SLIPPERY LEGAL SITUATION IN HOLLAND

In regard to Daniel Schwammenthal's "Practically Dutch In the Heart
of Sin City" (de gustibus, Taste page, Weekend Journal Feb. 2): I
believe Mr. Schwammenthal has not yet been in Holland long enough to
realize that the veneer of pragmatism and good sense in the Dutch
policy of "gedogen" is covering up something rather ugly.

One problem with the practice of officially "tolerating" things that
were formally illegal is that it destroys the rule of law. When
toleration is practiced, people know that the law says one thing but
the reality is very different -- but just what the real rules are is
not clear at all. When something is "tolerated," what are the
boundaries of that toleration, and who has the authority to set or
change them? How can a democracy function when the actual rules, as
opposed to the rules in the lawbooks, are made up on the fly, by
people and processes not governed by any law or constitution?

Your editorials rightly criticize politicians who pretend to have
strong beliefs but are unwilling to act on them. The Dutch situation
is a perfect example: Politicians want the benefit of "allowing"
something -- consumption of cannabis, for example -- without going
through the trouble of voting on a law to make it legal. Perish the
thought that they would have to go on record on such a matter.

A closely related problem is that the toleration of cannabis does not
eliminate drug crime at all. The reason is simple: Cannabis is not
legal, and its "toleration" only applies to the retail side. So the
"coffee shop" operator is in the absurd situation of being allowed to
sell at retail a product he cannot legally buy wholesale. His store
is tolerated by the authorities, but his loading dock is a criminal
enterprise. Similarly, growers are explicitly considered and treated
as criminals. And they act as criminals, too -- stealing power for
their lights, for example, and causing fire hazards in the process.

Paul Koning

New Boston, N.H.