This is an English translation. The original Dutch article is authoritative.
A critical commentary on the management plan of the Amsterdam Triangle. The management plan describes its objective as follows: Realising a manageable Amsterdam cannabis market, in which there is a better separation of the hard drugs and soft drugs markets, not only at the front-end (for the consumer) but also at the back-end.
This objective raises quite a few questions, to say the least. With a modicum of expertise, the cannabis market must be seen as two strictly separate phenomena. Firstly, the illegal cannabis circuit of production, (intermediary) trade and the illegal sales circuit (down to street dealers) and secondly, the tolerated circuit of coffeeshops. By ignoring this essential distinction of the cannabis market in the objective, the impression is given that the Amsterdam coffeeshop sector is guilty of selling hard drugs at the front-end (the consumer) and of trading hard drugs at the back-end.
_(The terms front-end and back-end reinforce that allegation in the objective. In the illegal circuit, there is no such thing as a front- and back-end. In coffeeshops there is: the front and back door)._
With this introduction, I do not want to give the impression that I am "nitpicking"! On the contrary. In the further explanation of the management plan, the suggestion is indeed made that coffeeshops are guilty of hard drug trafficking. But all this remains extremely vague, and sources are missing, even leading to illogical reasoning.
Both "hard" and "soft" data from national and Amsterdam monitors have shown for decades that such mixing does not occur anywhere, and where this incidentally happens in Amsterdam, the HIT team stands ready with matching sanctions from the city hall for the coffeeshop in question. In short, if this essential supervision of Amsterdam coffeeshop policy has been so deficient within the Amsterdam Triangle, then it is the duty of that same Triangle to provide evidence to justify their task of keeping the drug markets separate.
Ignoring the fundamental difference between the illegal circuit and coffeeshops in the management plan is a serious omission. As stated, by this ignorance, the coffeeshop sector is unfairly placed in the dock, while the coffeeshop is actually an effective means of keeping the drug markets separate.
Finally, by striving for a BETTER SEPARATION OF DRUG MARKETS, the management plan is at odds with the objective of soft drugs policy, which is an ABSOLUTE SEPARATION OF DRUG MARKETS. In short, a management plan with less ambition than the current drugs policy!
It is not the coffeeshops but the illegal circuit where the mixing of soft and hard drugs trade occurs, with more and more new hard products (up to the recently concerning new product of Synthetic Weed). And the growth in opportunities for distribution channels for both the intermediary trade and sales to consumers in this illegal circuit, such as internet, websites, and mobile phone delivery lines.
Based on the objective of the management plan, you would therefore expect that 80% of the memorandum would be spent on an overview of the current state of affairs of this expanding (read: drug market-mixed) illegal cannabis circuit. Followed by proposals on how to anticipate this development in a smart, effective way (so not with the "blunt axe of repression").
In the management plan, there is nothing about this, and it therefore lacks the prioritisation of the Dutch, and thus also Amsterdam, policy of keeping drug markets separate. A fundamental part of this prioritisation is the rapid realisation of a robust coffeeshop policy. In the management plan, a number of proposals are indeed made for this, such as a quality mark and the "stretching" of a number of tolerance criteria. Something that is more than worth working out further, with the challenge of getting fellow major cities, the VNG, and the national government on board.
But the condition for getting to work on this from Amsterdam is that the framework on which the management plan is based is taken off the table. In its place, work must be done on a robust Amsterdam coffeeshop policy. Such as how the zero-option policy in the region can be broken and the preservation of small-scale character and diversity in the range of coffeeshops. Balanced distribution across the city, such as IJburg, Noord, Zeeburgereiland, and more residential/working/growth hubs with coffeeshops for both "yuppie" and "multicultural" residents.
With the positive side effect that this reduces the flow of visitors to coffeeshops in the city centre. However, it is the framework of the management plan that stands in the way of these kinds of proposals for a robust Amsterdam coffeeshop policy.
The management plan
Instead, the management plan ensures a further erosion of Amsterdam coffeeshop policy, such as the more or less announcement of further reducing the number of coffeeshops in the city. For example, the mantra is repeated several times in the management plan that Amsterdam has almost 30% of the number of coffeeshops in the Netherlands. With the undertone that a lot can easily be removed from that. The mayor also expresses herself in this sense in her public appearances regarding the management plan.
With a concrete example, I want to show that history will repeat itself. Just as in 2012 with the trade-off of the Weed Pass from the 2010 coalition agreement for the introduction of the School Distance rule in Amsterdam, so that once again more coffeeshops had to close, as had happened earlier with Project 1012. With this purely numerical closing, the city hall completely overlooked the fact that a significant portion of those coffeeshops were popular among Moroccan and other fellow citizens. And if there was one thing that should not have happened, this was it. With, including by myself, a lot of effort to temper the anger and frustration among these excluded coffeeshop visitors, one employee of a closed coffeeshop remarked: "What would happen if, by randomly closing a large number of cafes from above, many yuppie, gay, or student fraternity cafes happened to be among them? I think that would not go unnoticed by many a city hall policy maker; with my coffeeshop, there is the risk that part of the visitors disappear into the 'unregulated market'."
And now let that same 2010 coalition agreement be leading for Amsterdam coffeeshop policy once again. It is namely this coalition agreement that the management plan names in its explanation as the conceptual framework for its proposals. An agreement originating from a government that is referred to by both experts and the public as one of the-most-die-hard-anti-coffeeshop-political-parties: VVD, CDA, and PVV.
The reason why the management plan chooses this coalition agreement can only be that the Amsterdam Triangle is going along with what can be described as the subversion theory. It is the aforementioned government that was the first to translate this subversion theory and the unsubstantiated criticism of tolerance policy into radical new perspectives in national drugs policy. Which continues unabated to this day.
It is the subversion theory that is cited several times in the explanation of the management plan, suggesting that the coffeeshop sector has a subversive influence on the legal upper world. Even more, that there are indications that this sector supports and finances the hard drugs market, etc.
The weapon that the management plan proposes to reduce the extent of subversion by the Amsterdam coffeeshop sector is the I-criterion (Residents-only criterion). With this criterion, according to the theory of the management plan, the income of the sector drops, and therefore also the degree of subversion of the upper world. Plus, the Triangle simultaneously meets the increased pressure from public opinion to reduce so-called low-value drug tourism; TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE!
It should be clear that I am very concerned about the consequences this management plan will have for Amsterdam coffeeshop policy.
August de Loor,
Amsterdam, 4 February 2021
Finally, a short postscript on the assumption of hard drug sales in coffeeshops. Practice shows that if a coffeeshop were to be guilty of selling hard drugs to its visitors, this would be noticed by other visitors sooner than by the police, and a coffeeshop would lose its customers in no time. (Study: on the social/cultural function of 115 Amsterdam coffeeshops – Adviesburo Drugs 1994).
This report, written for the city hall following the same assumption then as now—that coffeeshops were guilty of selling hard drugs, even heroin at the time—led, at the urging of the city council (thanks to the remarkable PvdA councillor Annemarie Grewel), to the establishment of the multidisciplinary working group: Future of Amsterdam Soft Drugs Policy.
With proposals that could withstand the test of criticism for decades. Such as the call even then for legalising the back door of coffeeshops. Which, unfortunately, with the design of the current government's experiment, will take at least another 8/9 years, with the uncertainty of whether that will happen at all.
_The above column was written for the Amsterdam City Council. It is my commentary on the Triangle's management plan with new proposals for Amsterdam coffeeshop policy (January 2021). A critical piece written directly from my heart because, in my eyes, the Triangle is on the wrong track. My advice is that this management plan be withdrawn and a multidisciplinary working group starts work with a completely new vision._
_This does not mean that there are no interesting and challenging proposals in the management plan. Certainly not. A number are very much worth it but can only come into their own with a different philosophy about the future of Amsterdam coffeeshop policy than the one the management plan is based on. A philosophy of a city of tolerance and hospitality. Of a policy where tourists and all those other non-residents of our city may continue to visit coffeeshops. And in such a way that this makes a positive contribution to the living environment for all who live and work in Amsterdam! That is the real challenge we face and it must be achievable with a different view than the one described in the management plan._
_August de Loor, 71 years old, born and raised city centre resident, 52 years of service to Amsterdam drugs policy and the living environment._