How smoking weed is still legal for tourists in Amsterdam

http://travel.stackexchange.com/q/12942/101

by nsaparanoid • 12 years ago

84 67 12 years ago

travel.stackexchange.com

Dutchmen here. You can grow your own weed as well. Just not more than 5 plants and only for your own consumption. I'm no user, but I understand weed is for tourists and younger kids just chillin'/relaxing.

There's a much larger user base for all those chemically created drugs for partying. Lately there's a new thing, it's actually for horses needing surgery and keeps them on their feet. Kids use it to prefent passing out from all the other drugs. Funny thing is: They look like walking zombies stumbling about.

013• 12 years ago

Lately there's a new thing, it's actually for horses needing surgery and keeps them on their feet. Kids use it to prefent passing out from all the other drugs. Funny thing is: They look like walking zombies stumbling about.

Ketamine. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine

nicholassmith2• 12 years ago

Doesn't sound like ketamine completely. Whilst it'll zombify you pretty quickly, it won't prevent you from passing out from other drugs as you can 'k-hole' on it pretty quickly and pass out. Butorphanol is what seems more likely from a bit of internet sleuthing (but I imagine it'll have a more jazzy name in the club).

70forty2• 12 years ago

Ketamine is hardly a new trend in recreational drug use and I've never heard of it being used by anyone to prevent "passing out from all the other drugs". Ketamine in high but still sub-anesthetic doses induces a semi-conscious state referred to as the "k-hole", more or less giving the appearance of being passed out. At lower doses it does strongly effect balance and coordination, so the "stumbling" bit is probably justified.

Ketamine is exceptionally safe and relatively non-addictive BTW, though in my experience not all that enjoyable. GP needs to save the horror stories and fear mongering for MDPV, NBOMEes, etc. which arose as alternatives to much safer but highly contraband substances like LSD, MDMA, etc. with difficult-to-source precursors.

ramblerman• 12 years ago

Ketamine is certainly not new (on the street or other). And as it is an anaesthetic, I highly doubt it would be used to prevent passing out.

So yeah... you got the wikipedia link right

malka4• 12 years ago

are you saying that there are more user of `hard` drug than user of weed in dutch ? this seems really weird.

mtrimpe• 12 years ago

Until not that long ago we had similar 'non-enforcement in practice' for small amounts of XTC pills and under a gram of cocaine.

In general Dutch policy is/was about allowing and educating towards responsible use which means that, especially in big cities and certain big parties, there is a subculture where hard-drug use is condoned and to some degree par for the course.

Culturally minimal responsible use (a tablet once or twice a year, a line of cocaine to extend a party once) is considered as 'your choice and I'll try not to look down on you for it,' but any form of dependence is heavily frowned upon and discouraged.

In general it's part of a broader theme of giving you the freedom to make your own mistakes as long as they don't negatively impact others, which comes with a lot of implicit cultural experience in how to let people experiment and come to their own terms with these drugs without losing them to the drug.

In practice it tends to take the form of most people 'going through a phase' and growing out of it, a small amount of people becoming high-functioning long-term addicts and an even smaller percentage of in-the-gutter destroy-your-life type addicts.

nmc2• 12 years ago

Would not surprise me at all. Despite the well-known image of the street filled with coffee-shops, really a few Dutch people smoke: less than 5% of them use the coffee-shops, and less than 10% of 15-24-year-olds.

ohwp• 12 years ago

Dutchmen here. No you cannot have or grow plants. This is still illegal. They might shelve the case when you are having 5 plants or less. But above 5 they always make a case of it.

And yes Ketamine (Special K / Vitamin K / Kokaine) is used as party drug, but alcohol, weed and nicotine are used most followed by XTC and cocaine.

dep_b2• 12 years ago

Another Dutchman here. Indeed it's true that it's illegal to grow pot. Growing pot is completely illegal apart from some medicinal use, where they try to grow a variety that will not get you super high but still has medicinal value.

Let me make it clear: THERE IS NO WAY A COFFEESHOP CAN GET THEIR WEED IN A LEGAL WAY

Since the turn of the century we have seen a string of conservative governments, elected because other problems in our society, that like to clamp down on drugs and other liberal things because it makes them look tough without having to deal with the true problems in this country.

Indeed it is very strange that a country that has a vast majority of people in favor of legalization, as we have been the witnesses of the fact that regulated drugs have a positive effect on society.

Just to sum up how clueless our governments were in the last 12 year or so, an image of a former president that just says it all:

http://tegekvoorwoorden.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/balkenen...

FUCK DRUGS. LET'S HAVE A BEER!

skrebbel2• 12 years ago

Independent of the actual subject matter, I think that recent drug policy changes in the Netherlands is a great example of how the common push for centralization can be countered by local demands.

At some point, drug enforcement was pretty much the same across the country, but now, because different cities have different problems and influences, it is enforced differently in cities. As a strong believer in the "subsidiarity principle" (things should be decided as locally as they can), I've been appalled at the push towards centralization of policies and control in many European countries the last decade.

It seems that everybody thinks that if local issues are made national policy, and national issues European policy, things will automatically be better. Usually it starts because in one locality, something goes wrong, resulting in media outrage and a call for more regulation by a higher government. If we don't watch out, small town sidewalk planning will be done in Brussels.

The recent Dutch drug policy changes show that with enough effort, the subsidiarity principle can still win. This gives me some confidence for the future. We need to keep underlining that not every place is the same.

netcan2• 12 years ago

I am very pro EU. The original purpose was to avoid wars, long teem. That goal is still relevant. Free trade and free movement were both considered tools. I consider them (especially the often neglected free movement) ends themselves.

That said, the EU has issues. Lots of political traditions and very few basic principles to guide how things should be done. What EU is and isn't responsible for isn't clear. There has been lots of recent pieces of legislation and precedents created in a panicky environment as a response to the banking crisis.

Personally I believe that is possible and preferable to maintain free movement and trade without that being translated into centrally insured and regulated banking, just like it should apply to local drug policy. I also think that's the only way it will work.

bowlofpetunias• 12 years ago

I have become very anti-EU in recent years.

I am very much pro open borders with neighboring nations, but the EU has become a vehicle for creating a fundamentally undemocratic centralized federal state.

And I especially detest the way the EU tries to shift the balance of power by allowing impoverished, corrupt nations into the EU without any kind of democratic process.

In the Netherlands, there is a clear majority against the expansion of the EU, and we are being railroaded. We voted against the EU "constitution" in the only meaningful referendum in the history of our nation, and they simply changed the fucking name.

The fact that an originally very strongly pro-European nation like the Netherlands said "no further" should have been a clear signal to reform the EU, but instead things have just become worse.

I'm still pro-European, but consider the EU the enemy of our freedom, democracy and sovereignty.

chad_oliver• 12 years ago

It is interesting to note that the European Union officially establishes the Principle of Subsidiarity in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht. So theoretically we should never have EU regulations which breach this principle. In practice, things might be different!

skrebbel2• 12 years ago

I find that in practice, the exact opposite happens.

A fine example to illustrate how difficult this is, is differences in attitudes towards homosexuals. One country, e.g. Croatia, where homosexuality is not as accepted as it is in my country (the Netherlands), might decide to forbid a Gay Parade because the risk of its participants being beaten up is too big. This, in turn, would cause great political turmoil in a country like the Netherlands, because of discrimination.

In such cases, I've seen Dutch MEPs try to make Brussels enforce that the parade takes place and is properly protected by police.

Who is right? My sense of values says the Dutch. My sense of politics (subsidiarity) says that the Croatians can figure it out for themselves. Who are we to export our morals to other member states?

But this is an unpopular view. I suspect that the majority of Dutchmen would support strong European laws and guidelines to protect homosexuals. But what if Brussels starts to similarly override our drug policies, which many other member states find immoral? Suddenly this whole centralization thing doesn't sound so nice anymore.

Cthulhu_• 12 years ago

There's a lot of laws like this that don't get enforced as much as 'law' would imply. Another example is the ban on smoking in workplaces to protect the employees; in the Netherlands, a couple of years ago, this law was implemented, meaning that smoking was effectively banned from bars and pubs as well. Outrage ensued from all sides. Two 'workarounds' were created:

* People just donate to the pub owner to pay the fines if the inspector came around * Certain bars had no personnel, just the owner; ergo, no personnel, so no requirement to create a smoke-free environment for personnel, so, smoke away.

Others are things like speeding (everyone does it, gets a fine on rare occasions, only the extreme ones get their license impounded), downloading music/software, etc.

nmc2• 12 years ago

Good examples, except for downloading: Dutch law recognizes intellectual property, broadcasting/selling copyrighted material is forbidden, but obtaining it is not illegal.

Ergomane• 12 years ago

That depends on what is downloaded. Downloading copyrighted software is illegal in NL, downloading movies, music and books is not.

_delirium• 12 years ago

Interesting, is smoking still common in bars in the Netherlands? That's one of the laws that actually is pretty widely followed in other countries. One of the more surprising was that in a period of about 3 years, Greek bars and nightclubs went from being 100% smoke-filled to being essentially smoke-free.

ansgri• 12 years ago

Greek bars, really? I've been to Thessaloniki in November, and there were few bars/restaurants with a smoke-free zones, and I cannot imagine a completely non-smoking bar there.

andreasvc2• 12 years ago

In my experience many bars do adhere to the ban, but there are exceptions where the ashtrays are on the tables in plain sight. If they get caught x number of times they have to close down though.

aestra• 12 years ago

Interesting.

I remember a while ago there was suddenly many States in the US to enact smoking bans in bars/restaurants mostly one right after another. I remember when I was in high school they passed the law in my State and they had some people interviewed on the news about it. However, while I heard about "smokeasys" existing (term comes from prohibition era speakeasys) I have never seen one and I've been to a lot of bars in many areas and various States. Some people complained but compliance was basically a non issue.

As a result, I think younger smokers are now just used to going outside to smoke, I don't know hardly anyone who smokes in their house and those that do seem to be really old. Very very few non-smokers let smokers smoke in their house, and hardly any smokers ask, they just walk outside. This wasn't the case even 15 years ago.

It wasn't really that long since the law had passed, but several (probably 6) years ago I went to the American South and I was asked "smoking or non-smoking" and it was so weird, even though that's basically how I grew up! When I was a kid teachers smoked in the teacher's lounge, in school.

However hookah bars are allowed to exist almost everywhere as far as I can tell, and I really never understood how that fits into the law.

Also a few States allow exceptions for private clubs so places like the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) allow smoking.

Also, some except casinos, for whatever weird reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_Uni...

Any other places these laws are loosely enforced?

drone• 12 years ago

However hookah bars are allowed to exist almost everywhere as far as I can tell, and I really never understood how that fits into the law.

In my city, they have a simple rule that decides whether or not smoking indoors can happen: whether or not a majority percentage of retail revenue comes from the sale of tobacco products. So, things like cigar, pipe, and hookah shops can allow indoor smoking, but virtually no bar in the city can. (Who, by law, must put a sign up indicating a majority of sales come from the sale of alcohol for consumption on-premise. You can't have both a majority of sales from alcohol and from tobacco at the same time, so cigar bars all had to create patios.)

These laws are not loosely enforced in the city, to the extent that there is a team of bureaucrats tasked with enforcing action in regards to complaints. However, whether or not every customer reports infractions, is a different story. =)

StudyAnimal• 12 years ago

What is the current situation in towns like Maastricht and Heerlen that decided to implement the residents only restriction? Was that rolled back or not?

Heliosmaster• 12 years ago

Nope. Here in Eindhoven you have to be a member to geet weed, or so I am told.

dep_b2• 12 years ago

That's true. They have limited amounts of memberships as well so a buddy that still smokes regularly visited them all in the first day he could register just to be sure.

I am now firmly convinced that the dopeheads of France will shave off their dreadlocks and start looking for a job now the cesspool of evil influence that was the Dutch liberal stance on drugs has been eradicated.

walshemj2• 12 years ago

But its basically illegal under EU law - you cant restrict trade on the basis of which EU country you come from.

pacifika• 12 years ago

As you can read from the article it's still ILLEGAL but allowed; not 'still legal' as in the link description.

It makes clarifying a confusing matter more confusing.

mcv• 12 years ago

It's sad that as most of the world is moving towards legalization, we're suddenly moving backwards.

josefresco2• 12 years ago

From the thread: "recognize the difference between tolerated and allowed" What a horrible way of governing, almost worse than the US's state vs. federal legality (at least it's officially "legal" on the state level and not just tolerated). Telling people that something is illegal but "tolerated" is a license for potential abuse by authorities. It essentially makes all prosecution a judgement call for individual authority figures. Sounds like a recipe for potential abuse to me.

fnordfnordfnord2• 12 years ago

I agree with you completely. If my very shallow understanding of the issue is correct, I think it may be because US foreign policy strongly pushes drug prohibition with its trade partners. By keeping cannabis "illegal" nations get to sort of feign compliance with US demands while having as little domestic effect as possible.

josefresco2• 12 years ago

Interesting, I didn't even think of that angle. Is there any reference to support this hypothesis? I would love to read more about how US foreign policy or aid potentially effects the laws of other countries. I could see the US getting involved with big drug export countries (e.g. Columbia) but I wonder how involved they are with others that don't play a large part in the global drug trade.

Mvandenbergh• 12 years ago

Not really because the limits of what is and what is not tolerated are not arbitrarily decided by individuals. There are clearly understood and published local guidelines, effectively this is often an end-run around national level laws that the local community collectively chooses not to enforce. A prosecution brought against someone who was within the understood, tolerated guidelines wouldn't be successful because it would contravene the principle of the rule of law (quite central to Dutch political and judicial thinking).

The crucial elements of the rule of law, predictability and detachment from individual judgement outside of established and controlled channels is maintained in the Dutch system because there exist universally understood and judicially binding methods of disseminating the local guidelines.

I'll admit that it usually isn't explained very well because it's mostly lay Dutch people explaining their understanding.

Notably, I've never heard of a case anywhere in the Netherlands where this principle has been abused.

chimeracoder• 12 years ago

Good explanation, but this title is incredibly misleading. Marijuana was never legal in the Netherlands[0], for tourists or residents. As the linked answer itself points out, it was only tolerated.

Until November 2012, there was no place in the world where marijuana was truly legal, except (possibly) North Korea[1]. Even still, it's a stretch to say that marijuana is legal in Washington State and Colorado, since the Feds could easily decide tomorrow that they want to crack down on it, and you could be arrested[2].

The distinction between legality and tolerance is important. Decriminalization and/or tolerance provide only a small subset of the benefits of true legalization. Without true legalization, you cannot have (ex.) quality control via local regulators, nor can you choke off drug cartels by undercutting one of their most profitable products. (Instead, you may even end up putting money into their pockets, depending on where you source the marijuana from - thankfully, this is less of an issue in Colorado and Washington).

Anyway, marijuana is now clearly less illegal in Colorado than in the Netherlands (in Denver, it is allowed under both city[3] and state law, though not federal law). Personally, I'm glad that the US now has its own place to go for marijuana tourism (similar to Tijuana for alcohol) - one could say that this is US protectionism at its finest!

[0] Well, at least not since the US started exporting its drug policy worldwide several decades ago.

[1] Alaska has a similar policy in private residences since 1977 due to a state court ruling on the right to privacy, but it is still illegal. North Korea has been cited as the one exception to this rule (ironically), but reports of its legality there are mixed.

[2] Look at what happened in Harborside and Oaksterdam (when cracking down on medical dispensaries, the Obama administration has used an underhanded tax catch-22 as political cover for busting shops that he previously said he'd allow, but the effect is the same).

[3] Denver legalized marijuana by city vote in 2006, and Breckenridge, CO legalized marijuana by town vote in 2009

malka4• 12 years ago

US strategy : -Make weed illegal in the entire world -Legalize weed -??? -Profit !

Crito3• 12 years ago

That is an amusingly cynical way of looking at it, but of course the reality is that there is not a single cohesive US strategy.

How smoking weed is still legal for tourists in Amsterdam

Related Stories