a lot of people fail to realise that the average thc content of weed sold in amsterdam went down from around 20% thc in 2004 to about only 16% thc by 2008 so i hate to say it but the tory dutch gov are just plain stupid !!!

Good grief,can you meddling busybodies with nothing better to do with yourselves please take a long walk off a short pier?
Hiram1 clearly considers himself an authority on the subject,with little or no real experience of drugs in general. Amazing how many people who don't smoke hash have a strong opinion on it's eradication,and yet they'll quite happily sit and consume as much alcohol as they please. Hiram1,you have no idea of the effects of hash if you can consider it to a far worse drug i.e. alcohol.
Basically this amounts to a ban on fun,something we are becoming more and more familiar with,and one more step nearer Mr. Orwell's view of the future. Leave us alone to do what we want - we're harming no-one!!!

Right wing religious extremist sure can find their way into serious debates like this. Balanced reporting can become a trap that gives "equal" time to people who do not consider that their views can be extremely harmful if put into practice. Organised crime is, by definition, organised. So if I were a crook in The Netherlands, I would petition the prayerful with donations every time they try and get cannabis, strong or weak, back in the black market. It is just economic rationalism on their part. I really cant see the Dutch as silly enough to give it back to organised crime. All we need to do is get involved and try to balance the rubbish with the facts whenever it is trotted out. Keep the Faith! Max Harmreduction

"...the risks", "...consequences to consumers", "...addiction", "...psychotic episodes".

These people are obviously uninformed about the facts & figures pertaining to marijuana. Yet they repeat the mantra's of extreme anti-marijuana proponents. Mr. Garretson speaks, as most anti-marijuana "experts", in general terms...using extreme general terminology. But no factual details to back these general accusations up -- other than the higher THC content (which is true, although THC content is extremely variable and often results in unreliable percentage readings from plant to plant).

The Christian political parties (largely responsible for the anti-marijuana/coffeeshop hype) need to go away.

A warm hello from Brisbane, Australia; it early summer here.

Max is a needle exchange worker from Brisbane All-hours Needle Exchange. And an independent researcher in our local University medical and drugs libraries. Some years ago I rang Prof Peter Cohen (CEDRO UvA), we talked about our drug services and statistics on drug use rates but it was the difference between your High School Student rates and our rates that took our breaths away. Here we have National Surveys that show 7% of our 16 year olds have already tried heroin.... Peter read out your rate as 0.1% and that even in Amsterdam. That is about 100 here for every 1 (one) that you have.

Dutch Foreign Affairs at minbuza.nl, has a download of questions and answers that has a coffeeshop section that explains why you have cannabis available in them:- to protect experimenting teenagers who want to try cannabis from also trying drugs like heroin and the organised crime that supplies them. Put these two things together and you have the only Primary Prevention of any illegal drugs anywhere on our planet - at least by policy intentions.

Our needle exchanges grow about 40% each year - yours decline 10 to 15% each year. Our drug treatment programs like methadone grow every year - yours decline 10 to 15% each year. Our fatal overdoses are as high as 1200 souls in a year - yours only 42. And so on.

On this basis, I find that The Netherlands would have to do a lot of explaining to mess around with coffeeshops when the true impact of them is so enormous. We should change our drugs policy, not you. The great danger here is Social Amnesia: We both started cannabis prohibition around 1965. Your great researchers noted the dramatic rise in youth use of drugs like heroin and injecting, so by 1976 cannabis could be sold in coffeeshops. This is the cause, the only cause and nothing but the cause, of the dramatic protection of your teenagers.

On the other hand, we have failed to protect our kids because our laws are written on the unspoken basis that it makes no difference if our kids have a hit of cannabis or a hit of heroin. ALL of my customers were once only cannabis users, they reported to me a wide range of ways that they were driven from cannabis to drugs like heroin by the market forces created by total prohibition.

Please keep the faith in coffeeshops just for your kids. Cheers, Max Harmreduction

fundamental christians and muslims are everywhere terrorizing the world with their dark judgements,but as we learn soon enough,their world domination is coming to an end,and we can witness their final battle against that wich they believe is evil,and would kill to prove it.
I dont feel sorry for them,their superstitious fears will turn on themselves.

I strongly believe that this debate on THC percentages is the latest red herring .
One could focus on how misinformation and the media-frenzy surrounding the subject have encouraged cultivators to focus on increasing their THC levels but a more relevant fact is that - as with other substances, including alcohol - stronger cannabis simply leads the end-user to adapt his consumption of the substance over time.

While I agree that adolescent-use of Cannabis can lead to problems - as would the use of any other drug given that their bodies are still developing - I believe that accurate information and education on the subject would have better results than the current measures in place seem to.

One thing Professor Garretsen seems to have forgotten while commenting on how easily adolescents can obtain cannabis in coffeeshops is that it is illegal for them to do so in the first place. Something which is clearly stated in the AHOJG –criteria. (http://www.om.nl/algemene_onderdelen/uitgebreid_zoeken/@155857/aanwijzin...) ID controls are therefore intensive given the risks a coffeeshop would have in accepting a minor on its premises. (Ultimately this could lead to its closure and loss of its license) As in every other country that comes to mind, adolescents obtain cannabis via street dealers.

As for quality control, coffeeshop owners should not focus on limiting THC content but rather on putting measures in place to verify the quality of the cannabis, making sure that it contains no contaminants, while at the same time providing accurate information about the THC and CBD content of each strain. This would allow users to make an educated decision as to which strain they wish to use. This is a practice already in place in medical dispensaries across the USA.

Finally, it is about time we recognize the fact that a repressive approach is not a sustainable solution. Cannabis consumption, or any other drug’s consumption for that matter, is not affected by legislation as has been proved throughout history. It is time to face up to this fact and focus on finding solutions to ensure consumers’ education and good health - a thought that I believe scientist Nicole Maalsté would agree with.

Oh dear - looks like the right wingers have made the first move to ditch the sucessful mildly liberal soft drug policy that the Netherlands is famous for and started to bring in the anti-drug, prohibitionist, lets make it illegal brigade. Just look at this article. It has all the authority of an elementary school project. It doesn't stand up to the simplest of rational analysis let alone scientific objectivity. It's a bunch of unsubstantiated statements.

Lets look at some of it:

'excessively high percentage of THC' - What on earth does that mean? high compared to what? and the using words like excessively gives away what the author wants us to think - this is a leading statement it doesn't belong in a 'recommendation to the Dutch government'

'the risks involved in its use are no longer acceptable' - What risks and unacceptable to who? These kinds of stupid subjective opinions could be made about almost anything eg 'large engine motorcycles have excessively high power and should be banned because the risks involved in their use are no longer acceptable' or 'spirits contain an excessively high percentage of alcohol and should be banned blah blah blah' - fine if you think the entire nation consists of children.

'In the year 2011 ...... between 15 and 18 percent.' - This statement has been trotted out by politicians in many countries usually to justify revelations that they themselves enjoyed the use of marijuana in their youth but have now made laws to criminalise everyone else for doing the exact same thing. words like hypocritical and low life and scumbags come to mind. the reality is that we now have more choice (than in 1976). You don't have to damage your lungs so much to enjoy marijuana. You can choose a mild type or a strong type in much the same way you would choose between a lager or a whiskey.

'We believe 15 percent should be the upper limit' - YOU BELIEVE? wtf? Since when does it matter what you believe - oh I forgot prohibition is similarly a belief based policy. Reminds me of the times when they believed that the earth was at the center of the universe or that homosexuality should be illegal or that black people were some kind of inferior human - how much suffering resulted from policies based on those beliefs? I personally believe that religion is a fairly primitive thing but don't actually propose that religious activity should be made illegal.

'Hard drugs pose an unacceptable risk to the user' - I don't exactly want to discuss this here as we're talking about marijuana but I can't let it go either. This is another typical bullshit statement repeated over and over by prohibitionists. Unacceptable to who? and why? and what gives anyone the right to accept (or not) a risk I take. There are countless activities that involve huge risks - motor racing, parachuting, flying, deep sea diving etc etc etc but you don't put people in prison for doing them. GET OUT OF MY LIFE WITH YOUR STUPID PURITANICAL BELIEFS. As a last comment 'the risks' associated with most drugs is a direct consequence of prohibition - lack of quality control, dose regulation etc because the manufacture of the drugs is done by criminals. Medicinal grade heroin or cocaine are very low risk to the user compared to street grade equivalents.

'how likely users are to become addicted' - Prohibitionists are continually trying to use the 'a' word to stigmatise drugs. Addicts usually turn out to be people with psychological problems hence we get people addicted to ice cream or junk food or even nowadays sex and even horse riding.

'The higher the THC content, the greater the risks' - Once again a statement given as fact without defining what 'risk' means or anything to substantiate the claim. If I smoke 3 grams of low content THC marijuana how does it compare to the 'risk' of smoking 1/2 gram high THC content marijuana?

'Extensive epidemiological research in the past years has shown that cannabis use during adoloscence is a risk factor in the development of psychotic disorders, dependency' - At last a reference to research but now we're suddenly talking about children? So many things affect children very much more than adults that nearly universally we have laws protecting children, from consuming tobacco and alcohol to having sex and driving cars. I've never met anyone who advocates allowing adolescents to consume marijuana. Set an age limit and move on. This is pure propaganda (FUD) on the part of prohibitionists.

'Professor Garretsen believes' - Here we go again basing policy on belief rather than evidence and this guy is not even a drug expert. He sounds more like a government yes man. Professor David Nutt in the UK who is an eminently qualified drug expert refers to 'the issue of the mismatch between lawmakers' classification of recreational drugs, in particular that of cannabis and scientific measures of their harmfulness' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt)

A few points that should be made especially wrt some of the garbage written in the comments here:
- Almost every problem supposedly caused by drugs when examined closely is either a problem caused by prohibition or will always be a problem despite prohibition.
- Governments (particularly those of the US) have spent the last 50 years spewing out propaganda to support the prohibitionist agenda making rational debate very difficult (ever seen reefer madness?)
- By every measure prohibition is a massive failure and an even bigger waste of resources and capital, it generates vast criminal wealth and causes misery for hundreds of millions of people

Thanks Malcolm Kyle for being one of those people who bother to put together very well reasoned arguments which show how corrupt the whole prohibition regime is. I know it's exhausting having to continuously tear down the same walls of bullshit over and over again. My 10 cents on that is that if you remove every other explanation as to why prohibition persists you're left with only one question - who would stand to lose the most if prohibition ended? (or conversely who profits most from prohibition?) - its the criminals of course and I think they learnt a lesson from the end of alcohol prohibition and the subsequent loss of revenue/control. They may not concede defeat so easily this time. I believe by infiltrating governments, judiciaries and agencies organised crime is blocking all debate of drug policies. of course they're (unwittingly) aided by the corrupt, do-gooders, religious types, idealists etc (just a theory but it fits observation very well)

check out:
http://media.npr.org/documents/2011/june/Global_Commission_Report_Englis...
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didnt-want-you-t...

Some folks like to smoke weed. Others like to dress up in matching costumes, fly airplanes over muslim countries and drop bombs on the civilians below.

Hats off to Malcolm Kyle! Where is the logic that says teenagers drinking at 16 years old is lower priority to the government than the economics of it largest city.

RNW, thanks for continously writing articles on "Weed". The articles are an excellent method of showing the world how marijauna affects the logic of humans who are addicted by it. The human mind, when altered by illicit drugs, is Pandora's box. Or, as Karl Marx stated "A drunk man's action is a sober man's thoughts". Anyways, thanks and I hope you don't get your budget cut.

Oh god, not you again Hiram with your twisted and psychotic "bad logic". Please, I'v stressed before, please, please get a job and life.
Strange the stories RNW picks to highlight...seems to be always the anti-pot arguments.....perhaps you do need your budget trimmed.

Bullshit, Bollox and pure made up crap!! Test have shown there is not much difference to weeds strength in the 70's and weed bought today.
The people or organisation that wrote this article have just run out of valid arguments for prohibition so use scaremongering tactics. I don't think the Amsterdam authorities understand the amount of tourism they are going to lose if the Pass Bill goes ahead...Ur coffee shops are bigger than Anne Frank!!

I think grass a priviledge that should be accessible to all. I also think that Dutch grass is way too strong in my opinion. It should stimulate, not intoxicate.

Its funny how all this starts when america is well on its way to having legal cannabis , i wonder how much money corrupt American and British polititions are giving the corrupt dutch mps to do this . We all know thats where this crap is comming from . I just wish MPs could see that they are loosing and should just give up .