If you’ve ever been to the Netherlands, that title is a bit confusing; but the reality of the Netherlands is that it doesn’t operate how most think. In a recent turn of events; the Netherlands announced it would open legal and limited cannabis sales, to investigate a legal market.

Netherlands to open legal cannabis sales

Before we get into why this is a weird title, let’s first dive right into the current news story. The story started back in February of this year, when Netherlands Health Minister Ernst Kuipers announced what sounds like a cannabis pilot program; which would provide limited legal cannabis sales to specific areas of the country. He announced that Tilburg and Breda would be the first places to enjoy this new market; but that a total of about 10 municipalities could be involved.

For those unfamiliar with what a cannabis pilot program is, its essentially an experiment into how to run a cannabis sales market. We see the same thing in Switzerland, which approved a program for Zurich; and it’s expected that Germany will begin a similar setup within the next year. Germany had originally planned for a full sales market, but did a quick and extreme about-face when it became clear the EU would not allow it.

This idea of needing to accommodate the EU is important here, because it applies to the Netherlands as well. If Germany is not legally capable of pushing a policy the EU doesn’t agree with, the Netherlands can’t either. Meaning Germany now shows us the utmost of what can be expected for an EU country on the legal weed front. In terms of Switzerland, though the country chose to wade in with limited legal sales as a part of a pilot program; it has no need to care about EU policy, as its not a part of the EU.

The Netherlands has been planning this for a little while now, but met a few delays along the way; mainly in having enough licensed cultivators in the necessary regions of study. For example, the Tilburg and Breda locations only have a couple licensed cultivators to provide coffee shops with product.

Prior to the most recent announcement, the country didn’t want to start a pilot program without at least three cultivators ready to go. The Netherlands changed stance, and is now ready to allow the Tilburg and Breda locations to open; with two more cultivators expected to join in, in early 2024. The eight additional pilot programs will not open unless these two locations work out. Feelings are generally optimistic.

When it was first announced in February, Breda’s Mayor, Dr. Paul Depla stated, “With this start-up phase in Brabant we can gain first experiences, detect teething problems and gather the knowledge to perfect the experiment. In this way, we can make a flying start with the large-scale experiment.”

Apart from the designated areas like Tilburg and Breda, the country will also open at least one part of Amsterdam to legal sales as well. If you know anything about the Netherlands and weed, this move is necessary, but we’ll get to that in a minute. Overall, should authorities decide they are unhappy with this new program, it can be shut down.

Why a pilot program for legal cannabis sales is funny

Let’s be honest for a second, the Netherlands has enjoyed cannabis sales to the public for decades of time. In this changing world of cannabis reform, the Netherlands is no longer the sole focal point of the weed world, but it was for a really long time. Long enough that this policy is a bit laughable. Of all countries, there is none other that has as much accumulated knowledge of how to run a cannabis sales market. And yet here it is, acting like these first legal sales, are some kind of entrance into a new world.

To be clear, cannabis is not legal in the Netherlands; and it hasn’t been in the entire time the country has built up its industry. Cannabis has been illegal in the country since 1928’s passage of the Opium Act; although since 1972, a Policy of Tolerance has allowed the use of cannabis in coffee shops, without punishment to either vendors or buyers. Law enforcement can choose whether to make a big deal over a specific occurrence; but usually its all ignored unless children are involved.

Cannabis is decriminalized up to five grams for personal use, which includes the ability to cultivate up to five plants. Greater amounts than this can incur a fine up to €75, or prison time; depending on amount and purpose. When it comes to cultivation, law enforcement generally looks for those illegally growing for commercial purposes.

In terms of basic cannabis laws, the Netherlands isn’t that far off from other European countries; and a look at policy on the surface doesn’t indicate that this country functions differently than others. However, the Policy of Tolerance has spawned a huge market of coffee shops which provide cannabis sales, particularly in the capital of Amsterdam.

Netherlands Policy of Tolerance vs pilot program

A cannabis pilot program is meant to gain information on how to run a legal sales market. Logically, though, these markets are already open in different countries, which makes the idea of it as an experiment, a little late in the game. Perhaps simply looking at the positives and detractions of other markets is now more functionally useful. Or, in the case of the Netherlands, it really only has to gather data on its already existent coffee shop market.

While the pilot program step is a little unnecessary in places like Switzerland and Germany, its gravely unnecessary in the Netherlands. Like every other place, the Netherlands wants a taxable market; as the government currently has no control of the coffee shop system, or the illegal cultivation that supplies the shops. But in terms of how to do it, literally no country has more answers than the Netherlands. Even if you want to argue that it doesn’t have experience in legal production; it actually does! The Netherlands legalized medical cannabis, and a medical sales market, in 2003.

The current coffee shops have been running since the mid-1970’s. We’re literally in the 5^th decade of information collection. And it’s not like the shops run completely lawlessly. IDs are checked. Maximum sales amounts are instituted. Alcohol and hard drugs are separated. Weapons are prohibited. Taxes are collected. This is a market operating in daylight, and it’s been going on for over half a century. There are sales statistics involved. The Netherlands ‘trying out cannabis sales’ is like Mexico ‘trying out taco sales.’

Regardless of the lack of logic, this is what the Netherlands is now planning. And realistically, its not all about logic; its also about finding a way to make a taxable market, within EU guidelines. Its quite possible that without the EU overseeing everything; that the Netherlands might have taken this step a long time ago. There is an incredibly silly aspect to it, sure, but there is also a reality that makes this silly concept, the only thing the Netherlands can do.

What to expect

In past years, the government spoke more about trying to end the weed tourism market in the country, but always to no avail. This new policy is more in line with the understanding of the inability to prohibit cannabis use; for both residents and tourists. In light of understanding a lack of control over the markets, many governments have changed tack and legalized the plant, in order to make it a taxable market they can benefit from.

But is there any way the government is going to change such a long-standing system in the Netherlands? Will it ruin what is already there, or make it less preferable for consumers? There are plenty of options in the world of weed tourism these days. Can the Netherlands market withstand tampering by the government?

I don’t know. It’s hard to imagine anything fundamentally changing the system now; but this doesn’t mean it can’t be done. If Amsterdam still stood as the main weed tourism location, government involvement might be less meaningful. But, governments tend to institute high taxes and regulatory fees, which raise prices. With more options available in the world, the Netherlands government might have stumbled on the one way to get rid of its gray cannabis sales market: make it legal!

Conclusion

Amsterdam reined supreme as the world’s weed capital for a long time; but things are changing. The new question now is how well the Netherlands can tolerate an actually legal sales market; complete with all standard government interference.

Welcome weed supporters! We’re glad you made it to Cannadelics.com; where we work hard to bring you the most interesting news and commentary in the growing worlds of cannabis and hallucinogens. Come by frequently to stay in-the-loop; and get subscribed to the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter; to ensure you’re never late to get the news.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

Ketamine is one of the up-and-comers in the new hallucinogen craze that’s taking over; and it just got pushed to a whole new level. According to recent reports, ketamine is now offered by healthcare provider Enthea, throughout the entire US.

A bit about ketamine and hallucinogens

First off, ketamine isn’t a psychedelic. It’s often classified that way today, as a means of simplifying for the public, what is actually a complicated categorization system of drugs. There are different kinds of hallucinogens, and psychedelics are one grouping. However this grouping only consists of LSD, DMT, psilocybin, and mescaline. Though MDMA is often included in this group, its technically classified as a psychostimulant. These drugs (psychedelics and MDMA) are specifically known to cause an agonist response at serotonin receptors; which means they raise the amount of serotonin in the system.

Ketamine is classified as a dissociative hallucinogen, along with drugs like PCP and DXM. These drugs have a primary action as antagonists at NMDA receptors, among other actions. The other official grouping of hallucinogens, is deliriants; a classing which involves plants like datura, and compounds like scopolamine, or even the allergy medicine Benadryl. These are all anticholinergics, which means they have an antagonistic effect at acetylcholine receptors, and decrease acetylcholine in the system.

Ketamine is a synthetic, lab-made drug, which was formulated in 1962 by the pharmaceutical company Parke-Davis. The idea was to find a powerful anesthetic, which didn’t cause damage, or lower vital body processes; like blood pressure, or breathing rates. Ketamine works as a sedative, but not as a hypnotic; meaning it makes a person drowsy, without putting them to sleep. It causes what’s described as “electrophysiological and functional dissociation between thalamocortical and limbic systems.” In my personal experience it quite literally feels like the parts of the brain are moving away from each other.

Unlike a lot of the drugs we speak about here, ketamine is not a Schedule I compound. In fact, it’s a Schedule III compounds, legal for medical use as an anesthetic in humans and animals. However, as per FDA rules for off-label prescribing; wherein a drug can be prescribed by a physician for uses other than what its officially cleared for; ketamine has been at the center of a growing gray medical market. Legal by off-label prescribing, but with no governmental regulation for what its being used for.

This loophole spawned an entire industry of clinics that offer treatments for pain and different psychological disorders. And patients don’t need to worry about their primary care physician (or specialist) giving them a prescription; they can get it directly from the clinic. This is a major benefit, as individual doctor opinions do not update at the same speeds.

Ketamine now offered as healthcare throughout US

Gray markets present an issue for government bodies. Unlike defined black markets, they aren’t necessarily illegal; in fact, by definition, they’re not. But they’re also not legal markets, which means they’re hard to go after legally, but they also provide no additional tax benefit to regulating bodies. As such, regulating bodies either want to get rid of them (think vapes and cannabinoids), or formally regulate them. Currently with ketamine, there’s a standstill; and this is being taken advantage of by Enthea Healthcare.

I’ve covered Enthea before, and its pioneering efforts to provide ketamine as a basic healthcare benefit. The company is the first licensed workplace healthcare provider for psychedelic therapies, and plans to utilize other hallucinogens for treatment upon their approval. Due to recently closed deals, Enthea expanded out to the point of now offering this coverage nationwide.

I reported last year that Enthea partnered with Dr. Bronner’s, making for the first offering of ketamine therapy as a part of worker healthcare. In late summer, Enthea released a progress report indicating that so far these ketamine treatments have been used by a small percentage of the staff, and provided positive benefits.

As per its report: 7% of Dr. Bronner’s staff utilized ketamine services since their initiation into the healthcare program. Initial reporting indicates that workers experiencing PTSD, general anxiety issues, or major depressive disorder, reported improvements of 86%, 65%, and 67% respectively. While no one said ketamine treatments will help everyone; imagine the possible improvement if these percents are relevant across an entire population’s use.

Now, Enthea is expanding its coverage further with new deals. According to Live5News, Enthea’s new deals are with the clinic chains Skylight Psychedelics and Innerwell. Both provide ketamine therapy throughout the US, which expands Enthea’s reach. The first, offers treatments in its Skylight Journey Centers, as well as at-home treatments, for those who prefer not to be in a clinic.

The second, Innerwell, provides therapy as a combination approach; involving a team of holistic therapists, along with standard medical approaches, and coaching. The company seeks to use data and patient outcomes, to drive the direction of treatment. This company also provides in-house and at-home services.

What does a company need to do to offer these services to their workers? Simply add it on to the plan, as they would for dental or vision coverage. All the employer must do, is sign up. Enthea handles everything else, including: a providers network, established policy which includes standards of care, treatment authorization and reimbursement for companies, educational services, and specifically tailored plans for a company’s precise needs.

Sherry Rais, Enthea’s co-founder and CEO stated, “Nationwide availability represents a pivotal moment in accomplishing Enthea’s mission of helping employers with workplace mental health challenges. Our services at Enthea make it easy on businesses to embrace this safe and effective treatment offering for their employees and we’re proud to have the potential to impact the millions of people in the US living with mental health conditions.”

The problem of workplace depression

How necessary is it to find better treatments and services for employees? I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. Some people love getting up every day to navigate their work environment. Others cringe at the sound of each alarm; sickened by another day of office politics, possible bulling by bosses or peers, long work days away from family, and feelings of being overworked and underpaid. Let’s take a closer look at the issue of workplace depression.

According to an American Psychological Association 2021 Work and Well-being Survey, 59% of respondents said that just within the past month, their work was impacted by work-place stress. A huge 87% said they believe that better handling by employers could reduce mental health issues in workplace environments.

Further to this, a CDC informational page on workplace depression, states that depression causes a loss of 200 million working days a year, combined. This overall costs employers approximately $17 – $44 billion yearly. Depression issues lead to missed work days, and simply not being present or productive while at work.

According to NORC in conjunction with University of Chicago’s National Safety Council; “employers that support mental health see a return of $4 for every dollar invested in mental health treatment.” This indicates that if employers are more thoughtful of their employee’s issues and mindsets; they can improve their own spending, and essentially, waste less.

What jobs cause the most stress? According to the CDC, 10.8% of personal care and service workers report workplace stress, making for the highest stress jobs. Food industry workers clock in at 10.3% who experience stress. Lower stress jobs such as engineering, architecture, and surveying, report that only about 4.3% of employees are stressed.

Life, physical, and social science workers also experience lower stress, at a rate of 4.4%; the same as installation, maintenance, and repairmen. Of course, not everyone understands the concept of their own depression, or wants to admit to it in any context, given the massive stigma attached. I expect these numbers are actually incredibly low for these reasons of possible skewed reporting.

The National Safety Council, for its part, contributes that mental health issues among workers accounts for an extra $3,000 yearly per worker in healthcare services; and that the cost for days lost to stress-related issues is $4,783 per employee, every year. It’s a bad cycle. Stress issues lower worker ability, which means employers lose out as well. Perhaps this makes them then put more stress on employees.

Conclusion

So far, the broad use of ketamine therapy for workplace employees is still a new and growing concept. With the help of Enthea, however, it can now be utilized by any employer in the US who wants to offer ketamine, and other psychedelic treatments, as they become available. If you are an employer, and you want to offer your employees these services, go here. And if you’re an employee who wants coverage of these services; you’ll soon have a growing number of workplaces offering it. Just hold tight.

Hey there drug aficionados! Thanks for making your way to Cannadelics.com. We’re an independent publication in the drug space, here to bring you cutting-edge reporting every day. Don’t be a stranger; join us regularly for updates; and sign up to the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, so you’re never late to get the news.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

A British Columbia (B.C.) court dismissed a lawsuit from owners of licensed cannabis retail shops. Last year, this group of cannabis retailers sued the province for not enforcing cannabis regulations.

While licensed cannabis retailers jump through bureaucratic hoops and pay excessive taxes on the faulty premise that this contributes to “public health and safety,” the B.C. Bud market of “illicit” retailers doesn’t face these same hurdles.

Particularly on Indigenous Reserves, where the plaintiffs claim damages of at least $40 million in lost revenue.

Justice Basran considered whether the province owed the plaintiffs a private law duty of care in this context. The plaintiffs claimed the province committed torts of negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

But what does this mean? And was Justice Basran’s dismissal of the lawsuit justified? 

Details of the Plaintiff’s (Cannabis Retail) Argument

While the cannabis retailers suing the province wished to remain anonymous, CLN uncovered who they were. Their position is understandable. The government sold them a bill of goods.

When Canada legalized cannabis, the province of B.C. effectively said, “play by the rules and you’ll profit.” The reality has been anything but.

Obviously, licensed cannabis retailers are at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the unlicensed cannabis shops. 

So why did Justice Basran dismiss the lawsuit? 

First, let’s look at what the plaintiffs claimed in their suit. What do “torts of negligence” and “negligent misrepresentation” refer to in this context?

Tort Law

Negligence is a fundamental concept in tort law. It means a failure to exercise a degree of care reasonable people would exercise in similar circumstances.

To establish a claim of negligence, the plaintiff (in this case, a group of licensed cannabis retailers) needed to prove the following:

• That the province of B.C. owed a duty of care to the licensed cannabis retailers. 
• That the province breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of care expected under the circumstances (i.e. The province’s cannabis enforcement authority should have been raiding unlicensed shops more than they were)
• That the province’s breach of duty directly caused harm or damages (i.e. Causation) to the licensed cannabis retailers
• And that these actual harms (or losses) result from the province’s breach of duty.

The plaintiffs alleged that B.C. failed to enforce cannabis regulations (specifically, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act) on Indigenous Reserves. They claimed this negligence resulted in damages of at least $40 million.

Negligent misrepresentation is a specific type of negligence claim that arises when one party provides false or misleading information to another party, and the party receiving the information relies on it (to their detriment).

To establish negligent misrepresentation, the licensed cannabis retailers had to prove the following:

• That the province made a false statement, whether intentionally or not
• That the plaintiffs relied on this false statement
• The plaintiffs suffered financial (or other) losses from relying on this false statement.

In this case, the plaintiffs said that B.C. promised them a viable, legal, above-the-board retail cannabis industry. One way of ensuring this would be to take enforcement action against unlicensed retailers, whether on Indigenous Reserves or not.

Did the B.C. Government Owe a Duty of Care to the Cannabis Retailers?

Justice Basran considered whether the province owed the plaintiffs a private law duty of care. The B.C. government argued that it did not owe such a duty because the parties had no direct relationship.

But what does this mean?

In tort law, a “duty of care” is a legal obligation imposed on an individual (or group, entity, etc.) to exercise reasonable care and caution to prevent harm to others affected by their actions and omissions.

Of course, not all actions or omissions give rise to a duty of care. That’s where proximity comes in, which refers to the direct relationship between the parties. In this case, whether a direct connection between the province’s cannabis regulators and the cannabis retailers justifies imposing a legal duty.

Justice Basran had to determine whether the province of B.C. owed a “private law duty of care” to the cannabis retailers. Of course, B.C. argued that it did not. They argued that their duty was the “public interest,” not the economic interests of specific businesses.

Justice Basran agreed that no duty of care existed due to lack of proximity. 

How Did the Court Come to this Decision?

Justice Basran dismissed the B.C. cannabis retail lawsuit based on the “plain and obvious” legal standard used when deciding to strike pleadings. 

The court considered the Anns/Cooper test to determine whether a duty of care existed. This involves two stages. First, whether the harm alleged was reasonably foreseeable. And second, whether there is a close relationship between the parties (proximity).

Justice Basran found no prima facie duty of care between the province and the licensed cannabis retailers. The court argued that B.C.’s cannabis regulations do not establish a legislative intention to create such a duty.

The court also ruled that the claims made by the province (i.e. Get licensed and profit) did not create a sufficient relationship to impose a duty of care.

Suppose the court had recognized that such a duty exists. Justice Basran was concerned such a decision could result in more of these types of lawsuits where the province (and its regulators) are held liable for the economic losses of numerous businesses due to their incompetence.

Justice Basran weighed the potential negative consequences of such a decision and decided it wouldn’t be in the best interests of the legal system, taxpayers, or society as a whole to impose such a duty.

B.C. Court Dismisses Cannabis Retail Lawsuit

A B.C. court has dismissed the cannabis retail lawsuit. The decisions sound as if what’s convenient for the government overrules what’s just and fair.

Was Justice Basran’s dismissal of the lawsuit justified? Judges are, after all, only human. And there is an appeals court. So, there may be more to the case in the future.

In the meantime, to argue that judges in Canada have far too much power, that they are, in effect, legislating from the margins is considered a “far-right” viewpoint. 

But there is nothing “far-right” or even “far-left” about upholding the values that underpin our rule of law. 

Suppose governments can evade the consequences of their actions because of the potential cost to taxpayers or the legal system. In that case, there is no rule of law.

It’s rule by fiat masquerading as a rule of law.