The Decline of the Coffeeshop

One thing I noticed by eyeball during the trip to Amsterdam was that there seemed to be many fewer coffee shops in town than I'd remembered from ten years ago. According to Dutch political sources, this is actually the case. The change stems from two things, one being that they made it much more difficult for institutions licensed to sell marijuana to also sell beer (thus wrecking the business model, though I should note that I did see a whole bunch of people smoking weed they'd presumably bought elsewhere in one bar) and the other being a simple change toward a giving out fewer licenses.

The political reason for the change is the rise of the smallish Christian Union Party, which combines some egalitarian ideas on economics with cultural conservatism. Cultural conservatism by Dutch standards is pretty mild by American standards -- they pushed for it to be the case that civil servants with objections to gay marriage can be allowed to refuse to perform them personally; actually getting rid of gay marriage is unthinkable -- but apparently includes some skepticism about tolerance of soft drugs. The policy reason is that the soft drugs for sale in the Netherlands had been getting stronger-and-stronger leading to a lot of problems with "drug tourists" unaccustomed to the Dutch product finding themselves in various kinds of trouble.

This seems like a sensible enough concern to me. The legitimate concern about marijuana legalization, in my view, is that the creation of a big marijuana industry could have some real deleterious effects, which I guess is what you were seeing in embryonic form with competition leading to an increasingly intense product. The Dutch policy has been aimed at the sensible goal of preventing the emergence of such an industry -- no advertising, no large scale cultivation, etc. -- while still letting consumers do what they want in private, and some cutback in the number of coffee shops in central Amsterdam (it's still no hard to find one) seems consistent with that.

Comments

which I guess is what you were seeing in embryonic form with competition leading to an increasingly intense product.

Legalization isn't necessary for this type of competition to take place. Marijuana in the U.S. has gotten exponentially stronger since the 1970's without any government sanction.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | December 3, 2007 2:53 PM

What's wrong with a "more intense product"? The more intense it is, the less you have to smoke, so the better it is for your health. Now with the mushrooms, I see that argument, but I've yet to hear of pot so strong it makes you a danger to society.

Posted by too many steves | December 3, 2007 2:54 PM

Legalizing marijuana is not the equivalent of refusing to regulate marijuana. Like, say, hedge funds, marijuana might have some socially beneficial uses, but one can regulate it to make sure we don't have too much of a good thing.

On the other hand, banning marijuana and other drugs essentially means that the U.S. government gives up regulating marijuana - it has no say so with dealers about the ages of their customers or the composition of their product. And these dealers have no incentive to adhere to any rules than the ones they make up themselves.

Liquor stores are engaged in selling drugs, too, but they actually have incentives for weeding out, say, under 18 year old buyers, and for not selling moonshine made from radiator fluid. It is an imperfect system - the number of fake ids among the underage crowd is proof that American youth are still the most creative and innovative bunch around - but it leads to less prison, more self-regulation, etc., etc.

Posted by roger | December 3, 2007 2:57 PM

Um, Matt, marijuana is already the number-one cash crop in America--an industry that by its illegality offers all too many opportunities for organized crime syndicates to reap $ millions. Meanwhile, check this out:

stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/498/marijuana_dealers_offer_schwarzenegger_one_billion_dollars

Press Release: Marijuana Dealers Offer Schwarzenegger One Billion Dollars

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #498, 8/17/07
(press release from the newly-launched LetUsPayTaxes.com web site)

August 6 -- A coalition of California marijuana growers and dealers has offered Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger one billion dollars to solve the current state budget crisis. The group, calling itself Let Us Pay Taxes, makes the offer through its web site LetUsPayTaxes.com. The offer comes at a time when the California legislature is deadlocked on a new budget and California has stopped issuing checks for vitally needed social services. Legislators are currently arguing over which programs will be cut in order to balance the budget.

Posted by elle loco | December 3, 2007 3:01 PM

"though I should note that I did see a whole bunch of people smoking weed they'd presumably bought elsewhere in one bar"

I'd love to see a sign, "You can't smoke your own pot here", posted in a bar.

Posted by Njorl | December 3, 2007 3:01 PM

If Marijuana were legalized here, couldn't the FDA just regulate the acceptable THC (or other relevant ingredients) content of the marijuana, and mandate that if you want the strongest possible marijuana, you would need a doctor's prescription?

Posted by Alan | December 3, 2007 3:23 PM

This whole "marijuana is so much stronger now then when you, today's parents, were smoking it in the '70s" line from the legalized drug & alcohol cos. (Partnership for a "Drug-Free" America, etc.) is a total crock. It's like the difference between beer & whiskey. You won't be drinking 12 oz. of Scotch just because it takes 12 oz. of Miller for the equivalent effect. Nor will any one today be smoking the amount required in the '70s. That this is the best point the "anti-drug" coalition feels it can make about marijuana is telling of just how weak their case is.

(To expand on too many steves' point.)

Posted by M. Bouffant | December 3, 2007 3:31 PM

Matt,

The reason why weed is stronger is specifically BECAUSE of drug prohibition, not despite it.

During Alcohol Prohibition in the 20's and 30's, no one bothered to make beer. It was all gin, hootch, what was call "the strong stuff". It was more alcohol packed into a smaller space. Because the smaller space you needed for smuggling, the better.

Were there not a need to illegally smuggle weed, it's strength would not have risen up so much. Plus, like alcohol, all that "stronger weed" means is that you smoke less of it to get the same effect. You have a shot of whiskey instead of a can of beer.

Also, if marijuana was legalized and regulated int he US, the FDA would no doubt have the power to regulate THC content and strength as it so desired. Of course, I think people should also be given the right to grow their own plants, just as people can brew their own booze in certain quantities.

The Christian Democrats appear to be mucking around, and trying to foolishly kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Posted by J. Mintzer | December 3, 2007 3:33 PM

What's wrong with a "more intense product"? The more intense it is, the less you have to smoke, so the better it is for your health. Now with the mushrooms, I see that argument, but I've yet to hear of pot so strong it makes you a danger to society.

The danger is extreme listlessness combined with stupidity.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 3, 2007 3:43 PM

Who cares if weed is stronger and cheaper? Let capitalism do its thing here! If people desire a 'less intense' product, why would we expect the market to fail to provide it in this case? I understand the worry about getting something you aren't accustomed to, but this type of regulatory solution seems miles removed from dealing with that problem.

Posted by Wilson | December 3, 2007 3:44 PM

What is the chance of achieving a reasonable drug policy in the US?

If comes down to California budget woes forcing the state's hand, that would be pretty hilarious. Wouldn't that lead to a pretty impressive federal versus state stand-off, though?

Posted by mpowell | December 3, 2007 3:47 PM

Since drug penalties are apportioned by weight, it makes a lot of sense for growers and dealers to aim for the strongest product possible. The flipside of this is that police agencies use the street value of high grade bud in estimating the value of *all* the marijuana they find, including the stalks, stems, leaves, and even roots. That's why every so often the police will find trash bags full of marijuana by the side of the road "with a street value of $100,000" - it's leftovers from a grow operation that somebody tossed out the door of a car to get rid of evidence (and possible reduce the amounts counted against them in the event of a bust).

Posted by togolosh | December 3, 2007 3:55 PM

Has anyone ever overdosed on marijuana? I don't see how it's possible.

Posted by mad6798j | December 3, 2007 4:25 PM

Here's how you legalize marijuana without creating a big marijuana industry: legalize possession under a certain quantity (e.g. what you can grow in a 10' x 10' plot), and allow adults to freely share it with one another, but keep it illegal to sell it.

Nothing to it, really.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 3, 2007 4:41 PM

actually, low-tech cyclist, that might be a good prescription for keeping Russian, Mexican, and other ruthless racketeers killing people to maintain market share and so on. Marijuana need to be brought out of the black market whole and entire. The only demographic that rabidly opposes decriminalization are the 65+ crowd. I'll fire one up and keep waiting....

Posted by elle loco | December 3, 2007 4:51 PM

LA has essentially legalized weed in the past few years, insofar as you buy it from one of hundreds of stores, stores with neon pot leaves in the window and full-color ads in the free papers and shit like that. Except you need a doctor's recommendation. Which you buy from offices that advertise on the same page. That seems to be working out fine, and I'm told that the existence of outlets that can offer several dozen named strains in volume has really whipped the suppliers (largely BC and Humboldt by I-5, east Asian grow-ops in the middle suburbs and exurbs) into some impressive effort, as competition pushes common strains down in price.

Posted by Senescent | December 3, 2007 5:00 PM

creation of a big marijuana industry could have some real deleterious effects

Big industry selling marijuana to happy, voluntary suckers=bad?

Big state using violence to curb preferred activity of above suckers=good?

Did Yglesias read this post before posting?

Posted by Shinyk | December 3, 2007 5:02 PM

elle loco - could you clarify what you're saying about the gangsters?

As far as I can see, the effect of allowing everyone to grow dope in their backyard (or under the grow-lights in their closet, if they insist on being traditionalists), thus reducing the black market in marijuana to essentially nil, would be to get them out of the marijuana business entirely.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't try to horn in on some other crooked business, but on the whole, the number of gangsters the environment would support would be reduced.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 3, 2007 5:22 PM

low-tech, you might be right that the market would be undermined. But right now, there's a situation in California where even marijuana dispensaries are being strong-armed out of business by racketeers in some cases.... It's the worst of all possible outcomes: Virtually no actual public oversight, continued black-market dysfunction, and on and on. Betwixt and between--and then the DEA thugs come and kick in the occasional door.

Posted by elle loco | December 3, 2007 6:25 PM

I'm with Shinyk. What is the problem with a big, legal marijuana industry? I'd think the establishment of well-known brands with well-understood levels of quality control and relative strength, etc. would be pretty good for consumers. Is the downside really any greater than the establishment of big liquor, beer, and wine companies? Straight up legalization of pot would be the best outcome--with a legal age limit of 21, just like alcohol. And I'd imagine that it would make the most sense for ATF to get involved in regulation and enforcement.

It seems to me that I've read somewhere that the idea that pot today is much stronger that pot was in the 60s or 70s is an absolutely myth with no factual basis at all. I can't find a citation for that though, but it sounds highly dubious and the idea heavily pushed by anti-drug organizations.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 3, 2007 7:37 PM

I've never understood the argument that marijuana, alone of all commodities, should not be the object of regular commerce, but should only be legal to those people who have a green thumb and a patch of land. Why?

On the other hand, plastic - a massive environmental problem that is seriously cluttering up the ocean - that I think should only be legal if you make your own, at home, in the basement, in your own plastic kiln. Otherwise, it should be very strictly forbidden.

Posted by roger | December 3, 2007 8:03 PM

I honestly can't understand why you wouldn't want a big marijuana industry. (Incidentally, as I understand it, production and wholesale distribution is still illegal in the Netherlands.)

Complete legalization of the industry (at all levels) removes the marijuana trade completely from organized crime. They lose revenue. Governments can regulate the product, regulate the transactions, tax it. The industry would create (legal) jobs and investment opportunities. And people (and governments) would even have the opportunity to participants in the industry to court if they acted unscrupulously.

On the other hand, you might get a Joe Doobie billboard near a school. Really, what's the downside here? Big Business does a lot of bad things, but even so, they're still preferable to drug dealers, and a hell of a lot easier to regulate.

Posted by Royko | December 3, 2007 8:17 PM

The "grow it but don't sell it" thing is ridiculous. If people were suddenly allowed to grow their own, lots of them would still prefer to buy it. Lots of people don't have gardens. Other people are bad at gardening. I don't grow my own corn, why would I grow my own pot?

Basically, this takes the stupid conservative attitude toward drugs and adds on the stupid leftist attitude toward commerce.

Posted by too many steves | December 3, 2007 8:20 PM

elle loco - the problem with those dispensaries is that there are too few of them to avoid being targeted. If you're talking about a few thousand gardens, and many more grow-lights in closets, in every urban area, it's hard for me to see how gangsters can shut it all down.

There are only so many people one criminal syndicate can strong-arm.

roger (and too many steves) - I wouldn't want to make a moral case for it, but if the fear of a legal drug syndicate replacing the old illegal one is the deal-breaker on some sort of legalization, this is the answer.

And who needs a patch of land? A tiny closet and a grow-lamp should do you. It's not that hard to grow - it really IS a weed, ferchrissake. And if you can't grow it, you'll probably have friends who can grow more than they can smoke.

Then when people have been legally getting high for a decade or so, and the world hasn't come to an end as a result, we can have a sane conversation about legalizing commercial cultivation.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 3, 2007 8:42 PM

The reason why weed is stronger is specifically BECAUSE of drug prohibition, not despite it.

This is right. The Feds have been pretty successful at interdicting weed (but only weed) coming from other countries, so Americans just grow it here. Weed is bulky and smelly compared to cocaine and heroin, so it makes more sense to traffic internationally in those latter rather than the devil weed (and another commenter above is correct in noting that penalties for domestic trafficing are by weight, which further encourages growing superweed). The stronger the varieties are, the more can be charged for them. I hear that the superweed kids smoke these days can cost $400-600 per ounce. More than gold. Super-potent super-lucrative domestically-grown pot: brought to you by our moronic, counterproductive and civil liberty eroding drug war.

Posted by jonnybutter | December 3, 2007 10:19 PM

Well, Matt can guess, but I doubt he has it right. For one thing, when did anyone complain about the foreigners imbibing too much at the local nightspots and causing a problem? Isn't the entire tourism industry of the Mediterranean built on that model?

For another, the Dutch themselves are pretty hardcore. Records of Dutch colonies show there were usually one tavern for every 6-10 Dutchmen, and social histories are unanimous in concluding the Dutch were extremely heavy drinkers. Most of us would probably fall off our stools in a coma if we hoisted a few of what the average Dutchman drinks.

Apparently in Switzerland they simply grow the pot in fields, and stuff pillows with it as an "aromatic herb". But maybe the Swiss have more self-control than the Dutchmen.

As usual, the matter is probably one of control. The rightwingers think their world is spinning out of control, and they think prohibition is one area where they can still give commands. Not a new thesis, but a durable one.

Posted by serial catowner | December 3, 2007 10:56 PM

Weak product, strong sales

The most dangerous form of commercial exploitation of marijuana would involve watering the product down, not intensifying the THC content. Cigarettes are the ultimately commercial form of tobacco because their weakness (You can even inhale! Try that with a quality cigar.) means that consumers need to buy more units to get the same bang, and, more importantly, the hit from each individual unit is weak enough that these small doses can be self-administered throughout the work day so as not to degrade job performance. This allowed chemical dependence on nicotine to become possible for the mass audience. And low quality, of course, is more suitable to a mass-produced product anyway. Think McDonald's product, vs what you get in a real restaurant.

The medical complications of tobacco were unknown before cigarettes started being mass-produced a little over a century ago, though tobacco had been in use for centuries prior to that, as delivered in much stronger forms. Weakening the dose of each individual unit was the key for tobacco in getting the overall lifetime dose of the average user up to toxic levels, because that correlated directly with higher profits. Maybe THC, even if given a much better shot than it now enjoys at creating chemical dependency by being spread out in small doses throughout the day, will not prove as addictive as cigarette-delivered nicotine. Maybe marijuana will prove different in its medical entailments, but if there are long-term effects of a higher lifetime dose of THC and the tars of smoking (which should be essentially the same tars and same risk as tobacco tars) than users have amassed in this pre-organized-industrial-commercial-exploitation phase of marijuana smoking, then allowing such exploitation would be expected to uncover them, because the maximum profit point for a mass-produced marijuana product will be weak-dose units driving an explosion of number of units sold. Quantity will trump quality if we ever allow free commercial exploitation.

Make no mistake, in the USA, as opposed to the Netherlands, we will not get legalization without totally unrestricted commercial exploitation. Outraged objections to that opinion will be a lot more convincing to me the day after we get any sort of meaningful societal control over a tobacco industry that kills almost a half-million of us a year, and laughs about it all the way to the bank.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | December 3, 2007 11:04 PM

Matt,

There IS a big marijuana industry in the Netherlands and in this country. The only question is if you want it run by various bands of violent criminals or if you want it regulated and enforced by the federal government like every other industry.

Posted by Jake W. | December 3, 2007 11:10 PM

Of course, Jake, if we wrested control from the violent criminals, how would Hollywood and the television industry ever survive?

One should consider that violent criminals running the drug trade and the valiant citizens who oppose them make up something like 500% of movie and tv show plots!

Between a legal drug industry and the WGA strike, how would our producers ever recover?

Posted by Greg | December 3, 2007 11:31 PM

when did anyone complain about the foreigners imbibing too much at the local nightspots and causing a problem? Isn't the entire tourism industry of the Mediterranean built on that model?

I've lived in a few places where the tourist industry dominates the economy. A tourist industry invariable creates a cottage industry of people complaining about the tourists.

Posted by Kolohe | December 4, 2007 1:45 AM

Rereading this post, I find it even more bizarre than I did the first time.

Let me get this straight: legalize marijuana but restrict it so much that only personal growers can make use of it? Do this because of public health concerns and fear of effective marketing campaigns?

Where to begin?

a) If marijuana is legal to grow and legal to use, but illegal to sell, only someone who has never wanted to buy something and/or never held a job would think that no one would be selling it. Since selling it would be illegal, we'd still have a black market and, inevitably, black market violence and State vs. black market violence. Plus, no tax revenue. You've somehow managed to think of a way to legalize marijuana while removing all benefits of legalization. I hadn't thought such a thing was possible.

b) If marijuana is legal to sell for personal outlets, but illegal for companies to sell, how does the state determine when a legal personal outlet becomes an illegal company? Acreage? Encourages "shell" sellers/collusion, which could eventually lead to price-fixing. Profits? Encourages tax fraud. Number of employees? Encourages under-the-table, off-book, tax-free, benefit-free employees. Tax status? Growers simply won't incorporate, making the law meaningless. Any of the above would be a nightmare to enforce (probably, pointlessly requiring a new agency), particularly because marijuana is perishable (and probably difficult to trace) and would not be easy for the State to get accurate sales figures if the state is giving the grower every reason in the world to fake them, not to mention the added danger that some of these preposterous ideas bleed into our current tax code, making a horrible tax system even worse.

c) Regarding public health: which cannibus is more likely to contain something dangerous, marijuana produced by Altrea or marijuana grown by Duke in his basement? I don't smoke marijuana myself, but I know I'd feel a Hell of a lot safer drinking Jack Daniel's than my friend's neighbor's dead uncle's leftover car-battery-moonshine.

d) As far as marketing is concerned, isn't marijuana's current "forbidden fruit" status the best marketing tool it could ever hope to have, at least for teenagers?

Posted by Shinyk | December 4, 2007 4:54 AM

As far as marketing is concerned, isn't marijuana's current "forbidden fruit" status the best marketing tool it could ever hope to have, at least for teenagers?

Exactly. Although there have been some marketing steps in the right direction lately, the extant prohibition is extremely counterproductive. The Official Implication is that pot is very dangerous; then kids try it and find that it really isn't any big deal. Doesn't reflect very well on rule of law, 'just say no' , etc.
Pot is not nearly as dangerous as tobacco (sorry Glen, we know this already), nor as dangerous as alcohol, by a long shot. That said, it's not harmless - it makes you an idiot if you smoke it regularly. Safe, legal and relatively rare, please.

Posted by jonnybutter | December 4, 2007 9:01 AM

Shinyk says: If marijuana is legal to grow and legal to use, but illegal to sell, only someone who has never wanted to buy something and/or never held a job would think that no one would be selling it. Since selling it would be illegal, we'd still have a black market and, inevitably, black market violence and State vs. black market violence. Plus, no tax revenue. You've somehow managed to think of a way to legalize marijuana while removing all benefits of legalization. I hadn't thought such a thing was possible.

If marijuana is legal to grow and use, but illegal to sell, chances are that all but a small minority of persons interested in smoking dope more than occasionally will either grow the stuff, or have a friend who does.

With that, the demand for a black market collapses. It's not like people won't be sharing with their friends: dope is easy to grow. If it were legal to grow it, even restricted to the hypothetical 10x10 plot from my earlier posts, I could grow more dope in a season than I've smoked in my life.

Sure, there will be people who can't grow it, and can't mooch off anyone, or get dope from them in return for doing them some other favor. They might have to surreptitiously buy it from an acquaintance or a friend of a friend. BFD.

No tax revenue? Even as someone who's got no problem with paying his appropriate share of taxes, excuse me if this doesn't break my heart.

The other thing here is, call me paranoid, but if commercial growers were part of the legalization deal from the beginning, I could see part of the deal being that only regulated commercial growers would be allowed to grow pot.

I want the right of the people to grow their own to take precedence. If everyone who wants to can grow the stuff, it'll be easy to legalize commercial growing later. But if we start off with dope cultivation restricted to commercial growers, they'll fight, tooth and nail, to preserve their oligopoly.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 4, 2007 9:17 AM

My understanding is that a lot of Germans came over to smoke pot and ended up eating all those noodles they sell from carts; people got mad.

Posted by Linus | December 4, 2007 11:54 AM

"As far as marketing is concerned, isn't marijuana's current "forbidden fruit" status the best marketing tool it could ever hope to have, at least for teenagers?"

No, the fact that it gives you a pleasant and easy high is the best marketing tool it has going for it.

Posted by mad6798j | December 4, 2007 12:35 PM

If marijuana is legal to grow and use, but illegal to sell, chances are that all but a small minority of persons interested in smoking dope more than occasionally will either grow the stuff, or have a friend who does.

With that, the demand for a black market collapses.

No. If enough people thought ahead about what they needed later, there would be no need for social security. There obviously is.

Your plan would have supply, demand and no legal means to sell ("sharing" won't work with marijuana on the macro-scale just as sharing doesn't work with anything else on the macro-scale)--more importantly, no legal means to resolve sales disputes. Your classic black market.

Posted by Shinyk | December 4, 2007 1:36 PM

Big Pot would probably support the Republicans as much as big tobacco did. It's easy to imagine sometime in the future a Waxman-type figure calling Big Pot executives before Congress.

Posted by Comment | December 4, 2007 2:15 PM