This is an English translation. The original Dutch article is authoritative.
The first follow-up measurement of the closed coffeeshop supply chain experiment has been delivered. This provides the first broad study into what has actually changed since the start of the experimental phase on 7 April 2025. The researchers looked at the functioning of the closed chain, the product range and prices in coffeeshops, cannabis consumption, the unregulated market, public health, liveability, safety, and crime.
The general picture after the first year is stable. The regulated chain functions, the product range has become significantly broader, and regulation provides more transparency in the production and distribution chain. At the same time, no clear differences were found between experiment and comparison municipalities regarding cannabis consumption, health, liveability, safety, and the unregulated market. This is the first of four annual follow-up measurements and therefore not yet a final evaluation. However, the results provide insight for the first time into developments since the regulated chain actually became operational.
No increase in cannabis consumption
One of the most relevant outcomes is that the introduction of regulated cannabis is not yet accompanied by an increase in measured cannabis consumption. The researchers found no significant differences between experiment and comparison municipalities in the development of use frequency, the number of use days per month, or the number of joints per use day. The report concludes on page 155 that the various indicators do not point to an increase in cannabis use in the experiment municipalities compared to the comparison municipalities.
However, visitors in the experiment municipalities buy more weed per transaction. Whereas one gram was the most common purchase amount during the baseline measurement, it was five grams in the first follow-up measurement. Yet, this larger purchase amount is not currently accompanied by indications of higher consumption. This makes the distinction between purchase and actual consumption important.
Wider product range
The regulated market has clearly changed at the same time. The product range in the experiment municipalities has become considerably broader. Coffeeshops have more different types of weed and hash on the menu, and the share of coffeeshops selling edibles, vapes, and concentrates has also increased. The increase in product diversity is stronger in the experiment municipalities than in the comparison municipalities.
This development is clearly visible with hash. The average number of different hash products in the experiment municipalities has approximately doubled. Alternative cannabis products have also become more widely available. Vapes were not offered by any of the studied coffeeshops in the experiment municipalities during the baseline measurement, whereas this was the case for 67 percent in the first follow-up measurement.
Thus, the regulated product range is beginning to serve a larger share of existing consumer preferences, but the connection is not yet complete. Bottlenecks in availability are still reported, particularly for hash and popular products. The researchers describe a market that is still developing, in which regulated production, availability, and changing demand patterns are not yet fully aligned.
Weed becomes cheaper and competes more strongly on price
Price development also presents a mixed but interesting picture. The average price of weed has fallen more sharply in the experiment municipalities than in the comparison municipalities. This also applies specifically to domestic weed. For hash, the development is reversed, and the average price in the experiment municipalities has actually risen more sharply. For joints with and without tobacco, there seems to be a slight price increase in both groups.
Regarding hash, the researchers themselves add an important nuance. The increase in the average price does not seem to apply to the best-selling hash products. The average price of the best-selling hash product was €9.99 at the baseline measurement and €10.69 at the first follow-up measurement, but the spread in the follow-up measurement is very large. The researchers therefore conclude on page 62 that the price increase for hash does not seem to apply to the best-selling hash products.
Especially the development of the weed price is interesting in relation to the unregulated market. It is not just about the falling price; coffeeshop visitors in the experiment municipalities also rate the price-quality ratio of weed more positively than at the baseline measurement. WODC also highlights this as one of the developments in the first follow-up measurement.
This combination of price and quality is relevant because a lower price is one of the main reasons for buying cannabis outside of the coffeeshop. In the first follow-up measurement, 56 percent of respondents in experiment municipalities mention the lower price as a reason to buy outside the coffeeshop, compared to 70 percent in comparison municipalities. Compared to the baseline measurement, the share citing lower price as a reason decreased by 9 percentage points in experiment municipalities, while it increased by 4 percentage points in comparison municipalities.
This difference is not statistically significant and therefore cannot be considered a proven effect of the experiment. The researchers do, however, find the development relevant enough to explicitly consider a possible reaction from the unregulated market in their conclusion. On page 158, they write that, given the price-driven nature of the unregulated market, it is possible that it will react in experiment municipalities to the falling prices for regulated weed.
This provides a first indication that regulated weed is developing into a more competitive alternative to the unregulated market. The price is falling, consumers rate the price-quality ratio more positively, and the price advantage of the unregulated market is less frequently mentioned as a purchase motive in experiment municipalities. Whether these developments actually lead to the displacement of the unregulated market cannot yet be determined based on this first follow-up measurement.
Unregulated market shows no clear shift yet
In the unregulated market itself, the researchers see no clear effect of the experiment as of yet. The average price of unregulated weed fell slightly in both experiment and comparison municipalities. The price of unregulated hash remained approximately the same in experiment municipalities, while it rose in comparison municipalities. None of these price differences can be statistically significantly attributed to the experiment.
One statistically significant difference was found. The average amount of hash purchased per unregulated transaction is rising in experiment municipalities, while it is falling in comparison municipalities. According to the researchers, this may be related to the introduction phase and limitations of the regulated hash supply. Follow-up measurements must show whether this is a temporary phenomenon.
The study cannot yet make statements about a decrease in the size of the unregulated market. Many of the differences found are small or not statistically significant, and visibility into this market is limited. Future measurements must clarify whether developments now visible within the regulated market, such as the falling weed price and the improved assessment of the price-quality ratio, eventually lead to shifts outside the coffeeshop.
No clear negative development in liveability and safety
Regarding liveability and safety, the researchers also find no convincing evidence that the experiment has led to changes. The situation around coffeeshops is ultimately described in the report as stable and manageable. On page 160, the researchers conclude that since the start of the experiment, no meaningful differences have been observed in perceived nuisance or crime around coffeeshops.
Some forms of nuisance are mentioned slightly more often in the liveability survey in experiment municipalities. However, it cannot be concluded that this development is caused by the experiment or by coffeeshops. According to the researchers, the various research sources collectively provide no convincing indications that the experiment has influenced liveability and safety around coffeeshops.
Incidents have also occurred within the regulated production chain. At cultivation sites, these include odour nuisance and security incidents such as burglaries and robberies. However, the study currently finds no indications that this is a structural or widespread phenomenon occurring at all cultivation sites. There are also no indications of new forms of crime or an increase in threats to growers, transporters, coffeeshop owners, or supervisors related to the experiment.
Thus, after this first follow-up measurement, it cannot be concluded that regulation has reduced crime. Conversely, there are currently no indications that the regulated chain has led to new structural safety problems.
More transparency in the chain
Another result is less visible to consumers but directly touches upon the core of the experiment. Regulation has created more transparency in the production and distribution chain. Involved parties have more information about the origin and production conditions of cannabis, and production, transport, and sales increasingly take place according to standardised procedures. This has also increased the possibilities for oversight of the chain.
This constitutes a substantial difference from the situation outside the experiment. Under the existing tolerance policy, sales from coffeeshops are permitted under certain conditions, while no regulated framework exists for cultivation and supply. In the transmittal letter accompanying the study, the social importance of this is sharply defined. The existing system carries safety risks and "facilitates crime," according to the letter.
On this specific point, this first follow-up measurement cannot yet provide an answer to one of the most important questions of the experiment. According to the researchers, the available registrations contain insufficient detail to determine whether crime surrounding cultivation and distribution is actually changing due to the experiment. The research can now monitor in detail what happens to prices, product range, consumption, and the surroundings of coffeeshops, but developments in the underlying unregulated production and distribution are much harder to measure directly.
First balance, not yet a final verdict
The first follow-up measurement is explicitly not a final evaluation. Furthermore, the regulated market was still in full development during a significant part of the research period. For hash, for instance, enforcement of the obligation to sell exclusively regulated hash only began on 1 September 2025. Subsequent annual measurements are therefore necessary to determine if the developments currently visible become structural.
Nevertheless, this first follow-up measurement yields several clear findings. There is no demonstrable increase in measured cannabis consumption, and no clear differences were found between experiment and comparison municipalities in the areas of health, liveability, and safety. At the same time, the regulated chain has become more transparent, and the consumer has access to a significantly wider product range.
Particularly for weed, a development is emerging that may be relevant for the further course of the experiment. The average price is falling, and consumers assess the price-quality ratio more positively. Price itself is an important reason for buying cannabis outside of the coffeeshop. The researchers themselves now take into account that the unregulated market may react to the falling prices of regulated weed.
The central question for the next follow-up measurements is becoming increasingly concrete: can a regulated market that functions, offers a wider product range, becomes more competitive on weed, and is currently not accompanied by a demonstrable increase in consumption, nuisance, or safety problems, ultimately also cause the unregulated market to demonstrably lose ground?