Are you absolutely sure cannabis is not mentioned in the narcotics law anymore? AFAIK the 5 grams thing was more a rule of thumb that the police made up for themselves. They also don't bother with shoplifters that steal less than 10 euros worth of stuff, but that's doesn't make shoplifting legal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Non-enforcement
"Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine."
That seems pretty clear, not sure how up to date wikipedia is in this regard though.
just as prostitution has not been considered a "victimless crime" but has actually been legal since the sixties. The reason it took so long to get an actual law on prostitution, is because a christian party has been part of most governments, and tolerating it but not actually legalizing it was a dutch "polder" compromise.
I think we have a misunderstanding about the semantics of `legal' here. I meant `legal' as in `having a law about it'. Prostitution was tolerated, but technically illegal, in the sixties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands
"Prostitution was defined as a legal profession in January 1988."
"When the Dutch government legalized prostitution in 2000 it was to protect the women by giving them work permits but some fear that this business cannot be normalized."
I can think of no other European country other than the Netherlands where your weed would not be confiscated if found by the coppers.
Sorry to contradict you, but when backpacking through Europe (early '90s) I found that weed is everywhere, often much more visible than in the Netherlands. When I got of the train in Lisbon, the first thing I saw was a welcoming committee of dealers on the platform openly wielding huge chunks of hashish. One followed me through the station hall into a bank, he was trying to sell me his chunk while I was changing money. We passed quite a few policemen who did not seem to care at all.
And the first impression I got of Barcelona was a group of spanish guys parading around a square smoking weed, again in front of the police. I later heard from a local that there's another square in Barcelona where basically anything goes, the police is always present there but only intervenes when things get out of hand.
And then there's Camden Lock in London, there are always a few (very pushy) hash dealers hanging around there. I'm 100% sure the police knows about this, but they don't intervene. I've been to Canada, and got the strong impression that it's the same over there.
My point was not that it's legal anywhere else in Europe, but that in practice there is little to no enforcement. France may be a notable exception.
Caveat: I'm not advocating possession and/or use of illegal substances in European countries (or anywhere else for that matter). Don't blame me if you get thrown in jail!
The national laws regarding drugs are somewhat hazy (the same with squatting).
Actually both are crystal clear, thanks to the practice of jurisprudence. It's legal for adults to carry weed up to 5 grams and to use it in their homes (though even if used on the street, I have never heard of a conviction or even an arrest for this specific misdemeanor)
.
I have, but admittedly it's rare. There's a zero-tolerance policy in place for UItrecht Central station and adjacent shopping mall. And occasionally a major may decide to have a temporary zero-tolerance policy for a specific event (dance festivals etc).
So that's what I meant by `hazy'.
You're also allowed to have a couple of plants (I thought about 5).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Non-enforcement
A maximum of five Cannabis sativa plants may be grown without prosecution, although they have to be handed over upon discovery."
Hazy!
As for squatting: it's perfectly legal to squat a house that has not been in use for at least 1 year.
Things are a bit more complicated than that. It's my understanding that this is actually a national guideline, and municipalities are allowed to deviate from it. Ultimately the decision is up to the local DA, and he may decide to throw you out, even if the squat has been empty for a year. It's his call, it may be possible to go to court if you disagree, I'm not sure. If you're caught trying to get into the building, it's definitely game over.
And there are other factors; if the space you're occupying shares its main entrance with other spaces, or if it's used for storage (even illegally), you're not allowed to squat. In practice they may let you stay - this also depends on the reputation of the owner. It also depends on whether the police has time and budget to throw you out. Then there's the owner, who can sue you for damages (if he finds out your name!).
Etc etc. So again, it's somewhat hazy, and the rules change constantly.
There is near limitless room for mayors (whom are btw not elected, but appointed by the government) to bypass laws or even the constitution using special ordinances. [..] Additionally, several laws (for instance the law on prostitution) have specific clauses in them for local exceptions. Once again a polder-construction to appease christian parties.
That's right, it's hazy.
Hazy hazy hazy.
However, things have changed in the last decade. Modern designer plants literally drip with THC, the content of some weed is actually so high that it is considered hallucinogenic and thus a hard drug.
Total and complete hogwash:
1. Like all other plants, cannabis has been bred for maximum yield / quality. No "designing" took place.
Perhaps you took `designing' a bit too literally, I wasn't implying genetic manipulation (though I wouldn't be surprised). But yes, they've been bred (designed) for high yield. It was my understanding that White Widow for example was illegal bacause of its high THC content.
I've also heard that some dealers spray their weed with hash oil, which is *definitely* an illegal substance.
2. Hashish has not gained in strength, is and was stronger in THC content than all weed. Yet hashish has always been considered a soft drug.
Hashish gets sprayed too. And AFAIK the notion `soft drug' is not a legal one.
3. Some weed is only mildly hallucinogenic.
I agree. But again, I don't think that's a notion that's been legally carved in stone.
4. Hallucinogenic drugs are generally soft drugs. (Remember the mushrooms, until our christian secretary of health decided to bypass all scientfic advice based on inaccurate newspaper headlines
Most hallucinogenic drugs are considered hard drugs because of the risk of induced psychosis. LSD has been illegal for a long time. As you say, mushrooms have recently been made illegal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Bill_banning_.22Magic_mushrooms.22
5. Stronger weed means you use less of it. Just like any other substance: If sugar is twice as strong, you use half as many lumps in your tea.
In theory, yes. But it seems it doesn't work that way in practice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Recent_developments
Dutch research has however shown that an increase of THC content also increase the occurrence of impaired psychomotor skills, particularly among younger or inexperienced cannabis smokers, who do not adapt their smoking-style to the higher THC content.
I'll stop ranting now, just a final remark: I agree with what you write about the christian parties. But there are other factors, mainly political pressure from abroad, especially from France and the US. France has in the past used Dutch drug policies against the Netherlands to gain political leverage within the EU.
