Pot Smoking Coffee Shops in Amsterdam, “Up in Smoke”


Say it isn’t so. You will no longer be allowed to smoke pot, weed, marijuana, cannabis in Pot-big-jointAmsterdam’s renowned coffee shops. What a tragedy, what is this world coming to when one can’t bring their bong and some herb into a Amsterdam coffee shop? Europe, you are slipping. No smoking bans sound more like American, up-tight values that you have been espousing. What’s net in Amsterdam, a crack down on prostitution? NOT!

A Dutch smoking ban will come into force in July next year for all restaurants and cafes — including coffee shops where cannabis is the top attraction, the government decided on Friday.

“Coffee shops will be treated in the same manner as other catering businesses. They will be smoke-free,” Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende told NOS television.

Amsterdam’s renowned coffee shops, where marijuana can be smoked openly in a relaxed atmosphere, are one of the city’s big draws for tourists. (Yahoo News)

Posted June 9, 2007 by
Bizarre, Fun, World | 16 comments

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Amsterdam’s Marijuana selling Coffee Shops Up in Smoke
  • The Netherlands Tries to Crack Down on Crime … Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen, “We Only Want to Get Rid of Some of the Prostitution”
  • Out of Control Government … California Town Considers Banning Residents From Smoking Outside Their Own Homes
  • New Hampshire … So Much for the Live Free or Die State, NH Bans Smoking in Bars and Restaurants
  • We have arrived safely,

  • Comments

    16 Responses to “Pot Smoking Coffee Shops in Amsterdam, “Up in Smoke””

    1. Jason on June 9th, 2007 2:33 pm

      Thats too bad.Hopefully you can still buy the herb there and smoke it at your house,apartment, or hotel.

    2. Robert on June 9th, 2007 2:57 pm

      Well SM. Add an other critique to the Netherlands-Black-List. Apparently the communication of the kabinet is dubious and obscure as well… This article says smoking WILL be allowed in coffeeshops as long as the owner doesn’t have to stand in the smoke all day.
      Lucky us… Where would all those tourists… All those FOREIGNERS (!!!) go to if they couldn’t buy and smoke their grass in our number one tourist attraction: the coffeeshop!


      “In coffeeshops mogen blowers nog steeds hun joint opsteken, als de verkoper maar niet in de rook zit.”

      (In coffeeshops blowers may still light up their joints as long as the salesperson doesn’t have to sit in the smoke.)

      BTW: Don’t smoke tabacco… Tabacco kills!

    3. joe bear on June 9th, 2007 4:03 pm


    4. Rammstein on June 9th, 2007 6:58 pm

      the point is that this has nothing to do with dissuading people to use cigarettes, it is killing yourself slowly but hey, freedom is something still held in high regard here in the Netherlands.

      The law was created because everybody has the right to work in a smoke-free workplace, even if you work in a pub or a discotheque. And yes, that also includes a coffee-shop.

      Personally, as an asthmatic I welcome this decision. I loved it when my own workplace went “smoke-free” and maybe in the not to distant future I will be able to go out to a bar or a dancing and enjoy myself without having to suffer the ill effects of cigarette smoke.

    5. Scared Monkeys on June 9th, 2007 7:20 pm

      RAMM is correct. The point of the passage of this law was to create a smoke free environment for workers.

      Personally I say it and all smoking bans are BS. No one should have the right, especially a govt telling a privately owned business whether they should or should not allow smoking.

      I, personally, do not smoke. However, it should be my choice as a business owner whether I want to allow it or not. Just like it is up to the patrons whether they wish to deal with the smoke or go else where. That is called private enterprise.

      The public has the choice of whether they wish to go into a coffee shop, restaurant or where ever that allows smoking or is smoke free. Workers also have to choice of whether they wish to work in a smoking or smoke free environment.

      Simple as that. If I want smokers as part of my business than I should be allowed to. That’s called choice.

    6. Rammstein on June 9th, 2007 7:49 pm

      but Red, would you like being forced to work in a smoke polluted environment for 40odd hours a week, 44 weeks out of the year for 40 years?

      That would be over 70,000 hours of second hand smoke (and that is for European circumstances, I have understood a lot of American employees work longer hours and more weeks out of the year).

      And businesses will still be able to have smoking people in their businesses, as long as they make sure their employees are in a smoke free environment. Good ventilation systems would be enough in restaurants etc. to still allow smoking in it, but that is expensive.

    7. Scared Monkeys on June 9th, 2007 9:30 pm

      Ramm … nope.

      No one is forcing these people to work in these places. They knew what the rules were long before they ever took the job.

      Their choice in life is do not work there.

      Its like taking a job at Hooters and them complaining what one would have to wear.

      Sitting in congested, polluted traffic in NYC can be worse than any bar.


    8. yoyo muffintop on June 10th, 2007 12:36 am

      that sucks. the world gets more boring every year.

      those are a couple of serious spiffs in that picture – hope they don’t bogart ‘em.

    9. Juan on June 10th, 2007 12:46 am

      However, you can still smoke it in Aruba

    10. Robert on June 10th, 2007 3:30 am

      # Scared Monkeys | June 9, 2007, 7:20 pm & Scared Monkeys | June 9, 2007, 9:30 pm


      I could agree with you in principle that a privately owned business should decide themself wether to allow or ban smoking on their property. But what is the reality? How many of the businesses ARE privatly owned? 70, 80, 90 or even 95%? That’s hardly a fair choice for workers. Especialy if you take into account that a business-owner would do almost anything to comfort the costumer and therefore would in most cases allow smoking!!!

    11. Scared Monkeys on June 10th, 2007 7:41 pm


      Not true. I think there is a market for businesses to allow and not allow smoking. I personally think its wrong to prevent someone from doing a legal act in a place of business.

      I have always believed, that if smoking is so dangerous and bad, then outlaw it. However, govts would rather tax it and make $’s off it. That to me is just as wrong.

      Last time I checked, smoking is legal.

    12. Richard on June 11th, 2007 8:24 am

      Regarding the Netherlands ban, to what extent will it be enforced? As we know in the U.S., a law that is widely disregarded is often “overlooked” by police.

      I believe placing wagers on events such as the Super Bowl is illegal in theory ….

      I had a friend who was smoking a joint when a police car came up. The cop looked at him, said “At least you could have put it out when you saw our car,” and drove on ….

    13. Richard on June 11th, 2007 8:26 am

      As for smoking in public places, I think that businesses such as bars and restaurants should be required to post signs saying whether smoking inside is allowed. After all, some people might go to them specifically because they could smoke and drink in public. And nobody has to go there.

      For things like food stores, though, I think it’s proper to ban smoking.

    14. John Staton on June 11th, 2007 11:39 am

      One of the principals of Liberty is that the actions of one person are permissible if the consequences of those action(s) are restricted to the individual taking the action. Actions deemed a clear and present danger to others are restricted and or prohibited as appropriate. DUI, discharging a firearm within city limits are actions where in a civilized society restricts action. Smoking (whatever) is coming upon increasing restrictions as by its nature it can involve innocent people. As these actions are taken by drug addicts the ability of the addicted individual to reason the actions come into question. The requirement to provide a safe working environment is also a factor. It is accepted (Common Law) that it is the legal requirement of the workplace that it be safe for the workers. It is no longer a choice of the employer as to whether or not there will be a safe environment nor whether or not child labor will be tolerated. These are choices which the general society has made in many instances. This is now being extended to include smoking anything. Just as the tavern owner is responsible for serving in excess allowing the individual to become a clear and present danger (DUI) the premise owner is responsible for providing a safe working environment and where legal not letting the Stonies getting into autos and must provide a safe environment for the workers involved.

    15. The Netherlands Tries to Crack Down on Crime … Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen, “We Only Want to Get Rid of Some of the Prostitution” | Scared Monkeys on September 22nd, 2007 1:54 pm

      [...] is looking to take a bite out of crime and close down many of the attractions that made its “RED LIGHT” district an attraction to many. But are they really? How does one only take a little bite [...]

    16. Francis on January 22nd, 2011 1:31 pm

      its a coffee shop whose main attraction is smoking pot..i mean if you are gonna go there for any reason whether its to work or to smoke you know you are going to be sorrounded in smoke all day so i dont think that law applies here at all because its a smoking spot for all those who go there..

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It