The anti-coffeeshop movement started in the border towns in the south of the Netherlands.

Residents were fed up with soft drugs tourism and drug-related nuisance and crime due to a large amount of people from neighboring countries crossing the border just to buy and smoke marijuana.

Some of these towns already took local measures and moved the coffeeshops out of the center, closed them down, or introduced their own policy of banning tourists.

European Court of Justice

The tourist ban was protested by coffeeshop owners, who argued that it is against EU principles of freedom of movement and non-discrimination, and the case was brought to the European Court of Justice.

The coffeeshops in Maastricht are still trying to argue their discrimination and privacy infringement case in court.

This, along with their self-imposed restriction allowing only locals and neighbors from Germany and Belgium but not France, seem like a hopeless and desperate attempt at keeping their coffeeshops open to some form of general public.

Economic interests

Implementing the weed pass system could have a major impact on the economy in the Netherlands.

Although politicians rarely address this threat, many residents are concerned about the potential consequences.

As it turned out, the southern city of Maastricht lost over half a million euros only in fines and parking tickets during the six months following the introduction of the new drug policy.

Many argue that the weed pass system addresses a problem that does not exist in most cities in the Netherlands, and many city councils do not agree with the policy changes.

Many argue that the weed pass system addresses a problem that does not exist in most cities in the Netherlands, and many city councils do not agree with the policy changes.

They fear it will only lead to the creation of illegal drug markets as most people do not want to be registered as a drug user. This concern is also shared by Dutch criminologists like Nicole Maalsté, writer of the book Polderwiet.

He also believes that the system will lead to illegal resale and street trading, resulting in an increase in public nuisance, crime, and health risks.

Tourists in Amsterdam, including those attracted primarily by the availability of coffeeshops, do not cause much of a nuisance, he claims.

A report by the Department of Research and Statistics in Amsterdam made in 2007 shows that of the 4.5 million tourists who spend the night in Amsterdam during a given year, 26% visit a coffeeshop.

According to the Amsterdam Tourism and Convention Board, 10% of tourists mention soft drug use as a primary reason to visit the city.

Implementation in Amsterdam

City councils and mayors of larger cities, including Amsterdam, have campaigned to maintain local authority and make their own policy.

Minister Ivo Opstelten has announced, however, that Amsterdam and other big cities will be no exception.

Many business owners, locals, and even some tourists do not believe the new law will be enforced in Amsterdam.

The Ministry of Safety and Justice say the responsibility belongs to the mayor, in cooperation with the public prosecution service and the police, to enforce the new policy while also taking local priorities into account.
 

The city councils are at liberty to decide what action to take against coffeeshop owners who do not cooperate with the weed pass system.
 

Will the city councils close noncompliant coffeeshops, or will the Dutch tradition of tolerance continue and the new policy just be ignored?

From July of 2012, half of the 32 police stations in Amsterdam were closed, and a new national police force was established and took charge..

Amsterdam: Past and Present

The concept of coffeeshops was introduced in the 1970s to separate hard and soft drugs.

Coffeeshops are permitted to stock up to five hundred grams of soft drugs, while users can have up to five grams for personal use.

The sale of soft drugs to people older than eighteen years is tolerated in the Netherlands but not legal.

Cultivation and purchase of large amounts of marijuana are illegal, which is also known as the “back-door problem”; coffeeshop owners are allowed to sell cannabis but not to buy it.

The ban is only on tobacco and does not apply to marijuana, tobacco substitutes, or any tobacco-free products.

Mixing tobacco with marijuana is no longer allowed in the coffeeshops, which makes Amsterdam the only place in the world where the police could walk into a coffeeshop and say, "That better be marijuana you’re smoking, or you’re going to get a fine."

Regulating Cannabis

New regulations banning hashish (a cannabis resin rich in THC) may soon be on the way along with a 15% THC limit on marijuana. THC is the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant.

Meanwhile, police claim local criminal organizations, using an estimated forty thousand illegal plantations, smuggle marijuana out of the Netherlands regularly, bringing in annual profits estimated at a staggering two billion euros.

In October of 2011, government officials discussed classifying marijuana with a THC level above 15% as a Class A drug like heroin or cocaine, considering it to be dangerously strong.

Some strains of marijuana can reach above 20%, but to impose and enforce a limit on THC levels would seem next to impossible, according to the National Coffeeshop Association (Landelijk Overleg Coffeeshopbonden).

Protesting the Weed Pass

The 420 Anti-Weed Pass Protest March, or “Weed Day”, held April 20, 2012, was a disappointment to some.

The protesters made a very big cloud of smoke, but the demonstration was pathetically small in size. With a total of three police officers patrolling the march, the demonstration did not even make the national news.

No one from the local shops and businesses came to the protest, although they had pledged participation prior to the event, and the only way supporters could find the location (perhaps as a precaution) was to check Facebook one hour before the demonstration.

Such findings do not seem to aid in the cause against the weed pass system. AP reported, “The government wants to restore the original purpose of the coffeeshops: small local shops selling to local people.”

However, in a European Union with no internal border control and exposed to tourists from all over the world, the original purpose of the coffeeshop becomes more difficult to maintain.

Coffeeshop owners have hired top-ranking lawyers to appeal the “clearly discriminatory” drug policy in court and fight to the very end.

In The Hague on Friday, April 27, 2012, a court ruling was passed in favor of the new drug policy, maintaining that restrictions were not discriminatory or severe.

Political Hope?

Just prior to the court victory, the former government fell.

Austerity talks between the minority government and the anti-immigration PVV party over sixteen billion euros in budget cuts collapsed, and on the afternoon of Monday, April 23, 2012, Prime Minister Mark Rutte submitted his resignation to Queen Beatrix.

Rutte remained in office to run a “caretaker” government until August 25, when the campaigns for the 2012 national elections on September 12 began.

Twenty-two parties participated in the elections, ten of which were part of the former parliament.

Only 9% of the politicians thought the Labor leader would become prime minister, and 7% thought the Socialist leader would win the position.

A public opinion poll taken by TNS Nipo three months before the national elections found the Socialist Party and the right-wing Liberal VVD in a dead heat.

Each party would have taken twenty-nine seats if the elections had been held in early June. The Christian Democrats, who together with the Liberal VVD composed the former caretaker minority government, would have won eighteen seats. The Labor Party would have taken twenty seats, while Geert Wilders’s PVV would have won nineteen.

Many of the coffeeshops temporarily closed to protest the enforcement, but in reality there were not enough customers to justify remaining open, due to the ban on tourists and the unwillingness of locals to register as members.

Foreigners were free to complain about the discriminatory aspect of the ban to the local police, although the public prosecutor openly had no intention of taking action on such complaints. ANP reported that Mayor Onno Hoes of Maastricht claimed, “The system is workable.”

Indeed, locals initially supported the ban, and twenty street dealers (more than usual) were arrested during the first week.