Право/13. Международное право

Фахрутдинова А.Н.

Южно-Российский государственный университет экономики и сервиса, Россия.

Liberal reforms of the Netherlands: arguments for and against.

The Netherlands tells about its freedom for many centuries. Everything began in the Middle ages, when the main question was religion and independence of different lands, including Dutch lands. The bourgeois revolution of 1566 was closely connected with the war of liberation against Spain and had the religious banner of Calvin. Wars for independence were not rare, but the end of the war with recognition of freedom of one of the sides happened for the first time. The first bourgeois republic in the world appeared in Holland in 1609.

It was the first time when the Netherlands tried to control its liberties and rights independently. Holland, like some kind of living creature, very easily catches the new tends and accepts decisions, which completely change the old tenor of life. These historical preconditions led to modern views both of government and population of the country. Nowadays many things taking place in Holland seem to be too progressive to the other world.

Almost everything is legal there: prostitution, drugs, euthanasia and homosexual marriages. It seems that the democracy won there, almost all people’s desires came true. You don’t need to feel guilty for taking drugs or visiting a prostitute, because the law allows you to do it. But the kingdom of all permissibility is the kingdom of the Devil. So maybe the absence of any moral principles will lead this nation to nowhere?

Prostitution.

To start with let’s have a look at such delicate problem as prostitution. Just imagine prostitution in the Netherlands was first legalized by Napoleon in 1815 and became an official profession in 1988. Since 1996 has operated their trade union and prostitutes pay the income tax. All the workers from the streets of Red Lights pass an obligatory medical checkup, and this solved the problem of the spreading of AIDS/HIV. Women, who dedicated their lives to this profession, may not worry about aging, because the pension is guaranteed to them. They are also protected from incorrect behavior of their clients and can not be afraid for there health and life. The main benefit of the legalization of prostitution – is its decriminalization, because the street prostitution is strictly forbidden and prostitutes work for themselves and state, but not for pimps. There are no prostitutes in the streets and Dutchmen may not worry about their children.

“The Soviet Youth” in 1989 tried to examine the problem of prostitution. Very interesting thoughts were expressed by B. Pavlov in article “Prostitution and democracy”: he grouped arguments “for” and “against” opening of parlor houses. The negative sides of the decriminalization of prostitution he considered:

the increase of the amount of people, involved in prostitution, but only at first.

unhealthy agiotage, the considerable growth of the number of citizens, using the prostitutes’ service.

This is inevitable at the first steps, but as time go by it will decrease to a stable level.

spontaneous protests are possible, mainly of the elder generation, who aggressively looks on the fact of its liberalization.

For protection of parlor houses he told such arguments:

- sudden decrease of crimes connected with rapping

- the barrier for spreading of AIDS/HIV

- he diminution of demand for “non-official” prostitutes in bars, restaurants and as the result the fall of “proposal”

- abrupt drop of business which attends prostitution: pimp dealing, racket and other -- - criminal mob, fed thanks to prostitution

- solving to some extent the problem for people, objectively having no opportunity to solve them by other means (diffident persons, having certain defects)

- an important contribution to state treasury

- the rise of sexual, and therefore the common culture of society, disappearance of unhealthy interest, agiotage around erotic and sexual matters.

Holland’s drug policy.

The next, and I suppose, very serious problem is Holland’s drug policy. The history of legalization of soft drugs in Holland began from The Law about drugs in 1919, which was the result of country’s participation in World convention about opium (1912, Gaaga).

Then Opiumwet was accepted later in 1928 and is still in force, but there were some amendments. New Holland’s drug policy was based on adoption made by the parliament in 1976 the recommendations of Baan’s commission, which proposed the separation between the drugs of the so called First list, which is “the unacceptable risk (heroin, cocain and LSD)” and the Second list – the products of remake of cannabis. In fact the Parliament legalized 30g of marijuana and hashish, which is enough for a smoker for 3 months. At the same time the deputies voted for inner struggle against world trade of drugs of the most dangerous First list.

The drugs are sold in almost 1500 specialized coffee – shops, which have licenses and they must be 500m away from schools, there is no alcohol there and no more then 5g for one person. Hard drugs are forbidden, advertising of them is prohibited and no sale for underage. Export, import, production and sale of cannabis outside these cafes are illegal. Drugs can be sold in chemist’s houses all over the country for those, who suffer from HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and C, multiple sclerosis and etc and have doctor’s prescription. Nederwiet is a new type of cannabis, which was grown up in the Netherlands and is far more harmful then the initial product itself. All products of cannabis for country’s use are grown up only in Holland. All drug – takers are registered and are under state control. 150 Smart Tops help tourists to buy and transport hallucinogenic drugs such as Peyot and Paddestoelen (mushrooms), which are almost illegal in all countries. Except chemists’ shops cannabis can be bought in 80 hospitals and from 400 doctors, who have private practices. 5g of SIMM18 costs 44 euros, more strong medicine “Bedrokan” – 50 euros.

Facts telling “for” liberalization:

1) Heroin became less popular then marijuana.

From the moment of liberalization of soft drugs the consumption of hard drugs first increased but later began to drop and now the percent of consuming of heroin is the lowest in Europe! Unlike the countries, where exists the motto: “Catch and don’t allow!”

2) Some kinds of drugs are legal for centuries.

Nowadays all drugs are divided into legal and illegal. The legal ones are – alcohol, nicotine, cofein. To smoke tobacco, to drink alcohol and to make chifir is not forbidden. The rest of them are prohibited not because of its harm brought to health, but because of certain historical facts. For example, alcohol is much more harmful then hallucinogenic mushrooms and LSD, but it’s legal. Tobacco is much more harmful then marijuana, but only the later is out of law. Heroin is 1000 times more harmful then ecstasy, both of them are forbidden.

3) 30% of people are potential drug takers.

There is a group – about 30% of population, whose threshold of psychical reactions is very high. They need superfluous stimulations – much more intensive than for ordinary people, they need to get some kind of pleasure to find a new sense. They are emotional diabetics. They can become the consumers of legal or illegal drugs or become adrenaline drug – takers – alpinists, racers, gamblers… Something of it, but it’ll happen; nevertheless 30% are potential drug – takers, and we can do nothing with it.

4) Government can use drug-dollars for improving economy.

The self cost of a gram of cocaine – several cents (its production isn’t more difficult than the production of aspirin), but its real cost is 100-150$. It’s the price of prohibition. Millions of drug dollars thanks to the efforts of the government are taken off from the legal turnover, hindering economy. This are the second looses. The first ones are – millions of dollars, spent by the government for non effective struggle with illegal drugs.

Facts telling “against” it:

1) The liberalization of drugs caused the growth of criminality.

In the Netherlands the decriminalization accompanied with the growth of criminality and drug consumption. The amount of incidents, where victims suffered from fire-arms grew to 40%, the number of robberies- to 69%, car theft – to 62%.

1981-1992 - the growth of criminality was 60%. 40% of prisoners in Holland are accused for crimes however connected with drugs and in Amsterdam there are twice more policemen than in an average US city, comparing its quantity with the population of this town.

1988-1993 - the amount of organized criminal groups rose from 3 to 93.

2) The increase of access to drugs leads to the growth of consumption.

The Institute of problems of alcohol and drug abuse in 1993 determined that consumption of drugs among schoolchildren from 12 to 18 years increased in 1984 to 200%. In period 1988-1993 the quantity of people suffering from drug dependence increased to 22%. After the decriminalization the number of drug-takers increased to 30%.

3) Most of drugs, destined for Europe, are transported or kept in Holland.

The considerable percent of cocaine for Europe is coming from the Netherlands and this country remains the main producer of ecstasy and amphetamine, though it’s made an impression of decreasing of its production.

Britain customs considers that 80% of heroin, confiscated in UK is transported by Holland or some time kept there. Paris police thinks that 80% of heroin consumed in France comes from Holland.

Unisexual marriages.

Here is one more delicate problem, maybe not so dangerous as taking drugs, but also very immoral. In 1811, when the Netherlands didn’t even have railways (it appeared only in 1839), the authorities officially acknowledged homosexuality. From 1998 buggers and lesbians are allowed to get married. (But the first country, where unisexual couple legitimated their relationships, was Denmark, it happened in 1989.)

Arguments for:

nowadays our planet comes close to the overcrowding. Yes, unisexual couples can’t make children, but if they are officially married they can take a child for bringing up.

how many teenagers wouldn’t commit suicides or become mentally diseased, if they were not afraid to be condemned by the society? In many countries homosexualists, blamed for their passion, for all their life remained outlaw.

Homosexuality is an inborn quality, when sexual inclination is directed to someone of the same sex as you. And people are not guilty for their homosexuality, the same as they can’t be blamed for the blue color of eyes or fair hair. Homosexualists love, suffer in the same way as heterosexuals, and they also need their marriages to be registered.

Unisexual couples exist. Registration of their relationships will help them to solve some juridical questions (about property for example).

Arguments against:

- Religious people can say that the Lord made a man and a woman for their procreation and multiplying. And everything, which doesn’t answer the God’s law comes from the Devil and is a sin. So homosexuality is a sin.

- Holland every time shows people wonderful examples: legalization of prostitution, drugs, euthanasia and legitimation of unisexual marriages. And as the result it leads to country’s extinction. Just look, there are almost no Dutch in Holland. All country is populated by foreigners.

- if homosexual marriages are registered, they will be able to take children for bringing up. And I don’t think that it will have a good influence on a child.

Euthanasia.

And now is the last, but not the least problem. In 1984 the Supreme Court of Holland acknowledged euthanasia acceptable. If making euthanasia a doctor followed the instructions of Royal medical association, he may not be afraid of criminal responsibility. To 1988 according to the research of University of Erasmus in Rotterdam, 92% of Dutch population was for free-will euthanasia. In spite of religious arguments, “for” patient’s opportunity to stop his life on his wish were the sufficient amount of the faithful, including 96% of Catholics.

Despite of the resistance, in autumn of 2000 the bill of the law about the legalization of some forms of active euthanasia passed through the lower house of the Parliament without any problems. Now, according to the judgment of the court in each case, the doctor, who kills or assists in suicide of his patient in certain conditions, is not guilty. 3 reasons are fixed:

euthanasia must be voluntary

only a doctor can render assistance or put into practice euthanasia

the patient’s state from medical point of view must be unsatisfactory

Arguments “for”:

- people can make their own decisions, that influence their life (the right for making choice), including the right to stop their lives on their wish.

- the state of some people is so awful that it will be better to die than keep on living (“people-plants”). So in this case helping someone in improvement of their state is morally allowable.

- if a person is conscious and understands that the fatal outcome is inevitable, can’t stand unbearable pain and asks to quicken the coming of his death, but a doctor refuses to do it, than the sufferings of a patient will grow up.

- the illness can lead to degradation of the patient’s personality, so he will become legally incapable and euthanasia will become impossible.

- the misuse of legalization of euthanasia can be avoided, if legislators will make up a list of conditions, in observance of which the euthanasia is possible, and making the mechanism of controlling the obedience of law.

Arguments against:

- killing a man is always a moral evil. It’s necessary to keep in people’s minds the psychological barrier against any murder

- every year the progress in medicine lets cure illnesses, which 2-3 years ago condemned people for unavoidable death, there are also other ways of saving from pain

- sometime it’s impossible to diagnose a patient correctly, there is always an opportunity of a doctor’s mistake.

- sometimes the patient’s wish to die may be caused by clinical depression and the decision to use euthanasia may be not a well-weighed, but was based on a temporary emotional experience, or even desperation

- the use of euthanasia will lead to criminalization of medicine, the society may lose confidence in the institution of health protection. There is also a risk of degradation of medical workers, who dare to kill their patients

- after legalization the practice of euthanasia may engender too many abuses of it as by doctors so as by the privy

- legalization of euthanasia can be only in a constitutional state, where social protection of a person really exists and his rights are observed. But in many countries such conditions don’t exist.

Conclusion.

To sum it all up we can say that when everything is allowed people began to think only about getting more pleasure. They forget about soul, love, friendship. New moral values appears: when being a drug-taker is not bad, when killing people is normal, and being faithful to your conjoint is not necessary at all. If every state will go in such a direction it will lead to the chaos. People are not ready for such liberties and getting them they begin to destroy all previous principles, and it’s not right. Let’s look to Holland’s further development and we will see what can happen to us.