Despite the fact that in international terms the situation as regards public health is not unfavourable, the use of drugs and everything that goes with it constitutes an acute, major social and administrative problem in the Netherlands as elsewhere. In tackling this problem three complications arise: the nuisance problem, the involvement of organised crime in drug trafficking, and criticism from abroad of imagined and real external effects.
Firstly, a small proportion of hard drug addicts cause a considerable nuisance to their fellow citizens. They commit a large number of property offences, in order to obtain the money to buy drugs. Contrary to expectations, the fact that methadone is easily obtainable as a substitute has scarcely improved the situation at all. Approximately twenty percent of addicts have an extremely unconventional lifestyle, in which living on the streets, multiple drug use and crime form mutually reinforcing elements*. The sale of drugs, drug-related crime and certain types of anti-social behaviour by addicts, such as throwing away used needles in public places, mean that the tolerance levels of residents in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the big cities in particular are chronically exceeded. In some cases this has resulted in residents taking the law into their own hands by, for instance, removing drug addicts from their neighbourhood by force (and/or closing the street to French drug tourists).
Of course, the use of drugs can never excuse damage and nuisance to other people. The government must set limits to the criminality of and nuisance caused by some addicts, irrespective of the objectives of its drugs policy. Partly because the size of the target group makes it a manageable one - about 5,000 addicts indulge in extremely anti-social behaviour - the government regards it as its duty to achieve results in this area in the short term and thus to provide some prospect of a permanent solution to this problem.
The residents of some municipalities have also complained about the nuisance caused by the presence of coffee shops, such as the attraction of large numbers of noisy visitors (including some from abroad) indulging in anti-social behaviour*. The nuisance caused by coffee shops is different from that caused by the hard drugs scene. In part it is the same as that caused by catering establishments in general, but in some municipalities residents living near coffee shops are subjected to excessive nuisance, partly because of drug tourists from abroad. There is no justification at all for this. These undesirable side-effects of the policy on coffee shops are undermining public support for the policy and for this reason too they must be eliminated. This is particularly true in the case of nuisance caused by bars licensed to sell alcohol where, in contravention of the local authority policy on catering establishments, cannabis is also sold. Strong measures will also have to be taken against coffee shops where illegal activities are conducted, such as trafficking in hard drugs, arms trading or handling stolen goods. The limits to official toleration must be more stringent.
The second complication is the rise of criminal organisations involved in the supply and sale of drugs. Although by definition there are no exact figures as regards such organisations, there is no doubt that professional criminals involved to some extent or mainly in drug trafficking have been able considerably to expand their activities over the last ten years, both internationally and in the Netherlands. It is estimated that worldwide profits of some 500 billion guilders are made from drug trafficking each year*. Estimates of the annual turnover of hard and soft drugs in the Netherlands vary somewhat. It appears that the estimate of NLG 5.5 billion per year made in the policy document "Georganiseerde criminaliteit: dreigingsbeeld en plan van aanpak" (Organised Crime: Analysis of the Threat and Plan of Approach) (Parliamentary papers II 1992-93, 22838, no. 1) should now be regarded as a minimum estimate. More up-to-date estimates are of NLG 10 billion*.
The increasing economic importance of organised crime is also evident from the fact that in 1994 2,600 reports were made by financial institutions to the Unusual Transactions Disclosures Office ("Meldpunt Ongebruikelijke Transacties") which were then passed on to the judicial authorities as "suspect". About half of these suspicious transactions were related to drug trafficking.
The increasing activity and economic power of what are in many cases international criminal organisations are a threat to democracy and the rule of law and naturally evoke a response from the government, for instance in the form of greater powers and extra resources for the police and the judicial authorities. The banks and relevant professions are also brought in to help in the prevention and detection of money laundering. The amounts of money involved have reached such enormous proportions that the integrity of certain parts of the economy is increasingly being put to the test. One factor which complicates policy is the fact that money movements pay less and less heed to national frontiers.
The scope of measures taken under the criminal law and of preventive action is gradually increasing. This development inevitably means that companies and individuals are asked to make sacrifices, in the form of additional burdens and limitations to civil rights and freedoms, in the public interest. In order to protect themselves from this joint offensive, criminal organisations in turn attempt to corrupt police officers, members of the judiciary and bank staff, as well as those in the professions. This then leads to the introduction or tightening up of codes of ethics. The vicious circle which has arisen around drug trafficking imposes ever greater costs on society. In some parts of the United States prison costs are such a burden on the government budget that other public provisions, such as education, are at risk.
According to some critics the cost of drugs policy is no longer in any way proportional to the benefits it produces. Looked at in this light, the parliamentary inquiry which is currently being conducted into such issues as the admissibility of the detection methods used in investigating criminal organisations is also concerned with certain controversial side-effects of the policy on drug trafficking.
The third complication is the effect Dutch policy has in other countries. The sometimes fierce criticism of that policy from foreign governments is in part due to an inadequate understanding of what is going on. This means that the background to and objectives and actual effects of the Netherlands' policy on drugs must be communicated more effectively to an international audience. Criticism also arises on account of fundamentally different views on the role of government as regards the use of substances which may pose risks by adult members of society. Such differences are also revealed in the policies of European governments in respect of the regulation of markets in alcohol and cigarettes. There are also differences of opinion as regards the medical risks of certain drugs.
The Netherlands' view that cannabis products entail less serious health risks than hard drugs and thus require a different approach, is not even shared by all the countries of the European Union. Recent reports from abroad by authoritative experts on drugs support the distinction made in Dutch law between soft and hard drugs*. Criticism based on views about the health risks for which no support can any longer be found in the scientific literature can of course not be grounds for amending Dutch policy. The response should rather be exchange programmes involving scientists and government officials.
The ideological nature of some foreign criticism should not be allowed to conceal the fact that the Dutch policy does entail problems which affect other countries. The Netherlands and the Dutch are indisputably responsible for a more than proportional share of trafficking in certain drugs.
The police estimate that there are about a hundred criminal organisations active in the Netherlands, the vast majority of which are involved in drug trafficking*. Residents of the Netherlands of foreign origin, who maintain close links with criminal organisations in their country of origin, are heavily over-represented in those criminal organisations engaged in trafficking in hard drugs. Organisations comprising primarily residents of Dutch origin traffic mainly in soft drugs. Supplying the home market forms only a small part of the activities of these organisations. They are also involved in the transit of soft drugs through the Netherlands and in international trafficking. Lastly, the Netherlands is an important country of production for amphetamines and ecstasy.
Part of the reason for the Netherlands' involvement in drug trafficking stems from the country's geographical position. The Netherlands is the main gateway to Europe for a great many goods. Moreover, partly because of its cosmopolitan atmosphere, Amsterdam in particular is an international meeting place. The use of the existing infrastructure for drug trafficking cannot entirely be prevented, as was pointed out in 1985 in the policy document on society and crime (Samenleving en Criminaliteit).
The Netherlands government puts a great deal of effort into the detection and prosecution of international drug trafficking via Dutch ports and Schiphol airport. In the years ahead there will be greater participation in international investigations, partly as a result of the establishment of a national investigation team. However, given the volume and speed of the flow of goods, it will never be possible to make the port of Rotterdam, for example, completely free of drugs, any more than any other international port.
The governments of some neighbouring countries are concerned about the cross-border effects of Dutch policy. The bones of contention are in particular the relatively low prices at which it has been possible to buy certain hard drugs in the Netherlands in recent years (though the same is now also true in Belgium), and the export of supplies of soft drugs bought in coffee shops in the Netherlands.
The lower prices on the illegal heroin market cannot simply be attributed to Dutch policy on production and supply. Contrary to what is sometimes believed abroad, considerable efforts go into the detection of trafficking in hard drugs in the Netherlands, as explained above, and those convicted of this offence are punished severely. The rapid expansion of Dutch prison capacity bears witness to this. The crucial factor is the massive supply of hard drugs on the international market, as has been confirmed by regular reports from the UN. The consumer market price is in part determined by local demand for certain drugs. As in a number of other countries, so in the Netherlands the popularity of heroin has declined quite considerably recently, while at the same time the existing population of older addicts is supplied on a large scale with substitute substances such as methadone.
It may be assumed that the falling demand for heroin has pushed prices down. This is not to deny that the low prices do attract foreigners seeking out hard drugs; for that reason, among others, they are a cause for concern. Detection efforts in respect of hard drugs in particular, including ecstasy, must be stepped up. Policy intentions in this regard are discussed in detail in chapter five of the present policy document.
It is undeniable that in municipalities along the borders the coffee shops do attract foreign customers. Where countries have different policies on the sale of strong drink or other goods, such as weapons, there is also cross-border traffic specifically geared to those goods. While differences in policy exist such "smuggling" cannot entirely be prevented. Now that it has been decided in the framework of the Schengen Agreement that existing differences between the states concerned as regards their drug policies will be respected, these side-effects must to a certain extent be accepted.
However, under the Schengen Agreement the Netherlands government took upon itself the obligation to do all it could to combat the undesirable international side-effects in the implementation of its own policy*. The Netherlands government may be expected to do everything within its power to keep the export of soft drugs bought in coffee shops to a minimum. The Netherlands' neighbours have every right to call it to account in this regard.