Tolerating imperfection: The continuity of the Dutch cannabis policy in an international perspective, 1994-2023

Abstract

For decades, the Netherlands, by decriminalizing cannabis sale in ‘coffeeshops’, had a uniquely liberal cannabis policy. However, from 1995 onwards, this cannabis policy has been made more repressive: the amount of cannabis that could be carried without risking penalties was lowered, and stricter regulations for coffeeshops were developed. Meanwhile, in recent years, more and more countries and states have moved in the opposite direction, by legalizing cannabis. Using John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, this thesis investigates why Dutch cannabis policy was made less liberal in the period 1994-2023, while it was liberalized in other states and countries. Just like earlier literature, this thesis found that international law and international pressure played an important role in blocking liberalization in the 1990s. However, international pressure only partly explains the subsequent de-liberalization of cannabis policy. Domestic concerns about coffeeshop-related nuisance and crime were a more important factor explaining the new, stricter regulation of coffeeshops and the increased enforcement efforts. The updated, stricter cannabis policy was mostly continued in the following decades, with only relatively minor changes. This can be explained by a gridlock in parliament: neither pro-liberalization parties, nor parties favoring prohibitionist solutions could rely on a sustained parliamentary majority. They were dependent on the moderate VVD, which blocked most change, aside from several repressive measures aimed at combating nuisance. The large parties PvdA and CDA, when part of a coalition, also did not always spend a lot of effort on changing cannabis policy. This reluctance to change cannabis policy can be explained by the fact that significant cannabis policy change in either direction would have high political costs, high risks, and uncertain rewards. A comparison with U.S. states, Uruguay, Canada and Germany, where cannabis has been legalized, shows that advancing the rights of cannabis users was an important factor for cannabis policy change in most of those countries. In the Netherlands, however, cannabis users’ rights were already secured in the 1970s. This helps explain why impetus for further liberalization has been comparatively low in the Netherlands. It also shows that the situation in the Netherlands is more comparable to these countries than to other countries where cannabis has not been legalized.