Hamburg: Handling an Open Drug Scene

  • Hannes Alpheis
Part of the Confederation of European Economic Associations Conference Volumes book series (CEE)


With 1.7 million citizens, Hamburg accounts for roughly a tenth of the German drug problem (Germany having 60 million inhabitants in the west and 20 million in the cast). This over-proportionate share of drug users is also accompanied by an unusually liberal (for Germany) drugs policy. Mayor Voscherau has a nationwide reputation for being the first German politician to promote a policy of decriminalisation. Hamburg is, therefore, rather unique in the German drug scene.


Drug User Local Resident Harm Reduction Drug Policy Crime Report 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bless, R., M. Freeman, D. Korf and T. Nabbcn (1993) Urban Strategies to Open Drug Scenes. Report prepared for the 4th: Conference of the European Cities on Drug Polio’, Hamburg, December 1993 (The Amsterdam Bureau of Social Research and Statistics).Google Scholar
  2. City of Amsterdam (1992) The Amsterdam Drug Policy ( Amsterdam: Information and Public Relations Department).Google Scholar
  3. Cressey, P. (1938) ‘Population Succession in Chicago: 1898–1930’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 44, pp. 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dangschat, J. (1991) ‘Gentrification in Hamburg’, in J. van Wcescp and S. Musterd (eds), Urban Housing for the Better-off — Gentrification in Europe ( Utrecht: Stcdelijke Nctwerkcn ).Google Scholar
  5. Duncan, O. and B. Duncan (1957) The Negro Population of Chicago: A Study of Residential Succession ( Chicago: University Press).Google Scholar
  6. Hoffineyer-Zlotnik, J. (1982) ‘Community Change and Invasion: The Case of Turkish Guest Workers’, in J. Friedrichs (ed.), Spatial Disparities and Social Behaviour. A Reader in Urban Research ( Hamburg: Christians).Google Scholar
  7. Lowman, J. (1992) ‘Street Prostitution Control. Some Canadian Reflections on the Finsbury Park Experience’, and ‘Against Street Prostituion’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 32, pp. 1–17; p. 400.Google Scholar
  8. Matthews, R. (1992) ‘Regulating Street Prostitution and Kerb- Crawling. A Reply to John Lowman’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 32, pp. 18–22.Google Scholar
  9. Möller, I. (1985) Hamburg ( Stuttgart: Klett).Google Scholar
  10. Park, R. E. (1936) ‘Human Ecology’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 42, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Renn, H. and K. J. Lange (1995) Stadtviertel und Drogenszene. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zur Belästigung durch ‘offene’ Drogenszenen in europäischen Grofistädten (‘Urban Quarters and Drug Scene’, Studie im Auftrag der Europäischen Kommission, Hamburg).Google Scholar
  12. Rudovsky, D. (1992) ‘Police Abuse: Can the Violence Be Copntained?’, Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, vol. 27 (2), pp. 465–501.Google Scholar
  13. Schelling, T. C. (1972) ‘The Process of Residential Segregation. Neighbourhood Tipping’, in A. H. Pascal (ed.), Racial Discrimination in Economic Life (Lexington, Mass.: Heath).Google Scholar
  14. Zimmer, L. (1990) ‘Proactive Policing Against Street-Level Drug Trafficking’, American Journal of Police, vol. 9, pp. 43–74.Google Scholar
  15. Zimmer, L. (1994) ‘American Inner Cities and Drug Policing: Strategies that Maximize Harm to Individuals and Communities’, in L. Böllinger (ed.), De-Americanizing Drug Policy: The Search for Alternatives for Failed Repression ( New York and Frankfurt: Lang ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Nicholas Dorn, Jørgen Jepsen and Ernesto Savona 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannes Alpheis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations