This is an English translation. The original Dutch article is authoritative.
Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid (IJenV)
On 8 October 2024, the WODC presented the report _“International developments in cannabis policy for recreational use”_ to the House of Representatives on behalf of the Ministries of Justice and Security (JenV) and Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS). This report, prepared by RAND Europe and the Trimbos-instituut, was requested in 2022 to provide an overview of international developments in the field of recreational cannabis use. The study has now been completed and provides valuable insights that can be used in the formation of future cannabis policy in the Netherlands.
Background and reason for the study
In 2022, the ministers of Justice and Security (JenV) and Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) requested this study with the aim of understanding how international cannabis developments could be relevant for the Netherlands. This request stems from the 2021 coalition agreement, in which it was agreed that the Rutte IV cabinet would adopt a cabinet position on the closed coffeeshop supply chain experiment in 2024. In line with this agreement, the ministers wrote a letter to the House of Representatives in 2022 setting out the criteria for assessing the outcomes of the experiment. It was indicated that international developments would be involved in the policy-making regarding cannabis, which led to the preparation of this research report.
Given the outgoing status of the Rutte IV cabinet and the arrival of the Schoof cabinet, no cabinet position was adopted in 2024. Instead, an evaluation report will be provided by the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee eight months before the end of the experiment. This report, together with the present study, will then be used by the sitting cabinet to make policy decisions on future cannabis policy. Based on a commitment during the General Political Debates in 2017, it is expected that the results of the experiment will also be shared with the Senate. The present study is not a direct evaluation of the experiment itself, but is intended to support decision-making regarding the experiment in due course.
Study design and methodology
The research team used a combination of methods, including literature research, interviews and case studies. They conducted seven interviews with international experts and twenty additional interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders from the countries studied. The study focused on three types of cannabis regulation models applied internationally since 2010. These models were also examined for their effectiveness, legal frameworks, and the degree of cooperation between the parties involved. This makes the research relevant as a basis for future Dutch policy, although it draws no conclusions on what the Netherlands should do.
Key findings and models of cannabis regulation
The report identifies three main categories of regulation for recreational cannabis use:
- Home cultivation and Cannabis clubs: This approach, applied in Germany and Luxembourg among others, allows for small-scale cultivation and collective use within a strictly regulated club structure. These models are often focused on non-commercial use and are popular due to their limited scale, whereby control remains with the users themselves.
- Commercial Sales: In Canada and various US states, a wide range of commercial models for cannabis sales has been established. In Quebec, for example, a state monopoly manages the market, while other regions use a private market model that often contains strict rules on sales volumes, THC levels and other restrictions.
- Hybrid Models: Uruguay offers a unique example of a mixed model that combines home cultivation, cannabis clubs and pharmacy sales. This model attempts to give consumers multiple legal options, while simultaneously trying to displace the unregulated market by optimising accessibility and supervision.
Objectives of legalisation
In the jurisdictions studied, it appeared that policy changes are often aimed at a combination of public health, public safety, and combating crime. In the United States, the potential for tax revenue also plays an important role. In Canada and Uruguay, public health and protection against organised crime are major motives. However, the report emphasises that results depend on the specific implementation of each policy, which can lead to different outcomes per country and model.
Observed effects and challenges
The observed effects of cannabis regulation are diverse and often depend on local policy:
- Public Health: In California and other parts of the United States, an increase in cannabis use was observed after the introduction of regulated sales models. However, this varies by region and population group. In Quebec, the stricter policy appeared to have fewer negative consequences for youth and public health.
- Unregulated Markets: Although regulation is intended to reduce unregulated markets, these remain present in some countries. In Uruguay, for example, grey markets are reported where legally grown cannabis is distributed via unregulated channels.
The report offers 25 recommendations that can help policy-makers develop a robust and coherent cannabis policy. Some key recommendations include:
- Phased Implementation: The researchers suggest that new policy should be implemented in phases. This allows policy-makers and enforcement agencies to monitor and, if necessary, adjust.
- Responsible Transparency towards International Treaties: Legalising cannabis for recreational use can conflict with international treaties. The researchers emphasise the importance of open accountability to bodies such as the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB).
- Incorporating Local Flexibility: Municipalities should be given space to tailor policy locally, so that regional differences in demand and culture can be taken into account.
What does this mean for the Netherlands?
Although the closed coffeeshop supply chain experiment is still in an early stage, this report offers important insights for long-term policy-making. Once the experiment is completed, a new cabinet will have to decide what the future cannabis policy will look like. This report can then be used to make informed choices based on international experience and local needs. The report emphasises that policy-making must be a gradual process, with room for adjustment and evaluation based on scientific insights and experiences from other countries.
The research shows that the Netherlands is not alone in its quest for a regulated and responsible cannabis policy. Countries across the world are experimenting with different models and sharing their experiences. The report offers Dutch policy-makers the opportunity to analyse the effectiveness of these models and use them as a springboard for a policy that takes into account both the national context and the dynamics of international cannabis regulation.
This report enables policy-makers to learn lessons from other countries, while the Netherlands prepares for its own evaluations and policy adjustments. By remaining in dialogue with international bodies and learning from the experiences of others, the Netherlands can work on a cannabis policy that puts the health, safety and justice of society at its heart.
After the conclusion of the Experiment
The closed coffeeshop supply chain experiment is currently still in the transitional phase. Once all coffeeshops in the ten selected municipalities are exclusively supplied with legally grown cannabis, the four-year experimental phase will officially begin. The results and evaluations of this experiment will then form an important basis for the final policy decisions.
After completion of the experiment, the cabinet in office at that time will decide what the Dutch coffeeshop and cannabis policy will look like in the future. This report will be used as a reference point to gain insight into the possibilities and limitations of cannabis regulation, as has also been researched in other countries. Until then, there is no question of immediate policy changes. The intention is to take a fully informed decision on future policy once the evaluations of the experiment are available.
Sources:
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2024D37208&did=2024D37208