Well, I live in Holland, so I can tell from experience. Softdrugs are
permitted for recreational use, you're allowed to posses one or two
marihuanaplants and just enough to serve yourself and a few guests. It's not
permitted to deal. But everyone knows that you have to buy your supply
somewhere, so there are 'coffeeshops' as they're called, where you can buy
small quantities. What happens at the front door is officially permitted,
but what happens at the back door not. Suppliers are illegal, but necessary.
Coffeeshops and suppliers are 'tolerated'. If the police discovers
commercial production, all plants are distroyed and the owner is mildly
punished. You can however buy all the cultivation equipment and seeds in
specialized shops. Being a small densely populated country which you can
cross by car within three hours from Southwest to Northeast, Holland has
developed an allergy for antagonism. So 'tolerance' is a very widely applied
principle. I'm not sure if anyone, even the Dutch themselves can understand
the logic of this. The defenders of this policy say that it's better then
the alternative: complete criminalisation. They have a practical point,
because in Holland there're less drugrelated casaulities and illnesses
compared to other countries where all drugs are strictly forbidden. And even
the French gounvernement is beginning to see the practical advantages.
About the origins of drugculture there's much more to say. I insist that you
have to look also at the other side of society. In the U.S. there was the
McCarthyperiod and the managerial revolution. The dominant discourse was of
domination and control, but there was also a counter discourse, i.e. Erich
Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. There was theosophy and allready in 1893 the
Indian swami Vivekananda had become famous. Some influence might have come
from France where the hasjish was known among intellectuals. I think the
discourse of control and production created the counterdiscourse and the
drug are a powerfull weapom aginst the physical discipline of present
organised labour.
erik
| -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
| Van: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| [mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens francisfarrell
| Verzonden: woensdag 2 juli 2003 7:09
| Aan: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Onderwerp: Re: Drug Gaze
|
|
| I don't think marijuana has been legalised in Holland. It is tolerated in
| certain places in certain cities, as I understand it.
|
| regards,
|
| Francis
|
|
permitted for recreational use, you're allowed to posses one or two
marihuanaplants and just enough to serve yourself and a few guests. It's not
permitted to deal. But everyone knows that you have to buy your supply
somewhere, so there are 'coffeeshops' as they're called, where you can buy
small quantities. What happens at the front door is officially permitted,
but what happens at the back door not. Suppliers are illegal, but necessary.
Coffeeshops and suppliers are 'tolerated'. If the police discovers
commercial production, all plants are distroyed and the owner is mildly
punished. You can however buy all the cultivation equipment and seeds in
specialized shops. Being a small densely populated country which you can
cross by car within three hours from Southwest to Northeast, Holland has
developed an allergy for antagonism. So 'tolerance' is a very widely applied
principle. I'm not sure if anyone, even the Dutch themselves can understand
the logic of this. The defenders of this policy say that it's better then
the alternative: complete criminalisation. They have a practical point,
because in Holland there're less drugrelated casaulities and illnesses
compared to other countries where all drugs are strictly forbidden. And even
the French gounvernement is beginning to see the practical advantages.
About the origins of drugculture there's much more to say. I insist that you
have to look also at the other side of society. In the U.S. there was the
McCarthyperiod and the managerial revolution. The dominant discourse was of
domination and control, but there was also a counter discourse, i.e. Erich
Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. There was theosophy and allready in 1893 the
Indian swami Vivekananda had become famous. Some influence might have come
from France where the hasjish was known among intellectuals. I think the
discourse of control and production created the counterdiscourse and the
drug are a powerfull weapom aginst the physical discipline of present
organised labour.
erik
| -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
| Van: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| [mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens francisfarrell
| Verzonden: woensdag 2 juli 2003 7:09
| Aan: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Onderwerp: Re: Drug Gaze
|
|
| I don't think marijuana has been legalised in Holland. It is tolerated in
| certain places in certain cities, as I understand it.
|
| regards,
|
| Francis
|
|