Mr Parrett's statement (in his capacity as convener of Make Illicit Drugs Socially Unacceptable, Letters, 28 June) that the Dutch policy of distinguishing between soft and hard drugs has been an abject failure cannot be allowed to pass. As a result of our drug policy the number of addicts of hard drugs is much lower in the Netherlands than in countries with a more repressive policy, such as the United States and Australia. Even more importantly, the population of heroin addicts is ageing as few new people are induced to use hard drugs. [continues 188 words]
In your editorial (ST 20/6) on the Cafe Amsterdam you suggest Holland's policy of making a distinction between soft and hard drugs has failed and that the fight against hard drugs has been given up. Nothing is further from the truth. Heroin use in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the over 14 population who have ever tried it, is 0.3 per cent. This is a very modest figure compared to countries such as the US and Australia. Even more importantly, recent statistics show the population of hard drug users is rather stable and rapidly ageing. In other words, few new users are joining in. [continues 91 words]
I was surprised that you published Larry Collins' biased, unbalanced and highly anecdotal article on Dutch drug policy ("Drug rules, OK?", AFR Review, May 14). An objective assessment of these policies demands a comparison of different types of drug policies and their outcomes. The lack of comparison and a substantial number of factual errors in this article require a response. * The cited increase in cannabis use is also present in other European countries, therefore factors other than Dutch drug policy are obviously relevant. In fact, figures of cannabis use in, for example, the United States are substantially higher than those in the Netherlands. [continues 264 words]
