The Netherlands Drug Situation 2010 - Trimbos-instituut

local circumstances into account. They can decide, for instance, whether to give priorityto public nuisance or criminality by drug abusers or to improving road safety. The publicprosecutor may, at his own discretion, decide to impose a fine instead of taking the caseto court. This often happens in the case of relatively minor offences such as shoplifting orminor damage to property.The Public Prosecution Service does not take these decisions alone. In the Netherlandsthere are 19 district courts and district public prosecutor's offices. One of its tasks is totake part in tripartite consultations with local mayors and chiefs of police to discuss mattersrelating to public safety and the use of police resources.Although the Ministers of Justice and Health denied that the investigation of drugs use atdance events had become more tight in the period 2005-2007, the impression of preventionworkers and researchers was different. With an appeal to the Government InformationPublic Access Act (Wet Openbaarheid Bestuur), employees of the Jellinek treatmentcentre in Amsterdam asked the district public prosecutor whether new regional guidelinesconcerning the prosecution of individual drug users were ordered. The answer was thatsince 2006 the four court regions of Utrecht, Haarlem, Amsterdam and Arnhem had decidedthat at dance events the possession of all drugs are directly investigated. In thetripartite consultations it was agreed that dance events should be drugs free. So, theDutch police are executing a zero tolerance guideline in certain regions and directed atcertain events and venues (Doekhie et al, 2010). This is in line with a policy letter of themunicipal government of Amsterdam which states that Dance Events are of cultural andeconomic significance for the city, but no drugs are allowed at these dance events (GemeenteAmsterdam, 2008).According to criminologist Nabben, who investigated the night life in Amsterdam: "themore repressive approach was motivated not so much by 'internal' factors, such as publicdisorder or large-scale drug dealing, but more by an intensifying focus on public orderand safety and a desire to heighten the authorities' visibility and proactive law enforcementefforts." (Nabben, 2010). According to the Bonger Institute for Criminology in theregions of Amsterdam, Utrecht, Arnhem and Eindhoven the so-called “hard” zero tolerancewas observed i.e. the police uses sniffer dogs, undercover agents, also the possessionof small quantities of cannabis is investigated and the partygoer with drugs isbooked on the spot. If he pays the fine no further prosecution will follow. Moreover, partygoersreported not to diminish their drug use but either to take their pills before theparty or to find smart ways to 'smuggle' the pills (Doekhie et al., 2010).Local drug policyIn order to encourage the local governments to find creative solutions to combat thepublic nuisance caused by coffee shops, the Dutch central government reserved € 3.3million for the municipal pilot projects. The municipalities themselves have to co-financethese projects. In these pilots all kind of measures will be tested for their effectivenesse.g. to encourage small-scale coffee shops, to spread the coffee shops, innovative enforcement,to introduce an special identity card system for coffee shops, more requirementsfor coffee shops owners, traffic measures, tackling illegal selling points and communicationwith foreign drugs tourists. The applications of the following cities were rewarded:Amsterdam, Arnhem, Eindhoven, Heerlen, Kerkrade, Leeuwarden, Lelystad,Maastricht, and Roosendaal/Bergen op Zoom. Most of these cities have problems withforeign drug tourists (T.K. 24077-256).The ban on smoking cannabis in a specific quarter of Amsterdam, which is enforced since2006, had much media attention. Such a ban is always a local measure based on a Gen-24