Planned legislation restricting work with chemicals

This article is about the new dutch “NPS Wetgeving“.

This is a step back in time, if we learn anything from history it is that blindly banning groups of psychoactive substances, will only stimulate the black market.
Not only is the introduction of this law going to produce the opposite of the desired results in terms of crime and health, but it will also hinder research into the promising possibilities for the clinical use of these substances for therapeutic or other medicinal purposes.
Finally, this is also an image damage for our country, where the Netherlands used to be known as a forerunner and an example in the field of freedom and openness towards psychoactive substances, we will take a big step back. There will be no winners from implementing this change, only losers.

The main danger of this bill is that it will soon no longer be clear what is punishable and what is not, and that suspicion and conviction will come ever closer together. This will particularly be the case if the dust group ban is combined with Opium Act Article 11a, which is already a very broadly defined article of the law. The combination of the new Opium List 1a and the existing Opium Act Article 11a makes preparatory acts for production, transport or trade punishable in themselves. This will pose a problem for a large number of companies: how do you prove that you were not preparing for something you were not planning?

This law is shooting a gun at a mosquito. There are only a few dozen incidents a year in the Netherlands with unregulated new psychoactive substances. For those few dozen incidents, usually without a fatal outcome, a draconian measure will soon be taken to frustrate scientific research, suppress youth culture, take away liberties, erode the course of justice and provide public order and safety with criminal activities. Moreover, the prospect is not that criminalisation will suddenly make all new psychoactive substances disappear. In foreign countries, the trade has shifted to dark webs and more traditional illicit drugs.

The minister already has sufficient opportunity to ban drugs. The State Secretary can decide on a drug with only one General Measure of Government. Formally, therefore, only one day is needed to take adequate measures should a drug appear on the market that is so terribly dangerous that it requires such an urgent decision.
This bill includes a paragraph stating that the Minister may prohibit an entire substance group by a General Order in Council. This gives the Minister or State Secretary an unacceptable freedom of policy, which lends itself too easily to abuse. With such a bill, a State Secretary could ban water with a single document. That is how broad the scope of this bill has now been formulated.

I am deeply concerned that this law will be used to make it illegal to sell, buy, own (some) natural products.

The law does not define substances and therefore this law can be used to ban natural products although it is not intended for that purpose.

If you want to ban whole groups of substances, a sentence such as “Natural products and their extracts and isolates are excluded from this law” would be appropriate!

Because this law can be abused to make herbs or extracts of herbs illegal, although these herbs help people even if they don’t have psychoactive ingredients.

I know people who are afraid that this law could be used to ban kratom, for example.
Many people benefit a lot from these drugs because severe medical problems made it impossible, because of kratom his complaints are reduced or are gone, they are very afraid that their life will be made impossible again if Kratom is banned.
Heavily addictive painkillers will be the only alternative
many people have bad experiences with the above painkillers. dullness, confusion, falling, depression etc.If this law encourages you to protect your citizens and not to increase the profits of pharmaceutical companies, a sentence “excluding” natural products is only fair.

This change leads to an increase in the criminalisation of drug use. The health effects are considered purely on the basis of assumed potential harmful effects of the drug itself on the user. The negative health effects of pushing up prices, cutting, criminalisation, prosecution, detention and switching to other drugs (alcohol!) are ignored. The social consequences of criminalisation (XTC in Brabant!) and the associated price increase and higher profits for illegal producers are not taken into account. It is time to set up a State Commission in accordance with the Manifesto Time for a realistic drugs policy. This change conflicts with the more rational call for regulation.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *