Quote from: ReutersDutch government to ban tourists from cannabis shops
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – The Dutch government on Friday said it would start banning tourists from buying cannabis from "coffee shops" and impose restrictions on Dutch customers by the end of the year.
The Netherlands is well known for having one of Europe's most liberal soft drug policies that has made its cannabis shops a popular tourist attraction, particularly in Amsterdam.
Backed by the far-right party of anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders, the coalition government that came into power last year announced plans to curb drug tourism as part of a nationwide program to promote health and fight crime.
"In order to tackle the nuisance and criminality associated with coffee shops and drug trafficking, the open-door policy of coffee shops will end," the Dutch health and justice ministers wrote in a letter to the country's parliament on Friday.
Under the new rules, only Dutch residents will be able to sign up as members of cannabis shops.
Dutch customers will have to sign up for at least a year's membership and each shop would be expected to have only up to 1,500 members, a justice ministry spokesman said.
The policy will roll out in the southern provinces of Limburg, Noord Brabant and Zeeland by the end of the year and the rest of the country next year, the spokesman said.
Amsterdam, home to about 220 coffee shops, is already in the process of closing some in its red light district. Some officials have resisted the measures, saying they will push the soft drug trade underground.
Some Dutch border towns including Maastricht and Terneuzen have already restricted the sale of marijuana to foreigners.
(Reporting by Greg Roumeliotis and Gilbert Kreijger; Editing by Andrew Heavens)
Don't these stupid euros realize that legalizing drugs prevents and eliminates most crime?!? The taxes alone make it worthwhile to keep drugs legal. :secret:
The problem is that the Dutch idea of crime is too much scheisse porn and too high prices for tulip bulbs. They'll riot in the streets for overpriced cocoa.
I wonder what effects it does have compared to say, Belgium or Luxembourg.
Looks like portugal is gonna get a surge of tourists.
Quote from: Strix on May 27, 2011, 09:12:58 PM
Don't these stupid euros realize that legalizing drugs prevents and eliminates most crime?!? The taxes alone make it worthwhile to keep drugs legal. :secret:
Not really sure what crime they are trying to prevent besides exporting of their drugs to other countries where it is illegal.
There goes all their tourist income. Why else did they think people traveled there? The cheese and tulips? :P
Good news for Portugal I guess. They should really put some heavy advertising into being the new drug land with Amsterdam being killed.
Stupid move from the Dutch though. Sure, the pothead tourists were annoying, but they hardly ruined the place and brought in a lot of business. Liberalisation of drug laws is a good thing (tm).
I'm doubting the legality of this move even...its against EU law to restrict access just to Dutch citizens.
Quote from: Tyr on May 28, 2011, 05:23:43 AM
I'm doubting the legality of this move even...its against EU law to restrict access just to Dutch citizens.
It may be justified on the basis that these are clubs, not businesses. Not sure how that will fly given the nudge-nudge-wink-wink nature of the "clubs," but it should be kept in mind that these measures are for political effect, not as law enforcement measures. Even if the laws themselves are struck down, they will have had the desired political effect.
It seems like wherever I go, restrictions follow. :lol:
I went to Chichinitza some years ago and climbed up the pyramid and the next year the Mexican government stopped tourists from climbing up.
I was in Amsterdam twice in the last 10 years and visited those coffee shops (to buy coffee of course) and now that's banned.
LOL...what shall I do next? :hmm:
Quote from: Josephus on May 28, 2011, 07:52:38 AM
It seems like wherever I go, restrictions follow. :lol:
I went to Chichinitza some years ago and climbed up the pyramid and the next year the Mexican government stopped tourists from climbing up.
I was in Amsterdam twice in the last 10 years and visited those coffee shops (to buy coffee of course) and now that's banned.
LOL...what shall I do next? :hmm:
Pretty soon, fat Americans will be following you to Cuba. HAHA
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2011, 07:58:54 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 28, 2011, 07:52:38 AM
It seems like wherever I go, restrictions follow. :lol:
I went to Chichinitza some years ago and climbed up the pyramid and the next year the Mexican government stopped tourists from climbing up.
I was in Amsterdam twice in the last 10 years and visited those coffee shops (to buy coffee of course) and now that's banned.
LOL...what shall I do next? :hmm:
That will happen in the not-to-distant future.
Pretty soon, fat Americans will be following you to Cuba. HAHA
Quote from: Josephus on May 28, 2011, 08:13:06 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2011, 07:58:54 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 28, 2011, 07:52:38 AM
It seems like wherever I go, restrictions follow. :lol:
I went to Chichinitza some years ago and climbed up the pyramid and the next year the Mexican government stopped tourists from climbing up.
I was in Amsterdam twice in the last 10 years and visited those coffee shops (to buy coffee of course) and now that's banned.
LOL...what shall I do next? :hmm:
That will happen in the not-to-distant future.
Pretty soon, fat Americans will be following you to Cuba. HAHA
Quote from: Josephus on May 28, 2011, 07:52:38 AM
It seems like wherever I go, restrictions follow. :lol:
Oh my god, me too. Went to Massachusetts and you could smoke in bars and restaurants. Can't do that anymore. Then I went to London and you can't smoke in pubs anymore either. Went back to California and you could hold your cell phone in your hands while driving - no longer! Now I'm in New York and you could smoke in parks - but no longer. Funny how all those restrictions follow me. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on May 28, 2011, 12:21:40 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 28, 2011, 07:52:38 AM
It seems like wherever I go, restrictions follow. :lol:
Oh my god, me too. Went to Massachusetts and you could smoke in bars and restaurants. Can't do that anymore. Then I went to London and you can't smoke in pubs anymore either. Went back to California and you could hold your cell phone in your hands while driving - no longer! Now I'm in New York and you could smoke in parks - but no longer. Funny how all those restrictions follow me. :lol:
You need to spend more time in continental Europe. They could use a man with your powers.
Quote from: Tyr on May 28, 2011, 05:23:43 AMI'm doubting the legality of this move even...its against EU law to restrict access just to Dutch citizens.
The ECJ disagrees with your assessment.
I am thinking the Dutch may not miss Cheech and Chong that much. :hmm:
A friend of mine studied for his physiotherapy degree down in Holland, and enjoyed the weed, but letting, say, Northern Europeans (Scandis and Englishmen) loose in an environment where you're supposed to show personal responsibility with regards to alcohol or drugs is a bad, bad idea. Half of the students from Norway flunked out and ended up with little else than a nice collection of pipes and some interesting t-shirts.
What this story proves, I am not sure of.
Quote from: Tyr on May 28, 2011, 05:23:43 AM
Good news for Portugal I guess. They should really put some heavy advertising into being the new drug land with Amsterdam being killed.
I don't think they will since there are enough drunk Northern Europeans causing trouble. What party would promote that policy ? :D
It wouldn't be enough to curb the deficit, anyways. ;)
Quote from: Tyr on May 28, 2011, 05:23:43 AM
Liberalisation of drug laws is a good thing (tm).
How do you figure that? By all logic, liberalisation of drug laws will lead to increased drug use. No society benefits from increase in drug use.
Quote from: Bluebook on May 29, 2011, 08:41:15 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 28, 2011, 05:23:43 AM
Liberalisation of drug laws is a good thing (tm).
How do you figure that? By all logic, liberalisation of drug laws will lead to increased drug use. No society benefits from increase in drug use.
No, but that's hardly the only factor that needs to be evaluated when deciding how strict drug laws will be.
Quote from: Bluebook on May 29, 2011, 08:41:15 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 28, 2011, 05:23:43 AM
Liberalisation of drug laws is a good thing (tm).
How do you figure that? By all logic, liberalisation of drug laws will lead to increased drug use. No society benefits from increase in drug use.
Actually, by all logic, legalization of specific drugs doesn't lead to increased drug use. It can change the mix of drugs used (current laws favor alcohol use, which is one of the worst drugs out there in both social and health costs), but it doesn't increase overall use.
Druggies will be druggies. What an intelligent and logical society will do is channel their craving for drugs into the least-costly mix.
Quote from: grumbler on May 29, 2011, 09:13:04 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on May 29, 2011, 08:41:15 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 28, 2011, 05:23:43 AM
Liberalisation of drug laws is a good thing (tm).
How do you figure that? By all logic, liberalisation of drug laws will lead to increased drug use. No society benefits from increase in drug use.
Actually, by all logic, legalization of specific drugs doesn't lead to increased drug use. It can change the mix of drugs used (current laws favor alcohol use, which is one of the worst drugs out there in both social and health costs), but it doesn't increase overall use.
:lol:
You know, I see that touted by you pot-heads all the time, but I rarely see it backed up by hard facts.
I wonder what a society that had the same amount of heroin or meth addicts as we do alcoholics (or indeed any moderate-to-heavy users given the addictiveness of heroin) would look like. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on May 29, 2011, 09:13:04 AM
Actually, by all logic, legalization of specific drugs doesn't lead to increased drug use. It can change the mix of drugs used (current laws favor alcohol use, which is one of the worst drugs out there in both social and health costs), but it doesn't increase overall use.
Druggies will be druggies. What an intelligent and logical society will do is channel their craving for drugs into the least-costly mix.
So your argument is that drug use in a society is constant, and the only thing that is variable is the ratio of drugs being consumed? If one drug is removed, all users will switch over to some other drug. If a new drug is introduced, no new drug users appear, instead some users will discard their current drug and switch to the new one?
Sorry, Im not buying that, in fact I find the theory ludicrous.
Quote from: Tyr on May 29, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
You've never seen it backed up by facts? It usually is.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emcdda.europa.eu%2Fattachements.cfm%2Fatt_110769_EN_GPS-g03.gif&hash=d839670a9587e3e9271d07e197d56202388c2bd3)
Note how low the Netherlands are.
Certainly when I was studying in Amsterdam very few Dutch I met did weed. It was seen as downright uncool even.
What does that graph represent?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2011, 09:06:59 AM
No, but that's hardly the only factor that needs to be evaluated when deciding how strict drug laws will be.
Ive never said it is the only factor that needs to be evaluated. It is one very important factor to consider though.
You've never seen it backed up by facts? It usually is.
Percent of 15-24 year olds that are cannabis users:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emcdda.europa.eu%2Fattachements.cfm%2Fatt_110769_EN_GPS-g03.gif&hash=d839670a9587e3e9271d07e197d56202388c2bd3)
Note how low the Netherlands are.
Certainly when I was studying in Amsterdam very few Dutch I met did weed. It was seen as downright uncool even.
QuoteI don't think they will since there are enough drunk Northern Europeans causing trouble. What party would promote that policy ?
It wouldn't be enough to curb the deficit, anyways.
Doesn't Portugal already have super liberal drug laws? Just need to promote it a bit...
Quote from: Tyr on May 29, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
You've never seen it backed up by facts? It usually is.
Note how low the Netherlands are.
:lol:
So you're posting an image with no indication of what the values are, with ostensibly only one age group taken into account, where countries with far more repressive laws on drug use have fewer users than Netherlands.
And you expect to be taken seriously?
Quote from: Tyr on May 29, 2011, 09:40:05 AM
Percent of 15-24 year olds that are cannabis users:
I would like to know more about it. I could perhaps use it in the future. Is this self-identified users? How is "user" defined? One-time users or constant users? Are there similar graphs for other age groups? What is the source?
Quote from: Slargos on May 29, 2011, 09:41:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 29, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
You've never seen it backed up by facts? It usually is.
Note how low the Netherlands are.
:lol:
So you're posting an image with no indication of what the values are, with ostensibly only one age group taken into account, where countries with far more repressive laws on drug use have fewer users than Netherlands.
And you expect to be taken seriously?
Yes.
The UK, Denmark, Belgium and maybe France and Germany are most comparable to the Netherlands and they have stricter laws and higher use.
Below the Netherlands are conservative, mostly poor countries. And super rural and weird Sweden and Finland.
Quote from: Bluebook on May 29, 2011, 09:44:03 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 29, 2011, 09:40:05 AM
Percent of 15-24 year olds that are cannabis users:
I would like to know more about it. I could perhaps use it in the future. Is this self-identified users? How is "user" defined? One-time users or constant users? Are there similar graphs for other age groups? What is the source?
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats10/gpsfig3
Have used it in the last 30 days.
But its hardly stop the presses stuff this, this sort of thing about Dutch drug use has been said a lot.
Quote from: Tyr on May 29, 2011, 09:47:58 AM
Below the Netherlands are conservative, mostly poor countries. And super rural and weird Sweden and Finland.
Yeah, Sweden is interesting, because we have among the strictest drug laws in Europe, and this graph might be really good evidence that strict laws works out well for us.
The most interesting finding is how high (pun: intended) the Czechs score. I know Prague is awash with drugs, but with beer both cheaply and readily available, I'd have expected a lower score there.
Quote from: Norgy on May 29, 2011, 10:07:23 AM
The most interesting finding is how high (pun: intended) the Czechs score. I know Prague is awash with drugs, but with beer both cheaply and readily available, I'd have expected a lower score there.
It is a bit odd yeah.
I guess they're one of the richer countries in eastern Europe and one of the most irreligious too. Maybe most urbanised too?
Quote from: Bluebook on May 29, 2011, 09:36:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 29, 2011, 09:13:04 AM
Actually, by all logic, legalization of specific drugs doesn't lead to increased drug use. It can change the mix of drugs used (current laws favor alcohol use, which is one of the worst drugs out there in both social and health costs), but it doesn't increase overall use.
Druggies will be druggies. What an intelligent and logical society will do is channel their craving for drugs into the least-costly mix.
So your argument is that drug use in a society is constant, and the only thing that is variable is the ratio of drugs being consumed?
No. My argument is contained in my post: "What an intelligent and logical society will do is channel their craving for drugs into the least-costly mix."
QuoteIf one drug is removed, all users will switch over to some other drug. If a new drug is introduced, no new drug users appear, instead some users will discard their current drug and switch to the new one?
Sorry, Im not buying that, in fact I find the theory ludicrous.
I find the strawman ludicrous. Why not focus on what I wrote, and not on your strawman?