Hawaiian from the Puna district on the Big Island and real Maui bud win hands down, beats us both hands down- The kind that rarely leaves the Island and doesn't grow well outside of the Islands.


Sasha Shulgin is from the Bay Area (California) as was the Symmer of Love (1967), Owsley, and the Greatful Dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top