police station because they had tried to buy cannabis in his shop. A coffee
shop owner in District East no longer sells his cannabis in small plastic
bags (which frequently end up on the pavement), but in small plastic con-
tainers for which clients are required to pay packaging deposit money. The
same coffee shop owner has raised the minimum age for buying cannabis
to 21 years in order to get rid of young clients. Another narrative relates to
a coffee shop owner in Rotterdam West who got into trouble because of
complaints about anti-social behaviour. He immediately decided to change
his opening hours from 1.00 to 23.00 hrs. The police observed his place for
several days and noticed no anti-social behaviour. They were positive about
him and subsequently referred to his intentions as: ‘he tries very hard’.
The respondents differentiate between the coffee shop owners and clas-
sifythem in three categories, which are related to a moral interpretation of
their behaviour: (1) a small number of owners who are too lax with the
rules, (2) a small category which performs very well and is pro-active (see
the examples above) and (3) the largest category, consisting of owners who
do not stand out either positively or negatively because they tend to stick
to the rules. In relation to the first category there is a further differentiation
based on the morality of guilt and intention. The police officers do not see
infractions as immoral acts. They empathize with the culprits and give an
‘account’ for their behaviour (Goffman, 1971). For instance, they explain
the infraction by pointing to the fact that the coffee shop owner was not
fully aware of the rules. This might be explained by the police officers by
referring to a lack of command of the Dutch language in case of owners
with immigrant backgrounds, or because they have recently bought the
coffee shop and are not yet informed. This explanation has lost some of its
credibility since the start of the compulsory course for coffee shops employ-
ees. Another account given by the police for an infraction of the law is that
the coffee shop owner just had ‘bad luck’, especially in relation to the pre-
sence of minors in the coffee shops. As the officers see it, it is impossible to
have total control over who visits the coffee shop. Even if the owners do
their best a minor might end up in a coffee shop, with for instance a false
ID. Again, the intention of the coffee shop owner is vital to how the infrac-
tions are interpreted.
The general image of the coffee shop owner as perceived by the police
officers is that of a shopkeeper who works hard and tries to stick to the
rules of running his business. The strong symbolic nature of this image
becomes even more apparent when the officers have reason to believe that
a coffee shop is run by ‘organized crime’. To determine this more is
needed than formal inspections alone. The city can ask the judge for a
Moral Entrepreneurship Revisited 153