On Monday 7 April, a new chapter in Dutch soft-drug policy began with the kick-off of the long-awaited cannabis experiment. From now on, coffee shops in the ten participating municipalities will only be allowed to sell legally grown, quality-controlled weed. For hashish, the backdoor will be left ajar because of the limited legal supply. With the Trimbos Institute and Breuer&Intraval, RAND Europe is responsible for the scientific research behind the cannabis experiment.
The sale and consumption of cannabis has been tolerated in the Netherlands since the 1970s, but the country is now taking a step towards a more regulated approach. Up to ten legal growers have been given a licence to legally produce hash and weed for participating coffee shops. The Netherlands is not alone in this. Several countries have already legalised recreational cannabis use, and seven scientific pilots are running in Switzerland. The important question, however, is not just whether regulated sales are possible, but how such a system might be implemented.
The important question is not just whether regulated sales of cannabis are possible, but how such a system might be implemented.
A Free-Market Approach
In the United States, we have seen the consequences of removing cannabis from the banned substances list without a considered framework in place. In 24 out of 50 states, cannabis is now legal for recreational use. In most cases this was done by a so-called ballot initiative: “let's just vote on it and leave the rest to the free market.”
This has led to a proliferation of commercial cannabis businesses fiercely competing in states such as California, Colorado, and Washington. As a result, the market has seen falling prices, attractive packaging, targeted marketing, and a diverse range of products, such as candies, cookies, extracts, and vapes. In this free market model, 'Big Cannabis' industry players have an incentive to target those consumers that yield the highest profits. As with any other addictive product, these individuals tend to be those who display risky behaviour regarding the frequency and volume of their consumption.
One consequence of this has been an increase in consumption and subsequently more health-related incidents such as intoxication—particularly involving highly potent, primarily edible cannabis products. Such effects have been seen before in other contexts—experience from the alcohol and tobacco industries shows that when commercial interests prevail, it often comes at the expense of public health. An international study with lessons from alcohol and tobacco demonstrated that free market models, for both production and sales, are generally associated with higher prevalence and more health-related harm due to the market power of these companies. The experience of three years of legalised online gambling in the Netherlands, strongly driven by commercial providers, also showed increasing numbers of players and more people undergoing treatment for gambling problems. As with gambling, tobacco, and alcohol, it is worth reflecting on whether a commercial model is ultimately desirable with cannabis.
Other Approaches to Implementation
Although the Netherlands still has a unique position in Europe with its coffee shops and tolerance policy, it does not operate in a vacuum. An international comparative research study that RAND Europe conducted together with the Trimbos Institute, analysed the experiences in countries such as the United States, Canada, Uruguay, Germany, and Switzerland. In Vermont, one of the few U.S. states where recreational cannabis was legalised through a legislative process rather than a ballot initiative, it was introduced in stages and with clear objectives. After a relatively strict start some relaxations were gradually implemented, for example regarding THC limits. The state government also carefully thought through which players it would like to allow into the regulated cannabis market. To limit the role of the 'Big Cannabis' industry, access to the regulated market was deliberately kept low threshold, enticing small growers who previously grew cannabis illegally to participate. The Dutch government, in contrast, made a conscious decision to ban so-called legacy growers from the experiment, by demanding that candidate growers go through a criminal records check.
In Quebec, where cannabis has been legal since 2018 (as it has been in the rest of Canada), the provincial government has very deliberately chosen a more austere cannabis policy than in the rest of the country. Shops there are run through a government monopoly, the Société Québécoise du Cannabis (SQDC), which focuses on public health and especially the protection of young people. There are restrictions on supply, a higher age limit than in the rest of Canada (21 and 18, respectively), and advertising is not allowed. Initial research findings suggest that this approach has limited negative public health impacts, particularly among young people.
As with gambling, tobacco, and alcohol, it is worth reflecting on whether a commercial model is ultimately desirable with cannabis.
An alternative model to professional sales is home cultivation. In almost all countries or regions that have legalised cannabis, small-scale home cultivation for personal use is allowed. In the Netherlands, home cultivation is prohibited, but growing up to five plants will not result in prosecution. Legalising home cultivation would appear to be an obvious option, as complicated permits and large commercial players are discouraged. However, there are risks to this approach, including fire hazards, excessive energy use, and a lack of controls on the quality and strength of the produce and the extent of pesticide use. Behind the front door, it is almost impossible to enforce any restrictions over home cultivation.
Countries such as Uruguay, Germany, and Malta have deliberately chosen an alternative model for commercial sales, in which nonprofit cannabis clubs play a prominent role. Within these clubs, members are allowed to collectively grow and purchase cannabis under certain conditions. The advantages are that growers can benefit from economies of scale and cater to the preferences of the customer base, while at the same time sharing responsibility for preventing harmful consumption without the pressure of profit maximisation.
Dutch Drug Policy at a Crossroads
Examples from other countries offer several options for the Dutch government. Had there been a clean slate, these choices would probably have turned out differently. But the Netherlands bears the heritage of its coffee shop model, unique, because of its harm reduction and customer focus. So how should the Netherlands proceed after the current experiment? What exactly does the government want to achieve with its cannabis policy: less crime, better public health, less public nuisance? And how do we then test whether these goals have been achieved?
The recommendations to the Netherlands from our study are simple: whether you choose legalisation, restriction, or something in between, formulate measurable goals and evaluate them systematically. When public health is paramount, a tightly controlled supply model without commercial interests may be desirable. When reducing the illegal market is a priority, a low-threshold customer-oriented model may be more appropriate. Other countries certainly offer inspiration: they may try to ban 'Big Cannabis' (as Vermont did), choose different alternatives to commercial models (as with Uruguay), ensure a large government role in the cannabis market (as in Quebec), or experiment with a range of models (as Switzerland has).
The cannabis experiment itself provides the scientific foundation on which policymakers can build further. But depending on the outcome they wish to achieve, the solution may lie beyond the coffee shop model.
