Franz Trautmann

National cannabis policy in the Netherlands since the 1990s:

Swing time for the pendulum

1

What made the policy window open?

Various factors played a role, a.o.

• Social and political developments / changes

end of 1960s:

– Protest youth movement (the Provos) –

changing youth culture – increasing drug use

• A cautious trend away from a drug policy

based on abstinence and prohibition

• Local initiatives to regulate cannabis selling

2

What made the policy window close?

• International criticism on liberal Dutch approach

• Weaknesses of cannabis/coffeeshop policy:

– Coffeeshops grew from small alternative to

big/commercial business

– Contradictory approach: regulated front door and ‘illegal’

backdoor (interesting for organised crime)

– Drug tourism: public nuisance

• Rising social-political conservatism

– Supported by economic crisis

– Public debate dominated by conservative agenda

3

What made the policy window close?

• Increased focus on supply reduction

• Increased focus on security issues, public order, enforcement

of laws

• Intensified police actions against (large scale) cannabis

growing

• Extending grip of MoJ on drug policy

• Extending grip of national politics on drug policy

– Overruling local politics

• Increasing knowledge base (compared to 1970s) about

– Problem cannabis use and dependency

– Health risks linked with regular use (psychosis and psychosocial

problems)

4

Swing to increased control

• Despite relatively positive results of NL cannabis policy move

towards a more restrictive national policy

• Closing big coffeeshops to reduce nuisance and maintain public

order

• Experiment in the Southern Provinces with the so-called ‘weed

pass’, a mandatory membership card for coffee shops, only

available for residents of the Netherlands registered at the

local council

• Plan to classify cannabis with >15% THC as hard drug

• Intensified police actions against (large scale) cannabis

growing

• But also: Investing in development of prevention and

treatment targeting a.o. (problem) cannabis use

5

Unintended consequences of stricter policy

• Indications that decreasing number of coffeeshops

and introduction 'weed pass' resulted in increase of

uncontrolled street dealing and public nuisance

– No indications for a decrease in demand

• Privacy of registered members of coffeeshops not

guaranteed

– Limited willingness to apply for weed pass supporting

the trend towards more street dealing

• Quality at street dealers less well controllable

• Street dealers more frequently sell other drugs

6

Unintended consequences of stricter policy

• Relocation of cannabis production to Belgium just over the border

– Production still in hand of the same Dutch entrepreneurs

• Increased scale of production (drugs business), spread over small-

scale growing sites to reduce risks of detection/financial loss

• Incentive for involvement of organised crime unchanged

• Inconsistencies and unintended consequences of existing policy

(regulated front door, unregulated back door) contribute to sense

of urgency to make a choice between condoning 'all or nothing’

7

The uneasy balance: Increasing support for a less restrictive approach

• Increasing criticism by national politicians and local authorities on

restrictive cannabis policy measures

– Ineffectiveness and unintended consequences

• Closed club model for coffeeshops and weed pass plan abolished

• ‘Residents criterion’ still stands but cities till now take liberty to

choose the approach they consider best

• Exploring regulation of the back door: Manifest of mayors calling for

regulation of production and cannabis

• Different cities already announced plans for further regulation:

– Utrecht social club of individuals combining the growing of cannabis plants

– Rotterdam and Tilburg produced plans for growing cannabis under municipality

control (including quality control)

• Law proposal to condone production and supply of cannabis

• Increasing support from research, justice, media, public opinion

8

Amending the drug law: Continuation of Dutch condoning policy

• Production and delivering of cannabis (to the coffeeshops)

remain illegal

• Main arguments:

– to stay in line with international conventions (to prohibit

/penalize production and supplying but not actual prosecuting)

– to gain broad support in Parliament

• Two adaptations of the existing drug law:

– Sales of cannabis more explicitly regulated in the law

– Regulation of producing, growing, preparing and processing of

cannabis for coffeeshops and delivering of these products to

coffeeshops

9

Obligations of city council and Mayor

• City councils are entitled to decide whether

coffeeshops are allowed in their municipality

under condition that the owner or exploiter

of the coffeeshop has a formal exemption

permit (by the Mayor) and respects the

conditions stipulated in the permit:

– Transport, storage, max. quantity, AHOJ-G

guidelines, etc.

10

Obligations of city council and Mayor

• In case the council decides to allow coffeeshops it is

obliged by the law to develop a coffeeshop policy

within the framework of the drug law taking into

consideration public health, public order, safety of

individuals and goods

• This policy should specify the rules regarding

advertising, prevention and information, nuisance,

distance from schools, etc.

• It also should specify max number of coffeeshops,

neighborhoods, etc.

11

The most fundamental changes

• Exemptions on the Prohibition of growing / producing

and delivering cannabis also for exploiting coffeeshops

(besides for medical application and research)

• Exemptions can only be provided to a grower who has

been awarded a contract with the MoH.

• This contract also stipulates that the grower has to

take measures to guarantee the safety of persons and

goods involved and that the grower is only allowed to

deliver the produced cannabis to coffeeshops which

have an exemption of a Mayor

12

Medical cannabis, another element of national cannabis policy

• Developed in the shadow of recreational use

debate

• Two favourable factors:

– Not much attention on the issue

– Ample availability of cannabis for recreational use

facilitates system of cannabis for exclusively

medical use

– No would-be medical use like in some States in US

13

Key features

• Bureau Medical Cannabis under MoH

• One exclusive producer (Bedrocan)

• Producing 5 varieties for well-defined conditions

• Available in pharmacies on doctor’s prescription

• Used by vaporizer or solved in water

• Some health insurance companies reimbourse costs

14

Thank you for your attention

Franz Trautmann

ftrautmann@trimbos.nl

15