How smoking weed is still legal for tourists in Amsterdam
travel.stackexchange.com
travel.stackexchange.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_L...
If you no longer believe that your system is democratic, then you should not legitimize it by playing along with it.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
The EHCR does.
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.
Ketamine. [0]
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 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.
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."
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.
Turns out it is well known "recreational" drug. Who knows, in a year, I might try it myself.
That's how it usually works.
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.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ketamine-tops...
Oh yeah, and banning discussion of recreational drug use will do wonders for harm reduction, lol.
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.
some future ketamine deaths are on you, 70forty
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.
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.
So yeah... you got the wikipedia link right
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.
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.
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:
http://tegekvoorwoorden.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/balkenen...
FUCK DRUGS. LET'S HAVE A BEER!
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
There are anecdotes and news stories floating around. How close are they to the truth? I don't know.
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.
It makes clarifying a confusing matter more confusing.
* 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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_Uni...
Any other places these laws are loosely enforced?
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. =)
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.