The article is an ethnographical study of Rotterdam’s experience with a program called ‘Community Governs’ (Buurt Bestuurt). Community Governs, a Dutch version of the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS), is a community-based program which goal is to solve neighbourhood crime and disorder problems. Community commitment and involvement are a main component of this program. The article emphasizes the effects that this program had on three levels of trust (performances, intentions and skills) of the residents in police officers and municipal service agencies as partners in the fight against crime and disorder. The results indicate that a ‘positive exercise’ of liberty through political participation of civilians is difficult to realise in poor, inner city, neighbourhoods.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) within Dutch civil society provide material and immaterial assistance to unauthorized migrants in the Netherlands. Based on long-term qualitative fieldwork in the life worlds of unauthorized migrants, the authors describe how the migrants experience these NGOs as a safe haven where they feel at home and secure for the risks of apprehension and deportation. We argue that these safe havens are also beneficial for the society at large. These NGOs contribute to preventing unauthorized migrants from sleeping in public places and employing illegitimate survival strategies. In addition, the NGOs’ empowerment of these migrants is advantageous for their willingness to access healthcare and employ legal rights. Recent attempts of the Dutch government to restrict the number of these NGOs, lead amongst other things to NGOs who are increasingly focusing on the unauthorized migrants’ return. We argue that these governmental efforts of controlling unauthorized migration through NGOs, will result in unauthorized migrants loosing trust in these safe havens. Ultimately, this governmental control through NGOs will have a negative impact on feelings of security in the society at large as it fundamentally diminishes the significance of these NGOs in civil society for unauthorized migrants without offering an alternative.

From a geographical perspective, this article explores positive images of safety in the context of nightlife areas. It also considers the ways by which nightlife visitors’ experienced safety might be nurtured, as an alternative to how experienced lack of safety might be ‘prevented’. From our interviews, we find safety to emerge from interactions between many (im)material elements, and the nightlife consumers themselves. We argue that positive safety can be understood as something that envelopes and at the same time is reworked by individuals, but that does not necessarily require a conscious understanding. From this finding, we offer a different logic and rhetoric regarding safety in nightlife spaces.

How could positive security policies take shape? On what kind of empirical research should these policies be based? And what sort of concepts would we need for this development? If the starting point is to understand safety as a positive notion, it seems wise to avoid the terms of war that are prevailing in current policy programs on security and public safety (fighting, frontline and city-marines). On the other hand some type of decisive jargon might be unavoidable when one sets out to have an actual impact on youth crime policies and policy makers. Is it possible to keep using some type of military terminology in research benefitting the development of positive security policies and still emphasize a positive composition? This dilemma has arisen in recent research activities on positive, street-oriented role models in response to Dutch problematic youth groups and youth at risk. De Jong argues that with the sensitizing concept of the ‘liaison officer’ it might be possible to encourage a positive change through applied social science.

Criminology has come under the spell of thinking negatively about safety and security. It’s focus merely lies on themes such as control, punishment and exclusion. Much interest therefore goes to public policing, private security, CCTV camera’s, anti-social behaviour orders, gated communities and prisons. Of course, this definition of security and security governance as the protection of citizens against crime and disorder must not be rejected out of hand. Without a minimum level of security, society would fall apart in chaos and despair. At the same time, however, we feel increasingly uncomfortable about the dominance of current negative – control and risk-oriented – approaches to (in)security as they overlook positive interpretations associated with trust, community and care. This introduction therefore provides an overview of academic literature that nuance, counter or resist hegemonic and negative meanings of security. In so doing, our aim is to introduce a positive turn in criminology’s interests and concerns regarding crime and disorder problems.

Positive criminology criticizes punitive measures, repression, crime control and the ‘politics of fear’, and re-values positive concepts as trust, solidarity, well-being and ‘ontological security’. In this book-review it is argued that many of these positive terms are beyond the scope of criminology and that peace and peace-making are more appropriate terms that can be used within a criminological context. Peacemaking criminology provides a basis for constructive approaches to conflicts and disorder; it may also outline the contours of the peace-making function of the law and the peacekeeping tasks of judges and police officers.

Jacqueline de Savornin Lohman is a ‘positive criminologist’ avant la lettre. In this interview, she tells about her belief in personal people’s willingness and ability to deal with problems (such as the reception of refugees), the discouraging role of government in this respect, her internment in a Japanese camp in the Netherlands’ Indies during WW II, the persons who have inspired her most (e.g. Louk Hulsman) and her initial disbelief in the idea of a ‘glass ceiling’ for women in a male-dominated academia. She would, however, be confronted with some stunning examples of everyday sexism – such as reactions that she did not need a tenured position at the university, because she does not have to maintain a family. Being active in the women’s movement, also led her to engage in critical victimological studies – mainly on sexual violence. The main part of the interview deals with the practical consequences she has drawn from her critical action-theory on criminal justice ‘Allowed evil?’ (Kwaad dat mag?) from 1975, such as her role in the establishment of the Dutch liberal democrat party D’66, her involvement in the Coornhert League for Penal Reform, her attempts to establish a platform for various practical, critical social work initiatives in the penal field and indeed the establishment of one of the first mediation projects in the Netherlands – which she saw boycotted by the Ministry of Justice, that, in the late 1980s, instrumentalised the victim’s voice for a stiffening of the penal system.

This paper presents the results of a study on Street Pastors in Cardiff, capital city of Wales. Street Pastors are Christian volunteers who look after (intoxicated) people in the nightlife district. In so doing, they provide security through empathy and care. The motives of Street Pastors to engage with partygoers are multi-layered, but their personal faith appears as a key explanation. A certain kind of orthodox ‘certitude’ of being safe (and saved) in a Higher Power gives the pastors their strength to go out on the street, face the unknown and feel compassion for their fellow citizens.

Positive security is a very promising development in criminology. The ‘movement’ reconnects the current debate on crime with the origins of ancient Greek thinking on the positive nature of politeia, policy and policing. Securitas - providing safety and security for the common good - has a long and rich tradition. Good governance is about many things, but foremost about providing security in society. Polizeiwissenschaft in 18th and 19th century Prussia made a distinction between Wohlfahrt- and Sicherheitspolizei.
The latter is outright dangerous because security becomes equated with negative connotations: the other, the enemies of the state, the drug war and more recently the war in terror. In times like these the positive qualities of securitas become inflated. Human rights, privacy and the rule of law are no longer viewed in positive terms. Therefore I advocate the positive security movement. But the author is worried about two things. Firstly, the current Zeitgeist which is charged with xenophobia and war like languages. And, secondly the fact that the ‘movement’ is limited to a few rebels with a cause. The mainstream of criminology is not really interested in reconnecting with the philosophical positive roots of securitas. Mainstream criminology fosters the status quo and is financially too depended on the state to actually follow the new heroes of positivity. The only way out is to develop a following but this requires academics to actually take a stand.

This contribution aims to discuss the main outcomes of the recent UNGASS (United Nations General Assembly Special Session) on Drugs that took place in New York from 19 to 21 April 2016. Based on my own participation in the preparatory discussions and political negotiations as civil society representative (through the work of NGO Transnational Institute), I argue that political divisions and entrenched institutional dynamics have transformed what could have been the beginning of the end of the war on drugs into a wasted opportunity for changing the status quo of the present world regime regarding the production, trafficking and use of illegal drugs. Despite high initial expectations after several governments expressed a clear concern about the effects of purely repressive policies, and the UN decision to organize the session 3 years earlier than planned, very soon it was clear that the session would not imply real changes in the current policies. The agenda setting was non-transparent and controlled by the most conservative factions and countries, largely excluding the views from NGO’s and academics in the final adopted resolution. The final document poorly reflects the rich discussions and developments that are taking place in many countries of the world, particularly the debates and policy developments in ‘the Americas’. A positive note is that the unchanged international UN conventions on drugs can hardly cope with developments taking place on cannabis policies in countries such as Canada, Uruguay, United States or Jamaica. Also other countries are more and more prepared to push for change on other essential questions, including the application of death penalty for drug offences, the access to controlled medicines, or the explicit application of ‘harm reduction’ approaches.

Cannabis Social Clubs (CSCs) are a model of non-profit production and distribution of cannabis among a closed circuit of adult cannabis users. The CSC model can thus be seen as a middle-ground option between prohibition and full (legal) commercialization. Initially founded in Spain during the 1990s, this form of collectives has emerged elsewhere in Europe (notably in Belgium), mainly as a result of grassroots initiatives and self-regulation. Uruguay remains the only jurisdiction to have legalized and regulated the CSC model. This paper discusses the goals and practices of CSCs against the backdrop of the drug user movement. Our goal is to draw a comparison to other drug users’ organizations and to identify knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research into CSCs. In this analysis, we rely on a review of the relevant literature in this field and on preliminary findings from an ongoing study examining CSCs in Belgium. A preoccupation with reducing the harms associated with drug use seems to be an underlying guiding principle for CSCs and other drug users’ organizations, but further research into CSCs’ practices is needed to understand whether and how those are implemented. We found other common points between the broader drug user movement and the efforts of CSCs, both in terms of potential pitfalls and areas for positive impact. We suggest that the model warrants additional attention from both the research and policy-making community.

It has become evident that the use of performance and image enhancing drugs (PIEDs) is becoming an important societal issue, with ramifications extending beyond elite sport. A particular concern of authorities is that the majority of PIEDs are not legally obtained through a physician, by means of a prescription, but instead are illegally purchased on the illicit market. Currently little research exists on the illegal production and supply of PIEDs. However, understanding illicit PIED markets is important for policy decisions as knowledge on the production and supply of these substances may assist in designing law enforcement efforts, harm reduction initiatives and other measures. This article will, therefore, focus on the production and supply of PIEDs in Belgium and the Netherlands. Specifically, it will examine the general characteristics of PIED suppliers and the ways in which the behaviour of dealers are influenced by cultural factors. In particular the role of the legal profession of PIED suppliers is examined, taking the fitness industry as an example. This research is based on a content analysis of 64 PIED-dealing cases initiated by criminal justice agencies in the Netherlands (N=33) and Belgium (N=31). This article illustrates that the dealing of PIEDs is a rather specialised business and that not everyone has the suitable ties, opportunities and/or knowledge to enter the PIED market. Many PIED dealers are already devoted to a gym, sport, medical, or other subculture before becoming involved in dealing. Importantly, the embeddedness of PIED-related supply-side activities in legitimate professions, roles, and institutional settings form an integral part of the market culture these dealers engage in. We, therefore, need to examine the production, distribution and use of PIEDs, as embedded within a diverse combination of social, economic and cultural processes, in which none is simply reducible to the other.

Various studies show that the views on the drug problem and appropriate policy responses have undergone profound changes from the 1960s onward. This article is analysing one of these changes, the decriminalisation of drug use, reflecting a fundamental change of view: understanding drug use as a health issue and not as crime. A useful heuristic to understand this type of change is Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm concept. He sees a paradigm as a set of beliefs that are shared by a scientific community and accepted by a wider community. A paradigm change is therefore a socio-psychological process rather than rooted in new scientific or research facts.
The author analyses the change from the dominance of a crime to the dominance of a health paradigm reflecting its social-historic context, starting with the widely shared concerns about substance use related health problems in the 20th century. These concerns translated into two different views on the essence of these problems, a crime and a health paradigm. The first served as fundament of the international drug control efforts, resulting in the still governing drug prohibition. Yet, the health paradigm was also of influence from the start and gradually gained weight. From the 1970s onwards the health paradigm became more important as part of a wider reform movement. It started in the Netherlands and the UK as bottom-up process criticising criminalising the users of illicit drugs as inappropriate, detrimental for their health and inhumane. The health paradigm was seen as more appropriate.
The author reflects on the benefits and disadvantages of the health paradigm. Its primary benefit is that it helps to understand the health problems related to drug use. A key disadvantage is its close relationship with the disease paradigm. The latter fits well with the generally negative view on drugs as dangerous or evil. It is encompassing the risk of ‘pathologising’ all forms of drug use and denying phenomena of unproblematic use for, among other things, recreational or spiritual purposes. Like the crime paradigm it can serve for control purposes. The drug user remains subject of control or disciplining policies and is not in charge of his/her own life. An additional problematic issue is that ‘softening’ the approach towards the users seems to be mirrored by a harder, more punitive approach to the producers and sellers of the substances, which are seen as villains, making available the drugs which deserve harsh punishment for ‘devastating’ the lives of users.
The author concludes with a short discussion of the well-being paradigm as possible alternative for the health paradigm. It covers a broader spectrum than the health paradigm and helps to grasp the negative impact of (problem) drug use, reducing well-being, but is also useful in understanding the positive sides, enhancing well-being.

In contrast with the critical, innovative ideas developed between the 1960s and the 1980s regarding the way we deal with illegal drugs in our societies, the current dominant approaches frame the issue of drugs as a matter of crime, public order, and control. Pleasurable substances have always existed and always will, and so the efforts to cope with them. However, we witness today remarkable developments at local, national and international levels in the fields of drug policies (on cannabis for example), drug trafficking (new routes, new actors) and drug use (new substances, new drug cultures), all of which deserve our attention and push us to think beyond the repressive paradigm. This contribution, which also serves as an introduction for this special issue of ToCC on drugs, aims to present an overview of the main developments taking place, and challenges ahead, within the three above-mentioned fields. There are new markets and trends in the use of legal and illegal pleasurable substances, particularly regarding synthetic drugs (amphetamines, methamphetamines and new psychoactive substances or NPS), tobacco and alcohol. Illegal drugs are supplied from changing countries and through new routes, while retailing increasingly takes place through the so-called cryptomarkets (online). Effective policies are rendered impossible by the fundamental repression paradox: the more intensive and effective the repression, the larger the profits of drug traffickers and the balloon effects (displacement). Despite the harms and negative effects of repressive policies have extensively been documented, a societal debate towards the regulation of illegal drugs is hindered by the use of false dichotomies or presuppositions, by the use of ethical or moral appeals, or by lack of political will. Also the debate in the media is static, superficial and full of clichés. Scientific research on drugs also follows specific agendas and it is focussed on particular aspects of the problem. Changes to end the ‘war on drugs’, certainly regarding cannabis, are however underway in many places at local and national level (Uruguay, Canada, US, Spain, etc.), this despite UN bureaucracies and international conventions that fiercely resist those changes.

Despite the fact that Peter Cohen has not written about drugs for the past 10 years, he remains one of the most influential and radical thinkers and researchers in the Netherlands in the field of drug use and drug policy. The former director of the CEDRO (Centrum voor Drugsonderzoek) at the University of Amsterdam is certainly a ‘significant other’ in the European drug landscape as he challenged, in the 1980s and 1990s, mainstream views and discourses on drugs held by the political, academic and health service establishments. In this interview we first discuss with him some of the key life events and intellectual sources that shaped his early choices first as student and later as young researcher, illustrating why and how he came to study drugs and remained at the university. Further, we focus on Cohen’s particular relation with the Amsterdam political elite in the 80s, which allowed him to develop the first large-scale studies in the Netherlands on different types of drug users. He further expands on his critique to the way in which drug use was at the time socially constructed in discourse and practice. During the second part of the 1990s, a new generation of politicians and managers (local and national government, but also at universities), changed on the one hand the political agenda about drugs, and imposed on the other serious limitations to conduct innovative research within the university. He finally explains some of his key ideas about the ways in which drug policies and interventions resemble religious wars and crusades, his growing disenchantment with present developments at European level, and he reflects on the future of drugs commenting on the present attempts to regulate cannabis.

GHB is an anaesthetic that in Netherlands since the 1990s is used as a drug by various groups. Although GHB is often defined as a ‘party drug’, particularly in rural areas it is also used in street cultures. GHB is mainly used recreationally, but a minority uses the drug frequently and/or becomes addicted. GHB use and associated problems are disproportionately spread across the Netherlands and are concentrated in certain rural areas (‘trouble spots’), especially in low SES villages or neighbourhoods. Predominantly based on qualitative research, this article describes supply and use of GHB in rural ‘trouble spots’. The profile of experienced current GHB users in rural areas is characterized by a wide age range, a low level of education, often multiple psychosocial problems and poly drug use. They are almost exclusively ‘white’, in majority male users, of whom a large part has been arrested on several occasions. From a supply perspective, GHB could spread quickly because of the short distribution chain, the limited social distance between dealers and users, as well as the closeness an reticence of user groups. Even though as a drug GHB is very different from methamphetamine, there are striking similarities in set and setting characteristics between rural GHB use in the Netherlands and rural methamphetamine use in the US.