Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-9hjnw Total loading time: 0.544 Render date: 2022-07-05T12:55:45.811Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Cannabis regimes – a response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

R. MacCoun
Affiliation:
Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley, 2607 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94720–7320, and RAND Drug Policy Research Center, USA
P. Reuter
Affiliation:
School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, and RAND Drug Policy Research Center, USA
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001 

de Zwart & van Laar (Reference de Zwart and van Laar2001) provide a thoughtful discussion of our recent article comparing alternative legal regimes for cannabis (Reference MacCoun and ReuterMacCoun & Reuter, 2001a ). We quite agree that any correlation between a rise in cannabis-selling coffee shops and a rise in cannabis prevalence might be coincidental rather than causal; we said so in our article and highlighted this point in its ‘Limitations’. Our purpose was not to evaluate the Dutch model on its own terms, but to highlight potential risks and benefits of alternative strategies for the USA.

However, we take issue with several points made by de Zwart & van Laar. First, they question the plausibility of our term ‘commercialisation’, noting that since 1991 coffee shops have been subject to criminal prosecution for violations of regulations against advertising. But our article explicitly stated that changes in coffee shop regulation probably reduced commercialisation during the 1990s, and for this reason we explicitly argued that our commercialisation hypothesis was limited to the period 1984-1992. At any rate, this argument confuses formal regulations with their implementation; tourists can attest that cannabis is openly promoted in Amsterdam and other cities, with not-so-veiled references in newspaper advertisements, posters, postcards and shop signs. (Indeed, one can readily verify this by searching for Dutch coffee shop websites on the World Wide Web.)

Second, de Zwart & van Laar claim that “less than half of cannabis consumers purchase the drug in a coffee shop — the majority obtains it elsewhere…”. This statement is apparently based on the Trimbos survey of students. The rule banning minors from coffee shops is difficult to enforce, but one would expect adolescent users to rely less heavily on coffee shops than adult users do. In his intensive longitudinal study of the Amsterdam cannabis market, Jansen (Reference Jansen, Leuw and Marshall1994: p. 172) claims that the shops account for over 95% of cannabis sales in Amsterdam. In their more recent study of 216 experienced cannabis users in Amsterdam, Cohen & Sas (Reference Cohen and Sas1998: p. 63) report that 75% of those still using cannabis reported one or more coffee shops as their primary source of cannabis. Given the accessibility of coffee shops in cities and the fact that one can buy enough for a few days (or weeks) each time, there is hardly more reason to make street purchases of cannabis than of instant coffee. But the 5 g purchase limit surely facilitates secondary transactions in which coffee shop clients share or provide cannabis for their (sometimes younger) friends.

Third, we agree that coffee shops are much more common in Amsterdam than in small Dutch towns, although various estimates in the 1980s suggest that more than half of all coffee shops were located outside Amsterdam. But the concentration of coffee shop sales in Amsterdam actually strengthens our inference that commercialisation might promote cannabis use. Urbanicity has not been shown to be an important correlate of prevalence rates in the USA. Yet the recent national survey by CEDRO (Reference Abraham, Cohen and van TilAbraham et al, 1999) shows that cannabis use was much more prevalent in Amsterdam than in The Netherlands as a whole.

Fourth, de Zwart & van Laar correctly note that school surveys tend to yield higher prevalence estimates than household-based population surveys. Unfortunately, an omitted footnote to our Table 1 obscured the fact that our US source for the “approximately age 18” comparisons was the Monitoring the Future school survey. Trimbos contends that their school survey was specifically designed to facilitate comparisons with that US survey (see Reference Plomp, Kuipers and van OersPlomp et al, 1991: p. 11).

What may be obscured in this exchange is that we hold a mostly enthusiastic view of Dutch drug policy (Reference MacCoun and ReuterMacCoun & Reuter, 2001b ). Indeed, we argue that the coffee shop system has produced few measurable social harms and possibly some benefits by reducing the excessive use of police sanctions and by weakening the link to hard drug markets. Still, an alternative model that might meet the same goals with less risk of promotion is the South Australian system that permits home cultivation of small quantities of cannabis.

References

Abraham, M. D., Cohen, P. D. A., van Til, R., et al (1999) Licit and Illicit Drug Use in the Netherlands, 1997. Amsterdam: Centre for Drug Research (CEDRO).Google Scholar
Cohen, P. & Sas, A. (1998) Cannabis Use in Amsterdam. Amsterdam: CEDRP Centrum voor Drugsondersoek, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jansen, A. C. M. (1994) The development of a “legal” consumer's market for cannabis: The “coffee shop” phenomenon. In Between Prohibition And Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy (eds Leuw, E. & Marshall, I. H.) pp. 169182. Amsterdam: Kugler Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. & Reuter, P. (2001) Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 123128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacCoun, R. & Reuter, P. (2001) Drug War Heresies: learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plomp, K. N., Kuipers, H. & van Oers, M. L. (1991) Smoking, Alcohol Consumption And The Use of Drugs By School children From The Age Of 10. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
de Zwart, W. & van Laar, M. (2001) Cannabis regimes (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 574575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
You have Access
4
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Cannabis regimes – a response
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Cannabis regimes – a response
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Cannabis regimes – a response
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *