A group of African gentlemen, all dressed in hoodies, were posted at the entrance to Berlin’s Görlitzer Park, standing around idly until I passed by. “Hey, hello, you good?” they muttered, nodding in my direction. “Need some help?” As a stranger in a new city, it’s always a joy when the locals make you feel welcome. Some of them were huddled around bonfires, though, which was odd, since it was getting dark and a bit late for a barbecue party. “It’s a Berlin heritage site for intercultural communication,” a friend later noted dryly. “But I’d be cautious with Görli — last time I did some spontaneous shopping there, they sold me some nice vanilla powder under the label of amphetamine! The weed was fine, though.”
Pushers have been a persistent problem in Görlitzer Park, or Görli for short, a hotspot for immigrants without clear residency or work permits to hustle in the narco-economy. Attempts to bring the park under control have included zero-tolerance patrols, and even marking designated areas for dealers to stand in with pink spray paint. But now Germany’s trying something completely different. A long-awaited to partially legalise cannabis comes into force on Monday, much to the delight of the nation’s kiffer (stoners).
“I was waiting for years for this to happen,” says Anna, 29, from Augsburg, Bavaria. “I don’t smoke as much as I used to anymore, but I always felt like a criminal [even though] I was only smoking weed. Also, most dealers are shady and you engage with a lot of shady people. No need to do that anymore, when there are clubs or the possibility to grow it myself. I feel like [the police] should go and use their time on real criminals and not some stoners.”
It’s as sober and reasonable a case for drug liberalisation as one could imagine. But you can find the same plea from young people across Europe, and yet legislators have proved resistant to change. So, how did it come that the continent’s largest economy is officially going 420-friendly, and what could it mean for the rest of us?
Cannabis and its derivatives were not completely unknown in Germany: “To escape from unbearable pressure you need hashish,” wrote Friedrich Nietzsche, the original stoner philosopher. But much like in the rest of Europe, it was largely a non-issue until the Sixties. Although the Nazis considered narcotics a Jewish scourge, they didn’t treat addicts too harshly if they were of the right bloodline, and unlike cocaine, morphine or speed, weed was too exotic to even worry about.
After the Second World War, Germany was divided into East and West by the occupying powers, and then even more starkly segregated by the Berlin Wall. In capitalist West Germany, marijuana, LSD and other illicit inebriants were adopted as part of the counterculture revolution of the Sixties: one group of militant students called themselves the Central Council of Roaming Hash Rebels. Meanwhile, communist East Germany was largely insulated from narcomania. The average East German wasn’t exactly flush with cash, so escaped the notice of international drug cartels. The few who managed to acquire drugs enjoyed connections with diplomats and other elites permitted to travel abroad. In East German propaganda, narcotics were presented as a malady of the doped-out West, ironically adopting the same Reefer Madness-style anti-drug hysteria that prevailed in America from the Thirties to the Fifties. The supposedly Left-wing hippies were frowned upon. As one headline put it: “Hashers don’t read Das Kapital.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSeems like a sensible approach to an intractable problem. Perhaps the next government could have a look at it.
Legalize it, tax it, regulate it.
In one fell swoop you bring in a wad of tax the state desperately needs, remove a lucrative black market from the hands of organized crime, and free up many wasted police man hours.
Except it’s nowhere near that clean and easy. Take California, for example, which has legal weed AND an ongoing black market that is heavily armed and protected. Colorado, most notably Denver, discovered the hard way that legalizing it is not a solution, it’s a tradeoff that brings other issues to the fore. Oregon went all-in and legalized everything, only to later backtrack from the issues that arose.
I don’t doubt it, in the same way as there are illicit tobacco and alcohol markets, but this is about choices not perfect solutions.
Speaking of the UK, as that’s where I live, we have a situation where the law is widely ignored, where people of any age can get dope of completely unregulated strength delivered to their door after a few clicks on their phones, and where the police spend huge amounts of money and energy playing whack-a-mole with growers and dealers.
Surely better to turn an already existent free-for-all market into regulated market with age limits and strength controls, free up police time to focus on things like burglary, robbery, and violent crime and making sure the market stays regulated, and turn the whole thing from a net cost to the exchequer to a net profit?
Visit New York to see the disaster the policies you support will lead to. Dispensaries ruin blocks and neighborhoods.
Then let people grow it.
Wow. That Gzuz video. Rather illustrates how the German horrors of the 20th Century were possible. Demonic.
Those who favour drug legalisation only ever present the positive side of it: taxable benefits, ‘harmless’ fun for users, freedom of choice, and of course, ‘weed is not as bad as alcohol.’ This isn’t the whole story, however. Canabis can be harmful, particularly to adolescents’ brain maturation, and since many people combine its use with alcohol, there is increased danger to the wider public, especially on the roads. It’s a pity that intoxicating substances aren’t seen for what they are: evidence of personal weakness. Any suggestion that life without artificial highs can be a better thing is, alas, not a popular cause, despite proof to the contrary.
It is fortunate that miserabslists lile you are a declining minority
Is it miserabilist to want to protect children’s brain development?
” Any suggestion that life without artificial highs can be a better thing is, alas, not a popular cause, despite proof to the contrary.”
The important word here is ‘can’.
Do a Nietzsche. Take a puff or mix a little in some tea.
Do it twice or three times. The first time you may not notice anything.
Wine features heavily in the bible. We have lived with additional catalysts to life other than the necessarily mundane, and by using the word mundane I do not disparage the bare necessities.
For a cautionary tale on the downsides of legalizing weed, look at Canada. As a doc here, I can tell you there are significant downsides. It is now NORMAL to smoke weed daily, multiple times. We see the effects in our ER’s and in the community. We have “destigmatized” marijuana, and reaped the whirlwind.
What is this whirlwind.
There is a sensible argument that ‘follows the money’ as to why it was criminalised.
In the 1920’s & 30’s hemp was massive crop in the US. The cotton industry could not get a toe hold so useful was/is this plant.
It is not necessary to provide the necessary conclusion here.