This is a national tragedy for the Netherlands and hopefully a much-needed wake up call to the growing similarity between that country and a genuine narco state.
Organized crime is completely out of control in the Netherlands. On a margin that far surpasses almost all other countries in the west.
How much do you think that liberal immigration and drugs laws are responsible for that? What are the proposed changes to revert this narco-state status?
Interesting. In Sweden there is a lot of talk now about liberalizing drug laws to fight organized crime (by taking their market away from them), but this hasn’t worked out for the Netherlands?
Large-scale manufacture and trade in drugs is still illegal in the Netherlands. The retail coffeeshops are tolerated, but they all still have to buy from criminals.
Even small-scale is illegal. We are not as liberal as our reputation. The conservative and christian parties have been in power for several decades now, and drug policies have only become less liberal under their governance.
Ironically, some of the US states are now among the most liberal and forward-thinking in the West - the Dutch are becoming more and more backwards (I live there).
Indeed. I should have said illegal _and actively prosecuted_, unlike small-scale trade at the Amsterdam coffeeshops that most foreigners are familiar with.
How much do you think that liberal immigration and drugs laws are responsible for that? What are the proposed changes to revert this narco-state status?
That is a non-sequitur; GP states drugs are not liberalized and you ask after liberal drugs laws. Immigration laws are a European matter, we are a Schengen country and can do little about internal European travel; at the European frontier, even illegal pushbacks are done in a vain attempt to keep people out.
I was just reacting what you wrote in relation to its parent. Also, please don't edit your comments to say something entirely different. And also, I don't know about you, but both Lutger and me live in the country under discussion.
yup, because your answer was a simply: "its a fallacy" without giving any argument, so I did the same. You updated it with a better reasoning and so did I.
you both live there, I grew up there. I'm German with a migration background and spent most of my youth age in Den Haag, in an Aruban clique, my second language is Portuguese and we used to mix Papiamento, Portuguese, German, English, Dutch. We knew every group and who did what there. First time that I saw a real gun was there. I'm talking from end 90s.
The Netherlands hasn't liberalized drug laws in decades. There's a large discussion at the moment about fully legalizing marihuana (which, while tolerated, is still illegal).
We haven't legalized the production of drugs in the Netherlands, so our 'gedoogbeleid' does not help against organized crime. It does help on the health side of the debate though.
There is? I mean, I talk about it allot, but I feel like I'm the only one.... Maybe it's a more common line of thinking outside of Stockholm? Or maybe it's just not common in my circuits
I thought you would be exaggerating but searching for "Netherlands" and "narco state" revealed a scarily large number of articles, some of which are several years old already. I wonder how I could have missed that.
I was already aware that the Netherlands had a drug problem in general, both by smuggling via their huge ports and by cartels producing them locally. I had even submitted a map [0] with locations of amphetamine production sites not long ago and most of them are in the Netherlands but the amount of crime that seems to accompany it is frightening.
In a word: Rotterdam. We have Mexican cartel bozos operating inside the country in their own labs preparing drugs for further distribution into the european market.
Fair enough, but that's also a function of the fact that NL is a huge transshipment point and the gangs here try very hard to lay low to avoid attracting attention to their activities.
I'm afraid there is a tendency to underreport crime in Netherlands. Mainly because the police and legal system seem not to be very effective. So, the statistics can be misleading.
He did great work. Hope it won't scare off others. I have heard people mention this week that we live in Medellin (this was narco related), not Amsterdam. Over the top but this is sad.
* Gun homicide is 44 times less frequent in the Netherlands than in the US: 0.28 / 100K people, per annum in NL, compared to 12.21 in the USA. So, this is much more of an extreme event over there.
> The extremity here is that Peter tried to publically persue heavy criminals, and the criminals just decided to play god and have him killed by some lowly guys (speculating here, but quite confidently). A large part of US/UK shooting statistic probably come from muggings, robberies etc., not the criminal underworld deciding they rule the country.
Apologies for derailing slightly but it's strange that you lump UK in with US there, when the UK rate is even below the NL rate (and among the lowest in the world).
I don't know if that's true in the UK (and I doubt that coming up with "US/UK" crime statistics makes sense, considering the huge differences between the two countries) but in the USA according to the latest FBI statistics only 10% of homicide victims were killed by unknown assailants, and only 4% were killed in the course of a robbery. Being killed by a stranger in the US is relatively rare. A more significant source of murders is disputes among relatives and acquaintances. The biggest risk factor for becoming a homicide victim in the US is having social connections to known criminals.
This is what's conveniently ignored whenever somebody wants to bring up the US gun homicide rate. The vast majority of it is inner city gang members killing each other with illegally-obtained firearms. Further restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens will not do anything to lower those numbers.
This doesn't agree with the FBI stats, and I'd prefer if you don't contaminate my arguments with 2nd Amendment nonsense. According to the FBI, gang kills are also a tiny cause of homicides. Killings of people by their own spouses are more common.
An Irish crime reporter was killed for being too curious by drug bosses. The subsequent Garda investigation was so intense and far reaching that it's estimated the the drug operations lost huge money over the coming years -- the Irish state implemented news laws and even the creation of 'Criminal Assets Bureau' came from Veronicas death.
Doesn't compare to being robbed and or mugged. I live in a city center, this already happens on occasion very near to my home. I don't need more of it.
-Guess what: many muggings are committed by drug addicts in need of funds to finance their habit; regulate the drug business and much of that crime segment will go away.
It's not a random person. It's a person who did something mafia didn't want him to do and was killed because of that. So basically mafia can dictate what you are allowed to do and kill you if you don't obey. Doesn't sound like a safe environment, does it?
I've been out of the country for a few years but ... are you telling me that drive-by shootings have become a serious problem in the UK? Last I checked shootings of any kind were extremely rare. I would imagine drive-by shootings would therefore be so vanishingly rare that you could only really say they were "a thing" insofar as they have taken place there at some point, not as any sort of significant consideration when discussing drugs policy.
They are not rare now - and they have always happened. There is a huge amount of gang-warfare in the UK using guns and knives (just look at London, Birmingham and Manchester) and it spills over to bystanders.
And maybe look up "county lines", which is corrupting children, and spreading the drug trade, and violence, to even small towns.
I am not against the use of drugs, and have used some at one point or another myself. But it is delusional to think that so long as drug use is criminalised, criminal gangs will not use extreme violence.
But of course, 32 lives are insignificant. And you haven't talked about knife murders, or other violence, such as arson. But, what the hell, you have made your point - it doesn't matter about people getting killed, so long as the numbers are what you, in your wisdom, consider "low".
I was just addressing the claim that drive by shootings are something that happen with a significant frequency in the UK. They really aren't, as is obvious from the gun homicide stats.
The UK has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world, so there is no reason to put 'low' in scare quotes in this context.
I'm not sure how representative pandemic stats would be, so it made sense to look at 2019. But I don't think you can seriously claim that drive by shootings have massively increased during the pandemic. Or at least, if you do claim this, it would be good to see a source.
It's 32 more than I would like for sure. But I don't think it's fair to talk about it like this is an everyday thing in the UK, particularly drive-by shootings which was the original point of contention.
I do agree with you on this part of your original reply, though:
> But it is delusional to think that so long as drug use is criminalised, criminal gangs will not use extreme violence.
It's definitely the case that criminalization of drug use is one of the root causes of a lot of violent crime in the UK. I imagine we'd have other social issues to contend with if we followed the path of making many drugs legal, but we'd certainly have less crime related to their trafficking and distribution.
More importantly, how many of those were innocent bystanders?
The point is not that people’s lives don’t matter, the point is that being caught in a drive by shooting is an absurd thing to be afraid of. You are more likely to get hit by lightening, or slip and hit your head in the shower.
I live in the Netherlands and in a good neighbourhood. One neighbouring house was blasted with heavy gun fire by a passing-by vehicle in an attempt to murder someone. So it’s not unheard of.
Also, in my previous apartment (Amsterdam), I’ve heard a gang execution (shots were fired) in the middle of the night.
I also know people who knows the DJ who was executed inside his car in the presence pf his family.
None of these are examples of ‘drive-by shootings that kill innocent, uninvolved people’.
I’m not saying that drug related violence is not a thing. It accounts for most of the gun related murders in the US, for example. Probably the same is the Netherlands.
However, innocent bystanders being at risk is not a thing.
and that's before we get into those cases where people were slaughtered in front of their spouses and children (and who sometimes were slaughtered right along with them).
Massive shoot outs with automatic weapons on the highways, in the cities and on one occasion on a small beach near Amsterdam.
If it doesn't include you then you are lucky. But it could be you, tomorrow.
Most of the population voted for this. Our public broadcaster is running a very succesful series ( Mocro Maffia, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8810204/ ) on it.
And most of those progressive voters live in the areas which are affected ( Amsterdam, Randstad in general ).
And if they did not vote 'progressive', they voted VVD ( neoliberal, keep slashing funding until it is bare functional : our police ).
The point is that if you believe that false equivalences are going to win you this argument then I'm done arguing with you. People vote in elections based on all kinds of issues, they do not vote for summary executions of journalists.
As someone from Scheveningen, your attitude is disheartening. It's a very "I've got mine" attitude and in these times I'd hope we band together to knock this detrimental activity on the head before we get to a point like Mexican cartels openly killing police, politicians, as well as journalists. Those of us in the Randstad are most definitely affected by this and other drug crimes, and growing up in the achterhoek in the 89s I noticed they were not unaffected. I've never lived in Groningen, but I cannot imagine your city is less affected than Enschede or Zutphin, both of which struggled through the 90s with criminal drug gangs. Just because you have not been affected personally, does not make it okay, and I suspect that attitude is why others are unwilling to continue the conversation—you've made your mind up and we can't convince you. But as a typical Dutch person, I speak my mind regardless of the threat of being banned.
You are harmed by the drug trade. You live in a society where a totally unregulated industry allows bad people to get very rich and exercise illegitimate power through violence and corruption.
You live in a society where young people become addicts and rob and harm the people they love and then die prematurely.
Mocro maffia has already infiltrated the justice and police departement. It’s detrimental to the rule of law and very hard to get rid of once corruption takes root in those departments. A weakened rule of law will affect everyone.
> De Antwerpse criminelen hebben zoveel geld dat ze alles en iedereen kunnen kopen. De voorbije jaren zijn een corrupte douanier en verschillende havenarbeiders veroordeeld voor hand- en spandiensten aan drugsbendes. Een groepje top-IT'ers hackte grote rederijen in opdracht van de drugsmaffia. Ook het gerecht en de politie zijn geïnfiltreerd. 'Het is stilaan abnormaal als we in grote drugsdossiers geen lekken vanuit de politie of het parket naar criminelen ontdekken', is de schokkende commentaar in Antwerpse gerechtelijke kringen.
Quote from three years ago, after Mocro Maffia set up shop in Belgium. Belgium is a couple years behind The Netherlands. So there's no doubt about it, things are even worse in The Netherlands. Belgium is now in the throw-grenades-at-homes phase but no public executions yet. Matter of time...
> You live in a society where young people become addicts and rob and harm the people they love and then die prematurely.
Let's not make grand sweeping statements about societies which you clearly don't have a huge practical experience with (or if you do, of which you are grandly exaggerating certain problem spots in order to make your point seem more emotionally critical).
I actually do have practical experience with that society and it's actually not all that exaggerated, if it is exaggerated at all.
NL has a drug problem, and has had a drug problem since the 70's or so. It's been worse than it is today, but even today school age children are approached on a regular basis by pushers, plenty of them end up as addicts and quite a few of them do end up on the wrong side of the law to the point that we have special programs to deal with this.
None of our communities is immune from this, whether you live in Northern Groningen, Zeeland, Limburg, Gelderland or the Randstad, the problems are legion and so is the secondary fall out.
I am not aware of pushers and a drug problem among school age childeren in Groningen, do you happen to have sources? I can't remember a single article from the local paper.
The biggest issue discussed in Groningen is lachgas ( nitrous oxide ). And alcohol.
The drug problems from the 70's and 80's were mostly heroine, not seen as a problem anymore as most of the users have died out.
You seem to be blisfully unaware of the world around you and have a set of opinions that is based on that limited experience. That's fine with me. Having lived in Drenthe (Exloo), Groningen, Amsterdam, Kortenhoef, Baarn, IJmuiden and probably a couple I forgot my personal take on this is that if your life has not been touched by the drug trade in NL that you should consider yourself charmed.
Lachgas is a problem, but a very minor one in comparison to harder drugs, alcohol has been a problem for a lot longer than either harder drugs or soft drugs. Unfortunately Groningen is not an exception to any of this.
I am living in Groningen center now for 10 years ( grew up in Haren ), your source is from 2015 and as far as I know, is not an incident as part of a broader problem of drug pushers to school going children.
What should I google to find the 'far more' ?
If I google 'drugs school groningen', I come up empty.
If I google 'dealer school groningen', I come up with one article from 2017, minor incident, and best of all : that was my school.
I said I'm sure you will find fault with it. Predictable.
Those 'minor incidents' are two a penny. Even at the better schools kids regularly use drugs. If you don't know about it or don't want to know about it then maybe stop extrapolating from your limited experience to the rest of NL. And good luck when/if you have kids in school, watch out from round about the age of 11.
FWIW I have lived in Oudezijl, near Nieuweschans, have a son who lived in Groningen, Middelstum, Ter Apelkanaal and Beerta. What you personally have not experienced has no bearing on my own experiences, even if the localities overlap. Consider that the world is larger than your personal slice of it and that those things that do not happen in your slice in fact do happen.
The drug trade in Groningen is alive and well, you can take that to the bank. And if you still don't believe it then maybe have a chat with some LE and see where that takes you.
Drugs are pushed to children, and there is drug trade. They both happen. And if you think that the first is happening out in the open then you're mistaken, it's pretty subtle, typically schoolmates who have been made part of the trade and who are asked to scout out likely takers.
Enjoy. And if a school in NL claims that they don't have a drug issue: find out if they really don't or if they are simply closing their eyes because it's too uncomfortable to discuss.
There is no evidence that schools in nl do not have a drug problem, but there is plenty of evidence that they do.
Loosely translated into English : Trimbos ( a Dutch drug use non-profit ) says : "we don't see a significant rise in drug use among the youth. 9% of youth between 12 and 16 has used cannabis at a particular time".
BTW, the whole article is about cannabis. Is this what you are worked up about?
The numbers sound about the same for my cohort, and our teachers were well aware, also who we were and it was discussed openly in class. And we felt safe enough to be open about it as well.
You seem particular puritan. One needs to remember the Dutch voted for gedoogbeleid ( laissez faire policy ) and it has been in place since the 80s.
No, I really can't. So far you've been unable and unwilling to do so. I see a lot of posts from you with unsubstantiated allegations followed up by desperate ad hominems.
And when you are pressed about it, you hand-waive, deflect, and redirect.
I repeat: if there were a tenth of the cases you alleged then you would have zero problems presenting a single convincing example.
But you even failed at presenting any relevant case at all.
Please read the link you just provided. It states the exact opposite of what you're claiming. That was the best example you could come up with after so many ad hominem and after being repeatedly pressed to support your unsubstantiated allegations. Your dozen of scaremongering posts in this discussion boil down to that, the absolute best example you manage to put together. And it contradicts your claims.
You should really reflect on what you're doing, because if you have a problem with reality not backing up your firmly held beliefs to the point you get so emotional about that delta then some contemplation is in order.
All societies have a drug problem. The only question is, which policy minimizes that problem while considering all related problems (pareto efficiency). There's no "one size fits all" solution.
That's fair, but we were discussing drugs, not murder per se, even though that is the core subject of the article in the end it is the direct result of the drug trade.
I have practical experience with that society as well. And have children at school. I used to go to house-parties a lot in '90 and '00 and have first hand experience in the 'drug-scene'.
What you are describing has happened in the 70's and 80's. Education, special programs and (semi-)legalising weed (soft drugs) had though most kids how to avoid addiction. Since then alcohol abuse is a far bigger problem amongst kids [source: https://www.trimbos.nl/kennis/cijfers/alcohol-drugs-roken-sc...]
Sure, drugs is being sold to kids. For recreational (weekend) use and not full-filling some addiction. So does that make it a drug-problem? From my point of view most kids know exactly what they are doing. Plus I haven't met a single dealer in NL which needed to resort to 'pushing drugs to kids' to sell his stash. So maybe your sons were asked to buy drugs, which is a very different situation.
Thé most troublesome problem, involving drugs in NL is people slipping GHB into other people's drinks, to abuse them afterwards.
Colleague in Baarn: serious drug issues, one of the best schools in the region, unfortunately not an isolated case. Friends of my son, just out of school, similar situation different location(s).
Other friends and their kids: multiple passes, dealers are either their school buddies trying to make some money on the side so they can buy fancy clothing or phones, or outsiders who are in it in a more professional capacity.
NL has a drug problem, like it or not it doesn't really matter, it's there and if we pretend it isn't there it is certainly not going to be resolved.
"Sure, drugs is being sold to kids. For recreational (weekend) use and not full-filling some addiction. So does that make it a drug-problem? From my point of view most kids know exactly what they are doing."
From my point of view, very few people know what they are doing, let alone children. Honestly you are ridiculous.
That is more of an issue where you have high drug usage. Drug traffickers generally aren't in the robbery and petty crime business. Most of the drugs in the Netherlands are passing through to elsewhere in Europe.
Define petty. Drugs and theft are pretty much connected. It's widely "accepted" in Dutch society that your bicycle might be stolen anytime by a junkie. My car's windows were smashed several times over years, and I tend to think that thieves are more likely to spend their profits on drugs and alcohol than on books, bread or rock concerts.
Meanwhile Dutch police doesn't investigate any of this "petty" crime. Instead they boast that the occupation of prisons is in all time low, and that they are rented prison space to other countries. Wonder, if anything will change, considering the prevailing "pragmatic" - "it doesn't affect me if my wallet isn't affected" attitude in the Dutch society.
While I agree that bike theft by junkies has been a widespread fenomenem in Dutch society, it has largely died out here in Groningen ( presumably because the junkies died out ).
No, the junkies did not die out. What happened is that we enacted a bunch of legislation that made it possible to help people get treatment and replacement drugs instead of having to steal bikes or car radios.
The added benefit is that if you are using a playground you no longer have to be overly concerned about stepping into needles.
Oh, those policies were put in place, and are still in place at a much smaller scale.
The junkies problem of the 70s and 80s died out, that generation is largely dead and with the changing culture and the closure of most kraakpanden ( squatting places ) no new junkies were added. The junkies died out.
The difference between drugs and most other crimes like robberies or extortion is that drugs have a huge demand side as well as a supply side. Your idea seems to be that the illegal drug trade is a sort of daycare for criminals, and there's a certain fixed amount of criminals that will do illegal things, and therefore switch to the next-best illegal thing when the previous one gets legalized. I think that's unrealistic when you consider the money that incentivizes people to go into the illegal drug trade.
Too bad he did a lot of good things I believe. Those gangsters that shot him they are a phenomenon that's relatively new. Criminals did not previously go after lawyers or journalists. Now that has definitely changed.
I'm not sure what you mean. I remember in 1997, the escape attempt with a helicopter from the Dutch prison, De Geerhorst. There was an accident, the pilot was killed and the Colombian prison escapee, who was serving a long-term sentence for drug trafficking, walked away with some injuries. In that time we all knew what was going on there.. Actually since years, you could spot the dark side of Amsterdam/Rotterdam while walking at night in the streets. In Germany what we mostly experienced were the ATM explosions in small German villages around the Dutch border..again the violence isn't new at all.
ah ok. Yes, that's how they act when they believe to be untouchable. I spent some years in South America and that's exactly what happens in countries like Brazil, Colombia and etc. I'm kind of apprehensive to see what the answer will be.
From another article (since I wasn't caught up to the affairs of the Netherlands):
> Crime reporter de Vries acted as a spokesperson and non-legal advisor for crown witness Nabil B. who is testifying against Ridouan Taghi, the alleged mastermind of the Amsterdam-based group which is seen as one of the Netherlands' largest cocaine distributors.
> Two people close to Nabil B. are already dead, allegedly murdered by Taghi's associates. In 2018, Nabil B.'s brother was murdered in broad daylight in Amsterdam and in 2019 his lawyer Derk Wiersum was gunned down outside his home.
> De Vries' work exposing the underworld has resulted in repeated death threats. Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, where de Vries started his career, says he investigated more than 500 murders. In 2019, the journalist said he was on Taghi's hitlist.
My message to the 20, 30, 40 years olds currently living their comfortable life in the West:
You are currently enjoying what is an unprecedented apex of progress, wealth, security, and wellbeing of the Western society which only been there for a mere 40-30 years.
On a reasonably modern historical scale, it's very uncommon not only for the West, but much of other countries in the world.
It's hard for you to fathom a life other than this. You take it as something given, while it isn't.
At least in my country, with a high school education our parents could get a job that provided a decent life for a family on a single income. As I say, that is long gone.
Indeed. I'm incredibly lucky to live in a western country in this time with low discrimnation, little sexism, low crime. I know war only from stories. If something hurts I can be in front of a doctor within an hour. I never have to be hungry. Really quite incredible what kind of life I can live.
I'm not sure why you and parent are being downvoted. In the grand scheme of things we do live in a time of almost uninterrupted peace in the West, and it is not at all clear that we are headed in that direction indefinitely.
It is a valid point to argue that the shooting in question is part of a broader pictuer of an increase in violence across the world, including in Western countries (Malta, Slovakia and others), threatening the democratic principles.
I don't know why you got down voted, because the point you're making is correct. Even having come from the USSR into the US as a kid, I can appreciate the contrast.
The problem we have in the west is that we we talk about problems and tradeoffs in abstract. For example, many people who argue that it would be good to defund the police have never lived in a situation where daily life was dangerous due to crime. Similarly, people who argue against pipelines rarely have an understanding of what it's like when there's no fuel or heat in the winter.
These issues are complex and there are two sides, but it does seem to me that the "hardship" side of the things is being under-valued and under-feared because it's outside of people's realm of experience.
> For example, many people who argue that it would be good to defund the police have never lived in a situation where daily life was dangerous due to crime.
Most people who argue for defunding the police live in a situation in which daily life is dangerous... due to the police. Who often harass them, lock them up, or even shoot them dead.
> Similarly, people who argue against pipelines rarely have an understanding of what it's like when there's no fuel or heat in the winter.
You're attacking a straw man. (Almost) nobody is arguing against having _any_ pipelines, whatsoever, anywhere. In the US, however, there is a custom of laying pipelines which are shoddily constructed, tend to burst and spill frequently, and are laid in along highly dangerous paths where they may contaminate drinking water sources and other sensitive locations.
And - people who argue for such pipelines rarely have an understanding of what drinking water mixed with petroleum does to you...
> Most people who argue for defunding the police live in a situation in which daily life is dangerous... due to the police. Who often harass them, lock them up, or even shoot them dead.
This is obviously a thorny topic but I think you're wrong. For example here in NYC, there has been a huge spike in crime and shootings, of which black people have been the most common victims. The number of people murdered this way dwarfs the number of people shot by the police in total.
When people are in actual fear of their lives, it's not the police they are worried about. And this has manifested itself in the election.
The democratic mayoral primary we just had, the black and latin neighborhoods heavily went for Eric Adams, the former cop. While the white/gentrifying areas were more heavily for the defund-the-police candidate.
I am curious your perspective? Are you actually someone who lives in the hood and has a fear of your life on daily basis, and fear cops more than criminals?
Or are you more in the "I read about this stuff" bucket, and if so, how does the above fit into your perspective.
> I think you're wrong... in NYC, there has been a huge spike in crime and shootings... number of people murdered this way dwarfs the number of people shot by the police
1. I talked about police violence in general, not just shooting. Shooting is the more extreme case of violence.
2. There are crime problems elsewhere in the world - like that Netherlands issue in the story - and yet, the police essentially never shoot people unless shot at first. Or, you know what, maybe it's once every few years in the entire country.
3. Even if shootings were rare, the fact that the police _may_ just shoot you, means you are in danger of your life whenever you are in contact with the police. And the police - in many/most places - expect to be treated as those who have the power to decide whether you live or die. This is especially true since these killings are often arbitrary, i.e. it is not the most dangerous and violent people in the most suspicious of situations that get shot, or otherwise killed by police.
4. I don't live in NYC. Can you give some citation for the "dwarfing" part?
> When people are in actual fear of their lives, it's not the police they are worried about.
> And this has manifested itself in the election.
You mean the mayor elections in NYC? I don't live in the US, so I'm not well-versed at city-level politics at all. I basically know Yang ran and failed...
Anyway, from my experience and knowledge, that's usually/very often not true - depending on the level of social consciousness of course. In neighborhoods or cities where the state is perceived as being controlled by a rich and powerful minority, especially if it's mostly of a different color or ethnicity; and when the state is uncaring and oppressive towards you and your surrounding society - crime is perceived being to a great extent the result neglect and even active encouragement and collusion of the state and the regular and political police with criminal elements. In the US the political police would be some of the three-letter agencies I suppose.
This is actually a crisis faced by Palestinian society in Israel these days, which would merit an article of its own, but this is just a comment.
> I am curious your perspective? Are you actually someone who lives in the hood and has a fear of your life on daily basis, and fear cops more than criminals?
Well, first of all, I'm afraid of cops because of what they do to me and other people during popular protests or just demonstrations. I was standing next to a person when this cop grabbed his head and banged it against the curb. Cops stole my coat once as they were hauling me to be detained/arrested (although I'm not sure whether one of them took it or whether they just threw it away). Cops almost ran me over a few times, with motorcycles and with horses. Cops fired a stun grenade into a crowd right next to me just a couple of months ago. etc. etc.
I lived in a "semi-hood" for a few years; I was never fearful for my life, because the society I live in is much less violent than in the US, but I was still sometimes fearful. I was always more afraid of the cops than of groups of young men on a street corner. Of course, if I were not from the privileged ethnic group, i.e. if I were of Arab/Middle-Eastern rather than European descent, I would have been _really_ afraid of cops and probably even less worried about people in my neighborhood.
Your post is jumping all over the place but I want to comment on two points:
1. You're responding to a post that said "most people who argue for defunding the police have never lived in a place without police where they had to live in fear of crime". In your response, you confirmed that you're such a person. You never lived in a dangerous/violent place but somehow you take your safety for granted and see police as extraneous.
2. You asked for a citation of the fact that the recent spike in crime has taken more black lives than the police? To be frank your lack of awareness of the numbers (ie the actual crux of the matter) is pretty damning. If you don't have the command of the numbers and the scale of the issue, you're not in good position to suggest policy.
I can dig up the data if you don't believe me but from memory: the number of unarmed people shot to death by police in the US is a double-digit number across all races, with about 2/3rd of them being white. So if we said "30 unarmed black people were shot to death by police in the US in 2020" that would be an upper bound. (to be clear this number includes unarmed people who were nonetheless violent, but its ok)
In contrast, there were 7,484 Black homicide victims per year in 2019, which is before the latest spike in crime.
That's a ratio of ~250/1 using the most conservative assumptions (it's more like 400/1 probably)
I am talking about number of unarmed people that are killed by police, which is what falls into the category of something to be concerned about.
Your numbers munge everyone killed by the cops, which is stupid. "X pointed a gun at a cop so the cops shot him" does not translate into "cops are bad" in my mind.
He was a European white man so the idea of this being a hate crime (as the article says) won’t go anywhere. At least that’s how it works in my country.
I haven’t found any talk of evidence against this rapper. He’s a dark skinned man who was picked up by police in the vicinity of a crime.
9 times out of 10, people in that position had nothing to do with the crime. So I personally wouldn’t presume that person to be “involved” at this time.
It’s hard not to notice that these underworld actors don’t look like the archetypical Dutchman. It’s also my understanding that the Netherlands doesn’t have strong protections for free expression and discussion about this is not permitted. This would seem to create a social cognitive dissonance. Are there any mainstream voices suggesting that this is unsustainable?
> We cannot and will not ever tolerate this in the Netherlands. This act of cowardice can't go unpunished.
The Netherlands have turned into the European Version of a narco state: Clean streets without turf wars on the surface, but an increase of bought-off politicians and civil servants in the background, creeping into the foundations of the Dutch state.
> I'm not worried about the drug trade [...] I'm worried what happens if they loose that income stream"
That's why you have to worry about the drug trade in the first place. You've already lost the argument
The Netherlands has a MAJOR drug problem, in the sense that a lot of the (synthetic) drugs used in Europe are produced here. This shooting is related to one influential criminal, Redoan Taghi, who has also ordered a hit on a lawyer (Derk Wiersum) and reportedly is trying to hire people to escape him from prison.
Police are understaffed and seemingly really can't keep up. They make a lot of mistakes in the process, accidentally publishing the identity of key witnesses etc...
Anyways, the "legal" drug system is broken to it's core. The way it currently works is that Marijuana can be bought legally at a coffeeshop, but it cannot be produced for sale legally. It is the best possible outcome for drug producing criminals, as they can access the largest possible resale market through the coffeeshops, so its easy to distribute big volume, and there is little competition (only from other criminals).
I suspect this broken legal system is bankrolling these criminals and setting them up for the more profitable stuff such as cocaine.
Every time I travel through Germany by car and mention Netherlands as the origin or destination to the German road or Zoll police, they're turning hysterical with their "illegal substances?" questions.
Life has taught me, so far, if something seems so belligerently useless or ineffective and obviously so, the answer usually isn't that I am the only one aware and everyone else just happens to be blindly oblivious. The answer usually is there's another reason or angle I am not seeing.
Could be similar to those "are you or have you ever been in a terrorist organization" forms you sign when traveling to the US. Create a law that makes it illegal to lie on that question and then it's often easier to arrest/deport people for lying on a form (or to an officer) than to convict them of a bigger offense.
I remember a job I had back in the 90's that had a
"written drug test." It was basically an intelligence test - the questions were literally "Have you smoked crack in last 30 days?"
Can they force a blood test on you? I know in my country (Poland) they can arrest you and take you to lab for blood test if they have justified suspiction.
This is sad to hear. I usually cite Netherlands as an example of how lax policies on drug control increase safety. I think I have to get better informed.
I'm very deregulatory when it comes to drugs (and many, but not all, other things), and have read similar things in the past about the Netherlands and the drug market in Europe more generally.
The problem from what the grandparent post, is why legalize sales but not production? I don't really see the rationale for that (other than under the idea that the "real" problems are with production?). It seems to be the same problems as the war on drugs in the US, but pushed down to another level.
My guess is if everything were legalized, it change the dynamics of the situation.
In Europe too, you have the problem of what your neighbors are doing or not doing.
The problem from what the grandparent post, is why legalize sales but not production?
These are largely historical compromises. It doesn't change, because the conservative right-wing parties (e.g. CDA and VVD) generally want to completely ban soft drugs, whereas liberal left-wing parties (e.g. PvdA and GroenLinks). So, we don't really make progress in any direction.
I personally would like fewer people using drugs whether by stricter or laxer drug control policies, but I'm compelled to point out that this is a sample size of 1.
Stricter drug control policies have been tried over and over again and we just don't seem to learn our lesson. I think it makes people feel good to be cracking down on something versus accepting peoples' inherent freedom to do what they want with their own bodies, but cracking down forces problems into hiding; They still exist and fester, but they're a lot harder to deal with.
> I think it makes people feel good to be cracking down on something versus accepting peoples' inherent freedom to do what they want with their own bodies
The problem of course is that society foots the bill for people's drug choices in the form of welfare, healthcare, policing, rehabilitation, or etc, and beyond that there's the opportunity cost--many drug users could be otherwise productive members of society, both economically and "morally" e.g., they could participate in community service, local politics, etc. And with respect to the subset of drugs that are addictive, it's also not an individual's choice.
So the moral framing of "bad people just trying to oppress the harmless free choices of others" is not very accurate. But yes, I think we agree that there must be a way to minimize the problem beyond what we've achieved with stricter drug control policies.
Yeah I think we mostly agree. The only point of disagreement, from my perspective, is that I think we already know that crackdowns don't work no matter how stringent. People will drink (Prohibition) and do drugs (War on Drugs) regardless. Yes, there are societal costs and I think it's right to consider them, but I think those costs exist regardless, and we add onto them by taking the same punitive (and expensive) approach we've tried over and over again.
I think that we Dutch are fnding out there is no solution without downsides to this. The price for defacto/partially normalizing a sector that is criminal in the rest of the world translates to creating a world wide safe haven for people you really don't want to attract.
I think this is still true for the users of the drugs.
Things like free and anonymous drug testing mean you can actually know what you are taking and that it's safe. There is also quite decent drug education; people generally know to stay away from heroin, meth and other highly addictive substances. If you do get addicted there is decent addiction treatment (afaik covered by health insurance).
The problem is that the production and selling is pretty much fully illegal creating this massive illegal market causing all sorts of problems. The drug usage is less of a problem than the crime caused by the illegality of drugs.
I don't think stricter laws would solve anything as people will take drugs anyway, it will only drive the prices up, basically funding crime. I think legalization is the way to go. If you look at countries like Portugal and the US legalization/decriminalization is a viable option.
The Netherlands might still be a good example: on how lax policies increase safety for users and at the same time how too strict policies create tons of problems and crime.
The whole "legal to retail it, illegal to produce/grow it" is the dumbest example of a policy I've seen, and it's shocking to me that such a progressive country has such a backwards policy. Amazingly, it makes the confusing "legal in many states/illegal at Federal level" morass of the USA look good.
Here in Colorado, every bit of legally sold cannabis (or it's refined products like edibles/concentrates) can be traced to the plant or collection of plants it was produced with.
Compared to other US states, the system is incredibly effective in its goal of maintaining a price floor and preventing oversupply like Oregon and California have. Oversupply is bad because growers become less profitable, and are more likely to sell on the black market as a result.
Most importantly, full traceability from the retail store to the producer prevents organized crime from supplying the retail locations.
The Netherlands should look at the Colorado model, and take it farther.
> Oversupply is bad because growers become less profitable, and are more likely to sell on the black market as a result.
Why would the black market be more lucrative? Why does a black market exist when there is a cheap legal market? Is the implication that the black market exports to states where it isn't yet legal and thus prices are higher?
> Most importantly, full traceability from the retail store to the producer prevents organized crime from supplying the retail locations.
I am born and raised in the Netherlands and I have always been for full legalization of everything (as in: I should be able to buy whatever OTC from certified sources). I think the path they chose is not very good. Also it is unclear if full legal would work, but let's try it: war on drugs, in whatever way, seems to work no-where.
Not sure hardcore drugs should ever be OTC; cocaine, heroine, fentanyl and the like. Possession and use should be legal.
It should be a healthcare issue. You go to some state run place, they give you the option of something to get you off drugs or the real thing. They provide a safe place and clean needles. You have to take some mandatory drug education on a weekly or monthly basis. They should offer all the support and information to help the ones that want to clean up.
It should be state run. Private business should not profit off hardcore drugs ever. There will never be an incentive to get them clean.
I am not sure, but we tried most things and, at least in what I have seen in NL and after that in Spain, where you can get xtc, heroine and coke everywhere (not legal, but ish...), it does not breed more or worse addicts it seems. While where it is forbidden (US, AU and Asian countries), I trip over the addicts in the streets. In my view we tried all paths except full legalization for both consumption and trade. So full legalization with a lot of counseling (like in Portugal, my current residence) seems a good avenue to try out.
In NL we already had (have? It was that way when I was young) The needles and the police checking dope quality at parties, why not go the extra mile? I am afraid this is not the good of the people but the money made from drugs somehow or is that too cynical?
>So full legalization with a lot of counseling (like in Portugal, my current residence) seems a good avenue to try out.
Yes 100% this is in my view the best approach.
>In NL we already had (have? It was that way when I was young) The needles and the police checking dope quality at parties, why not go the extra mile? I am afraid this is not the good of the people but the money made from drugs somehow or is that too cynical?
Yes take the money out of the cartels. All profits from state run facilities go toward drug rehabilitation and/or mental healthcare in general.
Sourcing of the drugs is the part I am unsure about. Seems like they have to give production to a pharmaceutical company(s) (creating a new cartel). Buying from cartels is not an option as you are just pushing the misery out of your back yard and into Columbia, North Africa, or Afghanistan.
> in Spain, where you can get xtc, heroine and coke everywhere (not legal, but ish...)
I am from Spain. What are you talking about? Everything you just listed is not only illegal, but very illegal, considered hard drugs by the vast majority of the population, and will get you jail time if you're trafficking or even just possessing low quantities of it if you have previous legal convictions (not even drug related ones, any previous convictions!). And you can get them "everywhere"? lol
I am often amazed with the matter-of-fact tone that is frequently used on this site to speak about certain topics while being 100% wrong about them. The scary thing is, if I wasn't from Spain, I might've read your post and believed it. Makes me wonder.
It is not legal for the dealer but for the user it is semi legal. At least here in the south you only get arrested if you deal. With whatever drug. I never mentioned you could deal it or that it was legal. But you can get harddrugs in any bar here and the guardia knows it. If you start dealing larger amount you have an issue but that is not what I said...
Andalusia: it is really common and the guardia only arrests when there are dealers. Spain is big so I apologize for being too broad.
Where are you from because I did not see a difference in Madrid or Barcelona : it is illegal to have or deal but use is tolerated? You do not have this impression? I am definitely not talking about dealing. While I think every country should as it will kill the money incentive.
Using drugs in public is not tolerated at all, and it doesn't matter whether you're in Madrid or Barcelona or anywhere else in the country. I am frankly tired of explaining this, and I don't know where this notion comes from that drugs are socially tolerated in Spain; I'm guessing from some kind of ignorant association with our neighbors of Portugal, where, by the way, drugs are decriminalized, not semi-legal. Decriminalized means you won't get put in jail for personal-use possession, full stop. And personal-use means very low quantities, comically low in most cases.
You will go to jail for dealing, and for possessing any quantities above a threshold of purity (you read that right: they do test the purity of hard drugs even for street-possession charges, and will slap you with a harder charge when the results come back). Nevermind that 90% of regular citizens find drugs very disturbing and will call the cops and treat you as a degenerate junkie the moment they even think that you might be on drugs, especially if you're a foreigner and you're outside a tourist-trap nightlife district.
Spain, or our neighbors in Portugal, it doesn't matter: you do something supposedly "light" and "tolerated" like smoking weed on the street, and the police will impose a hefty fine between €400 and €1200 (a person's whole salary in many cases), depending on the circumstances. It's the law. It goes without saying that they will confiscate everything. On top of that, if you're a foreigner/tourist and they think you're flaunting your drug usage or simply assume that you just don't give a damn about learning the law of the place you're visiting, they will put your ignorant ass in jail for the night on any charge they like, just for the annoyance. Like that. And then you can talk that 'but it's tolerated!' nonsense on your way to the back of a police van. And then, if still feel like getting smart with them, they'll bring you back to your senses. With a slap across the face, follow by an obstruction of justice charge. And you'll still go in the damn police van.
Take it from me, who's grown up here and have been living here for 30 years, or take your risk with taking idiotic internet tourist assumptions for granted. I strongly advise you to do the former, but as we say here: you're free to do as you please, and so is the police.
Or like an arrogant anglonerd who's been sold too much caffeinated baking soda and rastrojos in tourist traps for his own good. By the way, did your Prince Of Logic & Facts x-ray vision see that the parent post spoke specifically of "xtc, heroine and coke"?
Since drugs are so widespread and you seem so confident: why don't you go get some of these easily obtainable, semi-legal drugs and walk them up to a policeman, see if you're right about the issue or if maybe they semi-put your stupid ass in semi-jail for the semi-night? Please, please record the whole thing, me and my friends always welcome a good laugh.
Finally, a PSA: there are so, so many jokes about anglo tourists in Spain (I'm a native), and for some reason, a huge percentage of them are specifically about 'adventurers' who have 'seen the world' and 'know where the good stuff is'. Go figure lmfao.
Again, not legal officially and definitely not the trade, but you don't have to go to some dodgy area to get them with the risk of getting beaten up: they are really easy to get and everyone who wants them knows where. The police are supposed to offer counseling addresses when they catch you; that is the story and I like that. However, from what I have seen, like for instance during the PT-FR Euro match in Faro, there were plenty people snorting coke/speed and smoking spliffs while drinking on the streets and plenty of cops that walked by and ignored. So it seems similar to Spain or NL where they 'close their eyes' for personal use and try to take on trafficking, which, in my opinion, has been proven enough to not work. It is safer than also outlaw personal use, but it is not good enough.
You say cocaine should not be OTC, but possession and use should be legal. It sounds like you accept some level of cocaine use as inevitable. Then why would you make it so that cocaine users are forced to finance criminal organizations?
I got that, but I think either the state-provided coke is so easy to get that you might as well just call it "OTC", or else it is so difficult to get that you will have an illegal market anyway. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
edit: Specifically, I'm not sure if combining the sale of drugs and the drug cessation treatment is the way to go. We don't do that with alcohol for example. Don't you think that most of what you want to achieve can be done by separating the two, where indeed drug cessation treatment is provided as part of the normal medical care system (but sale isn't)? Except (sorry if I put words in your mouth, consider it a general observation) you will have to let go of the idea that you must at all costs make those people who are wilfully and with informed consent using drugs stop using drugs.
Yea it would be OTC if you take some mandatory drug education and learning how to be safe about things. Maybe attend some group meetings about their problems. Some would also need social education to get back into society.
If the legal prices were very cheap, this might work. Do I have to attend a class once, or every time I want to get something? If it’s too onerous many might still use the black market and you haven’t solved the problem. The devil is in the details.
I don't buy that. I mean, it could be that the investigation into this criminal racket is understaffed, but the question of whether there are more or less police staff generally probably not that important here.
> They make a lot of mistakes in the process, accidentally publishing the identity of key witnesses etc...
Understaffing of an investigation + strategic "mistakes" raises some red flags IMHO.
> The way it currently works is that Marijuana can be bought legally at a coffeeshop, but it cannot be produced for sale legally.
Why has the Netherlands not decriminalized Cannbis-based products entirely? That is is, which political parties are against it, and what are their arguments?
> I suspect this broken legal system is bankrolling
A nitpick about your English phrasing: I'm sure you mean that current law is conducive to these criminal-industrial operations, not the legal _system_ and not bankrolling. i.e. no jurist is financing these crimes.
> ... but the question of whether there are more or less police staff generally probably not that important here.
What are you talking about? A quick google shows extensive reporting on the lack of police staffing and working pressure. This has been pretty well-reported in NL over the last few years.
I don’t know what things are like in the Netherlands, but a while ago I realised that the (self-reported) drug use in the UK was sufficient that the UK would literally have to bankrupt itself if it tried to fully enforce its laws.
While I take this to be a sign that the laws are wrong, I am more anarchic than the average UK voter. I can’t even compare myself to the average Dutch voter (ik spreek nur een bitje Nederlands, and even that is mostly because of how close it is to an average of English and German).
>the question of whether there are more or less police staff generally probably not that important here.
The Netherlands consist of 17 million people and there isn't really alot of crime around. Exept the massive drug corporations all gathering in the center of their import and export. Our judicial system is not in shape to handle entire criminal enterprises.
>Why has the Netherlands not decriminalized Cannbis-based products entirely?
No one really cares. The state likes that it can regulate the shops. Police dont put you behind bars when they find drugs and will ask you if you 'willingly' do away with your stuff. Everyone is reasonably okay with the current arrangement.
Cannabis can be made legal and still heavily regulated.
As for everyone being ok with the current arrangement - the story illustrates how that is not the case: Production and distribution cannot be done legally. What you describe is a way for avoiding public outcry about the whole state of affairs through non-enforcement on consumers. This should really change IMHO.
> The way it currently works is that Marijuana can be bought legally at a coffeeshop, but it cannot be produced for sale legally
An interesting information:
"In 2018, the Dutch electricity provider (Netbeheer
Nederland) was able to detect energy theft that could
be related to 2 600 cannabis cultivation sites. People
running these growing operations stole a total of
95 million kilowatt hours in 2018, costing the provider
a total of EUR 60 million and the government about
EUR 135 million in tax revenues. Based on police
estimates of about 30 000 illicit cannabis cultivation
sites in the Netherlands, these would consume
and possibly steal about 1 billion kilowatt hours of
electricity, equivalent to the annual consumption of
all households in the city of Rotterdam, which has
650 000 inhabitants (Netbeheer Nederland, 2019)." - EU Drug markets report, EUROPOL.
He is named Peter rather than Piter, Peter is a very common first name, De Vries is his father's last name, and he was born years before Dune was published.
In december 2016 another Dutch 'crime reporter' named Martin Kok was shot to dead. I put that inside parentheses, because that guy was a former criminal/murderer himself and his writing style was really bad (and therefor a joy to read). It was speculated about him that he 'reported' about the activities of a criminal group (basically cocaine traffickers) that was formerly operating stealthy (as in: that group was not in the spotlights of the press yet, it probably was on the radar of the police, I don't know). It was also speculated he got paid for this 'reporting' by another criminal group.
It's all mocro mafia related. Comes down to access to the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp. In 2012 a shipment of 200 kilos of coke went missing in Antwerp. A war broke out. If you are slightly interested in this real life crime stuff, definitely search for 'mocro mafia'. I can really recommend the book called 'Mocro Mafia' by Wouter Laumans (very good book, and it's central theme is around a young Moroccan boy who's frustrated with life and becomes a criminal, to eventually be used as a hitman, very sad read).
These real life crime stories sometimes read like a movie script:
- Beheadings? Check.
- Bombs and rocket launchers? Check.
- Executions in broad day light? Check.
- Mistakenly killing the wrong people? Check.
- Shooting with automatic rifles on police? Check.
- Kids being hitmen for like 5.000 euro? Check.
- Kidnappings? Check.
- Attacks on press, laywers, mayors? Check.
To clarify some things: what is called the 'mocro mafia' is mostly about cocaine import (but also bank robberies in nowadays mostly Germany). What The Netherlands are also famous for is the production of synthetic drugs. What I wrote about attacks on a mayor is said to be coming from that angle.
I know, very broad generalization by calling this 'mocro mafia', I don't like that either.
219 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 280 ms ] threadOrganized crime is completely out of control in the Netherlands. On a margin that far surpasses almost all other countries in the west.
Which developed country doesn't it surpass? From what I've seen the Netherlands is well on the road to becoming today's Mexico.
Ironically, some of the US states are now among the most liberal and forward-thinking in the West - the Dutch are becoming more and more backwards (I live there).
We're just not arresting drug users, that's it. But it's still very much a criminal enterprise to create the stuff.
I did add and clarify, but not remove.
[0] https://video.vice.com/en_uk/video/vice-lean-weed-and-cocain...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50821542 (related)
I was already aware that the Netherlands had a drug problem in general, both by smuggling via their huge ports and by cartels producing them locally. I had even submitted a map [0] with locations of amphetamine production sites not long ago and most of them are in the Netherlands but the amount of crime that seems to accompany it is frightening.
[0] https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/media-library/map-location-site...
> the amount of crime that seems to accompany it is frightening
Do you have some kind of source that last statement? Do you mean frightening as in "big" or frightening as in "it scares me"?
https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/indicators/h3031de56?indicat...
They are tied with Switzerland with the 27th lowest homicide rate in the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
Meanwhile, a dutch fruitcompany (https://www.bd.nl/bommelerwaard/fruithandel-de-groot-doelwit...) and its employees are attacked regularly because a load of drugs was caught in transit.
So, a person getting shot dead is much more of an extreme event in the Netherlands (even disregarding the particular circumstances).
Statistic taken from here:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
The US is an extreme outlier in this regard.
An Irish crime reporter was killed for being too curious by drug bosses. The subsequent Garda investigation was so intense and far reaching that it's estimated the the drug operations lost huge money over the coming years -- the Irish state implemented news laws and even the creation of 'Criminal Assets Bureau' came from Veronicas death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Guerin
I would be harmed by robberies on the street or in the home.
I believe OP's point is that an exceptionally rare assassination of a random person does not compare to frequent robberies of people close to you.
They really aren’t a thing.
Certainly not in the Netherlands. Even in the US, it’s an exceptionally rare cause of death of no significance at all.
They really are in the UK.
> cause of death of no significance at all
Of course, someone's needless death is of no significance. You have probably never heard of John Donne, but:
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
And maybe look up "county lines", which is corrupting children, and spreading the drug trade, and violence, to even small towns.
I am not against the use of drugs, and have used some at one point or another myself. But it is delusional to think that so long as drug use is criminalised, criminal gangs will not use extreme violence.
Also, this is 2021.
The UK has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world, so there is no reason to put 'low' in scare quotes in this context.
I'm not sure how representative pandemic stats would be, so it made sense to look at 2019. But I don't think you can seriously claim that drive by shootings have massively increased during the pandemic. Or at least, if you do claim this, it would be good to see a source.
I do agree with you on this part of your original reply, though:
> But it is delusional to think that so long as drug use is criminalised, criminal gangs will not use extreme violence.
It's definitely the case that criminalization of drug use is one of the root causes of a lot of violent crime in the UK. I imagine we'd have other social issues to contend with if we followed the path of making many drugs legal, but we'd certainly have less crime related to their trafficking and distribution.
Bollocks.
> 32 lives are insignificant
Nobody is saying this, anywhere.
More importantly, how many of those were innocent bystanders?
The point is not that people’s lives don’t matter, the point is that being caught in a drive by shooting is an absurd thing to be afraid of. You are more likely to get hit by lightening, or slip and hit your head in the shower.
Also, in my previous apartment (Amsterdam), I’ve heard a gang execution (shots were fired) in the middle of the night.
I also know people who knows the DJ who was executed inside his car in the presence pf his family.
There’s a problem in the Netherlands.
I’m not saying that drug related violence is not a thing. It accounts for most of the gun related murders in the US, for example. Probably the same is the Netherlands.
However, innocent bystanders being at risk is not a thing.
https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/aantal-vergismoorden-sti...
and that's before we get into those cases where people were slaughtered in front of their spouses and children (and who sometimes were slaughtered right along with them).
Massive shoot outs with automatic weapons on the highways, in the cities and on one occasion on a small beach near Amsterdam.
If it doesn't include you then you are lucky. But it could be you, tomorrow.
And most of those progressive voters live in the areas which are affected ( Amsterdam, Randstad in general ).
And if they did not vote 'progressive', they voted VVD ( neoliberal, keep slashing funding until it is bare functional : our police ).
Ok, I think you've just disqualified yourself from further discussion. I'm not going to cross the HN guidelines to tell you off.
What is the point of your comment? Why comment at all?
Giving off some heavy sealion vibes here
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_criminele_liquidatie...
For perspective, the number of people who die from lightning strikes is about 2 per year.
You live in a society where young people become addicts and rob and harm the people they love and then die prematurely.
Quote from three years ago, after Mocro Maffia set up shop in Belgium. Belgium is a couple years behind The Netherlands. So there's no doubt about it, things are even worse in The Netherlands. Belgium is now in the throw-grenades-at-homes phase but no public executions yet. Matter of time...
Let's not make grand sweeping statements about societies which you clearly don't have a huge practical experience with (or if you do, of which you are grandly exaggerating certain problem spots in order to make your point seem more emotionally critical).
NL has a drug problem, and has had a drug problem since the 70's or so. It's been worse than it is today, but even today school age children are approached on a regular basis by pushers, plenty of them end up as addicts and quite a few of them do end up on the wrong side of the law to the point that we have special programs to deal with this.
None of our communities is immune from this, whether you live in Northern Groningen, Zeeland, Limburg, Gelderland or the Randstad, the problems are legion and so is the secondary fall out.
The biggest issue discussed in Groningen is lachgas ( nitrous oxide ). And alcohol.
The drug problems from the 70's and 80's were mostly heroine, not seen as a problem anymore as most of the users have died out.
Lachgas is a problem, but a very minor one in comparison to harder drugs, alcohol has been a problem for a lot longer than either harder drugs or soft drugs. Unfortunately Groningen is not an exception to any of this.
As for sources, here is one:
https://www.harendekrant.nl/nieuws/drugsdealer-learen-lees-m...
and I'm sure you'll find a reason to disqualify it but there is far more than this single article.
What should I google to find the 'far more' ?
If I google 'drugs school groningen', I come up empty.
If I google 'dealer school groningen', I come up with one article from 2017, minor incident, and best of all : that was my school.
So were can I find far more?
Those 'minor incidents' are two a penny. Even at the better schools kids regularly use drugs. If you don't know about it or don't want to know about it then maybe stop extrapolating from your limited experience to the rest of NL. And good luck when/if you have kids in school, watch out from round about the age of 11.
That is just a baseless assumption on your part : I lived for extended periods in other cities.
I know some parents with children here, the subject has never come up. I don't recognize your characterization of the problem at all.
Maybe you should stop projecting your views on a city you apparently know little about?
The drug trade in Groningen is alive and well, you can take that to the bank. And if you still don't believe it then maybe have a chat with some LE and see where that takes you.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2326997-pillen-laten-rondgaan-in-een-...
If the allegations are not supported by evidence then it's natural that anyone finds faults.
That, and your ad hominem, says everything about your accusations.
> Those 'minor incidents' are two a penny. Even at the better schools kids regularly use drugs.
If that is supposed to be any close to the truth then how do you explain the complete lack of evidence or even anecdotal accounts?
I mean, can you actually support any of your claims about the alleged torrent of cases that is everywhere but also nowhere to be seen?
And plenty of them elsewhere, but all in dutch.
Google terms "site:.nl drugsgebruik middelbare scholen nederland" "site:.nl drugsgebruik lagere scholen nederland".
Enjoy. And if a school in NL claims that they don't have a drug issue: find out if they really don't or if they are simply closing their eyes because it's too uncomfortable to discuss.
There is no evidence that schools in nl do not have a drug problem, but there is plenty of evidence that they do.
For instance, an article about Arnhem:
https://nos.nl/artikel/2322862-steeds-meer-blowende-jongeren...
BTW, the whole article is about cannabis. Is this what you are worked up about?
The numbers sound about the same for my cohort, and our teachers were well aware, also who we were and it was discussed openly in class. And we felt safe enough to be open about it as well.
You seem particular puritan. One needs to remember the Dutch voted for gedoogbeleid ( laissez faire policy ) and it has been in place since the 80s.
No, I really can't. So far you've been unable and unwilling to do so. I see a lot of posts from you with unsubstantiated allegations followed up by desperate ad hominems.
And when you are pressed about it, you hand-waive, deflect, and redirect.
I repeat: if there were a tenth of the cases you alleged then you would have zero problems presenting a single convincing example.
But you even failed at presenting any relevant case at all.
Please read the link you just provided. It states the exact opposite of what you're claiming. That was the best example you could come up with after so many ad hominem and after being repeatedly pressed to support your unsubstantiated allegations. Your dozen of scaremongering posts in this discussion boil down to that, the absolute best example you manage to put together. And it contradicts your claims.
You should really reflect on what you're doing, because if you have a problem with reality not backing up your firmly held beliefs to the point you get so emotional about that delta then some contemplation is in order.
The US average seems to be 5, worse cities can get to 20? 40?
The problem exists but let's not take it out of proportion
What you are describing has happened in the 70's and 80's. Education, special programs and (semi-)legalising weed (soft drugs) had though most kids how to avoid addiction. Since then alcohol abuse is a far bigger problem amongst kids [source: https://www.trimbos.nl/kennis/cijfers/alcohol-drugs-roken-sc...]
Sure, drugs is being sold to kids. For recreational (weekend) use and not full-filling some addiction. So does that make it a drug-problem? From my point of view most kids know exactly what they are doing. Plus I haven't met a single dealer in NL which needed to resort to 'pushing drugs to kids' to sell his stash. So maybe your sons were asked to buy drugs, which is a very different situation.
Thé most troublesome problem, involving drugs in NL is people slipping GHB into other people's drinks, to abuse them afterwards.
Other friends and their kids: multiple passes, dealers are either their school buddies trying to make some money on the side so they can buy fancy clothing or phones, or outsiders who are in it in a more professional capacity.
NL has a drug problem, like it or not it doesn't really matter, it's there and if we pretend it isn't there it is certainly not going to be resolved.
From my point of view, very few people know what they are doing, let alone children. Honestly you are ridiculous.
sounds like the description of a government
The latter comes packaged with the former.
Meanwhile Dutch police doesn't investigate any of this "petty" crime. Instead they boast that the occupation of prisons is in all time low, and that they are rented prison space to other countries. Wonder, if anything will change, considering the prevailing "pragmatic" - "it doesn't affect me if my wallet isn't affected" attitude in the Dutch society.
The added benefit is that if you are using a playground you no longer have to be overly concerned about stepping into needles.
The junkies problem of the 70s and 80s died out, that generation is largely dead and with the changing culture and the closure of most kraakpanden ( squatting places ) no new junkies were added. The junkies died out.
[1] https://cpj.org/data/killed/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5...
> Crime reporter de Vries acted as a spokesperson and non-legal advisor for crown witness Nabil B. who is testifying against Ridouan Taghi, the alleged mastermind of the Amsterdam-based group which is seen as one of the Netherlands' largest cocaine distributors.
> Two people close to Nabil B. are already dead, allegedly murdered by Taghi's associates. In 2018, Nabil B.'s brother was murdered in broad daylight in Amsterdam and in 2019 his lawyer Derk Wiersum was gunned down outside his home.
> De Vries' work exposing the underworld has resulted in repeated death threats. Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, where de Vries started his career, says he investigated more than 500 murders. In 2019, the journalist said he was on Taghi's hitlist.
You are currently enjoying what is an unprecedented apex of progress, wealth, security, and wellbeing of the Western society which only been there for a mere 40-30 years.
On a reasonably modern historical scale, it's very uncommon not only for the West, but much of other countries in the world.
It's hard for you to fathom a life other than this. You take it as something given, while it isn't.
Bad times can come back.
At least in my country, with a high school education our parents could get a job that provided a decent life for a family on a single income. As I say, that is long gone.
It is a valid point to argue that the shooting in question is part of a broader pictuer of an increase in violence across the world, including in Western countries (Malta, Slovakia and others), threatening the democratic principles.
The problem we have in the west is that we we talk about problems and tradeoffs in abstract. For example, many people who argue that it would be good to defund the police have never lived in a situation where daily life was dangerous due to crime. Similarly, people who argue against pipelines rarely have an understanding of what it's like when there's no fuel or heat in the winter.
These issues are complex and there are two sides, but it does seem to me that the "hardship" side of the things is being under-valued and under-feared because it's outside of people's realm of experience.
Most people who argue for defunding the police live in a situation in which daily life is dangerous... due to the police. Who often harass them, lock them up, or even shoot them dead.
> Similarly, people who argue against pipelines rarely have an understanding of what it's like when there's no fuel or heat in the winter.
You're attacking a straw man. (Almost) nobody is arguing against having _any_ pipelines, whatsoever, anywhere. In the US, however, there is a custom of laying pipelines which are shoddily constructed, tend to burst and spill frequently, and are laid in along highly dangerous paths where they may contaminate drinking water sources and other sensitive locations.
And - people who argue for such pipelines rarely have an understanding of what drinking water mixed with petroleum does to you...
This is obviously a thorny topic but I think you're wrong. For example here in NYC, there has been a huge spike in crime and shootings, of which black people have been the most common victims. The number of people murdered this way dwarfs the number of people shot by the police in total.
When people are in actual fear of their lives, it's not the police they are worried about. And this has manifested itself in the election.
The democratic mayoral primary we just had, the black and latin neighborhoods heavily went for Eric Adams, the former cop. While the white/gentrifying areas were more heavily for the defund-the-police candidate.
I am curious your perspective? Are you actually someone who lives in the hood and has a fear of your life on daily basis, and fear cops more than criminals?
Or are you more in the "I read about this stuff" bucket, and if so, how does the above fit into your perspective.
1. I talked about police violence in general, not just shooting. Shooting is the more extreme case of violence.
2. There are crime problems elsewhere in the world - like that Netherlands issue in the story - and yet, the police essentially never shoot people unless shot at first. Or, you know what, maybe it's once every few years in the entire country.
3. Even if shootings were rare, the fact that the police _may_ just shoot you, means you are in danger of your life whenever you are in contact with the police. And the police - in many/most places - expect to be treated as those who have the power to decide whether you live or die. This is especially true since these killings are often arbitrary, i.e. it is not the most dangerous and violent people in the most suspicious of situations that get shot, or otherwise killed by police.
4. I don't live in NYC. Can you give some citation for the "dwarfing" part?
> When people are in actual fear of their lives, it's not the police they are worried about.
> And this has manifested itself in the election.
You mean the mayor elections in NYC? I don't live in the US, so I'm not well-versed at city-level politics at all. I basically know Yang ran and failed...
Anyway, from my experience and knowledge, that's usually/very often not true - depending on the level of social consciousness of course. In neighborhoods or cities where the state is perceived as being controlled by a rich and powerful minority, especially if it's mostly of a different color or ethnicity; and when the state is uncaring and oppressive towards you and your surrounding society - crime is perceived being to a great extent the result neglect and even active encouragement and collusion of the state and the regular and political police with criminal elements. In the US the political police would be some of the three-letter agencies I suppose.
This is actually a crisis faced by Palestinian society in Israel these days, which would merit an article of its own, but this is just a comment.
> I am curious your perspective? Are you actually someone who lives in the hood and has a fear of your life on daily basis, and fear cops more than criminals?
Well, first of all, I'm afraid of cops because of what they do to me and other people during popular protests or just demonstrations. I was standing next to a person when this cop grabbed his head and banged it against the curb. Cops stole my coat once as they were hauling me to be detained/arrested (although I'm not sure whether one of them took it or whether they just threw it away). Cops almost ran me over a few times, with motorcycles and with horses. Cops fired a stun grenade into a crowd right next to me just a couple of months ago. etc. etc.
I lived in a "semi-hood" for a few years; I was never fearful for my life, because the society I live in is much less violent than in the US, but I was still sometimes fearful. I was always more afraid of the cops than of groups of young men on a street corner. Of course, if I were not from the privileged ethnic group, i.e. if I were of Arab/Middle-Eastern rather than European descent, I would have been _really_ afraid of cops and probably even less worried about people in my neighborhood.
1. You're responding to a post that said "most people who argue for defunding the police have never lived in a place without police where they had to live in fear of crime". In your response, you confirmed that you're such a person. You never lived in a dangerous/violent place but somehow you take your safety for granted and see police as extraneous.
2. You asked for a citation of the fact that the recent spike in crime has taken more black lives than the police? To be frank your lack of awareness of the numbers (ie the actual crux of the matter) is pretty damning. If you don't have the command of the numbers and the scale of the issue, you're not in good position to suggest policy.
I can dig up the data if you don't believe me but from memory: the number of unarmed people shot to death by police in the US is a double-digit number across all races, with about 2/3rd of them being white. So if we said "30 unarmed black people were shot to death by police in the US in 2020" that would be an upper bound. (to be clear this number includes unarmed people who were nonetheless violent, but its ok)
In contrast, there were 7,484 Black homicide victims per year in 2019, which is before the latest spike in crime.
That's a ratio of ~250/1 using the most conservative assumptions (it's more like 400/1 probably)
It is often a quadruple-digit number. Here's an example for 2016:
https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-eac...
and 2019:
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/
it seems you are not quite familiar with how the US police treats people.
Your numbers munge everyone killed by the cops, which is stupid. "X pointed a gun at a cop so the cops shot him" does not translate into "cops are bad" in my mind.
I haven’t found any talk of evidence against this rapper. He’s a dark skinned man who was picked up by police in the vicinity of a crime.
9 times out of 10, people in that position had nothing to do with the crime. So I personally wouldn’t presume that person to be “involved” at this time.
The Netherlands have turned into the European Version of a narco state: Clean streets without turf wars on the surface, but an increase of bought-off politicians and civil servants in the background, creeping into the foundations of the Dutch state.
> I'm not worried about the drug trade [...] I'm worried what happens if they loose that income stream"
That's why you have to worry about the drug trade in the first place. You've already lost the argument
Police are understaffed and seemingly really can't keep up. They make a lot of mistakes in the process, accidentally publishing the identity of key witnesses etc...
Anyways, the "legal" drug system is broken to it's core. The way it currently works is that Marijuana can be bought legally at a coffeeshop, but it cannot be produced for sale legally. It is the best possible outcome for drug producing criminals, as they can access the largest possible resale market through the coffeeshops, so its easy to distribute big volume, and there is little competition (only from other criminals).
I suspect this broken legal system is bankrolling these criminals and setting them up for the more profitable stuff such as cocaine.
The problem from what the grandparent post, is why legalize sales but not production? I don't really see the rationale for that (other than under the idea that the "real" problems are with production?). It seems to be the same problems as the war on drugs in the US, but pushed down to another level.
My guess is if everything were legalized, it change the dynamics of the situation.
In Europe too, you have the problem of what your neighbors are doing or not doing.
These are largely historical compromises. It doesn't change, because the conservative right-wing parties (e.g. CDA and VVD) generally want to completely ban soft drugs, whereas liberal left-wing parties (e.g. PvdA and GroenLinks). So, we don't really make progress in any direction.
The problem of course is that society foots the bill for people's drug choices in the form of welfare, healthcare, policing, rehabilitation, or etc, and beyond that there's the opportunity cost--many drug users could be otherwise productive members of society, both economically and "morally" e.g., they could participate in community service, local politics, etc. And with respect to the subset of drugs that are addictive, it's also not an individual's choice.
So the moral framing of "bad people just trying to oppress the harmless free choices of others" is not very accurate. But yes, I think we agree that there must be a way to minimize the problem beyond what we've achieved with stricter drug control policies.
Things like free and anonymous drug testing mean you can actually know what you are taking and that it's safe. There is also quite decent drug education; people generally know to stay away from heroin, meth and other highly addictive substances. If you do get addicted there is decent addiction treatment (afaik covered by health insurance).
The problem is that the production and selling is pretty much fully illegal creating this massive illegal market causing all sorts of problems. The drug usage is less of a problem than the crime caused by the illegality of drugs.
I don't think stricter laws would solve anything as people will take drugs anyway, it will only drive the prices up, basically funding crime. I think legalization is the way to go. If you look at countries like Portugal and the US legalization/decriminalization is a viable option.
The Netherlands might still be a good example: on how lax policies increase safety for users and at the same time how too strict policies create tons of problems and crime.
Here in Colorado, every bit of legally sold cannabis (or it's refined products like edibles/concentrates) can be traced to the plant or collection of plants it was produced with.
Compared to other US states, the system is incredibly effective in its goal of maintaining a price floor and preventing oversupply like Oregon and California have. Oversupply is bad because growers become less profitable, and are more likely to sell on the black market as a result.
Most importantly, full traceability from the retail store to the producer prevents organized crime from supplying the retail locations.
The Netherlands should look at the Colorado model, and take it farther.
Why would the black market be more lucrative? Why does a black market exist when there is a cheap legal market? Is the implication that the black market exports to states where it isn't yet legal and thus prices are higher?
> Most importantly, full traceability from the retail store to the producer prevents organized crime from supplying the retail locations.
I like this mechanism.
Often the high taxes are supposed to be a disincentive for consumption or overconsumption. Cigarettes are too expensive for teenagers, etc.
See also bootleggers, cigarettes trucked from low-tax states (Eric Garner), etc.
It should be a healthcare issue. You go to some state run place, they give you the option of something to get you off drugs or the real thing. They provide a safe place and clean needles. You have to take some mandatory drug education on a weekly or monthly basis. They should offer all the support and information to help the ones that want to clean up.
It should be state run. Private business should not profit off hardcore drugs ever. There will never be an incentive to get them clean.
In NL we already had (have? It was that way when I was young) The needles and the police checking dope quality at parties, why not go the extra mile? I am afraid this is not the good of the people but the money made from drugs somehow or is that too cynical?
Yes 100% this is in my view the best approach.
>In NL we already had (have? It was that way when I was young) The needles and the police checking dope quality at parties, why not go the extra mile? I am afraid this is not the good of the people but the money made from drugs somehow or is that too cynical?
Yes take the money out of the cartels. All profits from state run facilities go toward drug rehabilitation and/or mental healthcare in general.
Sourcing of the drugs is the part I am unsure about. Seems like they have to give production to a pharmaceutical company(s) (creating a new cartel). Buying from cartels is not an option as you are just pushing the misery out of your back yard and into Columbia, North Africa, or Afghanistan.
I am from Spain. What are you talking about? Everything you just listed is not only illegal, but very illegal, considered hard drugs by the vast majority of the population, and will get you jail time if you're trafficking or even just possessing low quantities of it if you have previous legal convictions (not even drug related ones, any previous convictions!). And you can get them "everywhere"? lol
I am often amazed with the matter-of-fact tone that is frequently used on this site to speak about certain topics while being 100% wrong about them. The scary thing is, if I wasn't from Spain, I might've read your post and believed it. Makes me wonder.
Andalusia: it is really common and the guardia only arrests when there are dealers. Spain is big so I apologize for being too broad.
Where are you from because I did not see a difference in Madrid or Barcelona : it is illegal to have or deal but use is tolerated? You do not have this impression? I am definitely not talking about dealing. While I think every country should as it will kill the money incentive.
You will go to jail for dealing, and for possessing any quantities above a threshold of purity (you read that right: they do test the purity of hard drugs even for street-possession charges, and will slap you with a harder charge when the results come back). Nevermind that 90% of regular citizens find drugs very disturbing and will call the cops and treat you as a degenerate junkie the moment they even think that you might be on drugs, especially if you're a foreigner and you're outside a tourist-trap nightlife district.
Spain, or our neighbors in Portugal, it doesn't matter: you do something supposedly "light" and "tolerated" like smoking weed on the street, and the police will impose a hefty fine between €400 and €1200 (a person's whole salary in many cases), depending on the circumstances. It's the law. It goes without saying that they will confiscate everything. On top of that, if you're a foreigner/tourist and they think you're flaunting your drug usage or simply assume that you just don't give a damn about learning the law of the place you're visiting, they will put your ignorant ass in jail for the night on any charge they like, just for the annoyance. Like that. And then you can talk that 'but it's tolerated!' nonsense on your way to the back of a police van. And then, if still feel like getting smart with them, they'll bring you back to your senses. With a slap across the face, follow by an obstruction of justice charge. And you'll still go in the damn police van.
Take it from me, who's grown up here and have been living here for 30 years, or take your risk with taking idiotic internet tourist assumptions for granted. I strongly advise you to do the former, but as we say here: you're free to do as you please, and so is the police.
You think otherwise? Lol.
This is like a choir boy arguing weed is hard to find and "nobody they know does it".
Since drugs are so widespread and you seem so confident: why don't you go get some of these easily obtainable, semi-legal drugs and walk them up to a policeman, see if you're right about the issue or if maybe they semi-put your stupid ass in semi-jail for the semi-night? Please, please record the whole thing, me and my friends always welcome a good laugh.
Finally, a PSA: there are so, so many jokes about anglo tourists in Spain (I'm a native), and for some reason, a huge percentage of them are specifically about 'adventurers' who have 'seen the world' and 'know where the good stuff is'. Go figure lmfao.
edit: Specifically, I'm not sure if combining the sale of drugs and the drug cessation treatment is the way to go. We don't do that with alcohol for example. Don't you think that most of what you want to achieve can be done by separating the two, where indeed drug cessation treatment is provided as part of the normal medical care system (but sale isn't)? Except (sorry if I put words in your mouth, consider it a general observation) you will have to let go of the idea that you must at all costs make those people who are wilfully and with informed consent using drugs stop using drugs.
Are you an actual cartel member lol.
I don't buy that. I mean, it could be that the investigation into this criminal racket is understaffed, but the question of whether there are more or less police staff generally probably not that important here.
> They make a lot of mistakes in the process, accidentally publishing the identity of key witnesses etc...
Understaffing of an investigation + strategic "mistakes" raises some red flags IMHO.
> The way it currently works is that Marijuana can be bought legally at a coffeeshop, but it cannot be produced for sale legally.
Why has the Netherlands not decriminalized Cannbis-based products entirely? That is is, which political parties are against it, and what are their arguments?
> I suspect this broken legal system is bankrolling
A nitpick about your English phrasing: I'm sure you mean that current law is conducive to these criminal-industrial operations, not the legal _system_ and not bankrolling. i.e. no jurist is financing these crimes.
What are you talking about? A quick google shows extensive reporting on the lack of police staffing and working pressure. This has been pretty well-reported in NL over the last few years.
[0] 2018: https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2245189-personeelstekort-bi...
[1] 2019: https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/politievakbond-er-is-een...
[2] 2019: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/12/16/politie-heeft-te-weinig...
[3] 2019: https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/4936156/po...
While I take this to be a sign that the laws are wrong, I am more anarchic than the average UK voter. I can’t even compare myself to the average Dutch voter (ik spreek nur een bitje Nederlands, and even that is mostly because of how close it is to an average of English and German).
>Why has the Netherlands not decriminalized Cannbis-based products entirely? No one really cares. The state likes that it can regulate the shops. Police dont put you behind bars when they find drugs and will ask you if you 'willingly' do away with your stuff. Everyone is reasonably okay with the current arrangement.
As for everyone being ok with the current arrangement - the story illustrates how that is not the case: Production and distribution cannot be done legally. What you describe is a way for avoiding public outcry about the whole state of affairs through non-enforcement on consumers. This should really change IMHO.
An interesting information:
"In 2018, the Dutch electricity provider (Netbeheer Nederland) was able to detect energy theft that could be related to 2 600 cannabis cultivation sites. People running these growing operations stole a total of 95 million kilowatt hours in 2018, costing the provider a total of EUR 60 million and the government about EUR 135 million in tax revenues. Based on police estimates of about 30 000 illicit cannabis cultivation sites in the Netherlands, these would consume and possibly steal about 1 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, equivalent to the annual consumption of all households in the city of Rotterdam, which has 650 000 inhabitants (Netbeheer Nederland, 2019)." - EU Drug markets report, EUROPOL.
It's all mocro mafia related. Comes down to access to the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp. In 2012 a shipment of 200 kilos of coke went missing in Antwerp. A war broke out. If you are slightly interested in this real life crime stuff, definitely search for 'mocro mafia'. I can really recommend the book called 'Mocro Mafia' by Wouter Laumans (very good book, and it's central theme is around a young Moroccan boy who's frustrated with life and becomes a criminal, to eventually be used as a hitman, very sad read).
These real life crime stories sometimes read like a movie script: - Beheadings? Check. - Bombs and rocket launchers? Check. - Executions in broad day light? Check. - Mistakenly killing the wrong people? Check. - Shooting with automatic rifles on police? Check. - Kids being hitmen for like 5.000 euro? Check. - Kidnappings? Check. - Attacks on press, laywers, mayors? Check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Kok
Like for example being Polish.