Research paper
Tightening the Dutch coffee shop policy: Evaluation of the private club and the residence criterion

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.01.019Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

The Dutch coffee shop policy was tightened in 2012. Two additional criteria that coffee shops must adhere to in order for them to be tolerated came into force: the private club and the residence criterion. Coffee shops were only permitted to give access to members and only residents of the Netherlands were permitted to become a member. This tightened policy sought to make coffee shops smaller and more controllable, to reduce the nuisance associated with coffee shops and to reduce the number of foreign visitors attracted by the coffee shops. Enforcement began in the southern provinces. The private club criterion was abolished at the end of 2012.

Methods

A sample of fourteen municipalities with coffee shops was drawn. Seven in the south were treated as an ‘experimental group’ and the others as ‘comparison group’. A baseline assessment and follow-ups at six and 18 months were performed. A combination of methods was applied: interviews with local experts, surveys with neighbourhood residents, coffee shop visitors and cannabis users, and ethnographic field work.

Results

Drugs tourism to coffee shops swiftly declined in 2012. The coffee shops also lost a large portion of their local customers, since users did not want to register as a member. The illegal market expanded. Neighbourhood residents experienced a greater amount of nuisance caused by dealer activities. After abolishment of the private club criterion, residents of the Netherlands largely returned to the coffee shops. Drug tourists still remained largely absent. Neighbourhood residents experienced more nuisance from coffee shops again. Illegal cannabis sale was tempered. No effect on cannabis use was found.

Conclusion

The quick and robust shifts in the users’ market in reaction to the policy changes illustrate the power of policy, but also the limitations caused by the dynamic and resilient nature of the Dutch cannabis supply market.

Introduction

The Netherlands’ authorities have been tolerating the retail sale of cannabis in coffee shops for more than 25 years (Leuw, 1991). Coffee shop owners are not investigated or prosecuted for selling cannabis, which is a criminal act according to the Opium Act, provided that they comply with certain criteria. The first formalization of these criteria in the Opium Act Directive for the Public Prosecution Service dates from 1991: coffee shops are not allowed to advertise, sell hard drugs, cause nuisance in their vicinity, give entry to youth or sell drugs to them, and sell more than 30 grams per person per day. Compliance is checked periodically by municipalities, local police and tax authorities. Coffee shops need a license from the mayor and the decision to tolerate coffee shops is taken at the municipal level, by the mayor in consultation with the public prosecutor and the police, while the city council has to approve. Coffee shops are commercial enterprises.

The coffee shop system can be classified as a regulatory regime for adults (MacCoun et al., 1996, Spapens et al., 2015). The sale of cannabis in coffee shops is tolerated in order to prevent consumers from entering the more criminal and dangerous illegal drugs markets and to reduce exposure to hard drugs. Coffee shops also offer a safe environment to buy and consume cannabis. The tolerance expresses the primary focus on public health which characterizes the Dutch drug policy (Monshouwer et al., 2011, Van Ooyen-Houben and Kleemans, 2015).

The system, however, struggled with problems of nuisance – parking and traffic problems and to a lesser extent noise and loitering of customers hanging around the coffee shops – and high numbers of coffee shop visitors from abroad, especially in border regions. Some coffee shops became large-scale enterprises. A sharpening of the criteria followed. In 1995, the 30 grams-limit was reduced to five grams, the age for entrance in a coffee shop was specified at 18 years or older, and a 500 grams limit was set for coffee shop stocks of cannabis (Monshouwer et al., 2011). The problems, however, persisted. Local policy measures, like relocation of coffee shops away from the city centre and closure of coffee shops by the local authorities, followed in 2004, 2008 and 2009 (Bieleman et al., 2009, Snippe et al., 2013, Van der Torre et al., 2013a).

In 2010, the cabinet announced a more restrictive national coffee shop policy. The cabinet decided so after the Council of State pronounced a judgement that local regulation via a ‘residence criterion’, which was piloted in one of the municipalities, was legally incompatible with the Opium Act (ECLI:NL:RVS:2011:BQ9684, 29-06-2011). In January 2012, two further criteria that coffee shops must adhere to in order for them to be tolerated were added to the Opium Act Directive: the private club criterion and the residence criterion. These new criteria implied a drastic change for the Dutch coffee shops because they made an end to the open access which existed until then.

The private club criterion stipulated that coffee shops were only permitted to give access and to sell cannabis products to members and needed to maintain a verifiable members’ list. The residence criterion stipulated that only residents of the Netherlands would be allowed to become a coffee shop member and hence to enter the coffee shops. The main aims of the criteria were to reduce long standing problems of nuisance related to the high number of foreign visitors attracted by the coffee shops (‘drug tourism’), to make coffee shops smaller and more controllable, and to combat crime associated to coffee shops (Tweede Kamer, 2011).

The enforcement of both criteria began in May 2012 in the three southern provinces of the Netherlands. The other (nine) provinces were assumed to follow in 2013. The enforcement started under a cabinet under resignation: the cabinet that introduced the criteria fell on 23 April 2012. The minister of Security and Justice, however, announced full of conviction that he stucks to the criteria. In November 2012, a new cabinet was installed. Although the same minister of Security and Justice remained in office, the new cabinet abolished the private club criterion. The minister stated that it did not have an additional contribution to the intended effects of reducing drugs tourism and the scale of coffee shops and that it caused unintended side effects. The residence criterion was continued, but with a change of rules: since January 2013 actual enforcement can be implemented ‘stepwise if necessary, based on a locally tailored approach’ (Tweede Kamer, 2012). Since January 2013, this amended residence criterion applies throughout the country.

In this article, we report the results of the evaluation study of the new criteria. The study was conducted by the Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Security and Justice, Bureau Intraval and the Bonger Institute of Criminology of the University of Amsterdam.

The study was designed as a realist evaluation based on the ‘intervention logic’ (Astbury and Leeuw, 2010, Pawson and Tilley, 1997). In the logic, the assumptions of policy makers with regard to the problems that had to be solved, the activities that had to be carried out by stakeholders, the intended outcomes and possible side effects were reconstructed using the ‘policy-scientific approach’: policy documents were analyzed and interviews were conducted with 40 stakeholders (Leeuw, 2003). The logic was then used as a framework for evaluation. Research questions were accordingly:

  • 1.

    Did the local implementation of the new national criteria progress as planned?

  • 2.

    Were the intended outcomes realized:

    • -

      Was there a reduction of nuisance around coffee shops?

    • -

      Did coffee shops become smaller and more controllable?

    • -

      Was there a reduction of drug tourism?

  • 3.

    Did the cannabis consumer market outside the coffee shops increase? This was a side effect that was anticipated and for which extra police enforcement capacity was available.

As to outcomes, the study's focus was on public nuisance around coffee shops, drug tourism and size and controllability of coffee shops. Crime in relation to coffee shops (more specifically: cannabis cultivation) was not included in the study because this would need different research methods which were not feasible here.1

Section snippets

Methods

The study covers the period from early 2012 to the end of 2013. In 2012, the new criteria were only enforced in the three southern provinces. No action was taken as yet in the rest of the country. Therefore, in 2012, there was an opportunity to treat municipalities in the three southern provinces as an ‘experimental group’ and municipalities in the rest of the country as a ‘comparison group’ and to research the actual effects of the tightened policy. In early 2012, there were 103 municipalities

Local implementation of the new national criteria

The first research question was whether the local implementation of the new national criteria progressed as planned. Despite initial uncertainties in the national framework, which made it difficult for local actors to apply in practice, enforcement started in May 2012 in the southern provinces. It went hand in hand with an intensive communication campaign aimed at drugs tourists in neighbouring countries. This made the target group well aware of the new rules and contributed to the

Validity of results

The research was performed in a sample representing a cross-section of the coffee shop municipalities in the Netherlands. Large numbers of neighbourhood residents, coffee shop customers and cannabis users were selected randomly. The findings from the various sub-studies, which were performed using different methods and respondents, were triangulated, resulting in a fairly coherent picture. An ‘experimental’ group and a ‘comparison’ group participated in 2012, which improved insight into the net

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out on request of the Ministry of Security and Justice with funding of the Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry.

The authors thank Mark van der Giessen (WODC), Ralph Mennes, Rick Nijkamp and Jacco Snippe (Bureau Intraval), Annemieke Benschop, Ton Nabben and Marije Wouters (Bonger Institute of Criminology, University of Amsterdam) for their contribution to the study.
Conflict of interest: No conflict of interest.

References (28)

  • F.L. Leeuw

    Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved

    American Journal of Evaluation

    (2003)
  • V. Asmussen

    Danish cannabis policy in practice: The closing of ‘Pusher Street’ and the cannabis market in Copenhagen

  • B. Astbury et al.

    Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation

    American Journal of Evaluation

    (2010)
  • B. Beke et al.

    Bergen op Zoom-Roosendaal Drugsscan 2011

    (2012)
  • B. Bieleman et al.

    Coffee shopbezoekers Terneuzen najaar 2009

    (2009)
  • B. Bieleman et al.

    Coffeeshops in Nederland 2014 Aantallen coffeeshops en gemeentelijk beleid 1999–2014

    (2015)
  • J.P. Caulkins

    The need for a dynamic drug policy

    Addiction

    (2007)
  • EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction)

    European Drug Report 2013

    (2014)
  • B. Kilmer et al.

    Better understanding efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs

    (2010)
  • D.J. Korf et al.

    De illegale gebruikersmarkt (the illegal retail market)

  • E. Leuw

    Drugs and drug policy in the Netherlands

    Crime and Justice. A Review of Research

    (1991)
  • R.J. MacCoun et al.

    Assessing alternative drug control regimes

    Journal of Policy Analysis

    (1996)
  • K. Monshouwer et al.

    Buying cannabis in “coffee shops”

    Drug and Alcohol Review

    (2011)
  • R. Nijkamp et al.

    Coffeeshopbezoek

  • Cited by (9)

    • Drug tourism motivation of Chinese outbound tourists: Scale development and validation

      2018, Tourism Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Amsterdam has long been known for its accessibility in commercial drugs and sex, making it one of the world's few drug tourism destinations. The Dutch have generally tolerant attitudes toward drugs, although coffee shops are subject to certain policies (Van Ooyen-Houben, Bieleman & Korf, 2016). Amsterdam's coffee shops (not to be confused with cafés) have been a part of the city since the 1970s and the city has 200 coffee shops.

    • Home closure as a weapon in the Dutch war on drugs: Does judicial review function as a safety net?

      2018, International Journal of Drug Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      We will give an overview of the Dutch drug policy and the use of the closure power under Article 13b Opium Act to deepen our understanding of this relatively unknown aspect of the Dutch war on drugs. Whereas much research has already been conducted on the drug policy in the Netherlands (e.g., Erickson, Leuw, & Marshall, 1994; MacCoun & Reuter, 1997; Ossebaard & Van de Wijngaart, 1998; Boekhout van Solinge, 1999; Korf, 2002; Uitermark, 2004; Reinarman, 2009; Van Ooyen-Houben & Kleemans, 2015; Van Laar, Van der Pol, & Niesink, 2016; Van Ooyen-Houben, Bieleman, & Korf, 2016), the power of local authorities to fight the war on drugs by closing homes received little to no attention within international scholarly literature. Secondly, we use empirical legal research methods to examine the “law in action” (Pound, 1910).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text