Coffee Nomenclature

I think there's a lot to be admired about the Dutch approach to drug regulation, but the nomenclature aspect seems to be in clear need of reform:

A Dutch establishment advertising itself as a coffeeshop is likely to be primarily in the business of selling cannabis products and possibly other substances which are tolerated (in Dutch: "gedoogd") under the drug policy of the Netherlands. A koffiehuis sells coffee and light meals, whilst a café is the equivalent of a bar. In the Netherlands, the selling of cannabis is "illegal, but not punishable", so the law is not enforced in establishments following these nationwide rules.

Surely soft drugs, alcoholic beverages, and coffee can all be sold in different types of establishments without giving them all such similar names.

Comments

For an opposite problem, consider the confusion of the Dutch when they enter an American restroom or bathroom and find nowhere to rest or bathe.

Posted by RSA | November 30, 2007 8:47 AM

so how was the "coffee"?

Posted by paperpusher | November 30, 2007 8:56 AM

Or, rather, the Netherlands may merely recognize that cannabis, alcohol, and coffee are all, in fact, "soft drugs."

(Well, maybe not alcohol . . . .)

Posted by SGEW | November 30, 2007 9:02 AM

The nomenclature is rooted in history.

Back in the '70s, the Dutch police let it be known that they would not crack down on drug dealers who only dealt soft drugs and who did not deal on the streets but as "house dealers" of certain discos.

After a while the first of those house dealers decided to set up shop for himself, but he had no idea how the police would react. So he went for the cheapest permit he could get: that of a coffeeshop. Short opening hours, no alcohol. Mellow Yellow opened in 1972.

With respect to opening hours and alcohol most of today's coffeeshops are actually bars, but the name has stuck. That's also why coffee-selling coffeeshops have switched to koffiehuis.

Posted by jasper emmering | November 30, 2007 9:45 AM

It's also worth noting that for an original Dutch speaker the word Café and Coffee sound rather dissimilar. So there is no confusion regarding bars.

Posted by Ernst | November 30, 2007 10:20 AM

The bigger question is, do the Dutch park in driveways and drive on parkways?

Posted by mds | November 30, 2007 10:20 AM

I think the very idea of drugs being illegal but tolerated requires that establishment that offer them have names that are at least historically misleading.

Suppose that we had a law that allows to sell farmers products grown on their farms, in their farms, without restrictions, while posession of certain farm products would be still punishable by law outside farms where they were produced. Then you would have popular indoor hothouse farms which would offer fresh herbs like thyme, basil, tarragon and Indian hemp, with the proviso that the latter has to be consumed on premises.

Hard drugs could be controlled by prohibiting too much of chemical treatment to such farm products. The whole bussiness would be no more quaint than bottle laws in Pennsylvania.

Posted by piotr | November 30, 2007 10:22 AM

should somebody warn matt about "bath-houses"?

Posted by kid bitzer | November 30, 2007 11:03 AM

"illegal, but not punishable"

Then... what's the point of them even being illegal? Sounds sort of like the U.S. Constitution under Bush.

Posted by Ron | November 30, 2007 11:33 AM

What do they charge for a "latte", anyway? It's a serious question, by the way. How's the price of weed compare to, say, cigarettes?

Posted by sglover | November 30, 2007 1:08 PM

"illegal, but not punishable"

Perhaps there is a nuance. 'Strafbar' does mean punishable, but what is meant here is English 'punished'. That is, because it is illegal it is punishable, but the policy is that it is "illegal but not punished". It is worth noting that policy is conventionally more important than law.

Posted by ither | November 30, 2007 1:24 PM

It used to be that in most Coffee Houses you could buy beer and dope at the same time, but this year we spent a few days there at the tag end of our holiday and it's changed.

Now you can't sell dope and alcohol at the same time, even though you can let people smoke their own dope on the premises. Most of the dope-selling Coffee Houses we saw had switched to soft-drinks only.

For example, Rookies in the Leidesplein had adapted by opening a quite nice place across from their dope-selling but now non-alcoholic pub/bar where you could drink and order food.

I have to say, even though I can see some of the possible benefits of keeping dope and alcohol further apart than they were, I prefered Amsterdam under the old system.

Posted by Tony J | November 30, 2007 2:16 PM

"illegal, but not punishable"

Then... what's the point of them even being illegal?

The Netherlands can't officially legalize Marijuana because it is a signatory of the UN Drug Control Treaties: http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publications/001_publication

One of the many, many bad outcomes of the USA's idiotic drug war is that it's been exported to most of the world.

Posted by andrew | November 30, 2007 2:33 PM

The key practical point of having a substance that is illegal but not punishable is that contract law does not apply to that substance (i.e. if you sign a contract guaranteeing supply, pay up front and the supplier pulls out next day, there's no legal redress). This means that regular corporations don't get involved in the trade, which stays relatively small and semi-criminal, and prevents the deployment of classic mass-marketing and advertising techniques.

Also, I believe that de/recriminalisation is in the gift of the executive, whereas legalisation is in the gift of the legislature. This means that any given area, cannabis can be recriminalised pretty much instantaneously (for example, if the local coffeeshops get out of hand).

Posted by JohnTh | November 30, 2007 3:39 PM

Isn't this the same thing as American "massage parlors" that are really tolerated brothels? And then people who want legitimate massages have to look for all sorts of clues to make sure that they are in a place that delivers them.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 30, 2007 4:45 PM

The Dutch word for criminal but tolerated is gedogen, which also applies to a number of other things, and is rooted in the old pillar system, when Catholics, Protestants, and liberals had their own newspapers, unions, political parties, etc. There's not much of a stretch from a "Catholic" meat market to "illegal but tolerated" pot, at least to the Dutch mind.

Posted by Jaap | November 30, 2007 5:42 PM

I wondered how long it would take Matt to post on this subject. Not long, as it turned out.

Amsterdam is clearly not wracked by civil disorder as a result of its sensible social policies. On the other hand, our idiotic policy of trying to shift blame for drug abuse from individuals in rich countries making bad choices, to dirt-poor subsistence farmers in the Third World, is the cause of civil wars around the world.

Decriminalization, or simply "illegal but tolerated", would be the single most significant policy boost we could give allies like Hamid Karzai.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 1, 2007 4:31 AM

"Isn't this the same thing as American "massage parlors" that are really tolerated brothels? And then people who want legitimate massages have to look for all sorts of clues to make sure that they are in a place that delivers them.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 30, 2007 4:45 PM"

You think it's bad in the US, go to China. A couple of friends of mine ended up going to a brothel drunk and unaware (and eventually had to run from the police) when they got in a cab drunk and told the cabdriver to take them to the nearest karaoke bar.

Posted by Reality Man | December 1, 2007 5:45 AM

Re: Bath-houses - After a cold day on the canals, visit Sauna Deco Sauna Deco, Herengracht 115. Beautiful art deco appointments, baths, saunas, steamrooms, etc. No funny business either.

Posted by M. Peachbush | December 1, 2007 8:35 PM