At the time of the elections for the Dutch Lower House of Parliament in May 2002, the Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation asked the 21 largest cities and 60 mayors for declarations of support for their plan to legalize all drugs. This plan was sent as an open letter to the person appointed to form a new government, the kabinetsformateur.

About 30 mayors and local political parties responded positively to the letter. However, as long as the Christian Democrats, the CDA, are in power, it seems there will be no room for political debate on the matter. In a first reaction, the CDA rejected the plan. Furthermore, the CDA indicated that it did not plan on investigating the matter in the next few years.

Click here for the open letter
Click here for the press release

To: the Kabinetsformateur, prof. J.H.P. Donner, Postbus 20008, 2500 EA Den Haag
30 May 2002

Dear Mr Donner

Over the past few years, the Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation has consulted intensely with the administrators of (large) municipalities on local drug issues. After all, they are the ones executing government policies and they are the ones facing the results of the gap between law and reality - the law that prohibits the production, sale and possession of drugs, and the reality of drug use on a large scale.
This gap is not caused, as has been suggested, by a half-hearted enforcement of the law. On the contrary: the police and the Public Prosecution Service devote no less than about fifty per cent of their time enforcing the law and fighting its consequences. Half the prison cells in the country are occupied by drug delinquents. However, in spite of these massive efforts, the gap has only increased, since drugs have not disappeared, they have not even become more expensive, and the use of drugs has not been diminished.

This situation affects the credibility of city councils, and it causes great problems with regard to the health of users and their environment, and also with regard to public order and safety. Our consultations have resulted in the following policy proposals. The responsibility for these proposals lies solely with the Foundation.

1. 'Backdoor'.
In its letter of 1 October 1999, the Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation asked the government to allow for pilot projects, regulating the growth of cannabis for coffee shops. 20 Mayors, which number rose to 60 later on, backed the request.
Although a majority of the Lower House of Parliament was in favour of regulation, the government did not comply with the request. The Minister of Justice did, however, organize a conference for European cities on the subject of cannabis in Utrecht on 6/7/8 December 2002, and the Minister of Health initiated a conference with several of his European counterparts in Brussels on 25 February 2002. Parliamentary drug specialists of the three governing parties, the Green Party and the Socialist Party organized a meeting with some of their European colleagues on 30 November 2001.

We welcome these international initiatives. It is becoming increasingly clear that the tides are turning in Europe towards regulation instead of mere repression. This growing insight creates the opportunity for the Netherlands to transform our cannabis policy into a logical, sound system by decriminalising the production for coffee shops. We therefore urge you to introduce a regulation for the 'backdoor' problem of the coffee shops.

2. Heroin supply.
We have been informed by the city council members involved that the experiment with the supply of heroin as a means to treat drug addicts has been successful. It looks likely that the desired results will indeed be achieved. A decrease in crime connected with the acquisition of drugs and an improvement in their health and social circumstances can be observed in most users. The complaints from local residents are usually limited or non-existent. The report from the CCBH committee of inquiry confirms this conclusion. In general, city councils and institutions for the care and treatment of drug addicts are of the opinion that caregivers have to be given the structural opportunity to prescribe heroin as a substitute for illegal dope. In our opinion, this supply does not have to be free. Just like in Switzerland and unlike the situation in the pilot project, it would be reasonable to charge the users a fair contribution towards the costs. This couldalso contribute to moderation in use.

3. Cocaine and amphetamines.
In addition to heroin, these illegal intoxicants cause most of the problems. For problem users, the high prices of these intoxicants are an important part of their problems. In the UK, positive results have been booked with the long-term, medical supply on a limited scale. General practitioners in specified areas, for instance in the Liverpool region, were allowed to prescribe hard drugs of this kind on the basis of old licences. This "medicine" could then be obtained in the usual way from dispensing chemists.
We argue for the possibility of medically supplying cocaine and amphetamines to addicts as a method of treatment. We expect this to have a positive result on the health of users and a decrease in the nuisance and crime related to the acquisition of drugs.

4. Injection rooms and licensed dealers in hard drugs.
Over the last few years, injection rooms have become part of the regular care facilities for users of a number of institutions for the care and treatment of drug addicts. Generally speaking, the results are positive: the nuisance caused in the streets has decreased and the opportunities for rehabilitation of users have increased. It is, however, important to provide the proper psychosocial relief and rehabilitation services in combination with these facilities. There are, for instance, job creation programmes in several cities, allowing for a certain level of social rehabilitation.
Cooperation between police, community workers and local communities is essential. Sometimes, the costs may be the problem, as well as local resistance. The bottleneck is still the fact that users can only obtain drugs on the black market. Various cities are in the process of listing and comparing their experiences. For the time being, there is no need for the general decriminalisation of the production, sale and use of drugs, as has been the case with regard to cannabis. However, the strict enforcement of the law restricts local governments in dealing with actual problems. We therefore strongly advocate the relaxation of the rules for the cities to set up pilot projects allowing for licensed dealers in hard drugs or other types of supply.

5. Party drugs.
Above, several measures have been suggested to regulate the 'backdoor' of the cannabis chain: , and to deal with the group of problematic hard-drug users. This leaves the group of non-problematic, 'recreational' users of cocaine, amphetamines and XTC and other drugs, in this context also referred to as 'party drugs'.
Since these consumers are able to finance their use without difficulties, acquisition-related crime is not the issue here, but rather crime related to the production of XTC and amphetamines in particular, and to the trade in these products. The health risks concern the uncertainty with regard to the effects of XTC and the lack of quality- control of these products.

Pilot projects.

Should drug prohibition be enforced? Are party drugs really that much more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco that they justify the present deployment of police and the judicial system? Could other forms of regulation perhaps be more effective to control the use, addiction and delinquency? The best, if not the only way to find out is by setting up pilot projects.

We are aware that this is a sensitive subject. Nonetheless, we are convinced of the necessity to start taking steps in this direction.
At one point, the police and the judicial system will have to be freed from the burden of the drug prohibition laws that they are faced with now, to allow them to deal with other types of crime. It is time to give priority to preventing and fighting 'ordinary' violent offences or offences against property. The nemesis of organized crime that is the result of the prohibition of drugs is much more ominous than the use of drugs. The risks related to the use of drugs pale next to the risks related to the use of alcohol: there are 22 times more alcoholics than drug addicts, twelve times more casualties related to the use of alcohol, and for tobacco: 133 times the number of casualties from the use of drugs.

The use of drugs should be regulated rather than prohibited: the regulated availability of cannabis in this country has not resulted in an increase in the problematic use of cannabis or other drugs compared to the countries around us, and the same applies to other measures of regulation, such as the supply of methadone, needle exchange programmes, etc. We are therefore asking you to set up pilot projects for the regulation of the production and sale of party drugs. We think that it would be appropriate to set up a national committee to develop proposals on these issues.

To sum up, we request that you include the following measures in the agreement for the next government:
1. Regulation of the 'backdoor'
2. The supply of heroin as a regular method of treatment
3. A study of the medical supply of cocaine and amphetamines
4. Regulation of licensed hard drug dealers or other methods of supply
5. Party drugs: setting up a national committee for pilot projects regarding the regulation of the production and sale.

Yours sincerely
R. Dufour
Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation

27 April 2002

PRESS RELEASE

Open Letter.
The Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation is dedicated to regulating instead of banning drugs. In 1998, the Foundation launched a plan for the regulation of the cultivation of cannabis for coffee shops. The plan was supported by 60 mayors and resulted in a motion that was supported by a majority of the members of the Dutch Lower House of Parliament.
Today, the Foundation is sending the future Kabinetsformateur the Open Letter attached with its proposal for the regulation of all drugs. Regulation would greatly benefit public health and safety.
These proposals are based on intensive consultations with city council members and care and treatment facilities. The responsibility for these proposals lies solely with the Foundation.

Drug prohibition causes fifty per cent of crime
The political debate on the issue insecurity overlooks one of the main concerns: the incredible amount of police and public prosecution resources taken up by the current repressive approach. Police and public prosecution officers are currently spending about half their time investigating and prosecuting cannabis nurseries, XTC labs, body packers and dealers, as well as drug-related crime such as theft from cars, shoplifting, bicycle theft, mugging, etc., committed by addicts who are unable to pay the high prices that are the result of the prohibition of drugs.
This basically amounts to a situation in which the police and the judicial system - in a manner of speaking - are not available for their 'regular' fight against crime on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings!
Small wonder that people are complaining over the lack of police in the streets.
However, recruiting extra policemen would be a waste of time and effort as long as the prohibition of drugs continues.
It is about time that those involved in the security debate stop beating around the bush: the ban on drugs is the Prohibition of our times.

Proposals
The SDB presents 5 policy proposals:
1. Regulation of the 'backdoor' sale of drugs
2. The supply of heroin as a regular method of treatment
3. A study into the medical supply of cocaine and amphetamines
4. Regulation of licensed soft drug dealers or other methods of supply
5. Party drugs: setting up a national committee for pilot projects regarding the production and sale.

We would appreciate it if you would consider these proposals. In several other countries, the media have proved to encourage the drugs debate, whereas politicians often prefer ignoring the subject!

Yours sincerely
R. Dufour
Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation