Part of: Residents criterion (I-criterion)
Why the debate differs in Limburg, Brabant and Zeeland compared to the Randstad — and how street dealing fits in.
Why the south is different
The I-criterion emerged as an answer to a concrete problem in the border region: daily flows of visitors from Belgium, Germany and France into a limited number of city centres. The nuisance was not so much the purchase itself, but the traffic, parking, onward selling and the runners intercepting customers.
For municipalities such as Maastricht and Venlo this meant tens of thousands of visitors a week on a scale the city centre could not absorb. In a city like Groningen or Zwolle that problem does not exist, and with it the reason for enforcement is absent.
The displacement effect
Where the door closes, demand does not automatically disappear. Evaluations in the border cities show three shifts:
- To the street. Illegal outlets and drug runners absorb part of the demand, with added risks: no age checks, no product information and hard drugs on offer.
- To other municipalities. Visitors drive on to a municipality that does not enforce, so nuisance moves rather than diminishes.
- To the home market. Local illegal trade grows in Belgium and Germany, beyond any Dutch oversight.
The German factor
Since the partial legalisation of cannabis in Germany the picture in the eastern border strip has been shifting: German supply through cannabis clubs reduces the need to cross the border. That changes the calculation behind the I-criterion — in some places the nuisance pressure it is meant to solve is declining on its own.