1. Changes in drug policies in the Netherlands and their impact on drug markets Marianne van Ooyen-Houben Edward Kleemans ESC Porto September 2015

2. Subjects 1.Characteristics of the Dutch drug policy 2.Recent changes in policy 3. Impact of changes on drug markets 4. Conclusions

3. Methods Review of available evidence: Evaluation studies Monitoring studies Statistics from police and public prosecutor Policy documents Important sources: Van Laar, M., & Van Ooyen, M. (2009). Evaluation of the Dutch drug policy. Utrecht/The Hague: Trimbos Institute/WODC. Van Laar, M., & Van Ooyen, M. (eds.) (2014). National Drug Monitor. Utrecht/The Hague: Trimbos Institute/WODC (annual reports).

4. 1. Characteristics of Dutch drug policy Pragmatic: Drugs cannot be eradicated, only contained Health-oriented: Focus on public health and minimalization of risks of drug use to the health of users and to society Prevent marginalization and criminalization of drug users

5. Main features of Dutch policy Use of drugs is not a criminal act Possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use is (in principle) not prosecuted Cultivation of cannabis for personal use is (in principle) not prosecuted Sale of cannabis in coffee shops is not prosecuted (‘tolerated’) Supply Reduction + Demand Reduction + Harm Reduction

6. Image of the Dutch drug policy

7. How did the tolerant policy work? Positive developments Use of highly addictive drugs remained low (crack, heroin, amphetamines) Low rate of infectuous diseases among injecting drug users Low death rates among drug users Coffee shops kept cannabis users away from hard drug use (crack, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin) Trends in cannabis use in line with other countries (no heavier use, no lengthier using careers)

8. Negative developments Drug-related nuisance Organized crime in production and trafficking High prevalence of use among youths (cannabis, ecstasy) Drug tourism

9. 2. Changes in drug policy More vigorous approaches More law enforcement Less tolerance

10. Changes Announced in 1995 Only gradually...only slowly... Counteracted by health oriented attitude But...surely

11. Estimated annual public expenditure for enforcement of drug offences

12. Police arrests for Opium Act offences

13. Drug related criminal investigations into serious forms of organized crime ( source: National Police, 2015)

14. 3. Impact of changes on drug markets Case: coffee shop policy

16. More vigorous tolerance criteria for coffeeshops 1991: first tolerance criteria: -No advertising -No hard drugs in the coffee shop -No public nuisance around the shop -No more than 30 grams sale per customer per transaction 1995: more restrictions - Max of 500 grams stock -No entry for minors under 18 years -30 grams → 5 grams 2012: radical entry restrictions: -Private club: access only for members -Residence criterion: membership only for residents of the Netherlands

17. Evaluation study Baseline assessment, follow up at 6 months, follow up at 18 months. Survey among coffee shop visitors, street survey among cannabis users, interviews with local experts, field study, survey among people living in the vicinity of coffee shops. ‘Experimental condition’ (south) and ‘comparison condition’ (other provinces). Van Ooyen-Houben, M., & Van der Giessen, M. (2014). De implementatie van het Ingezetenencriterium volgens de betrokken actoren. In: Van Ooyen-Houben, M., B. Bieleman, & D.J. Korf (2014). Coffeeshops, toerisme en lokale markt (pp. 49-78). The Hague: WODC. Nijkamp, R,, Mennes, R., & Bieleman, B. (2014). Coffeeshopbezoek. In: Van Ooyen-Houben, M., B. Bieleman, & D.J. Korf (2014). Coffeeshops, toerisme en lokale markt (pp. 97-130). The Hague: WODC. Korf, D.J., Benschop, A., Nabben, T., & Wouters, M. (2014). De illegale gebruikersmarkt. In: Van Ooyen-Houben, M., B. Bieleman, & D.J. Korf (2014). Coffeeshops, toerisme en lokale markt (pp. 133-186). The Hague: WODC.

18. Purchase in coffee shops in 2012 (combined results, baseline and follow up I)

19. Purchase outside coffee shops in 2012 (combined results)

20.  Private club criterion abolished after 6 months (end of 2012)

21. Purchase in coffee shops 2012-2013 (combined results, baseline and 2 follow up assessments)

22. Purchase outside coffee shops 2012-2013

23. Frequency of cannabis use (mean, last month, street survey, n=942, 812, 907)

24. Impact on cannabis retail market: Displacement in supply (coffee shops  illegal market) (effect) No effect on use of cannabis

25. Case: ecstasy (MDMA)

26. XTC PRODUCTION PLACE

27. 2001: “A combined effort against ecstasy” (policy programme)

28. Outcomes: Production falling (source: National Police)

29. Less MDMA in tablets (source:

30. No PMK seizures in 2008-2009-2010

31. Decreasing use

32. But... Recovery since 2010

33. Dismantled labs, warehouses and dumpings, 2000-2014

34. Displacement to pre-precursors (safrole, PMK glycidate)

35. Average MDMA concentration in ‘ecstasy’ tablets (mg) (source: monitoring system Trimbos Institute)

36. Prevalence of ecstasy use, 12-18 yr

37. Impact on ecstasy market Temporary effects Recovery of supply and use Displacement to pre-precursors

38. 4. Conclusion More vigorous policy works Markets react But react with displacement Effect is limited Supply continues, use continues Markets are adaptive and resilient

39. Thank you for your attention! If you want to read more: Van Ooyen-Houben, M., & Kleemans, E. (2015). Drug Policy: The “Dutch model”. Crime and Justice: http://www.jstor.org/stable/crimejustice.ahead-of-print