How smoking weed is still legal for tourists in Amsterdam

Independent of the actual subject matter, I think that recent drug policy changes in the Netherlands is a great example of how the common push for centralization can be countered by local demands.<p>At some point, drug enforcement was pretty much the same across the country, but now, because different cities have different problems and influences, it is enforced differently in cities. As a strong believer in the &quot;subsidiarity principle&quot; (things should be decided as locally as they can), I&#x27;ve been appalled at the push towards centralization of policies and control in many European countries the last decade.<p>It seems that everybody thinks that if local issues are made national policy, and national issues European policy, things will automatically be better. Usually it starts because in one locality, something goes wrong, resulting in media outrage and a call for more regulation by a higher government. If we don&#x27;t watch out, small town sidewalk planning will be done in Brussels.<p>The recent Dutch drug policy changes show that with enough effort, the subsidiarity principle can still win. This gives me some confidence for the future. We need to keep underlining that not every place is the same.

Dutchmen here. You can grow your own weed as well. Just not more than 5 plants and only for your own consumption. I&#x27;m no user, but I understand weed is for tourists and younger kids just chillin&#x27;&#x2F;relaxing.<p>There&#x27;s a much larger user base for all those chemically created drugs for partying. Lately there&#x27;s a new thing, it&#x27;s actually for horses needing surgery and keeps them on their feet. Kids use it to prefent passing out from all the other drugs. Funny thing is: They look like walking zombies stumbling about.

Good explanation, but this title is incredibly misleading. Marijuana was <i>never</i> legal in the Netherlands[0], for tourists <i>or</i> residents. As the linked answer itself points out, it was only tolerated.<p>Until November 2012, there was no place in the world where marijuana was truly legal, except (possibly) North Korea[1]. Even still, it&#x27;s a stretch to say that marijuana is legal in Washington State and Colorado, since the Feds could easily decide tomorrow that they want to crack down on it, and you could be arrested[2].<p>The distinction between legality and tolerance is important. Decriminalization and&#x2F;or tolerance provide only a small subset of the benefits of true legalization. Without true legalization, you cannot have (ex.) quality control via local regulators, nor can you choke off drug cartels by undercutting one of their most profitable products. (Instead, you may even end up putting money <i>into</i> their pockets, depending on where you source the marijuana from - thankfully, this is less of an issue in Colorado and Washington).<p>Anyway, marijuana is now clearly less illegal in Colorado than in the Netherlands (in Denver, it is allowed under <i>both</i> city[3] and state law, though not federal law). Personally, I&#x27;m glad that the US now has its own place to go for marijuana tourism (similar to Tijuana for alcohol) - one could say that this is US protectionism at its finest!<p>[0] Well, at least not since the US started exporting its drug policy worldwide several decades ago.<p>[1] Alaska has a similar policy in private residences since 1977 due to a state court ruling on the right to privacy, but it is still illegal. North Korea has been cited as the one exception to this rule (ironically), but reports of its legality there are mixed.<p>[2] Look at what happened in Harborside and Oaksterdam (when cracking down on medical dispensaries, the Obama administration has used an underhanded tax catch-22 as political cover for busting shops that he previously said he&#x27;d allow, but the effect is the same).<p>[3] Denver legalized marijuana by city vote in 2006, and Breckenridge, CO legalized marijuana by town vote in 2009

From the thread: &quot;recognize the difference between tolerated and allowed&quot; What a horrible way of governing, almost worse than the US&#x27;s state vs. federal legality (at least it&#x27;s officially &quot;legal&quot; on the state level and not just <i>tolerated</i>). Telling people that something is illegal but &quot;tolerated&quot; is a license for potential abuse by authorities. It essentially makes all prosecution a <i>judgement call</i> for individual authority figures. Sounds like a recipe for potential abuse to me.

As you can read from the article it&#x27;s still ILLEGAL but allowed; not &#x27;still legal&#x27; as in the link description.<p>It makes clarifying a confusing matter more confusing.

There&#x27;s a lot of laws like this that don&#x27;t get enforced as much as &#x27;law&#x27; would imply. Another example is the ban on smoking in workplaces to protect the employees; in the Netherlands, a couple of years ago, this law was implemented, meaning that smoking was effectively banned from bars and pubs as well. Outrage ensued from all sides. Two &#x27;workarounds&#x27; were created:<p>* People just donate to the pub owner to pay the fines if the inspector came around * Certain bars had no personnel, just the owner; ergo, no personnel, so no requirement to create a smoke-free environment for personnel, so, smoke away.<p>Others are things like speeding (everyone does it, gets a fine on rare occasions, only the extreme ones get their license impounded), downloading music&#x2F;software, etc.

What is the current situation in towns like Maastricht and Heerlen that decided to implement the residents only restriction? Was that rolled back or not?

It&#x27;s sad that as most of the world is moving towards legalization, we&#x27;re suddenly moving backwards.