WI The War not Waged: United States follows the Dutch approach to Drugs

[Blue Max]

In the early 1970s, many people in the United States considered the use of drugs to be a matter of personal choice, not a very serious criminal offense.

The Rockefeller Drug Laws, pioneered by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, represented a sea-change from the tolerant attitudes of the 1970s (where drug experimentation was more or less tolerated)

What if, perhaps by Rockefeller taking a different approach, narcotics continue to remain tolerated--and eventually the Government decides to respond to their usage through heavy regulation of product safety and high taxes to discourage use, rather than criminalizing the use and sale of drugs.

I foresee no Reagan Era CIA raising funding through illicit drug sales and perhaps a smaller outbreak of HIV in the United States, as well as a much smaller emphasis on Prisons. But I'm unsure what the downsides would be...

 

[Puget Sound]

In the early 1970s, many people in the United States considered the use of drugs to be a matter of personal choice, not a very serious criminal offense.

The Rockefeller Drug Laws, pioneered by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, represented a sea-change from the tolerant attitudes of the 1970s (where drug experimentation was more or less tolerated)

What if, perhaps by Rockefeller taking a different approach, narcotics continue to remain tolerated--and eventually the Government decides to respond to their usage through heavy regulation of product safety and high taxes to discourage use, rather than criminalizing the use and sale of drugs.

I foresee no Reagan Era CIA raising funding through illicit drug sales and perhaps a smaller outbreak of HIV in the United States, as well as a much smaller emphasis on Prisons. But I'm unsure what the downsides would be...

Well, many drugs are actually bad for you and your health, so more quickly rising health costs and a slower increase in lifespan compared to OTL?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Basically, this just decriminalizes what is already happening. This saves the US a lot of money and lowers the prison population significantly. Basically it cuts into some people's profits while creating new industries. This are somewhat different culturally but overall the same.

 

[Anaxagoras]

The fiscal situation of the federal and state governments would be considerably better, both from excise tax revenues on the drugs and a sharp decrease in spending on the prison system.

 

[Dave Howery]

which narcotics? You can make a pretty good case for marijuana to be legal, but is there any good reason to legalize such things as crack and meth?

 

[Blue Max]

which narcotics? You can make a pretty good case for marijuana to be legal, but is there any good reason to legalize such things as crack and meth?

I suppose I don't really know.
Crack, a chemical bastardization of Cocaine, probably never emerges if Cocaine is available instead.

Methamphetamine would be out there as well.

Which drugs did the Dutch legalize? I was basically expecting the USA to follow that course...

 

[Uber_Amoeba]

which narcotics? You can make a pretty good case for marijuana to be legal, but is there any good reason to legalize such things as crack and meth?

Let's turn that question around; who benefits from locking crack addicts up, isolated from society with a bunch of violent and dangerous people on the government's check for several years?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Let's turn that question around; who benefits from locking crack addicts up, isolated from society with a bunch of violent and dangerous people on the government's check for several years?

People who don't get robbed by crackheads?

Of course, if crack were legal, it might be much cheaper, so there'd be less incentive to commit crimes to get drug money.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

I suppose I don't really know.
Crack, a chemical bastardization of Cocaine, probably never emerges if Cocaine is available instead.

Methamphetamine would be out there as well.

Which drugs did the Dutch legalize? I was basically expecting the USA to follow that course...

There are no legalized drugs in the Netherlands, other then tobacco, alcohol and the likes.

What you mean is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedogen
That doesn't mean it's legal AFAIK.
The drugs which are 'gedoogd' are (small amounts of) marijuana and hashish, which are generally seen as softdrugs as opposed to harddrugs like cocaine, heroine, LSD, amfetamines, crack etc.
With small amounts they mean 5 grams or 5 cannabisplants.

The sale of these softdrugs is tolerated in certain shops (f.ex outside of x metres of schools etc). Harddrugs is just as illegal overhere as in any other country.

Paddo's (dried hallucinogenic mushrooms) were allowed but have been forbidden very recently, due to the death of a few tourists having a bad trip in Amsterdam.

Back to OP:

What if, perhaps by Rockefeller taking a different approach, narcotics continue to remain tolerated--and eventually the Government decides to respond to their usage through heavy regulation of product safety and high taxes to discourage use, rather than criminalizing the use and sale of drugs.

I foresee no Reagan Era CIA raising funding through illicit drug sales and perhaps a smaller outbreak of HIV in the United States, as well as a much smaller emphasis on Prisons. But I'm unsure what the downsides would be...

I doubt the world or the USA would be a better place it is today.
Even if the Americans followed the example of a overregulated, small country, why would the effects be the same?

Secondly I don't see the effects as positive as you do;
there have been many problems with the 'gedogen' of softdrugs in the Netherlands.
-Not so much by the (Dutch) users, although even softdrugs are not to be taken lightly, but mostly by the people producing it.
As the production of softdrugs isn't legal and realistically will never be on a large scale, huge criminal organisations have pretty much taken over the market overhere.
-Also there are huge problems in the cities bordering other countries, as there are many drugtourists whose handlers tend to be psychotic and extremely violent.

-Softdrugs also seem to reinforce the demand on harddrugs. Softdrugs themselves are getting more and more dangerous over the years; the amount of THC is rising year by year.
(THC is what makes you stoned/high).

It looks to me you don't know about the negative effects of using softdrugs; not only does it make you apathic, it increases your chance of getting schizofrenia (if you were close to becoming so) and it messes up your short-term memory quite badly.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Let's turn that question around; who benefits from locking crack addicts up, isolated from society with a bunch of violent and dangerous people on the government's check for several years?

People addicted to crack and meth are often violent and dangerous people themselves.

 

[Dave Howery]

saw a report on MSN today that only marijuana (all the drugs illegal in the US) is easily available in the Netherlands. It's technically illegal there, but they won't prosecute for small amounts (show up with a bale in your back seat, and you'll be arrested and prosecuted PDQ). There are notorious 'coffee shops' that openly sell small amounts of marijuana. And the report said that the Dutch authorities are going to crack down and close both the coffee shops and sex shops in the capitol, due to organized crime horning in on the business. So, even though sex and marijuana are openly available (and not prosecuted), it didn't prevent a criminal problem from happening there...

 

[Expat]

Well if it were legal to sell certain drugs in the US you can bet someone would try to grow pot and poppies. Even if the market's too small at first for the pharm companies, you'd get some enterprising hippies along the lines of Ben and Jerry starting up something. Also communes. If they have a cash crop to sell the experimental communes of the 60s still exist today in substantial numbers.

By controlling production and distribution we get rid of the crime problem. After all, nobody's buying bathtub gin from the mob anymore.

I doubt drug use ever gets popular enough to warrant wars of adventure, but if we already happen to be somewhere and people start looking for a reason to stay (Panama and Vietnam) we might be more invested in those areas.

Of course the stigma of drug use still remains widespread in society. Just as Roe v. Wade led to a new or re-commitment to state-level restrictions of abortion, we probably see large restrictions on drug use in many states, as well as lots of dry towns. As the business model becomes successful however, lobbying efforts probably make a dent in these restrictions. Expect the Reservations to offer drug holiday package tours.

The public health boom is probably not butterflied away so we would see the public use of drugs banned. With the arrival of AIDS there might even be an effort to make it illegal to shoot drugs intravenously (sp?) just because of how dangerous it is and how the actions of one person can lead to the deaths of others. It seems draconian now, but ITTL it might be seen as "an ounce of prevention" just like requiring bike helmets by law.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

saw a report on MSN today that only marijuana (all the drugs illegal in the US) is easily available in the Netherlands. It's technically illegal there, but they won't prosecute for small amounts (show up with a bale in your back seat, and you'll be arrested and prosecuted PDQ). There are notorious 'coffee shops' that openly sell small amounts of marijuana. And the report said that the Dutch authorities are going to crack down and close both the coffee shops and sex shops in the capitol, due to organized crime horning in on the business. So, even though sex and marijuana are openly available (and not prosecuted), it didn't prevent a criminal problem from happening there...

See my post above for more information.
You might want to try read a thread before replying.

Your post is a bit too much of a generalization to be true.
F.ex. the only coffeeshops which are going to be closed are the ones within 500 metres or so of schools.

Well if it were legal to sell certain drugs in the US you can bet someone would try to grow pot and poppies. Even if the market's too small at first for the pharm companies, you'd get some enterprising hippies along the lines of Ben and Jerry starting up something. Also communes. If they have a cash crop to sell the experimental communes of the 60s still exist today in substantial numbers.

By controlling production and distribution we get rid of the crime problem. After all, nobody's buying bathtub gin from the mob anymore.

In the Netherlands large amounts of (soft)drugs are still illegal, that means production and distribution is still illegal.
Even our government here didn't want to associate itself with the production of softdrugs and I doubt any (legitimate) government in the world would.

That means that at first you'll have some hippies producing a bit of drugs, but pretty fast the market will be controlled by large criminal organisations running the production and distribution like overhere.
Suffice to say, this is NOT an ideal situation!

There are plenty of sad stories about that; eventually those weedfarms are found by the police (either spotted from the air or by cooperating with elektricity companies, as you'll need heaps of elektricity) and the people operating them are arrested.
Unfortunately they're usually not enormous criminals themselves; people, often poor and/or in trailerparks who have been pressurized into doing this by criminal organisations.

Of course the stigma of drug use still remains widespread in society.

Rightly so.

 

[Expat]

@ FlyingDutchman:

I have to disagree with your assessment. While I'm not doubting the validity of what you say about the situation in the Netherlands, that is certainly not how things would evolve in the US. The market's simply too big to be controlled by criminals.

If you want an historical model for this look at Las Vegas. Criminals preceded corporations but the cost of doing business means criminals are forced out or forced to go legit.

In this case I doubt criminals would even be an intermediate step between hippies and corporations. The corporations would step in or some quasi-hippies (like Ben and Jerry) would form their own. I only mentioned hippie communes as a an aside; a probable cultural quirk that I found interesting. Sort of like artisan branding for drugs.

And though the POD mentioned the Dutch model as a starting point, there's no way it would stay that way in the US. It would evolve to allow production and limited distribution. If you decriminalize possession you can bet the Chamber of Commerce is going to be on hand to protest their inability to make a buck off that fact.

As to the effects of drugs on society, they are of course not to be taken lightly. But those effects are pretty devastating in every country in the world. Decriminalizing the drugs doesn't make the problem worse, it just makes it easier to control (in theory.) The flaws in the Dutch system sound to me like they lie in the fact that criminals still control the market. But criminals dealing drugs cannot be seen as an inevitable factor of the product. That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

I have to disagree with your assessment. While I'm not doubting the validity of what you say about the situation in the Netherlands, that is certainly not how things would evolve in the US. The market's simply too big to be controlled by criminals.

Exactly, this was one of the points in my first post; just because there are fewer people in prison, fewer people murdered etc in the Netherlands, that doesn't mean allowing several forms of softdrugs around would have the same effect in the States.
We don't even know if the lower crimerates overhere are because of allowing small amounts, the two nations are just too different.

And though the POD mentioned the Dutch model as a starting point, there's no way it would stay that way in the US. It would evolve to allow production and limited distribution. If you decriminalize possession you can bet the Chamber of Commerce is going to be on hand to protest their inability to make a buck off that fact.

Buck or no buck to be made, as I said before I doubt any legitimate government in the world (no warlords etc) is going to allow a 100% legal production and distribution. Drugs, even softdrugs, are just too harmfull for that and have a much too bad reputation.
Even more so then Americans, Dutch people are much, much more interested in making a buck and even here production is illegal (with good reason).
We'd sell our own mothers as long as the price is right! Ethics, morale & God are a bit more important in the States.

As to the effects of drugs on society, they are of course not to be taken lightly. But those effects are pretty devastating in every country in the world. Decriminalizing the drugs doesn't make the problem worse, it just makes it easier to control (in theory.) The flaws in the Dutch system sound to me like they lie in the fact that criminals still control the market. But criminals dealing drugs cannot be seen as an inevitable factor of the product. That just doesn't make sense to me.

As I said before, concerning softdrugs, it aren't criminals dealing it to the people; those usually buy in coffeeshops which are more or less allowed in certain places.
But as I said in my previous post, AFAIK softdrugs also lead to more demand for harddrugs. Look for all the drugsrunner problems we have in the Netherlands especially with French ones.
They come here for softdrugs but also end up buying their heroine etc here to deal it in their own country.

No government in the world can afford to give production and distribution on a large scale their stamp of approval; that's just not possible.
That means production and distribution are to remain in the criminal sector, leading to criminal organisations controlling it, as there is much money to be made at relatively low risk. (softdrugs crimes have AFAIK less priority with the police then harddrugs ones)

The only thing the US could do is perhaps allow very, very small amounts to be had by people and allow only usage in your own private home.
That ought to save several 1000s of prisoncells.

 

[Berra]

A big inpact would be in places like Colombia, Afganistan and such where drug production have a big economic inpact. I belive that US would turn self sufficient in drugs where the alternative is some less then perfect groups (or would they, poppy is quite labour intensive?). Thus, a lot of money flow elsewhere.

 

[Redem]

Well if the U.S take a less harsh approach on drugs a lot of movie are going to be different

Scarface on coffee anyone?

Wouldn't Miami be quite affected by this?

 

[Dave Howery]

See my post above for more information.
You might want to try read a thread before replying.

*snorts in disgust* Only noobs read threads before replying...

 

[Expat]

@ FlyingDutchman

Let's say you're right and the US government can't bring itself to allow for even controlled production. I would still maintain that there's one uniquely American loophole that will ensure production is not criminalized: the reservations.

Even today certain tribes are allowed to grow and use psychedelics on the reservations. If the hippies, the farmers and the corporations can't get the government to let them grow the stuff, they'll still not have the stomach to stop the Native Americans from growing it. Pfizer will pay for wall-to-wall greenhouses if they have to in every res in the land.

But I also must disagree with your statement about the nature of government. In the US there is an entire party that treats the government as a form of tyranny to be stopped. If such a government gained power in the 60s they would likely support any form of deregulation.

But beyond that, there is the likelihood of a middle ground. Unfettered production is probably not going to happen. Licenses would be required, weights, measures and potencies standardized. And in terms of distribution, there are all sorts of hybrid models to follow. The county I grew up in for example had two state-run liquor stores and they were the only place within the county where one could purchase spirits (though beer and wine were everywhere.)

If that seems shocking, be assured that it is only shocking due to cultural reasons and not some over-arching truth about the nature of western government. For proof all I have is a circumstantial comparison, but many Americans would consider state-run abortion facilities equally impossible to justify. Or even methadone clinics, or condom distribution, or any number of supposedly "negative lifestyle-affirming" services. but those things exist (some even in the US) and people generally don't bat an eye.

We're talking about nipping the hard edge of drug enforcement in the bud before the attitudes associated with that enforcement become endemic. But it's hard for those of us in the fishbowl to understand what life would be like outside it, so it's understandable if this seems preposterous to us.

To touch on soft drugs as gateways to hard drugs, this is a matter for public health legislation and not the high legality under which a given substance might be sold if its specific consequences are not deemed deadly. If a person smokes pot and that leads him to shoot heroin, you must blame the person and not the pot under the law. In the same way a wife cannot sue a beer company if her husband beats her while drunk.

 

[HJ Tulp]

I can't say I agree with you FlyingDutchman. There is indeed a backlash against softdrugs these days around here. However, it's a political backlash of a certain spectrum of politicis (the Christian Democrat). On the other hand, there are also calls for further decriminalisation, on a convention of mayors a state-run marijuana farm was proposed. Next elections could very well be pivotal for the further Dutch drugs-policy.

Furthermore, the problem in the Netherlands is that production and transport is still illegal. A situation that has taken so long that now the underworld is in full control of that aspect. Why? Because legal investors can't invest as it's still illegal. If it get's legalised it might cause those underworld figures to go fully legit. Or it gives them alot more power as they have the know how to make the stuff.

Also I don't agree with you on the softdrugs-harddrugs connection. IIRC we have less junkies per capital then other countries plus we have less problems with them.