As explained in the introduction, obligations under international agreements prevent statutory provisions being adopted to regulate the supply of cannabis derivatives to coffee shops (cf. annex II). It must also be feared that such regulation would lead to lower prices and to confirmation of the image of the Netherlands as a drugs-friendly country, resulting in a further increase in drugs tourism. On account of obligations under international law, the government believes that such provisions could only be introduced if other relevant countries were to do the same.
The situation as regards the supply side of the market in cannabis products in the Netherlands has changed radically as a result of the emergence of cannabis grown in the Netherlands. This home-grown product, which is rapidly gaining in popularity, is giving rise to a new problem. The Netherlands is in danger of becoming a cannabis exporting country, exports being of the home- grown product, and everything possible must be done to prevent this happening.
The cultivation of cannabis in itself presents the Dutch authorities with considerable enforcement difficulties. Plants can be grown on a small scale, unobtrusively and indoors, which makes the practice difficult to detect systematically. The United States has also failed to reduce the cultivation of cannabis, which is there estimated to have a turnover of over US$ 18 billion per year*. It is inevitable that the police and judicial authorities in the Netherlands should have to set priorities of some kind in tackling the illegal cultivation of cannabis. Moreover, it is known that in addition to the USA, cannabis is also being grown illegally in Belgium, Germany and Eastern Europe.
In 1994 323 illegal growers were detected in the Netherlands (237 in 1993). The number of plants seized rose from 194,000 in 1993 to 558,000 in 1994. 600 kilogrammes of cannabis grown in the Netherlands was also seized. Most cases involved small-scale indoor cultivation, for personal use, retail selling and wholesale selling. Less than 10% was accounted for by outdoor cultivation, while a little over 20% comprised cultivation in greenhouses or sheds. It is estimated that there are now several tens of thousands of domestic growers.
The phenomenon of small-scale domestic cultivation of cannabis faces the authorities with a dilemma. On the one hand, there is an observable trend towards bona fide coffee shops obtaining their supplies from networks of non-criminal domestic growers. This enables the coffee shops to avoid contact with criminal organisations. In view of the objective of giving organised crime as little scope as possible, this trend is a positive one. In principle, it would be possible for approximately 35,000 domestic growers - and it is estimated that there are more such growers in the Netherlands already - each cultivating an extremely modest quantity of cannabis, involving no more than a few plants each, to meet domestic demand for cannabis*. There would then be no need for supplies to be obtained from criminal sources. On the other hand, there is a risk of some domestic growers at least being taken over by criminal organisations; indeed it has already been established that this is occasionally happening.
Clearly, enforceability is the decisive factor in the policy on investigation and prosecution as regards the cultivation of cannabis in the Netherlands. Consultations with the Procurators- General have revealed that it is extremely difficult in practice to detect small-scale domestic growers because they are almost invisible. The setting of priorities will depend in part on local circumstances and developments. The appropriate forum for decisions on such matters is the local tripartite consultative group. Policy will be supported by a range of administrative instruments. Under no circumstances will cultivation by minors be tolerated.
There are indications that Dutch cannabis growers occasionally succeed in raising the THC content of plants grown indoors, thus increasing the psychotropic effect. In 1994 the Forensic Laboratory examined 183 samples of cannabis, mostly grown indoors, to establish their THC content. The average proved to be 8%, which is the same as is generally found in cannabis from abroad. In the same year a THC content of 20% was found in a single example of Dutch cannabis. The use of cannabis with a high THC content can result in overdosing and panic attacks on the part of users. We will encourage the Forensic Laboratory to conduct systematic studies into the THC content of cannabis grown in the Netherlands. If necessary, the Public Prosecutions Department will be asked to adopt a particularly strict attitude to the cultivation and sale of cannabis with a high THC content, by taking it into account when proposing sentences, for example.
The cultivation of cannabis for export and/or as a form of organised crime should be accorded the utmost priority as far as investigation and prosecution are concerned. The Netherlands must be prevented from becoming a country which produces and exports soft drugs, especially if those drugs entail unacceptable risks on account of their high THC content. To allow such a situation to develop without attempting to intervene would be unacceptable from a health point of view and would rightly meet with considerable criticism from abroad.
In order to be better able to respond to large-scale cultivation, the Minister of Justice intends to submit proposals to increase the current statutory maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment and a fine of NLG 25,000 to four years and a category five fine.
In this context it is also necessary to adopt a standpoint on statutory provisions governing the cultivation of cannabis for legal purposes. Under the terms of the Decree of 18 October 1976 (Netherlands Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 509) governing the implementation of section 3a, subsection 1, of the Opium Act, the cultivation of cannabis as a windbreak by farmers and market gardeners or for the purpose of obtaining the seeds or fibre (for use in rope making) is not covered by the Opium Act. Such cultivation is relatively rare in the Netherlands. The land area devoted to fibre cultivation is about 1000 hectares; about 100 growers are involved. This may change in the future. There appear to be opportunities for the cultivation of cannabis for use in the paper industry, for example, and a "back to nature" movement is being imported from the United States in which clothing and other products made using hemp are popular. Grants can be obtained from the EU for the cultivation of permitted varieties of hemp under annex B of EEC Regulation no. 1164/89 (the varieties concerned have a very low THC content).
Exempting the cultivation of cannabis for the above-mentioned purposes can give rise to problems with evidence if the police take action under the Opium Act and a grower of suspected psychotropic varieties claims to be exempt under the provisions governing fibre and seed growers. In the early stages of cultivation certainly it is not always easy to tell what the nature of the plants concerned is. In recent years, growers who could claim to be exempt on these grounds have also been prosecuted under section 87 of the Seeds and Planting Materials Act, which requires that growers wishing to engage in such cultivation must be affiliated to the General Netherlands Inspection Service for Field Seeds and Seed Potatoes (NAK).
Research has been conducted to establish whether it would be sensible to introduce a permit system for the cultivation of hemp for agricultural and horticultural purposes*. There are a number of objections to this. Firstly, there would be the necessary administration, for what would be a small number of permits, and secondly there would be practical monitoring problems, since establishing whether plants in the fields accorded with the terms of the relevant permit would require highly specialised knowledge. It is not inconceivable that illegal crops could be masked by, for example, surrounding them with legal ones.
It would be better to limit exemptions under the above-mentioned Decree of 18 October 1976 to the cultivation in the open air of permitted varieties of hemp. This would make it absolutely clear that cultivation in glasshouses is always contrary to the Opium Act, irrespective of the plants involved.
In consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, we will endeavour to ensure that the Decree of 18 October 1976 is amended in such a way that it is easier to combat the large-scale cultivation of cannabis indoors and the cultivation of varieties which are not permitted.