This is an English translation. The original Dutch article is authoritative.
On 29 October 2025, the Netherlands will head to the polls again. For the coffeeshop sector, these elections are more important than ever. The new cabinet will decide on future coffeeshop policy. They will oversee the evaluation of the closed coffeeshop supply chain experiment and, based on that, determine whether the Netherlands truly opts for national regulation or not.
On behalf of the Bond van Cannabis Detaillisten (BCD), we sent a letter to the programme committees of the political parties in early July. It contained a clear message: anchor the Dutch coffeeshop model in law. Because the experiment is not a standalone trial. It is the opportunity to finally push through. The Netherlands has a unique and proven model: sales via regulated points of sale, with a clear role for public health and public order. But that model was never finished. The back-door was tolerated. Now that we are finally gaining a grip on the entire chain – from production to sale – it is time to make choices.
In our letter, we ask parties, among other things, to:
- recognise the experiment as an essential step towards regulation;
- legally anchor coffeeshops as an alternative to the illegal market;
- work towards a transparent and verifiable legal framework;
- and prevent us from being overtaken by international models that do not align with our practice.
Why it must happen now
The first practical experiences from the experiment show that regulation works, provided the boundary conditions are right. In the participating municipalities, the system proves to be feasible and manageable. Growers, distributors, coffeeshops, and municipalities are working together constructively. Production, delivery, and sales take place within clear agreements. But as long as this system is not legally anchored, it remains vulnerable.
A stable and credible supply is crucial. The temporary exception to enforcement for hashish makes clear what happens when regulated products are insufficiently available: consumers move to the street. With that, control disappears. Whereas that is exactly what regulation attempts to win back.
At the same time, the sector is taking responsibility. Staff are being trained, age checks are strict, and investments have been made in transparency, compliance, and education. Through an independent quality mark, requirements have been set for business operations and product quality. These are not non-committal initiatives, but deliberate steps to show that regulation also works in practice.
But what is often forgotten is perhaps the most important thing: the coffeeshop is a place where the community comes together. Not an anonymous point of sale, but a social space. Accessible, recognisable, and approachable. A place where people feel safe, where information is provided, and where consumption is open to discussion. That role disappears if we switch to international models with clubs and associations that have no connection to the environment and no point of contact.
The Netherlands has built something that works: verifiable, locally embedded, and focused on public health. But without legal anchoring, it remains temporary. And what remains temporary for too long eventually loses its right to exist, also internationally.
The incoming cabinet decides; don't let your vote go up in smoke!
As with previous elections, we – together with Stichting Maatschappij en Cannabis – are campaigning again this year to promote turnout among eligible voters. Via the Cannabis-Kieswijzer (www.cannabis-kieswijzer.nl), we present the positions of political parties regarding coffeeshops and cannabis policy in a clear overview. The campaign is non-partisan, but aimed at stimulating democratic involvement in a group that is often underrepresented in elections.
We are distributing posters, flyers, filter tips, and other voting materials in coffeeshops across the country. Through this, we reach thousands of visitors daily in a place they trust. Because even those who are not actively involved in politics are influenced by it. Especially in a sector where laws and regulations have direct consequences for entrepreneurs, consumers, and society as a whole. Voting is therefore not just a right, but also a way to be heard in a policy dossier that has been conducted over our heads for too long.
The evaluation of the experiment will take place in the next cabinet term. And with it, the decision: will coffeeshop policy finally be anchored in legislation, or will the entire experiment be phased out, and will we return to the old tolerance policy? Will we continue with the construction of a transparent and verifiable chain, or will it remain a half-finished model that exists on paper but offers no certainty in practice?
What is at stake is more than just a policy choice. It is about trust, legal certainty, and the question of whether the Netherlands is prepared to take responsibility for an approach that has proven to work for decades. We hope that political parties show the courage to seize this moment. To defend the model, expand it, and secure it legally – so that coffeeshop policy does not disappear into the margins but finally gets the place it deserves.
Would you like to read the letter and the full explanatory note? Let us know.