ACHTERGRONDMDMA (ecstasy) is een relatief veilige drug en induceert weinig afhankelijkheid, maar staat desondanks samen met andere harddrugs op lijst I van de Nederlandse Opiumwet. Bezorgdheid over de aan MDMA gerelateerde criminaliteit, het aantal gezondheidsincidenten en de mogelijk onterechte plaatsing van MDMA op lijst I hebben geleid tot een voortdurend debat over het huidige Nederlandse ecstasybeleid.DOELOntwikkeling van een rationeel MDMA-beleid waarbij men rekening houdt met alle aspecten gerelateerd aan de productie, verkoop en gebruik van MDMA.METHODEEen interdisciplinaire groep van 18 experts formuleerde een wetenschappelijk onderbouwd MDMA-beleid door de verwachte effecten van 95 beleidsopties op 25 uitkomsten te beoordelen, waaronder gezondheid, criminaliteit, rechtshandhaving en financiën. Het optimale beleidsmodel werd gevormd door een combinatie van 22 beleidsopties met de hoogste totaalscore op alle 25 uitkomsten. RESULTAAT Het optimale beleidsmodel bestond uit een vorm van gereguleerde productie en verkoop van MDMA, beter kwaliteitsbeheer van ecstasypillen en intensievere bestrijding van de MDMA-gerelateerde georganiseerde criminaliteit. Een dergelijk beleid zou leiden tot een kleine toename in de prevalentie van ecstasygebruik, maar met minder gezondheidsschade, minder MDMA-gerelateerde misdaad en minder milieuschade. Om de praktische uitvoerbaarheid en de politieke haalbaarheid te vergroten werd het optimale model enigszins aangepast.CONCLUSIEHet ontwikkelde optimale model biedt een politiek en maatschappelijk haalbare set van beleidsinstrumentopties, waarmee men plaatsing van MDMA op lijst I kan herzien, wat de schade van MDMA voor gebruikers en de samenleving kan verminderen. Voor de psychiatrie betekent het bevordering van therapeutisch onderzoek en minder hinder door nodeloze stigmatisering bij de behandeling van patiënten.--English:SUMMARYThe development of a rational national MDMA policy and itsrelevance for psychiatry.J.G.C. van Amsterdam, T. Nabben, G.-J. Peters, F. van Bakkum, J. Noijen, W. van den BrinkBackground MDMA (ecstasy) is a relatively safe drug and induces little dependence, but is nevertheless scheduled as a hard drug (Dutch Opium Act, List 1). Concerns about MDMA-related crime, health incidents and possible inappropriate listing of MDMA on List I have led to an ongoing debate about current Dutch ecstasy policy.Aim To develop a rational MDMA policy that takes into account all aspects related to production, sale and use ofMDMA.Method An interdisciplinary group of 18 experts formulates a science-based MDMA policy by assessing the expected effects of 95 policy options on 25 outcomes, including health, crime, law enforcement and finance. The optimal policy model consists of the combination of the 22 policy options with the highest total score on all 25 outcomes.Results The optimal policy model consisted of a form of regulated production and sale of MDMA, better qualitymanagement of ecstasy tablets and more intensive fight against MDMA-related organized crime. Such a policywould lead to a small increase in the prevalence of ecstasy use, but with less health damage, less MDMA-related crime, and less environmental damage. To increase practicality and political feasibility, the optimal model was slightly modified.Conclusion The developed optimal model offers a politically and socially feasible set of policy instrument options, with which the placement of MDMA on List I can be revised, thereby reducing the damage of MDMA to users and society. For psychiatry, it means promoting therapeutic research and less nuisance from unnecessary stigmatization in the treatment of patients.
MULTIFILE
The principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) have evoked considerable debate in the practice of humanitarian support, particularly in terms of emerging tensions with sovereign (national) law. Drawing on organization studies, we examine the emergent strategies aimed at resolving the ambiguous legal context in which humanitarian support operations in a conflict context are embedded. Our analysis of two missions revealed two types of emergent strategies, namely network and negotiation strategies, differentiated by particular contextual dimensions. We extend the humanitarian law debate by showing the strategic interplay between the operational humanitarian context and international humanitarian principles, thereby connecting the fields of international law and organization science.
The American company Amazon has made headlines several times for monitoring its workers in warehouses across Europe and beyond.1 What is new is that a national data protection authority has recently issued a substantial fine of €32 million to the e-commerce giant for breaching several provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (gdpr) with its surveillance practices. On 27 December 2023, the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (cnil)—the French Data Protection Authority—determined that Amazon France Logistique infringed on, among others, Articles 6(1)(f) (principle of lawfulness) and 5(1)(c) (data minimization) gdpr by processing some of workers’ data collected by handheld scanner in the distribution centers of Lauwin-Planque and Montélimar.2 Scanners enable employees to perform direct tasks such as picking and scanning items while continuously collecting data on quality of work, productivity, and periods of inactivity.3 According to the company, this data processing is necessary for various purposes, including quality and safety in warehouse management, employee coaching and performance evaluation, and work planning.4 The cnil’s decision centers on data protection law, but its implications reach far beyond into workers’ fundamental right to health and safety at work. As noted in legal literature and policy documents, digital surveillance practices can have a significant impact on workers’ mental health and overall well-being.5 This commentary examines the cnil’s decision through the lens of European occupational health and safety (EU ohs). Its scope is limited to how the French authority has interpreted the data protection principle of lawfulness taking into account the impact of some of Amazon’s monitoring practices on workers’ fundamental right to health and safety.
MULTIFILE
