Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Bookshelf Factor

2002; Wiley; Volume: 97; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.0093a.x

1360-0443

Paul Lemmens,

Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

AddictionVolume 97, Issue 1 p. 119-120 Free Access The Bookshelf Factor First published: 12 January 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.0093a.xCitations: 2AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat You have in your hand the first issue of a new volume produced by the journal’s new publishers, Blackwell Publishing. We hope that you like the smart modern design. Staff in the Addiction editorial office have recently purchased a pair of bookshelves in a pleasing shade of light oak. The reason? To house our reference copies of the journal in suitable glass-fronted splendour. We like to have the back volumes readily to hand of a journal that has been in continuous production since 1884. Why a pair? The shelves needed to be in different sizes, for our new and old formats. Despite the new look, Addiction remains the same journal, and its staff are waiting and eager to serve you, whether readers or authors, in any way that we can. DUTCH CANNABIS POLICY EVALUATED Paul Lemmens writes The alcohol temperance movement in the second part of the 19th century promoted coffeehouses as alternatives to bars and taverns in Dutch cities. Although these establishments have long since ceased to be associated with alcohol temperance, one can still witness the remains of this substitution policy when driving through Amsterdam. The old-style coffeehouses should not, however, be confused with cafés, which also sell alcoholic drinks, or coffeeshops, which do not sell alcoholic drinks but cannabis products. Coffeeshops in Amsterdam have become an interesting tourist attraction. In order to be tolerated as such, they have to stick to certain rules, which are controlled by the local authorities. A research report commissioned by the Justice Department to evaluate Dutch cannabis policy since 1995 said the city was believed to have 288 coffeeshops officially known to the authorities (Bieleman & Goeree 2000). The report also noted a decrease in the nationwide total to 796 (down 22%) since 1997. This decrease was interpreted by the government as proof of a successful cannabis policy. However, their optimistic conclusion was not generally shared: the statement that Amsterdam had only two non-official, uncontrolled sites from which cannabis was sold to the public led to the report’s validity being openly questioned. Recently, another report from the Justice Department more or less underwrites the results of the previous one (Korf et al. 2001). It evaluates the effects of slight changes in Dutch cannabis policy during 1995, particularly the maximum 5 g coffeeshop retail norm (formerly 30 g), and the increase in the age limit from 16 to 18 years. As regards the effects of the latter, little change could be detected. Surveys indicate that the use of cannabis among teenagers has stabilised since 1996, and that sales in coffeeshops to minors and hard-drug use among minors have decreased somewhat. However, teenagers report buying cannabis outside coffeeshops more frequently and more easily than in 1996. Furthermore, results from three observational studies revealed that adolescents were still able to obtain cannabis products from coffeeshops because of the absence of proper age checks—personal identification is not obligatory in Holland. The report also found that local authorities give the highest priority to deterring sales of hard drugs, with maintaining public order and the control of underage sales running second and third, respectively. The authors conclude that the 5 g norm has received little attention, either from the customers or from local law enforcers. Although the practice is to sell cannabis in standard quantities of 5 g or less, it is possible for individuals to obtain several 5 g portions during a single day, even during a single visit. The Dutch policy has attracted controversy. It has been accused of stimulating drug tourism, and of frustrating enforcement efforts in countries such as France (Lemmens & Garretsen 1998). The report investigated the cannabis tourist market in four border towns, where sales have quadrupled since 1993. Maastricht tops the league with about 2000 drug tourists spending C=87 000 per day on an average weekend (individual spend on cannabis is calculated at C=32 a day). This makes drug tourism in Maastricht a lucrative business. On the basis of a scientific inquiry initiated by themselves (Oude Wansink 2001), the local association of coffeeshops claimed that revenue from cannabis tourism outstripped conventional tourism in 2001. They counted an average of 3100 customers daily, which, using the estimated daily sum of C=32, adds up to an annual turnover of C=36 000 000. With their research report and claims of economic advantage, the cannabis traders try to convince local politicians of the respectability of their activities. However, due to its illegal character, the drug trade remains of concern to officials. Issues of public order and safety, organised crime (often violent), control and enforcement of rules and moral sentiments have far from disappeared. Right-wing parties oppose any further normalisation of the trade. But the ‘Dutch approach’ cannot be denied. In the border town of Venlo, for example, the authorities plan to relocate coffeeshops from the centre of town to the German border in offices formerly occupied by the Dutch customs. With this unconventional interpretation of the ‘Schengen’ treaty, they expect to reduce inner-city nuisance and uncontrollable trade in cannabis and other drugs. In Maastricht, an impact on drug tourism can be expected after the recent change in Belgian cannabis policy. There, too, possession of up to 5 g for personal use will no longer be prosecuted. Whether the Belgians will go as far as the Dutch ‘customs-turned-traffickers’ in locating cannabis cafés in obsolete customs buildings near the French border remains to be seen. References Bieleman, B. & Goeree, P. (2000) Coffeeshops Geteld. Aantallen Verkooppunten van Cannabis in Nederland [Coffeeshops Counted. The Number of Cannabis Retail Outlets]. Groningen: Intraval. Google Scholar Korf, D. J., Van Der Woude, M., Besnchop, A., Nabben, T. (2001) Coffeeshops, Jeugd and Toerisme [Coffeeshops, Youth, and Tourism]. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publications (with English summary). Google Scholar Lemmens, P. H. H. M. & Garretsen, H. F. L. (1998) Unstable pragmatism: Dutch drug policy under national and international pressure. Addiction, 93, 157– 162. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Oude Wansink, M. J. (2001) De Economische Effecten Van Coffeeshops Voor Maastricht [the Economic Effects of Coffeeshops for Maastricht]. Maastricht: Wetenschapswinkel Universiteit Maastricht. Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume97, Issue1January 2002Pages 119-120 ReferencesRelatedInformation