Key Takeaways
- The Dutch Controlled Cannabis Supply Chain Experiment began in April 2025, allowing ten municipalities to sell only licensed cannabis.
- Prices for regulated cannabis flower dropped significantly, while hash prices nearly doubled due to limited supply.
- There was no increase in cannabis use or local crime rates after the regulation, but some nuisance indicators slightly rose.
- Consumers still prefer the unregulated market for lower prices and bulk purchasing options, particularly for hash.
- Future evaluations and political decisions regarding the experiment’s continuation are scheduled for 2028 and 2029.
The Netherlands has spent decades living with what officials call the “backdoor problem.” Coffeeshops could legally sell cannabis under a tolerance policy known as gedoogbeleid, yet the cultivation supplying those shops stayed entirely outside the law. In April 2025, ten municipalities began testing a fix: a fully closed supply chain where coffeeshops sell only cannabis grown by licensed producers.
The first follow-up report, covering April 2025 through the first quarter of 2026, is now public. Conducted by Breuer&Intraval, RAND Europe, and the Trimbos Institute on behalf of the WODC research center, the study compares those ten intervention municipalities (Groningen, Almere, Arnhem, Nijmegen, Zaanstad, Voorne aan Zee, Breda, Tilburg, Maastricht, and Heerlen) against ten comparison municipalities that kept the old tolerated model.
The results complicate two convenient stories at once. Regulation didn’t trigger a surge in use or a decline in neighborhood safety, but it also didn’t wipe out the unregulated market. Instead, the data points to something more specific: legal flower competed well on price, while legal hash struggled to give consumers what they were already buying elsewhere.
How Much Did Regulated Cannabis Flower Prices Drop in the Netherlands?
Flower was where the experiment delivered its clearest win. In the ten intervention municipalities, the average price of regulated cannabis flower fell from €11.55 to €10.09 per gram between the baseline measurement and this first follow-up. Comparison municipalities, still operating under the old toleration policy, saw almost no movement, dipping only from €11.23 to €11.04.
That gap matters. It suggests the drop wasn’t a broader market trend but something tied directly to the regulated supply chain taking hold. Domestically grown regulated flower, referred to in Dutch as nederwiet, saw the sharpest declines, according to the RAND Europe report.
Coffeeshop menus also grew more varied. By the time researchers ran this follow-up, participating shops were offering more strains, more pre-rolled joints, and a wider spread of edibles, vapes, and concentrates than before. Nearly all coffeeshops in intervention municipalities now carry edibles, and roughly six in ten sell vapes.
Consumers noticed the price shift. Surveyed visitors in intervention municipalities rated the price-to-quality ratio of flower more positively than they had at baseline. They also bought larger quantities of flower per transaction, a detail researchers flagged as notable since it didn’t come paired with more frequent visits or higher reported use.
Why Did Hash Prices Nearly Double Under the Cannabis Regulation Experiment?
Hash told a different story entirely. In the same intervention municipalities, the average price of regulated hash climbed from €11.67 to €21.12 per gram, nearly double where it started. Comparison municipalities saw a much smaller increase, from €10.62 to €12.65.
Researchers pointed to a straightforward explanation: limited regulated supply. Licensed growers ramped up flower production faster than hash production, and coffeeshops in the early rollout period struggled to keep hash on shelves at all. That scarcity pushed prices upward and pushed some buyers toward the unregulated market instead.
The knock-on effects reached beyond coffeeshop counters. The study found that the average quantity of hash purchased per unregulated transaction increased in intervention municipalities during this period, while it fell in comparison municipalities. Researchers suggested this reflects consumers stocking up illegally to make up for what regulated shops couldn’t reliably provide.
By the time of the T1 measurement, all ten licensed growers were operational, and the supply picture had started to shift again. Growers who once worried about shortages are now flagging the opposite problem: mounting stockpiles and price pressure from overproduction, according to Business of Cannabis. Some are reportedly redirecting capacity toward hash to close the gap, though it’s too early to say whether that will bring prices back down.
Did the Cannabis Trial Change Coffeeshop Visits or Neighborhood Safety?
One of the more notable findings is what didn’t change. Across both intervention and comparison municipalities, the number of coffeeshop visitors and how often they visited stayed consistent with baseline levels. Self-reported cannabis use held steady too, as did the share of respondents classified at increased risk of problematic use under standard screening measures.
Neighborhood conditions showed a similar pattern of stability. People living or working near coffeeshops rated their local liveability at levels comparable to baseline, and roughly one in five respondents in both groups reported being a crime victim in their neighborhood over the past six months. That figure lines up with national averages, suggesting the experiment hasn’t measurably shifted local crime exposure either way.
Some nuisance indicators, like loitering, traffic, and noise, did tick up slightly compared to baseline, and slightly more so in intervention municipalities than comparison ones. Researchers were careful to note this rise appeared in both groups, which makes it harder to attribute directly to the regulated supply model.
Health officials, coffeeshop owners, and researchers all flagged a separate concern worth watching: high-potency edibles, vapes, and concentrates. Stakeholders reported that consumers aren’t always clear on strength or appropriate dosing for these products. In response, the Dutch cabinet updated its consumer information leaflet and commissioned the Trimbos Institute to study high-potency products specifically, according to the official policy response submitted to parliament.
Why Does the Unregulated Cannabis Market Still Compete in the Netherlands?
Regulation hasn’t erased the unregulated market, and the report is candid about why. Consumers who continue buying outside coffeeshops cite three consistent reasons: lower prices, better perceived value, and the ability to purchase larger quantities than coffeeshops legally allow.
- Lower prices, particularly for hash, which stayed cheaper on the unregulated market throughout the measurement period
- Bulk purchasing options that regulated coffeeshops, bound by legal purchase limits, can’t match
- Delivery services and phone or app-based dealers, which remain the most common channels for ungregulated purchases
This is the core tension the evaluation surfaces. Legal flower succeeded because it could match or beat unregulated pricing while offering the added benefit of a transparent, tracked supply chain. Legal hash hasn’t achieved the same thing yet, largely because production lagged behind consumer demand during the rollout window this report covers.
What Comes Next for the Dutch Cannabis Experiment?
This T1 report is one snapshot in a longer research timeline. Two more follow-up measurements, T2 and T3, are scheduled before a full evaluation arrives in 2028. A political decision on whether to scale the program nationally is expected in 2029.
For now, growers, coffeeshop owners, and municipalities are asking for something the cabinet hasn’t fully delivered yet: clarity. Uncertainty about whether the experiment will expand, continue, or wind down is reportedly discouraging exactly the kind of long-term investment in production capacity that could resolve the hash shortage. The cabinet has committed to twice-yearly consultations with participating municipalities to address concerns as they arise, but structural questions about scale and permanence remain open until the 2028 evaluation.
What this first follow-up does establish is more modest than a verdict, but still meaningful. Regulating cannabis supply didn’t create the surge in use that critics predicted. It also didn’t automatically solve the unregulated market problem that supporters hoped for. Instead, it revealed something more useful: exactly where the regulated system delivers value, and exactly where it still needs to catch up with what consumers actually want.
Frequently Asked Questions
It’s a Netherlands pilot program that started in April 2025, requiring coffeeshops in ten municipalities to sell only cannabis produced by licensed, regulated growers instead of the previously unregulated backdoor supply chain.
No. The first follow-up evaluation found no significant change in coffeeshop visitor numbers, visit frequency, or self-reported cannabis use in intervention municipalities compared to baseline or to comparison municipalities.
Regulated hash production lagged behind flower production during the rollout, creating shortages that pushed prices from €11.67 to €21.12 per gram. Limited legal supply pushed some buyers back toward the unregulated market.
Yes. Consumers continue buying outside coffeeshops for lower prices, better perceived value, and the ability to purchase larger quantities, particularly for hash, where regulated supply hasn’t caught up with demand.
Two more follow-up measurements are planned before a full evaluation in 2028. The Dutch cabinet expects to make a political decision on scaling the program nationally in 2029.
