Patterico's Pontifications

12/7/2008

Legalization in Amsterdam

Filed under: Crime,International — DRJ @ 4:34 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

It’s not hard to find people who favor legalizing drugs or prostitution as a way to avoid crime and I agree it’s a legitimate issue for debate, but let’s see how it’s working out in the birthplace of decriminalization — Amsterdam:

“Amsterdam unveiled plans Saturday to close brothels, sex shops and marijuana cafes in its ancient city center as part of a major effort to drive organized crime out of the tourist haven.

The city is targeting businesses that “generate criminality,” including gambling parlors, and the so-called “coffee shops” where marijuana is sold openly. Also targeted are peep shows, massage parlors and souvenir shops used by drug dealers for money-laundering.”

Amsterdam doesn’t plan to ban prostitution, which has been legal since 2000, or the sale of soft drugs like marijuana that are technically illegal but have been officially tolerated since 1976. The article suggests the new plan is a response to a recent law by the Netherlands government that “would close marijuana cafes near schools citywide.” City officials will use zoning laws and regulations to close almost half of the brothels and marijuana cafes while letting Amsterdam “remain true to its freewheeling reputation.”

So Amsterdam has legalized prostitution and condones soft drug use but the city still has problems with criminality in connection with those businesses. Surely it’s not just conservatives that saw that coming.

In fairness, I think it’s good for governments to experiment with laws to see what works, and a libertarian approach to social issues is appealing. But common sense tells me that drug use and prostitution aren’t the best life choices to trust people to make wisely, and criminal elements will always be tempted to prey on those businesses and the people who use them.

The law typically allows greater regulation of inherently risky activities — things like running a zoo with wild animals or operating an explosives business — and it does that because experience has taught us that greater regulation is necessary to protect the public. In my view, drug use and prostitution fall into a high-risk category so it’s not surprising that Amsterdam — with its freewheeling approach to soft drugs and prostitution — was described 10 years ago by Theodore Dalrymple as “among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe.” Meanwhile, today’s tour guides and tourists charitably describe its Red Light District as seedy.

— DRJ

33 Responses to “Legalization in Amsterdam”

  1. We visited Amsterdam a year and a half ago. While there are beautiful parts of the city, it is more than just “seedy”. Its basically full of the dregs of Europe. Uncounted masses of street kids, none of them Dutch as far as I can tell, hang around. The image that still sticks to me is early one Sunday morning seeing a score of city workers with water trucks hosing off Damm Square.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. The problem isn’t with the legalizations themselves, but the fact that Amsterdam is the one place, that I know of, for it in all Europe. In fact, it attracts worldwide. Were such places more common, there wouldn’t be so many dregs per square mile.

    Mike Soja (760856)

  3. Comment by Mike Soja — 12/7/2008 @ 4:55 pm

    Could we say then that the legalization program in Amsterdam is sort of like “fly paper”?

    Another Drew (b4fb11)

  4. I tend to accept Dalrymple’s conclusion; that addicts are anti-social before they are addicts. My experience is far less than his but the second problem is with cocaine, the preferred substance of abusers these days. Cocaine makes users paranoid and hyperactive. The legalization argument had more better logic with heroin, which makes people passive. Cocaine also kills with cardiac effects. Heroin and morphine are compatible with a normal life for an addict supplied with the necessary drug. That is not true of cocaine.

    The methamphetamine problem is quite different as it is usually manufactured locally.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  5. I was in Amsterdam way back in 1976 I was a young kid and my parents remind me that as we walked through the red light district, prostitutes sat in the ground floor windows and I apparently would whistle at the ones that didn’t have a bra on. I don’t recall that, so I take their word for it.
    And the green channels that cut through the city had hippies living on nasty boats filled with growing marijuana plants 6 feet tall.

    They may not have been legal them but its not like it wasn’t out in the open.

    ML (14488c)

  6. So Amsterdam has legalized prostitution and condones soft drug use but the city still has problems with criminality in connection with those businesses.

    As would be true in Mexico as well if drugs were legalized there.

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  7. I will support legalization whole heatedly when the drug users stop using drugs for 5 years and drive all of the murdering drug dealers out of business. Any group of people who knowingly support gang murder do not get my support.

    tyree (a9cd3c)

  8. Were such places more common, there wouldn’t be so many dregs per square mile.

    Hmmm… wasn’t there a similar argument advanced for why socialism wasn’t working in the Soviet Union? Because not enough people were trying it?

    That kind of goes against the idea of the geographical test tube, doesn’t it? If a state or a government tries some dumb experiment and it doesn’t work, is that a good reason for MORE governments to try it???

    Gesundheit (9ca635)

  9. Oh… and the correlary arguments are “just give it more time” and “it’s not working because we haven’t legalized enough of the drugs.”

    So if it doesn’t reduce crime to pass medical marijuana – then legalize regular marijuana. And if that doesn’t work – then we need to legalize another lower level drug. Etc. Or we just need to give it another year or two or ten.

    Maybe if we recognize that people’s lives are being destroyed while we dither, we can muster the will power to not just criminalize it – but to make it socially unnacceptable. As it is, our movies and music and the celebrity culture make it all so chic.

    Gesundheit (9ca635)

  10. I’m basically a small “l” libertarian, in favor of legalizing most vices. The legalization of cannabis makes at least as much sense as the legalization of alcohol — no more likely to cause crime in its sale or use. Amsterdam is no more evidence to the contrary — as the growing and wholesaling is still illegal, and one needs “protection” to do it — than New York City was evidence that garbage pickup must go with mafia violence. At any rate, the dregs of society owe their dissipation to alcohol and narcotics — to cannabis not so much, although a drug that makes you inclined to laziness is always a risk in a welfare state.

    I do agree with the above that amphetamines and cocaine cause more serious problems with use.

    Also, Europe’s semi-legal and legal brothels have done nothing to end international trafficking and exploitation of unwitting young women. Somehow Nevada has (reportedly) avoided these problems, with heavy regulation, so it must be possible, but it certainly doesn’t seem the normal run of things anywhere else. Maybe that’s because most women won’t willingly work in prostitution unless or until they are hooked on hard drugs, whereas growing marijuana is inherently no worse than growing wheat, and working in a “coffeeshop” is no worse than working in a bar; and also because governments generally don’t care much about exploited foreigners.

    DWPittelli (7c499f)

  11. “Hmmm… wasn’t there a similar argument advanced for why socialism wasn’t working in the Soviet Union?”

    It would seem to me that the direction of the state force would be a pertinent component of the consideration. In other words, no, it’s not the same thing. Relinquishing people’s freedom back to them is not the same as trying to force an entire population to live in a giant commune.

    It’s a shame, really, so many people feeling like they have an overriding concern in what other people stick in their own bodies.

    Mike Soja (760856)

  12. I’ll be totally onboard the libertarian approach to vice the minute libertarians manage to convince the Left to not force everyone to pay for the secondary effects.

    Karl (eacece)

  13. I’ll be totally onboard the libertarian approach to vice the minute libertarians manage to convince the Left to not force everyone to pay for the secondary effects.

    Ditto, Karl.

    MayBee (d82a30)

  14. Comment by MayBee — 12/7/2008 @ 7:13 pm

    OMG!
    What would the world be coming to?
    Only RW Neanderthals would want people to be responsible for their own actions,
    and the downstream results of those actions.
    I denounce you!

    Another Drew (b4fb11)

  15. Nice Post DRJ.

    I take issue with Dalrymple’s basis for his argument against legalization, in which he states:
    Human affairs cannot be decided by an appeal to an infallible rule, expressible in a few words, whose simple application can decide all cases, including whether drugs should be freely available to the entire adult population.
    Which seems to posit an infallible rule all its own – consistency is impossible – which is then translated to the following assertion: “So the legalization of drugs cannot be supported by philosophical principle.”

    He then goes on to prove that consistency is indeed impossible, at least if you attempt to follow his arguments, anecdotes and reasoning. Its a perfect argument for allowing a select few to dictate the behaviors of everyone else, as it nicely conflates behaviors such as murder with smoking pot or shooting heroin. By making this absurd comparison, Dalrymple commits the error of lumping all anti-social behaviors together and attempting to try and apply an infallible rule to their judgment. The same error that he uses as a basis to dismiss philosophical principles as a reason for drug legalization.

    It’s also an easy way around the problematic link with the lesson of alcohol prohibition, and the evolution of the societal attitude that the consumption of a substance does not excuse a behavior. How many have argued “but I was drunk!” to try and get out of punishment for criminal behavior? “The drugs were too powerful” is simply an attempt to avoid responsibility.

    Also, I’ve been to Amsterdam, and I’ll tell you the reason for the levels of ‘criminality’.

    Law enforcement in Amsterdam is a joke. Criminals will fill voids in any society when law enforcement takes a vacation or is not allowed to properly function. It’s not the drugs. It’s not the prostitutes. It’s the fact that the police have no capability, authority or responsibility to deal with criminal behavior.

    Strengthen law enforcement, organize transparent oversight, and crime will decrease.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  16. But Apogee, how can one enforce law and order when the rules imply law and order itself is a negative? The police are only doing what the public has endorsed.

    Also, Dalrymple wrote an article about the folly of lowering the drinking age to “cure” drunkenness. Now there is an entire generation of Brits who are dreaded as tourists and feared as lethally drunken madmen at home.

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  17. Apogee,

    I’ve been to Amsterdam, too, and I don’t agree the problem is law enforcement. The police, customs, etc., seem competent to me but the government has decided not to pursue enforcement of “lesser” crimes. IMO that goes hand-in-hand with decriminalization and I don’t see how you can decriminalize the small stuff and then argue stricter enforcement would take care of any problems.

    However, I won’t argue with you on the philosophical point because I don’t think anyone has a winning argument. I linked Dalrymple’s article because I liked his quote about Amsterdam and I also think he has some interesting ideas, but I don’t think we can decide the issue of legalization based solely on a philosophical analysis.

    To me, the question is what works and what doesn’t. I don’t think decriminalization works now but at some point we will have the genetic and/or biomedical tools to protect people from addictions. This debate may change completely when that happens.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  18. “Any group of people who knowingly support gang murder do not get my support.”

    Like SWAT teams, Drug task forces, police departments in general?

    #12 I’ll be totally onboard the libertarian approach to vice the minute libertarians manage to convince the Left to not force everyone to pay for the secondary effects.”

    You mean like we all have to pay for the effects of boozers today, or how about what we are forced to pay to enforce the unenforceable laws a few people created to massage the behavior of many?

    As I read the article about Amsterdam, I get that there are problems in the red light district, but it seems most of those problems being discussed are stemming around the whore houses, where another pointed out, where Joran van der Sloot can sell off his excess inventory.

    Drugs and the use of drugs is of course all around that problem as well, but it seems, though not discussed in the article, drugs is almost a side issue surrounding the proposed “clean up”.

    I see little difference if the name of the city was changed to New Orleans and the French Quarter. Just like NO, that city also has performed some clean up activities.

    But of course it’s more fun to just throw all this drug discussion into Black and White sound bites rather than actually having a discussion. So carry on.

    TC (0b9ca4)

  19. Apogee,

    It’s true that the Amsterdam police have a prior history of corruption in the lower ranks. But if that’s your argument, I’m unclear how can you be sure that isn’t a consequence of decriminalization — especially since it coincides with the period (late 70’s) when decriminalization was adopted?

    EDIT: The more I think about it, the less I really know about law enforcement in Amsterdam and the Netherlands but I’m interested in learning more on this subject. Help me understand why you think the problem is the police, because the changes mentioned in the article suggest the local governments blame the drugs and brothels instead of the police.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  20. So the result of legalization is organized crime. Anyone surprised by this should do some serious thinking.

    Bleepless (3352ff)

  21. A couple thoughts I have on this, toleration is notquite the same thing as legal. If the shops have to go to some illegal supplier then sure you’re going to have criminals get in that arena, probably even the legal outlet and not just the middle. The entire supply chain needs to have an oppurtunity to be legitimate in order to force criminals out.

    On the prostitution side, I wonder if getting rid of the brothels while still allowing prostitution, a la Rhode Island wouldn’t be a better solution. I haven’t seen anything on whether RI’s setup works or not.

    Soronel Haetir (644722)

  22. Patricia – 7:33 . . .how can one enforce law and order when the rules imply law and order itself is a negative?
    My response to this is illustrated by DRJ 7:38pm:
    . . . the government has decided not to pursue enforcement of “lesser” crimes.
    These are at once separate, but interlinked ideas. Decriminalization of drugs and prostitution renders them just that – non-criminal. The poor response of law enforcement to the remaining criminal acts is what has caused an increase in criminal behavior. I do believe in the ‘broken windows’ theory of crime prevention, but that name derives from petty criminals breaking other peoples’ windows, not their own.

    There seems to be considerable confusion of crimes that are perpetrated on others against their will with behaviors that amount to business transactions that implicitly contain negative potential complications. We tend to view risky behavior as acceptable as long as it doesn’t directly affect others. Skydiving kills approximately 30 people a year. As well, around 100 people are killed and 1000 injured each year Scuba Diving. How many were killed last year by prostitutes? How many drug related deaths were directly caused by the connection with the illegality of the substance? What are the benefits to society from skydiving? Scuba diving? Getting high? Getting off? None of these activities are forced upon the participants.

    One can argue that the perception of the legalization of what used to be criminal behavior results in the lax enforcement of existing laws, but that should correct over time, as evidenced in the ups and downs of the US crime rate, despite the existence of prostitution and gambling in Nevada. Dalrymple didn’t know what to make of Nevada, so he simply mentioned it and then moved on. The spread of legalized gambling across much of America where it was illegal before should, according to this theory, have skyrocketed the US crime rate, but it didn’t.

    Dalrymple’s argument that Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers, is also a perfect illustration of why both gambling and alcohol should be illegal, among a host of other risky behaviors. But they’re not, and rather than concoct excuses for personal behavior, society is focused on treating people who abuse these practices, rather than punishing them. As DRJ pointed out, the understanding of the sources of addictive behavior is growing daily, and may make this debate moot, as it really is addiction we’re talking about here. This occurred primarily because society was not distracted with punishment. Also, in case no one was noticing, the liquor companies are sponsoring charitable treatment facilities and gambling has gone corporate, pushing out the mob.

    Remember, we’re talking addiction and regular use. Are there any skydiving addicts? Scuba users? Heliskiing slaves? Surfing sufferers? It’s no surprise that Dalrymple is from England, the front runner in the nanny state race, and that he worked with mental patients and prisoners – not a representative sample of humanity. His prediction that the lowering of the drinking age in England would result in hoards of young drunken hooligans was proven true.

    However, the drinking age is 18 in Ireland, and has been for a while. There has been an increase in problems with binge drinking in Ireland over the last decade – coincidentally linked to the emergence of the Celtic Tiger’s new prosperity. Since the drinking age hasn’t changed, how to explain the upswing in hoards of drunken hooligans? Perhaps its possible to make an accurate prediction based on an incorrect theory.

    DRJ, I agree with you in your pragmatism as to what works.

    I would argue with you that decriminalization works, and that it is not only possible to legalize drug use and prostitution, but it is imperative that they are legalized. At the same time it is also imperative that coercive criminal acts, no matter how small, are punished with vigor by law enforcement. This is quite possible due to the freeing up of the available resources that are now spent on chasing consensual transactions.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  23. DRJ – Wow, you slipped in that edit on #19, you omnipotent one, and I didn’t even notice it.

    My source for the opinion on law enforcement is dated early 90’s, and entirely hearsay. When I spent some time in Amsterdam, early on in the trip I was with a woman and we were speaking to a bartender, and he made the remark about the police being a ‘joke’. I thought this interesting, and continued to ask people their opinion on this matter.

    The answers were almost unanimous – the police were not respected, and primarily existed for show only. They said that serious crimes needed outside investigators to help solve. The opinions were striking for me, which is why I remembered them.

    This may have changed, but the problem would still be the enforcement of the coercive crimes (along with smuggling – as #21 points out so well – the entire drug supply chain must be legalized, and from existing legal producers) that give the criminal element their ability to conduct business. Blaming legal industries is always the action taken by corrupt politicians in order to cover their failures – see District of Columbia vs. Beretta et al. – and it’s on the rise in PC Europe. It’s always easier to squash the rights of the law abiding citizens, because the criminals just don’t care about breaking the law.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  24. Marijuana is NOT legal in Netherlands, it is tolerated; that is a huge difference. Growing is still illegal, and that is the source of the crime regarding the drug. Dutch mayors have recently had a meeting and the outcome was they wish the growing to be legalized, and therefore regulated, which would remove the criminal element (a legal, regulated market for growing marijuana would remove the profit element and therefore the criminal element). However, the right-wing majority, the Christian Democrats, oppose such a move. So the source of the criminal element — and profits — is that marijuana remains illegal to grow.

    As far as prostitution, I don’t know one way or the other.

    Personally, I find Den Haag much more attractive than Amsterdam; I can’t stand a filthy city. For example, Den Haag recently passed a law that will fine you almost 100 Euros for dropping a cigarette butt or chewing gum on the street, if they catch you. Den Haag’s (new) lack of tolerance on these matters is probably due to the World Court and the seat of Dutch government located there; whatever the reason, I support it. Freedom doesn’t mean we have to live in a mess.

    Dan (099431)

  25. Further clarification to my comment #24, above, from this link, which I just came across:

    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/12/no_legal_marijuana_production.php

    No legal marijuana production

    Monday 08 December 2008

    Hopes by some city councils that the government will allow trials of legal marijuana production to supply cannabis cafes were dashed on Monday when the ChristenUnie party said it was ‘out of the question’.

    The minor coalition government party says the experiment would break the coalition agreement, which includes the proviso that there be no changes in drugs policy.

    Labour, the second of the three coalition parties, does back the plan, drawn up by mayors at a conference last month.

    Dan (099431)

  26. “But common sense tells me that drug use and prostitution aren’t the best life choices to trust people to make wisely, and criminal elements will always be tempted to prey on those businesses and the people who use them”

    Sure, because my individual rights are contingent on the state Trusting me to effect my agency wisely, and since I can’t be trusted they should just take responsibility for me like any good parent would.

    And you know, since the building, transportation, police services, waste management and every arena of human enterprise and trade has been polluted from time to time by criminality, perhaps we should just put the state in charge of proscribing all possible behaviors in the private sector.

    It’s just common sense.

    Ugh.

    Drew (491af1)

  27. Drew,

    The law prevents children from taking loaded guns to school, fines people who don’t wear seat belts when they drive, oversees food preparation in our restaurants, and regulates the manufacturing and sale of legal drugs in our pharmacies. These are all things that were absent in our forefathers lives but I bet you approve of most of them.

    So the question isn’t whether we have regulations in our lives but how much regulation we have. I think it’s reasonable to discuss where to draw the lines and reasonable people can disagree on those points. But the fact that you and I may disagree on where to draw those lines doesn’t make one of us disgusting, no matter how many “Ughs” you type.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  28. “perhaps we should just put the state in charge of proscribing all possible behaviors in the private sector.”

    After reading his comment, it sounds like Drew may need this level of nanny state supervision.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  29. Apogee,

    I apologize for the EDIT and I wasn’t trying to ambush you. I wanted you to see my additional thoughts when you responded to that comment, but I guess it ended up doing the opposite.

    I certainly understand the law enforcement issues that could result from a supply side that is illegal and a demand side that is legal. Maybe you are right that the police need to do more, but I don’t see how you can say you believe in the “broken windows” theory of enforcement while also advocating decriminalization of demand for prostitution and soft drugs. The only way you can take that position is if you believe that legalizing these activities renders them harmless pursuits, like going to a movie or buying a pizza. Maybe that’s true for some people but I don’t think that’s generally true.

    Of course, we won’t solve this issue here but my point was to cast doubt on the theory that Amsterdam is proof decriminalization works. You’ve raised points that suggest it might still work and I’m willing to keep an open mind, but for now I think the jury is still out.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  30. Comment by daleyrocks — 12/8/2008 @ 4:09 pm
    Well, if Drew doesn’t, mariO and liesntyranny definitely do.

    Another Drew (e451ab)

  31. What doesn’t work is to have use tolerated, and production illegal. Can’t have it both ways; that invites organized crime. Either make use illegal (stupid, of course) or continue to allow (“tolerate”) use and make the production legal. However, the Christian Democrats say “No” to legal production, ,so they are like conservative parties worldwide — they make no sense. People of The Netherlands: give the Christian Democrats the boot and bring full legality and common sense to your country!

    Me, again (099431)

  32. So you legalize prostitution. Tax them, make them get health checks.

    And an underground prostitution business will quickly develop to bypass the above. So should the government give up?

    No, I believe government is obliged to intervene. But it is obliged to intervene WISELY, vigorously enforcing appropriate restrictions.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  33. […] I know you don’t want to hear about other countries but you might find this article interesting even if it doesn’t answer your question. The part about not being legal but tolerated is the way I see it here in the US because while it is not legal the law does tend to turn the other way unless it is a major bust. Patterico’s Pontifications Legalization in Amsterdam […]

    Taxing Cannabis - Page 3 (5d9eed)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0989 secs.