Dutch get green light to ban foreigners from coffee shops

The Netherlands has long been known, particularly by many Americans, as a drug tourism destination. For years, the Dutch have complained that while they support the decision to end the prohibition on marijuana use, the fact that other countries don’t have the same policy means the country has become a magnet for wacked-out partiers and troublemakers.

One Dutch town decided it had had enough, and it banned foreigners from its ‘coffee shops’, the name for establishments that sell marijuana. That town is Maastricht, which says it is particularly vulnerable to drug-tourism because of its geography in the thin Dutch tail at the Southeast of the country. Sandwiched between Belgium and Germany, Maastricht, much like its border neighbor Breda, has gained a reputation as the place where Belgians, French and Germans go to buy weed. So Maastricht banned its coffee shops from selling to foreigners, and when a coffee shop was shut down for selling marijuana to two non-Dutch EU citizens, that coffee shop sued.

Right from when they established the law, Maastricht must have known they would have a legal fight on their hands. Banning EU citizens from other countries from consuming a product which Dutch citizens can consume is a blatant violation of EU free movement law, which stipulates that EU citizens must be given equal treatment to native citizens in any EU country. This right is perhaps the cornerstone of the European Union.

How do you say Schiavo in Italian?

One of my favourite things about my new French class is that it's geared toward EU workers, so we discuss news and current events in class. This morning we were talking about the Eluana Englaro debate going on in Italy right now. Interestingly, when I mentioned that the situation is virtually identical to what happened with Terry Schiavo three years ago in the United States, I found that no one actually knew about the Schiavo case (I'm the only American in the class). Although it had little international relevance, the Schiavo episode was one of the biggest domestic political events of the last several years in the United States.

Scanning the Belgian, French and British papers today I have been unable to find a single mention of the Italian case's similarities with the Schiavo case. But considering that the spectacle which took place in the US senate during the Schiavo episode was one of the contributing factors to the downfall of the Republican Party, Italian conservatives may want to take a lesson and reign in their rhetoric on this issue.

Cross-Border Suicide is Tricky Terrain

A UK court reached an interesting decision today about the legality of transporting someone to another country for the purpose of assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is illegal in the UK, but the law is unclear about whether it is a violation of the law for someone to take an ill person to another country where assisted suicide is legal and do it abroad.

One such country is Switzerland, and a British woman suffering from MS has been seeking a ruling from the High Court that would clarify the law. She says that if she can be sure her husband won't be prosecuted for taking her to an assisted suicide facility in Switzerland, she wants to wait until the last stages of her illness, when she has lost all function, to be killed. She says if the law isn't clarified, she cannot take the risk that her husband could be prosecuted for transporting her to the facility in Switzerland, and she will have to take herself there, earlier in the stages of the illness when she can still get herself around without assistance.

Her legal argument is that the lack of clarity in the law is essentially forcing her to end her life earlier than she would like, while she could still lead a functioning and happy existance.

Though the practice is illegal, since 1992 almost 100 British citizens have had themselves killed at this facility in Switzerland, and the relatives who transported them there haven't been prosecuted. But the plaintiff, Debbie Purdy, says that she cannot in good conscience let her husband transport her to the facility if she knows there is a possibility that he could be prosecuted.

The high court as ruled that the law's lack of clarity doesn't infringe on Purdy's human rights, and it has concluded that only an act of parliament could clarify the law. Purdy's attorneys say she plans to appeal.

It seems a shame that this woman should have to spend what little time she has left on this earth dealing with a high-profile court case.