May 20, 2005

MAASTRICHT, Netherlands, May 20 (Reuters) - Tourists hoping to buy a cannabis joint in Dutch coffee shops could be in for a rude awakening this year under a test plan to curb drug tourism.

Soft drugs are legally banned in the Netherlands but under its policy of "tolerance", people are allowed to have less than 5 grammes of cannabis in their possession. Government-regulated coffee shops can hold a stock of up to 500 grammes.

"We are developing a system whereby people not registered in the Netherlands will not be allowed into coffee shops," Justice Ministry spokesman Ivo Hommes said. A pilot project will start up in Maastricht, on the southern tip of the Netherlands.

"We want to do this to combat drugs tourism and should be able to start the project this summer," he said.

Maastricht, bordering Germany and Belgium, attracts the largest number of tourists in the Netherlands after Amsterdam, many of them French, Germans and Belgians on short breaks.

They include an estimated 1.5 million drug tourists, the city's Mayor Gerd Leers said on Friday at a conference on tackling the cross-border soft drugs problem.

Some 400,000 cannabis smokers live in the Netherlands, where they can openly buy and smoke the drug, to the ire of neighbouring countries. The Dutch population is 16 million.

The centre-right government now wants to curb drugs tourism, in part due to pressure from its European partners.

The number of coffee shops has been cut to 754 nationwide in 2003 from 1,200 in 1997, according to the latest figures from the Netherlands Trimbos institute for addiction studies.

The government also hopes to stub out the illegal growing of hemp plants and sale of soft drugs by criminal groups.

"As member of parliament in The Hague, I thought it was possible to get rid of cannabis by taking hard measures. But after having been mayor of Maastricht for three years I see that it does not work," Leers said.

WATER BED EFFECT

"It's a 'water bed effect' if you push down on one part the problems pop up somewhere else," he said.

He said the tough approach did not work, likening it to the prohibition of alcohol in the United States in the 1920s, which he said was a "a textbook example of a failed experiment in social engineering".

Maastricht, which has about a dozen authorised coffee shops, is discussing details of the pilot with the Justice Ministry, which could involve user registration and identification.

But coffee shops fear the rules will create more problems and chase buyers into the illegal circuit.

"If coffee shops have to carry out controls at the door, people who don't want to register will turn to the illegal circuit. We think nuisance will only increase," the chairman of the association of official coffee shops of Maastricht, Marc Josemans, told the conference.

"Legalise it," was his suggestion.

I think the cowards are terrified of the monster they've created. Those people that they have made froth mouthed with their propaganda and those they have made rich and dangerous in the prison industrial complex and the industries that create police "toys", and certainly not least, the well armed and huge militarized enforcement groups they have created.

Typo? Freudian slip? I retract the "Scotch-Driving Pols" title: no accusation about irresponsible alcohol use was intended!

Why other, than superstitious, political propaganda about being "tough on crime," is cannabis held to such a much higher standard than any other medicine, social lubricant, or activity? If cannabis were still legal, it would not *be* a crime to possess, sell or grow it. Therefore, "tough on crime" would not apply. "Tough on crime" is a circular argument: *it's a crime because it's a crime, and it should stay a crime because it is a crime.*

Duh! At one time driving over 55 mph was a crime, but evidence that increasing the speed limit did not increase accidents caused a re-evaluation of the *crime* and the limit was increased. Now, in some places driving between 55 mph and 65 mph is no longer a crime. If the logic of cannabis prohibition had been applied to speed limits, we would still be saddled with an unrealistically low 55 mph speed limit.

Why is it that politicians, federal and otherwise, can repeal the *crime* of driving between 55 mph and 65 mph and not be afraid of being called "soft on crime," but when it comes to cannabis reform, they scurry into the corners and hide their heads in the sand, hoping that their constituents will spare them from the chopping block? With popular support for medical cannabis over 70%, surely they can bend with the changing wind and let cannabis reform out of committees and onto the floors of Congress where it belongs. Otherwise, they will increasingly be targeted for replacement by an impatient constituency!

Of course! They can't encourage smoking, but they're happy to encourage you to destroy the lining of your digestive tract with NSAIDS. They'll glady encourage you to ingest toxic drugs for 30 or 40 years so that you'll have no liver or kidneys left.

This is further support for my position that the FDA, CSA, etc, etc, NEVER should have been passed. Give me herbs, drugs, and medicine totally unregulated by GOVERNMENT. Let Consumer Reports, or Public Citizen, or whomever, offer an independent drugs ratings service. They could charge $200 per year as a subscription to the service or something. It seems like Public Citizen is doing a better job at investigating drugs than the FDA, and probably for a lot less money. No taxpayer money at all, as a matter of fact.