So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

Started by Lies, November 15, 2009, 06:13:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

East Coast Hustle

Oh yeah, I forgot all about the fact that I was denied financial aid for college because of a pot conviction. After I had already gone through all the hoops and gotten a class schedule, even. They told me the day before classes started that I was shit outta luck.

"Sorry, son, having a pot conviction means we shouldn't help you try to better your life and become a more productive citizen who doesn't have to sell drugs to pay rent and buy food."

WTF? Who thinks that's a productive policy?
Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

AFK

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 05:18:03 AM
Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM

QuoteI don't believe that people are going to become More Responsible but I fail to see what the fuck that has to do with stupid laws that are based on stupid lies. Stupid laws are bad/wrong because they are stupid laws. Most evidence available in areas where prohibition was relaxed indicate that people do not turn into drug laden zombies, wandering through a desolated city seeking the Next Big Hit.

There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures. 

It does appear that they are lying about those figures, in that marijuana use apparently has little to do with whether there are repressive or liberal laws being enforced:

QuoteIn conclusion, trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. The U.S. figures consistently appear to be higher then those in the Netherlands. Over time prevalence of cannabis use show a wave-like trend in many countries, including the Netherlands. This supports Reuband's earlier conclusion that trends cannabis use evolve rather independently from drug policy, and that countries with a 'liberal' cannabis policy do not have higher or lower rates than countries with a more repressive policy. [Reuband, 1995].

Consequently, it is unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use. 

- Dirk J. Korf from the University of Amsterdam (source).

Of course decriminalization =/= legalization.  And that study is 14 years old.  And it still doesn't mean the hard data that showed increases in marijuana use amongst young adults in the Netherlands was fabricated.  It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation of what it does or does not mean.  

QuoteIt would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).

It's also generally more difficult for a kid to go to college and make a living when he/she has a drug problem.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

East Coast Hustle

you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

is it your position that it is not possible for people to responsibly use recreational drugs in a manner that would not negatively impact their ability to perform their job or succeed in school were it not for the illegality and resulting punitive measures associated with drug use?
Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

AFK

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement. 

Quoteis it your position that it is not possible for people to responsibly use recreational drugs in a manner that would not negatively impact their ability to perform their job or succeed in school were it not for the illegality and resulting punitive measures associated with drug use?

An adult yes.  An adolescent, no.  And that is where the issue lies. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

fomenter

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:22:13 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot all about the fact that I was denied financial aid for college because of a pot conviction. After I had already gone through all the hoops and gotten a class schedule, even. They told me the day before classes started that I was shit outta luck.

"Sorry, son, having a pot conviction means we shouldn't help you try to better your life and become a more productive citizen who doesn't have to sell drugs to pay rent and buy food."

WTF? Who thinks that's a productive policy?

according to the math, your not getting aid to get into collage and subsequent "becoming a dealer" to pay rent and make ends meet (and all those with similar stories including being tossed in jail) did less harm to real people with real lives and less harm to society than the 3% or so increase in pot smoking does by effecting availability for kids, even though kids can score any where any time they want already.... sorry RCH
"So she says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy... Without the lumps. HAAA-ha-ha-ha!"


hmroogp

East Coast Hustle

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 06:10:11 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.
Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 05:26:19 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 05:18:03 AM
Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM

QuoteI don't believe that people are going to become More Responsible but I fail to see what the fuck that has to do with stupid laws that are based on stupid lies. Stupid laws are bad/wrong because they are stupid laws. Most evidence available in areas where prohibition was relaxed indicate that people do not turn into drug laden zombies, wandering through a desolated city seeking the Next Big Hit.

There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures. 

It does appear that they are lying about those figures, in that marijuana use apparently has little to do with whether there are repressive or liberal laws being enforced:

QuoteIn conclusion, trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. The U.S. figures consistently appear to be higher then those in the Netherlands. Over time prevalence of cannabis use show a wave-like trend in many countries, including the Netherlands. This supports Reuband's earlier conclusion that trends cannabis use evolve rather independently from drug policy, and that countries with a 'liberal' cannabis policy do not have higher or lower rates than countries with a more repressive policy. [Reuband, 1995].

Consequently, it is unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use. 

- Dirk J. Korf from the University of Amsterdam (source).

Of course decriminalization =/= legalization.  And that study is 14 years old.  And it still doesn't mean the hard data that showed increases in marijuana use amongst young adults in the Netherlands was fabricated.  It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation of what it does or does not mean. 


"It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation..." sounds awfully disingenuous. They came to a conclusion that is incompatible with your claim about a nation's drug policy being connected to rates of using marijuana.

I also did not claim that the ONDCP fabricated anything. I said they lied. And to further clarify, they lied by omission. Yes it's true that there was an increase in usage by young people after it was made available in coffee shops, but the nature of that use was experimental not chronic and abusive. Most did not continue using it. And, the increase in usage fit with trends of use in other nations with very different drug policies. Not only is it a lie by omission but also a fine example of the ex post facto fallacy.

Part of the research I cited refers to a study done 14 years ago—that doesn't invalidate their findings. More recently conducted studies are included in the research I linked to which also support the author's conclusion. If you have evidence that competes with it, or demonstrates some sort of error in their methodology, let's see it.


Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 05:26:19 AM
QuoteIt would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).

It's also generally more difficult for a kid to go to college and make a living when he/she has a drug problem. 

I would much rather that my baby girl grows up to have a marijuana problem than a marijuana problem AND repressive laws making it extremely difficult for her to go to college and make a living.
P E R   A S P E R A   A D   A S T R A

rong

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 05:26:19 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 05:18:03 AMIt would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).

It's also generally more difficult for a kid to go to college and make a living when he/she has a drug problem.  

please forgive me if i've misattributed quotes - i really just wanted to chime in and say i think college is the best place there is for a person with a drug problem.  at least in college - every 15 weeks or so you get some feedback about whether you are "succesful" or a total fuck-up - you get some do-overs, so to speak.  alternatively, if you are not in college and have a drug problem, you are most likely unemployed or about to become unemployed.

also - "i don't have a drinking problem, i have a drinking solution!" har har
"a real smart feller, he felt smart"

Triple Zero

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM
There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures.  

that's weird because it doesn't really fit with the history of drug legislation in the Netherlands, as there is no single point in history that would count as "the introduction of coffeeshops", just a timeline of changes in legislation throughout the 20th century (starting in 1919 with the "Opium Law"*).

The strictness and (non-) legalisation of weed as well as the official and non-official levels of enforcement and prosecution considering weed possession and/or trading have gone both up and down in the 20th century, so I wonder what reference point your information uses compared to which marihuana use has increased amongst young adults**.

The "tolerance policy" was created around 1970, the difference between hard- and softdrugs was defined in 1976, during the 80s the tolerance policy again took a big hit, climaxing in 1992 with the cleansing of Platform Zero in Rotterdam. 1992 was also the year they instated the "AHOJ rules", defining what a coffeeshop must adhere to*** in order to not be prosecuted or closed down.

The number of Dutch coffeeshops peaked in the years 1991-1995, and has been declining ever since. Since 2004 politics has been following a "harder line" in the tolerance policy, resulting in closing down even more weed plantations and coffeeshops.

All in all, it's kind of bold to say that "marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops". I don't think this means that ONDCP lied about their figures, but it does make me doubt the objectivity of that research because if they would have sincerely considered all the facts the only conclusion would be that it's kind of hard to say what exactly caused what****, since so many different significant factors and events happened in the past century.

In addition to that, there's of course confirmation bias (which plays quite a strong role in a lot of these research, on both sides BTW), and perhaps most importantly, that this is stuff that happened over several decades and is now considered to be Dutch heritage by a lot of people, and that whole "engrainedness", I really think that you cannot simply apply these numbers to the USA or Maine. Our cultures are only superficially similar (mostly by important US popculture into Dutch) but below the surface there is so many significant nuances going on. I mean, even in little NL it makes sense to draw conclusions based upon separating different kinds of demographics based on second-generation-immigrant, province or rurality. So try to apply what moves 15 million people on a very tiny patch of earth to a huge country on another continent with its own very strong sense(s) of identity and cultural history, it's tricky I think.

To conclude, if you say legalizing marihuana in Maine is a bad idea, I can't argue with that, you are the expert. To say it was a bad idea in the Netherlands, or whether it would be a bad idea to implement somewhere else because, gets harder and harder, especially as you move farther away :)

Oh and btw you should really check that clip I linked there, it's a nice song, and subtitled (badly :) ).


* FYI currently, the Opium Law is the law defining the difference between harddrugs and softdrugs. It doesnt apply exclusively to opium, that's just what it's called. Our "tolerance policy" is not part of this (or any) law, but defined by the Dutch Ministry of Justice as "an official set of guidelines telling public prosecutors under which circumstances offenders should not be prosecuted".

** what are young adults btw? these are our legal ages in the Netherlands: 16 can buy beer, drive moped / 18 can buy weed, strong liquor, car drivers license / 21 financial independence.

*** no Advertising, Harddrugs, trouble (Overlast), youth (Jongeren, 18+)

**** and I haven't even touched upon the demographic changes in Dutch society, for instance several waves of immigrant workers had quite a large impact in a country which grew from 13M to 16.5M in 1970-2009

(edited by RCH to correct error in quote tags)
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Triple Zero

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:34:29 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 17, 2009, 08:18:15 PMyou still haven't addressed Portugal. their kids are doing less drugs now. What to make of that?

I would suggest that further information is required.  The thing is you can't simply compare statistics on whether a substance is legal or illegal.  There are other variables in the culture to consider.  What are the parental attitudes around substances?  What are parent-child relationships like?  Parental modeling.  Community norms.  Socio-economic. 

It's not as simple as saying "the drugs were made legal and thus substance abuse went down".  It may have been a factor, but without controlling for other factors you can't say for sure.  In other words, it isn't a universal that is going to have the same effects in every culture.  Remember different cultures have different reality grids and those are going to have huge impacts too.  Remember the BIP.  Different cultures and individuals in those cultures will have different bars exerting their influence.

Heyyyy this is basically the same argument I just made in the previous post about that information of marihuana use in young adults in NL going up :-)

See what I mean with the confirmation bias?

FWIW, I neither believe Portugal to be an example proving that legalisation is right, nor do I believe that (alleged?) increase in marihuana use in young adults in NL demonstrates a tolerance policy is wrong.

(Especially no way I'm going to assume that Portuguese reaction on this would be equivalent to the same thing happening in NL--cultures are way too different in too many ways)

Of course I do suppose that in your line of work the "probably neither is right" assumption is not a very useful or productive one, so you have to make an informed decision and pick a position. However, just because you have to take a position doesn't suddenly make that position more right, or even just as right as the position that "both may be likely and it's kind of hard to say".
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Triple Zero

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 04:59:32 AMthere is a movement brewing amongst some college and university Presidents to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  Anyone want to guess why University Presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18?

Personally, in the Netherlands, I always thought it was a very sensible idea for people to learn to deal with alcohol first (beer at 16), and only get their driver's license later (18).

Cause you wouldn't go to driving lessons while drunk. But you might come to the bad idea to drive home after your first "alcohol lessons", cause you already been driving for 5 years, after all and know you can handle that car.

QuoteIt may only rise 4 or 5%.  But when you multiply that by the number of young people in the US, that becomes a lot of kids.  Even a 3% increase would be a lot of kids.  So on a percentage basis it may seem marginal, but when you look at the raw number, it would impact many lives.

That's usage, or kids that actually waste their lives due to abuse cause they get access?

And how much would that be in absolute numbers?

What if you offset that to the absolute numbers of kids that currently get into trouble due to marihuana use with their career plans or college plans (like you said), broken families cause dad went to jail / lost his job / house bashed in or whatever it is they do?

Because if I understand you correctly, you say that one must be higher than the other. If you'd show us the figures, I think you'd convince a lot of people ITT (myself included, pertaining to legalisation of weed in the USA, that is).
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Triple Zero

sorry for the multiple posts, but one more question, and then I'll be gone for the rest of the day ;-)

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 05:26:19 AM
QuoteIt would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).

It's also generally more difficult for a kid to go to college and make a living when he/she has a drug problem.

which number is higher, the number of kids unable to go to college because of drug offense or the number of kids not going to college / difficulty in college due to drug abuse?

as far as I see:

scenario 1 = A% use drugs, B% of A get caught and legal problems, C% of A abuse and get drug problem = A x (B ^ C) % get into general trouble (the ^ denotes union of B and C because drug users can either get caught, abuse, both or neither--to be fair they're not even independent variables but as an approx it's complex enough as it is)

scenario 2 = D% use drugs, E% of D abuse and get drug problem = D x E % get into general trouble.

now, even if D > A, meaning more will use if it's legalized (can't really argue with that), the Big Question is, if you want to form an objective opinion on whether legalisation is good or bad, how does the entire equation look?

(for example, it could be argued C > E, meaning percentually less drug using people will abuse, because the topic is lifted from its taboo and education on responsible drug use increases. but maybe also not, I'm speculating)

either way, it seems that you are of the opinion that A x (B ^ C) < D x E, am I right? (meaning, more people would get into general trouble with legalisation than without)
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

AFK

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:02:43 AM
Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 06:10:11 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 08:43:06 AM
"It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation..." sounds awfully disingenuous. They came to a conclusion that is incompatible with your claim about a nation's drug policy being connected to rates of using marijuana.

Yes, and I think their conclusions are inconclusive.  I don't believe they properly took into consideration all of the variables that influence prevalence. 

QuoteI also did not claim that the ONDCP fabricated anything. I said they lied. And to further clarify, they lied by omission. Yes it's true that there was an increase in usage by young people after it was made available in coffee shops, but the nature of that use was experimental not chronic and abusive. Most did not continue using it. And, the increase in usage fit with trends of use in other nations with very different drug policies. Not only is it a lie by omission but also a fine example of the ex post facto fallacy.

But, um, no.  It is not a lie to report that usage went up when usage went up.  What you are quibbling about is interpretation of what the data means.  Because you have come to a different conclusion about what the data means compared to the ONDCP does not mean that one of you are lying.  It may mean that one of you is more correct about the interpretation, but that is decidedly different than lying. 

QuotePart of the research I cited refers to a study done 14 years ago—that doesn't invalidate their findings. More recently conducted studies are included in the research I linked to which also support the author's conclusion. If you have evidence that competes with it, or demonstrates some sort of error in their methodology, let's see it.

I think it is an incomplete study and one that, as I said, didn't properly take into consideration many variables that impact substance usage.  Things are different in 2009 than they were in 1995.  While usage has been trending down in the past year or so amongst adolescents, it is certainly higher than it was in 1995.  But I cannot ignore what I know about adolescent behavior to fully expect legalization will lead to more adolescents experimenting with and using marijuana. 

QuoteI would much rather that my baby girl grows up to have a marijuana problem than a marijuana problem AND repressive laws making it extremely difficult for her to go to college and make a living.

Well my experience with the "repressive laws" is they've been the impetus to get kids straight.  We've had countless kids who've gone through our residential program, or our outpatient program, or our drug court program who've gone on to college and become very successful.  And many of them will tell you, if they hadn't got caught, if they hadn't been referred to one of these programs, they'd still be doing the drugs and going nowhere.  And I know the experience of my agency is not unique and that those stories are told all across the US. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 18, 2009, 09:13:23 AM
Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM
There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures.  

that's weird because it doesn't really fit with the history of drug legislation in the Netherlands, as there is no single point in history that would count as "the introduction of coffeeshops", just a timeline of changes in legislation throughout the 20th century (starting in 1919 with the "Opium Law"*).

The strictness and (non-) legalisation of weed as well as the official and non-official levels of enforcement and prosecution considering weed possession and/or trading have gone both up and down in the 20th century, so I wonder what reference point your information uses compared to which marihuana use has increased amongst young adults**.

The "tolerance policy" was created around 1970, the difference between hard- and softdrugs was defined in 1976, during the 80s the tolerance policy again took a big hit, climaxing in 1992 with the cleansing of Platform Zero in Rotterdam. 1992 was also the year they instated the "AHOJ rules", defining what a coffeeshop must adhere to*** in order to not be prosecuted or closed down.

The number of Dutch coffeeshops peaked in the years 1991-1995, and has been declining ever since. Since 2004 politics has been following a "harder line" in the tolerance policy, resulting in closing down even more weed plantations and coffeeshops.

All in all, it's kind of bold to say that "marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops". I don't think this means that ONDCP lied about their figures, but it does make me doubt the objectivity of that research because if they would have sincerely considered all the facts the only conclusion would be that it's kind of hard to say what exactly caused what****, since so many different significant factors and events happened in the past century.

In addition to that, there's of course confirmation bias (which plays quite a strong role in a lot of these research, on both sides BTW), and perhaps most importantly, that this is stuff that happened over several decades and is now considered to be Dutch heritage by a lot of people, and that whole "engrainedness", I really think that you cannot simply apply these numbers to the USA or Maine. Our cultures are only superficially similar (mostly by important US popculture into Dutch) but below the surface there is so many significant nuances going on. I mean, even in little NL it makes sense to draw conclusions based upon separating different kinds of demographics based on second-generation-immigrant, province or rurality. So try to apply what moves 15 million people on a very tiny patch of earth to a huge country on another continent with its own very strong sense(s) of identity and cultural history, it's tricky I think.

To conclude, if you say legalizing marihuana in Maine is a bad idea, I can't argue with that, you are the expert. To say it was a bad idea in the Netherlands, or whether it would be a bad idea to implement somewhere else because, gets harder and harder, especially as you move farther away :)

Oh and btw you should really check that clip I linked there, it's a nice song, and subtitled (badly :) ).


* FYI currently, the Opium Law is the law defining the difference between harddrugs and softdrugs. It doesnt apply exclusively to opium, that's just what it's called. Our "tolerance policy" is not part of this (or any) law, but defined by the Dutch Ministry of Justice as "an official set of guidelines telling public prosecutors under which circumstances offenders should not be prosecuted".

** what are young adults btw? these are our legal ages in the Netherlands: 16 can buy beer, drive moped / 18 can buy weed, strong liquor, car drivers license / 21 financial independence.

*** no Advertising, Harddrugs, trouble (Overlast), youth (Jongeren, 18+)

**** and I haven't even touched upon the demographic changes in Dutch society, for instance several waves of immigrant workers had quite a large impact in a country which grew from 13M to 16.5M in 1970-2009

(edited by RCH to correct error in quote tags)

Just to clarify that the ONDCP didn't do the research.  They got the data from researchers who were examining the Dutch cannabis policy.  Here is a document that has the data complete with a citation for the research.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/mj_rev.pdf

The data is on page 10.
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.