Tightening the Dutch coffee shop policy: Evaluation of the private club and the residence criterion.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch coffee shop policy was tightened in 2012. Two additional criteria that coffee shops must adhere to in order for them to be tolerated came into force: the private club and the residence criterion. Coffee shops were only permitted to give access to members and only residents of the Netherlands were permitted to become a member. This tightened policy sought to make coffee shops smaller and more controllable, to reduce the nuisance associated with coffee shops and to reduce the number of foreign visitors attracted by the coffee shops. Enforcement began in the southern provinces. The private club criterion was abolished at the end of 2012. METHODS: A sample of fourteen municipalities with coffee shops was drawn. Seven in the south were treated as an 'experimental group' and the others as 'comparison group'. A baseline assessment and follow-ups at six and 18 months were performed. A combination of methods was applied: interviews with local experts, surveys with neighbourhood residents, coffee shop visitors and cannabis users, and ethnographic field work. RESULTS: Drugs tourism to coffee shops swiftly declined in 2012. The coffee shops also lost a large portion of their local customers, since users did not want to register as a member. The illegal market expanded. Neighbourhood residents experienced a greater amount of nuisance caused by dealer activities. After abolishment of the private club criterion, residents of the Netherlands largely returned to the coffee shops. Drug tourists still remained largely absent. Neighbourhood residents experienced more nuisance from coffee shops again. Illegal cannabis sale was tempered. No effect on cannabis use was found. CONCLUSION: The quick and robust shifts in the users' market in reaction to the policy changes illustrate the power of policy, but also the limitations caused by the dynamic and resilient nature of the Dutch cannabis supply market.

Exploring the Attractiveness of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) among Experienced Drug Users.

A growing number of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) appear yearly on the European market (81 for the first time in 2013, adding to a total of over 350 NPS). Using semi-structured interviews with 25 Dutch experienced recreational drug users, the role of the Internet and friends in gathering and exchanging information about NPS was elaborated. Furthermore, we investigated how NPS were acquired and which aspects make NPS more or less attractive, including their legal status. It appeared that the Internet was an important source of information about NPS in general. Personal experiences with NPS were preferably shared face-to-face with friends, as for privacy reasons users were cautious to post their experiences on web sites and forums. NPS were usually obtained or bought from friends or-to a lesser extent-purchased via the Internet. The preference for a specific NPS depended on the desired effects (mostly stimulant or psychedelic), price (similar to MDMA or amphetamine), duration of effect (preferably around four hours), and setting (at home, at festivals, or in nightlife). Legal status was not relevant for the decision to use NPS. Most NPS are not superior to the already marketed drugs, and do not displace conventional illicit drugs.

Lessons from conducting trans-national Internet-mediated participatory research with hidden populations of cannabis cultivators.

BACKGROUND: Internet-mediated research methods are increasingly used to access hidden populations. The International Cannabis Cultivation Questionnaire (ICCQ) is an online survey designed to facilitate international comparisons into the relatively under-researched but increasingly significant phenomenon of domestic cannabis cultivation. The Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium has used the ICCQ to survey over 6000 cannabis cultivators across 11 countries. In this paper, we describe and reflect upon our methodological approach, focusing on the digital and traditional recruitment methods used to access this hidden population and the challenges of working across multiple countries, cultures and languages. METHODS: Descriptive statistics showing eligibility and completion rates and recruitment source by country of residence. RESULTS: Over three quarters of eligible respondents who were presented with the survey were included in the final sample of n=6528. English-speaking countries expended more effort to recruit participants than non-English-speaking countries. The most effective recruitment modes were cannabis websites/groups (33%), Facebook (14%) and news articles (11%). While respondents recruited through news articles were older, growing practice variables were strikingly similar between these main recruitment modes. CONCLUSION: Through this process, we learnt that there are trade-offs between hosting multiple surveys in each country vs. using one integrated database. We also found that although perceived anonymity is routinely assumed to be a benefit of using digital research methodologies, there are significant limits to research participant anonymity in the current era of mass digital surveillance, especially when the target group is particularly concerned about evading law enforcement. Finally, we list a number of specific recommendations for future researchers utilising Internet-mediated approaches to researching hidden populations.

How much for a dime bag? An exploration of youth drug markets.

Relatively little is known about how youth obtain marijuana and other drugs. The Drugs, Alcohol and Violence International (DAVI) study explored youthful drug markets among samples of school students, detained youth, and school dropouts (ages 14-17 years) in the greater metropolitan areas of Philadelphia, Toronto, Montreal, and Amsterdam. Students frequently reported sharing drugs, either getting them from others or giving them to others for free. Sharing was less common among the more drug-involved detainees and dropouts. Marijuana was typically obtained either outdoors or in a house or apartment. Few youth reported getting marijuana at school. In Amsterdam, where marijuana can be purchased in small quantities in coffeeshops, this was the most common place to get marijuana, even though 18 is the legal age for purchase. Alcohol was also most likely to be obtained in stores or restaurants across all the sites, even though none were of legal age except those in Amsterdam age 16 or older. Youth most often reported purchasing marijuana in nickel, dime or other small bags, which are not standardized units. The exception again was Amsterdam, where youth most often reported quantities in grams or joints, which is how it is sold in coffeeshops. The lack of standardization of units makes economic cost estimates suspect. Even standardized units such as alcohol present problems since youth report a wide range of 'typical purchases.' Survey data can, however, more aptly describe drug market characteristics such as general location of purchase, and relationship with the seller.

Dutch coffee shops and trends in cannabis use.

Conflicting predictions have been made to the influence of decriminalization on cannabis use. Prohibitionists forecast that decriminalization will lead to an increase in consumption of cannabis, while their opponents hypothesise that cannabis use will decline after decriminalization. Most probably cannabis use in the Netherlands so far evolved in two waves, with a first peak around 1970, a low during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and a second peak in the mid-1990s. It is striking that this trend in cannabis use among youth in the Netherlands rather parallels four identified stages in the availability of cannabis. The number of cannabis users peaked when the cannabis was distributed through an underground market (late 1960s and early 1970s). Then the number decreased as house dealers were superseeding the underground market (1970s), and went up again after coffee shops took over the sale of cannabis (1980s), and stabilised or slightly decreased by the end of the 1990s when the number of coffee shops was reduced. Although changes in cannabis policy went along with changes in availability of cannabis and prevalence of cannabis use, it is questionable whether changes in cannabis policy were causally related to trends in cannabis use. Cannabis use also developed in waves in other European countries that did not decriminalize cannabis, as well as in the US. Consequently, trends in cannabis use seem to develop rather independently of cannabis policy.