Part of: Residents criterion (I-criterion)
What we know about the impact on street dealing, nuisance and visitor numbers.
What research shows
Various studies — including by the WODC and local evaluations — point to a mixed picture. On the one hand the I-criterion can curb drug tourism at specific locations: the number of foreign visitors in enforcing cities demonstrably falls, and the associated traffic and parking nuisance decreases.
On the other hand strict enforcement in border cities leads to a shift toward street dealing and illegal sales points, with negative effects on safety and public health. Part of the gain at the front door is handed back at the back door.
What we do not know well
- Net effect on nuisance. Visible nuisance in the city centre and invisible nuisance in residential areas are rarely measured on one scale.
- Health effect. What it means that part of the users move to an uncontrolled circuit is poorly captured in data.
- Comparability. Municipalities measure differently and at different times, making national conclusions shaky.
The tipping point
Several municipalities have scaled back strict enforcement on this basis, or never introduced it. The trade-off comes down to one question: does the gain in nuisance reduction outweigh the shift toward an unregulated alternative? The answer differs per municipality — which is exactly why a uniform national regime does not work.