In the Netherlands, we used to look on the international “war on drugs” with a certain amount of disdain. Its solutions were prohibition, criminalisation, stiff penalties and sentences; our national drug policy, on the other hand, focused for decades on reducing the health risks for users – and was relatively successful. We are lenient on soft drugs such as cannabis, allowing for personal use under specific conditions. Hard drugs are technically illegal, but possession of small amounts (like half a gram of hard drugs or one ecstasy pill) is often not prosecuted. Police cracked down on the largest drug traffickers, who mainly operated locally. There was drug crime and even killings, but these remained traceable and largely manageable. Drug trafficking hardly affected our economy or daily life.
That is no longer the case. Spurred on by globalisation and the international criminalisation of drugs, the illegal drugs trade has become more lucrative, professional and ruthlessly violent. The effects have been disastrous. In the past decade, the port of Rotterdam, the largest port in Europe, has become a global transit hub for cocaine. The Dutch authorities have increased their efforts to combat drug trafficking, but they have not turned the tide. Recent figures show a record increase in the amount of cocaine being seized, from just over 22,000kg in the first half of 2022 to 29,702kg in the first half of 2023. While this may seem encouraging at first glance, it actually illustrates the immense scale of what is happening. Our current approach in the fight against drugs is like mopping with the tap running.
Recent trends in drug trafficking have raised another serious concern, as children as young as 14 are being drawn into this illegal trade as “cocaine collectors”. As the seized amounts have increased, so has the violence. In the past five years, three key figures in a large criminal case against an international drugs syndicate were murdered in broad daylight in Amsterdam: the brother of a key witness, his lawyer and a well-known journalist who acted as his adviser.
Amsterdam, as an international financial hub, now serves as a marketplace where the demand for drugs is being determined, and negotiations and payments are being made from all over the world. It has become a destination for drug lords to launder their money or channel it to tax havens. Their money is increasingly contaminating the legal economy, especially in real estate, business services and hospitality. If it continues on this current path, our economy will be inundated with criminal money and violence will reach an all-time high. This leads to social disruption, the deterioration of neighbourhoods, generations of vulnerable young people who will be lured into crime and the undermining of the rule of law. Without a fundamental change of course, the Netherlands is in danger of becoming a narco-state.
The challenges we now face in the Netherlands are not an indictment of our liberal drug policy. Rather the opposite. Take the Dutch government’s approach to MDMA, influenced by the global war on drugs, which has become increasingly repressive since the late 1980s and early 90s. Under international pressure, the Netherlands placed MDMA, which is known as a party drug and perceived as relatively harmless, under the Opium Act in 1988, classifying it as a hard drug. This shift inadvertently contributed to the profitability of illegal MDMA production and created a lucrative business model for criminal organisations, as evidenced by the estimated €18.9bn street value of annual ecstasy production in the Netherlands. This experience reveals how efforts to align with global drug prohibition trends can have counterproductive outcomes.
What the Netherlands’ problems reveal is the need for a global shift in the current approach. It’s not a matter of retracting our user-centred policy, but rather advocating for international recognition that the war on drugs is counterproductive.
This means that alternatives should be urgently debated in local governments, national parliaments and especially in international assemblies. The prohibition of drugs is enshrined in international treaties that limit the space for national drug policies, meaning we will have to forge new international alliances that prioritise health and safety over punitive measures. This will involve a collaborative effort to revisit and potentially revise these treaties, fostering a global environment where innovative, health-centric drug policies can be implemented without legal barriers.
There are plenty of historical examples that can help us find alternatives to the war on drugs. Since the early 1980s, the introduction of harm-reduction facilities in the Netherlands, such as methadone provision and drug-use areas for heroin addicts, has improved their living conditions, health and quality of life while drug nuisance and crime have decreased. This summer, Switzerland’s capital, Berne, announced trials of legal sales of cocaine, aiming to increase control and preventive measures. This follows the start of a trial of legal cannabis sales in the city. Another great example is Uruguay, where the government legalised cannabis for recreational, medicinal and industrial use and set up a regulated market for cannabis, with strict rules on production, distribution and sale.
Market regulation, government monopolies or provision for medical purposes are just some of the possible, not necessarily exclusive, alternatives. But none are quick fixes. Criminals have shown that they will use violence to protect their profits, and the health risks of some drugs are still huge. This means we must deliberately and thoughtfully change course and also take into account a temporary backlash. None of this, though, can be an excuse to not take action. The future of our young people, our quality of life, the stability of our economy and rule of law are at stake.
after newsletter promotion
Femke Halsema is the mayor of Amsterdam. An international conference on further regulation of the drug market will be held in Amsterdam on 26 January 2024
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.