The alleged benefits of a drug ban

by druginc

The alleged benefits of a drug ban

In recent months, the cabinet has launched two proposals to bring funds that are still legal under the operation of the Opium Act. In December 2019 announced State Secretary Blokhuis (VWS) indicates that he is working on a ban on laughing gas for recreational use by placing it on List II of the Opium Act and went out in March 2020 a bill in consultation, which makes it possible to ban substance groups. With this proposal, entire groups of designer drugs will be placed on (a new) List Ia of the Opium Act. "State Secretary Blokhuis and Minister Grapperhaus intend to use this to protect public health as well as to prevent the production and trade in these substances."

Obviously, entrepreneurs who legally trade in laughing gas or designer drugs are against a ban. Not only does this make trade impossible, they also point to the disadvantages of a ban. Several entrepreneurs have joined together to counteract the cabinet's proposals. They come up with various alternatives to a ban.

laughing gas

In response to the announcement of the laughing gas ban, the BVLL (Industry Association of Nitrous Oxide Suppliers) drafted a code of conduct to steer the distribution and sale of nitrous oxide in the right direction. This code of conduct must restore confidence in the sector and reduce the negative image of the sector. The code of conduct contains rules, such as a minimum sales age of 18 years, a quality mark for bona fide entrepreneurs and more attention to information and prevention. According to the BVLL, this form of self-regulation is a good alternative to the ban on laughing gas. In a letter to State Secretary Blokhuis (VWS) has asked the industry association to take note of the code of conduct and to consult with the sector in the near future. 

De response from the State Secretary was not long in coming. He is not in favor of the BVLL's proposal and maintains the ban on laughing gas that he announced earlier, even though there is no majority in favor of a ban in the Lower House. In this context, the State Secretary refers to the advice of the Coordination Point Assessment and Monitoring new drugs on the harmfulness of nitrous oxide from November 2019. Remarkably enough, this advisory report states that “placement under the Opium Act appears to be a complex measure to achieve the goals of combating excessive use and combating use among young people.” can increase criminal involvement ”, according to the committee.

The committee sees more in limiting the supply of laughing gas. In this respect, the committee is thinking of introducing a limited packaging size and compliance with CLP and REACH regulations. In addition, the committee sees “a great importance in providing information and taking preventive measures”.

With drafting the code of conduct the BVLL meets the recommendations of the Coordination Point Assessment and Monitoring new drugs. In spite of this, State Secretary Blokhuis continues on the same path and refuses to consult with the sector.

"It is clear that we are not going for self-regulation and also not involving traders in recreational use in the development."

I think it is extremely detrimental for a minister to believe that he should respond in this way. The sector has united and has taken its responsibility by following the recommendations of the Cabinet's advisory committee. In response, the Cabinet is sticking to a ban that is difficult to enforce and, moreover, will lead to the sale of nitrous oxide being uncontrollably withdrawn from the regular circuit. 

Substance groups ban

In total, there were 133 responses to the bill to amend the Opium Act because of new psychoactive substances submitted for consultation in March 2020. The reactions of the Dutch National Consultation Smart Products Association (VLOS), from KH Legal Advice on behalf of the joint importers and distributors of psychoactive substances, of the Dutch Bar Association and Mondrian and Jellinek all have more or less the same message. The substance group prohibition is a disproportionate measure. A substance group prohibition also prohibits substances that do not have a psychoactive effect, that are not harmful to healthy or even have a beneficial effect. This includes medicines, nutritional supplements and nutritional components. The harmfulness of these substances has not been demonstrated, which makes it impossible to place them under the Opium Act. The proposal violates the principle of legality, because it is not clear which means will all fall within the scope of the Opium Act. Experiences with other substance group bans (including in the United Kingdom and Poland) show that the introduction of a substance group prohibition has an inverse effect and does not contribute to the protection of public health. A substance group ban leads to more drug use, more incidents and more illegal drug trafficking.

In 2012, the RIVM already warned against this in the report on the “Advantages and disadvantages of generic criminalization of new psychoactive substances”. However, as with the RIVM report on nitrous oxide, the government prefers to set this report aside. In doing so, the cabinet apparently assumes that no one reads these reports and certainly not that anyone will adopt the recommendations contained in them. The reports only serve as cosmetic substantiation for a ban, which the cabinet had already decided anyway. There is no evidence-based drug policy in the Netherlands, but bias.

Regulation is better than forbidding, according to all kinds scientific research, but the cabinet's only achievement to achieve something in that spirit has been standing still for months, as the total lack of progress surrounding the cannabis experiment shows. The most “Current” information dates from December 2019. The municipalities involved meanwhile believe that the cannabis experiment will be started during this cabinet term.

Establishing a well-functioning system, which regulates the sale and distribution of certain resources, is also much more difficult than banning them. Perhaps the cabinet therefore prefers a ban. Gentlemen politicians would rather be lazy than tired. Why bother regulating resources that you don't use yourself if you can also ban them?

Advantages of a ban? 

The government does not seem to want to understand that demand will not decrease if certain substances are banned. The benefits of a ban on laughing gas and designer drugs are completely unclear to me. A ban has lost the chance of safe and responsible distribution of these resources. A ban on these resources is at the expense of employment and tax revenues. A ban on these substances leads to the introduction of new, more dangerous substances, which are sold without any checks on age, quality or origin. Prohibition of these means leads to an increase in the use of the police and the judiciary and thus to high costs for society. Prohibition of these means leads to ever-increasing criminalization of the consumer. A ban on these drugs leads to more drug use, more incidents and more illegal drug trafficking. A ban on these substances does not contribute to the protection of public health. And that was exactly what it was all about. 

Related Articles

1 comment

Carl Cyril Dreue 2 June 2020 - 19:06

Excellent piece.
Have been actively trying to stop this law for some time. The more people worry about it the better.

Answered

Comments

[adrate banner="89"]