DEMYSTIFYING THE DUTCH

What Holland's Softer Drug Policies Mean For The U.S.

IN A RECENT INTERVIEW with Rolling Stone, rocker Melissa Etheridge called
Amsterdam "the perfect city." Why? "Because drugs are legal, and guns
aren't." Not exactly the makings of a public-service announcement for the
Coalition for a Drug Free America, but the days when such a comment could be
easily dismissed as hippie nonsense have long since passed.

At a time when the scope and direction of U.S. drug policy has become the
target of increasingly strong criticism, the Dutch example has emerged as
the model for many wishing for major reform-and a thorn in the side of the
defenders of the status quo. Amidst a cloud of misconceptions and pointed
accusations launched from both sides of the Atlantic, the United States is
allowing a golden opportunity to use the lessons of Holland to reform and
revise its drug policy fall by the wayside.

The Dutch Example

The professed mission of the Dutch drug policy is to reduce "the risks of
drug use to the individual user as well as society in general." In practice,
this has meant government regulation of narcotic supply accompanied by de
facto legalization of softer drugs, such as hashish or marijuana. The
infamous Amsterdam "coffee shops" were born out of the government's desire
to reduce and control the flow of narcotics. With respect to the individual,
health care is the primary concern.

Beyond the glaring issue of decriminalization, a critical distinction
between the American and Dutch approaches is the Dutch separation between
soft drugs and those that "carry an unacceptable risk," such as cocaine and
heroin. By allowing a certain amount of regulated, taxed use of soft drugs,
Dutch logic allows that national resources can be focused on the treatment
and prevention of use of harder drugs.

In terms of the magnitude of those resources, the Netherlands annual
per-capita drug-related expenditures are approximately 20% that of the U.S.,
a staggering statistic which has caused many Americans to more closely
question the aims and efficacy of their national drug policy. The powers
that be heard the mounting criticism-and roundly dismissed it. U.S. military
leaders call the shots for national drug policy, and the American "War on
Drugs" was not about to take its cues from the Netherlands.

The Casualties of War

The mounting tension between American and Dutch drug policies came to a head
in July 1998, when U.S. Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey's "fact-finding" tour of
European countries drew international attention. McCaffrey launched a
scathing attack of the Dutch drug policy, calling it "an unmitigated
disaster." While his bold comments were unique coming from a high
administration official, disdain among American drug enforcement officials
for the Dutch example is widespread. With every suggestion that Amsterdam is
"the perfect city" or instance that decriminalization proponents point to
the virtues of the Dutch policy, defense of the current national policy
becomes more entrenched-and combative.

Whether its intent or not, the Dutch government has found itself square in
the middle of the American debate over the future of its War on Drugs. Gen.
McCaffrey's office issued a statement accusing the Dutch of putting American
children at risk. "Every nation is free to set their own policies
domestically," the statement read, "however, other nations must respect the
sovereignty of others and be keenly aware of the impacts of their policies
on the global community." From the general's perspective, Dutch drug policy
was tantamount to an invasion of American soil.

Predictably, the reply from Holland carefully reflected their desire to
avoid riling the precarious waters of American politics. "We believe in our
own policy, but we're not saying 'you have to do what we do,'" said Health
Ministry spokesman Benno Bruggink. "We are not exporting our policy." These
words meant little to the American side. The Dutch and their liberal policy
had entered the American War or Drugs. In July 1998, the time had come for
the General to launch his counter-offensive.

A Haze of Statistics

Once it became apparent that the Dutch threat was genuine, Gen. McCaffrey
was determined to defeat the enemy in a battle of data. He supported his
rebuke of the Dutch policies with word that both drug use and crime in the
Netherlands were substantially higher than in America. "The overall crime
rate in Holland is probably 40% higher than the United States," McCaffrey
said. "That's [due to] drugs." He went on-claiming the murder rate in
Holland was twice than of America.

Both Dutch and American officials immediately refuted McCaffrey's data,
which represented a grand distortion of the actual facts. In reality, the
Dutch murder rate is approximately one quarter the American rate. Despite
the recent decline in domestic crime, the U.S. incarceration rate is nearly
10 times the Dutch rate. And while both sides dispute these numbers, drug
use in the Netherlands is consistently on par with American levels-while
U.S. use of heroin and other hard drugs is considerably higher. Gen.
McCaffrey's egregious misstatements of fact made him the subject of
outspoken criticism from all sides; however, he resolutely refused to
apologize or retract his comments. This is war, and the General simply could
not admit defeat.

The New Cosmology

For all the talk of national sovereignty and of not exporting policy, the
battle between U.S. and Dutch-style drug approaches has spread across Europe
and North America. Last fall, Gen. McCaffrey's trip to Great Britain was
marred by protests against the spread of U.S. drug policies to other
European nations. One protestor, Steve Rolles of the reform group Transform,
said, "The British Government has nothing to learn from Barry McCaffrey. The
U.S. should not be exporting their drug policy. We should be looking to
other far more progressive regimes, such as those in Holland." Indeed, many
nations have modeled or borrowed aspects of their own drug policies from the
Netherlands.

On the bright side of all these accusations and false characterizations,
many nations are using the examples of Holland and the U.S. to appraise and
improve their own approaches to the drugs. In addition to Great Britain,
Germany, Sweden, Canada, and many others have made recent reforms influenced
by the successes of their neighbors. Unfortunately, the momentum towards
drug policy reform has not reached the United States, where the urgencies of
"war" have often quelled the connection between public debate and
corresponding changes in policy.

At a time when the reform movement is growing larger and more diverse, these
obstacles to reform must be removed if well-balanced policy is ever to be
achieved. For too long, the crusading advocates of prohibition and punitive
deterrence have painted their critics as heretics. For too long, empty dogma
has crowded out innovative ideas. In the words of Dr. Craig Reinarman, the
U.S. drug-control establishment fears the Dutch policy "like the Catholic
Church feared Galileo": to admit its validity shatters their entire
cosmology. Ancient Chinese military strategist Sun-Tzu taught the primary
object of war is to win without having to fight-a point American
policymakers would be wise to heed. While the U.S. has become increasingly
combative in its battle against drugs, the Dutch have broadened the scope of
possibilities. By no means is their solution perfect. However, to stubbornly
deny its potential is to risk losing the war for the sake of waging it.

Index for the Harvard Political Review's series:

"Smoke and Mirrors - America's Drug War"

The Thirty Years' War - (Part 1 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1084/a03.html

Editorial: From The Editor - (Part 2 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1084/a02.html

The Experts Speak Out - (Part 3 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1084/a05.html

Keep It Real - (Part 4 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1084/a04.html

The Colombian Conundrum - (Part 5 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1084/a06.html

Demystifying the Dutch - (Part 6 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1085/a03.html

Paralyzed by Politics - (Part 7 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1085/a01.html

An Unfortunate Hypocrisy - (Part 8 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1085/a02.html

Throwing Away the Key - (Part 9 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1085/a04.html

Beyond Good and Evil - (Part 10 of a 10 part series)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1085/a05.html