FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Turning Back Time

by JOHN SINCLAIR

420 Caf?, Amsterdam.

When I got back to Amsterdam last week and checked into my headquarters at the 420 Caf?, I received an urgent message from the proprietor, Michael Veling, in response to my last column, which talked about attempts to restrict access to cannabis in the Netherlands:

Mike has owned and operated the 420 Caf? (formerly Caf? deKuil) for more than 20 years and has been a cannabis activist even longer. He’s worked through the coffeeshop registration edicts of the mid-1990s, the imposition of the on-site 500-gram limit, the reduction from 30 to five allowable grams per consumer, the replacement of Dutch currency with the euro in 2000, the banning of alcohol sales in coffeeshops in 2007 (deKuil was a bar for 100 years or so), and the proscription against tobacco smoking the next year. Through it all, he has conformed with official policy while maintaining a successful establishment that supplies its patrons with the finest of weed and hash in a friendly, comfortable environment.

Mike was also a founder of Amsterdam’s coffeeshop coalition, Cannabis Bond, and is a careful observer of the political scene as it pertains to the local cannabis culture. For several years he was active in the local branch of the (then) Dutch ruling party, the Christian Democrats (CDA) ? sort of equivalent to the Republicans in America ? and served a term as deputy to a CDA Amsterdam council member in order to force the party to accept a coffeeshop owner into its ranks despite the party’s traditional stance against cannabis legalization.

So when Mike dismissed the current government’s plan to turn the coffeeshops into private clubs, “accessible only to people officially living in the Netherlands” (DutchNews.nl) in order to “reduce drugs-related tourism and public nuisance,” I felt better already, because the several people I’d spoken with before leaving town had been uniformly pessimistic about the chances for survival of the established system that works so well for everyone except the anti-drug fanatics in Parliament.

I’m still trying to get my head around the proposal, because it seems totally idiotic and so drastically un-Dutch. It seems to stem from a 2009 study by a government commission, which found that “the bigger the coffee shops get, the more likely they are to be in the hands of organized crime. To that end, the commission recommended cafes become smaller and should only sell to locals,” according to DutchNews.nl.

“The government is also planning to increase efforts to drive organized crime out of the production and trade of marijuana. … The illegal growing industry is thought to be worth some 2 billion euros [$2,840,000,000] a year. According to the Dutch newspaper Telegraaf, some 40,000 people are involved in marijuana cultivation and some 5,000 plantations are busted every year.”

Duh! Under the present system, where retail sale of cannabis is permitted but cultivation and distribution remain strictly illegal (beyond the five plants adults are allowed to cultivate for their own use), growing marijuana is organized crime per se.

If cannabis were fully legalized, organized crime would be replaced by an above-ground industry that would employ thousands of people and generate enormous tax revenues for the Dutch coffers from the cannabis businesses themselves, the personal income taxes of the owners and operators, and the employment and earnings taxes on the workers.

The current government seems to have been emboldened by a ruling from European Union (EU) Advocate General Yves Bot, who said the Netherlands was within its rights to ban tourists from coffee shops if the move is necessary to protect public order and reduce the nuisance caused by drugs tourism. Bot felt further that the Dutch ban would contribute to the EU’s efforts to combat the illegal drugs trade.

The border town of Maastricht has already closed its coffee shops to tourists on the “public nuisance” tip, while Roosendaal and Bergen op Zoom have banned coffeeshops altogether. Currently the Council of State, Holland’s highest court, has appealed to the European judiciary to determine whether the Maastricht ban conflicts with EU laws.

Finally, DutchNews.nl reports with a straight face, “Ministers say they expect the closure of coffee shops to tourists will lead to a reduction in drugs-related tourism. Nevertheless, ‘adequate measures’ will be taken by police and officials to make sure the move does not lead to an increase in street dealing.” Hmmm, sounds like they wanna embrace the American Dream of a real War on Drugs with a powerful police state apparatus to hound the tourists and their street-level suppliers.

Let’s get one thing straight: When they say “drugs-related tourism” they’re talking about people who come to Holland to smoke pot ? or, in the case of the border towns, to cop some weed over the counter and take it back to Belgium or Germany or France and smoke it at home. If my memory serves, the little city of Maastricht itself took in about 13 million euros (about $18,500,000) last year from “drugs-related tourism.”

My informants, including Michael Veling, Ravi Dronkers of the Sensi Seeds combine and Sidney Daniels of Ceres Seeds and the Hempshopper, have pointed out that the figures cited by the Telegraaf ? 40,000 people involved in marijuana cultivation generating 2 billion worth of business ? are ridiculously underestimated, and predict that the numbers would increase exponentially if cultivation and wholesale distribution were fully legalized.

The really sick thing is that this reactionary move by the Dutch government takes place in the face of the recent call by the official Global Commission on Drug Policy for an end to the War on Drugs, to shift “from criminalization to public health and from incarceration to … decriminalization to legalization and regulation.”

There has been a long string of officially commissioned studies that have basically reached the same conclusion, but this international commission includes “four former presidents, United Nations dignitaries, authors and intellectuals, health and security officials, NGO directors and entrepreneurs.”

The run-up to the War on Drugs began 50 years ago, in 1961, when the United Nations initiated the UN Single Drug Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Ten years later, on June 17, 1971, Richard Nixon declared: “America’s public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out … worldwide offensive.”

“So began a war,” Charles M. Blow wrote in The New York Times, “that has waxed and waned, sputtered and sprinted, until it became an unmitigated disaster, an abomination of justice and a self-perpetuating, trillion-dollar economy of wasted human capital, ruined lives and decimated communities … one of the biggest, most expensive, most destructive social policy experiments in American history: The war on drugs.”

Since 1971, more than 40 million arrests have been conducted for drug-related offenses. And, according to UN estimates, between 1998 and 2008, annual consumption has grown by 34.5 percent for opiates, 27 percent for cocaine and 8.5 percent for cannabis, whose users worldwide number 160 million.

That’s an awful lot of us, and maybe our screams of pain as victims of the War on Drugs are beginning to be heard and maybe even heeded. It’s about time!

John Sinclair, founder of the White Panthers, is a poet. His latest book is It’s All Good.

 

 

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
June 23, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Democrats in the Dead Zone
Gary Leupp
Trump, Qatar and the Danger of Total Confusion
Andrew Levine
The “Democracies” We Deserve
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
The FBI’s “Operation Backfire” and the Case of Briana Waters
Rob Urie
Cannibal Corpse
Joseph G. Ramsey
Savage Calculations: On the Exoneration of Philando Castile’s Killer
John Wight
Trump’s Attack on Cuba
Dave Lindorff
We Need a Mass Movement to Demand Radical Progressive Change
Brian Cloughley
Moving Closer to Doom
David Rosen
The Sex Offender: the 21st Century Witch
John Feffer
All Signs Point to Trump’s Coming War With Iran
Jennifer L. Lieberman
What’s Really New About the Gig Economy?
Pete Dolack
Analyzing the Failures of Syriza
Vijay Prashad
The Russian Nexus
Mike Whitney
Putin Tries to Avoid a Wider War With the US
Gregory Barrett
“Realpolitik” in Berlin: Merkel Fawns Over Kissinger
Louis Yako
The Road to Understanding Syria Goes Through Iraq
Graham Peebles
Grenfell Tower: A Disaster Waiting to Happen
Ezra Rosser
The Poverty State of Mind and the State’s Obligations to the Poor
Ron Jacobs
Andrew Jackson and the American Psyche
Pepe Escobar
Fear and Loathing on the Afghan Silk Road
Andre Vltchek
Why I Reject Western Courts and Justice
Lawrence Davidson
On Hidden Cultural Corruptors
Christopher Brauchli
The Routinization of Mass Shootings in America
Missy Comley Beattie
The Poor Need Not Apply
Martin Billheimer
White Man’s Country and the Iron Room
Joseph Natoli
What to Wonder Now
Tom Clifford
Hong Kong: the Chinese Meant Business
Thomas Knapp
The Castile Doctrine: Cops Without Consequences
Nyla Ali Khan
Borders Versus Memory
Binoy Kampmark
Death on the Road: Memory in Tim Winton’s Shrine
Tony McKenna
The Oily Politics of Unity: Owen Smith as Northern Ireland Shadow Secretary
Nizar Visram
If North Korea Didn’t Exist US Would Create It
John Carroll Md
At St. Catherine’s Hospital, Cite Soleil, Haiti
Kenneth Surin
Brief Impressions of the Singaporean Conjucture
Paul C. Bermanzohn
Trump: the Birth of the Hero
Jill Richardson
Trump on Cuba: If Obama Did It, It’s Bad
Olivia Alperstein
Our President’s Word Wars
REZA FIYOUZAT
Useless Idiots or Useful Collaborators?
Clark T. Scott
Parallel in Significance
Louis Proyect
Hitler and the Lone Wolf Assassin
Julian Vigo
Theresa May Can’t Win for Losing
Richard Klin
Prog Rock: Pomp and Circumstance
Charles R. Larson
Review: Malin Persson Giolito’s “Quicksand”
David Yearsley
RIP: Pomp and Circumstance
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail