Local application by municipality

According to the CCV overview six municipalities currently enforce the I-criterion actively: Breda, Dordrecht, Maastricht, Sittard-Geleen, Heerlen and Terneuzen. There drug tourism plays a major role and reducing nuisance is the primary reason. Other border municipalities have let enforcement go: Venlo scaled back as early as 2012, Tilburg stopped on 1 March 2018, Vlissingen has stopped, and Goes has been running a non-enforcement pilot since 2024. In Roermond the criterion has low priority, which in practice means it is not enforced.

In the major cities in the west and centre of the Netherlands enforcement has effectively been let go. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht steer through the number and dispersal of outlets, prevention and location-specific nuisance measures. In between sits a middle group — including Brabant cities without a direct border location — where the criterion is in policy but enforced only on signals.

• Border location. The shorter the drive from Belgium, Germany or France, the more visible the influx and the associated parking, traffic and runner nuisance.
• Alternative market. In a city with a large street dealing scene, the risk of displacement outweighs the gain of a closed door.
• Enforceability. Checking residence takes capacity from inspectors and police; that capacity is scarce and competes with other priorities.
• Political balance. Coffeeshop policy is set by the mayor, with the council as political context. Elections shift the picture.

The picture shifts continuously. Municipalities adjust their approach based on new nuisance signals, political majorities or signals from operators. An up-to-date overview requires monitoring, because formal policy changes are not always immediately visible in national registers. The map in this dossier gives the broad picture; the local policy document is always decisive.