Han van der Maas | About the legalization of hard drugs
Shouldn’t we start researching whether to make hard drugs legal? ‘Legalising cocaine and XTC will eventually decimate organised crime,’ columnist Han van der Maas writes. “Hundreds of billions in lost revenue will hurt, especially for drug traffickers.”
I recently participated in the conference "Dealing with Drugs," an initiative of Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema. On the agenda was the regulation of (hard) drugs. The reason was the increasing grip of organized crime on our society and that of South and Central America. There is much circumstantial evidence for the effectiveness of legalization in reducing organized crime. Prohibition in the U.S. is the best known example. Legalization of cocaine and XTC will eventually decimate organized crime. Hundreds of billions in lost revenue makes itself felt, including for drug traffickers.
The main objection to legalization is the possible sharp increase in use. Indeed, some legal (and very harmful) drugs are widely used. This appears to be strongly related to the form of regulation. When trade is left to for-profit parties, who are allowed to pour billions into marketing worldwide, use (tobacco, alcohol, gambling) often spirals out of control. A recent example is online gambling. Dutch gambling companies spent more than 100 million on marketing by 2023, and not without success. Marketing is therefore now being curbed.
An interesting Dutch example of sensible legalization is heroin. In 2007, (medical) heroin was practically legalized in the Netherlands. Heroin users get heroin on prescription from the GGD. The number of users has been declining for years and is extremely low compared to other countries around us and especially to the U.S. where the opiate crisis kills more than 100,000 people annually. Also, the Dutch coffeeshop model works nicely. Our cannabis use does not differ significantly from that of more restrictive countries around us. The criminal nuisance is mainly due to the lack of a regulated supply of cannabis.
Halsema calls for further research into regulation of (hard) drugs. This research program should consist of legal research (regarding international treaties but also new legislation) and scenario analyses for the establishment of regulated sales. I am also thinking of international comparative research on legalization models, research on the minimization of health risks and studies on attitudes about drugs and legalization.
Attitudes about (hard) drugs are importaant. Unfortunately, the drug debate is highly polarized. The right-wing parties pursue schizophrenic policies. When it comes to the most harmful substances (unhealthy food, smoking and alcohol) they are on the leash of lobbyists, when it comes to relatively harmless substances (cannabis, XTC) they advocate intensifying prohibition. How the right has been able to get so bogged down in the long-lost war on drugs is a research topic in itself.
This research program needs funding. An unimaginable amount of money now goes to research into undermining, criminal networks and illicit financial flows. With 1% of that budget, we could already set up a comprehensive research program on regulation. The UvA is an excellent home for this.
You may think that my timing is not the best. The right is now bigger than ever. The largest party in the Netherlands advocates a very restrictive drug policy. But research takes time. In fact, we only have a year or two: the right, with or without a cabinet, is arguing lustily, creating chaos from which the left will benefit in the next election. In a year or two our results should be there. Halsema 1 can work with it then.
