The Dutch Experiment: Navigating the Transition to a Regulated Cannabis Market in the Netherlands

By Daniel Molina

Oct 8, 2025

Key Summary

• The “Dutch experiment” seeks to resolve a long-standing policy contradiction and will influence international cannabis policy by demonstrating the complexities of shifting from illegal to regulated markets.

• Dutch drug policy, shaped by the 1976 Opium Act, tolerates cannabis sales in coffeeshops. However, coffeeshops would source cannabis illegally, leading to crime and health risks and prompting the government to reform.

• The Controlled Cannabis Supply Chain Experiment (CCSC) was initiated in 2017. It involves ten diverse municipalities and ten designated growers selected through a lottery and integrity screenings, with about 80 coffeeshops participating. 

• The experiment is a large-scale research project comparing participating municipalities with controls, with annual monitoring and a final evaluation to assess impacts on crime, public health, and nuisance. 

For decades, the Netherlands has been synonymous with a uniquely liberal approach to cannabis, centered around its famous “coffeeshops.” However, this system has long operated under a fundamental legal paradox. While the sale of cannabis to consumers at the “front door” of these establishments has been tolerated, the production and supply chain feeding the “back door” remained illegal. This dichotomy fostered a gray market rife with public order challenges, health risks from unregulated products, and the deep involvement of organized crime.

In a landmark move to address these systemic issues, the Dutch government has launched the Controlled Cannabis Supply Chain Experiment (CCSC), or the Wietexperiment. This ambitious, multi-year trial aims to create a fully closed, regulated system—from legal cultivation to quality-controlled retail—to determine if a legal cannabis market is a viable future for the Netherlands and, potentially, a model for the world.

This article comprehensively analyzes the experiment, from its historical roots to its current challenges and future implications.

A History of Pragmatism and Paradox: The Evolution of Dutch Drug Policy

The Netherlands' distinctive drug policy is a product of its unique social and political history. The cultural shifts of the 1960s broke down the country's traditional, religiously-demarcated social “pillars,” fostering a society built on pragmatism, consensus, and social tolerance. When drug use emerged as a social phenomenon, the Dutch response was shaped by this context.

The 1976 Opium Act: A Policy of Separation

The cornerstone of modern Dutch drug policy is the revised Opium Act of 1976. Rather than outright prohibition, the law was built on a “risk-criterion,” making a clear legal distinction between drugs with “unacceptable risks” (List I, or “hard drugs” like heroin and cocaine) and those with acceptable risks (List II, primarily “soft drugs” like cannabis).

The primary goal of this legislation was the separation of markets. The government sought to create a controlled environment where cannabis users would not be exposed to the more dangerous hard drug scene. This was achieved through a policy of non-enforcement known as the gedoogbeleid, or tolerance policy, underpinned by the “expediency principle” in Dutch law, which allows public prosecutors to refrain from pressing charges if it serves the public interest.

Under this policy, coffeeshops were tolerated under strict conditions (the “AHOJ-G” criteria):

• No Advertising (“A”)

• No Hard drugs (“H”)

• No public nuisance (“O”)

• No sales to youth under 18 (“J”)

• No sales of large quantities (over 5 grams per transaction) and limited stock (500 grams) (“G”)

The “Back Door” Problem

While this policy successfully separated the consumer markets, it created an untenable legal fiction. Coffeeshop owners, operating legally at the front door, were forced to source their products from an illegal and unregulated criminal network at the back door. This paradox has been cited for years by local administrators as a source of crime, public nuisance, and health risks from untested products.

By the 2020s, the Dutch government acknowledged that its historical approach had been “too naive”. It had allowed the Netherlands to become a “crucial hub in the global drug trade,” a reality underscored by the brutal assassinations of individuals involved in prosecuting organized crime, such as lawyer Derk Wiersum and journalist Peter R. de Vries. This growing pressure and the acknowledged “bankruptcy of tolerance” created the political will for fundamental reform.

The Dutch Drug Landscape: A Statistical Snapshot

Data from the years before its implementation are crucial for understanding the context in which the experiment was launched.

Coffeeshops: As of 2023, there were approximately 570 coffeeshops spread across 102 municipalities in the Netherlands. This is roughly consistent with data from 2017, which shows 573 coffee shops in 103 municipalities.

Cannabis Use: A 2015 national survey found that 16.1% of young adults (ages 15-34) had used cannabis in the past year. An estimated 1.5% of the general population (15-64) used cannabis daily or near-daily. The total number of soft drug users was estimated at around 300,000, or two percent of the population.

Public Health: Cannabis users constitute the largest group of first-time entrants into drug treatment programs.

Law Enforcement: In 2015, over 20,503 offenses against the Opium Act were registered by public prosecutors.

The Experiment Unfolds: A Timeline of Progress and Setbacks

The path from conception to implementation has been a multi-year journey marked by careful planning, legislative action, and significant delays.

2017-2019: Conception and Legislation

• October 2017: The plan for an experiment with a closed cannabis supply chain is included in the “Confidence in the Future” coalition agreement.

• June 2018: An advisory committee chaired by Professor André Knottnerus releases a foundational report, “An experiment with a closed cannabis chain,” outlining a comprehensive design. It recommends strict quality controls, secure transport, a track-and-trace system, and a robust research framework comparing participating municipalities with control groups.

• August 2019: Ten municipalities are nominated to participate.

• November 2019: The Controlled Cannabis Supply Chain Experiment Act is passed by the Senate, providing the legal basis for the trial.

2020-2023: The Preparatory Phase

• July 2020: The preparatory phase officially begins, and the application process for growers opens.

• December 2020: With more qualified applicants than the 10 available spots, a lottery is held to select potential growers.

• 2021-2022: Selected growers undergo extensive probity and integrity screenings before being officially designated. This process and growers' difficulties in securing operational locations and bank accounts due to money laundering regulations lead to significant delays.

• March 2022: The government formally announces the first major delay, pushing the experiment's start from late 2022 to the second quarter of 2023.

December 2023 - May 2024: The Start-Up Phase

December 15, 2023: a limited start-up phase begins in the municipalities of Breda and Tilburg. Two designated growers begin supplying coffeeshops, which are permitted to sell regulated and tolerated (illegal) products.

This phase served as a real-world test for all systems and processes. Key lessons included the finding that the initial 500g stock limit for regulated products was impractical and was subsequently raised to a week's supply, and that the Track & Trace system required significant user training and technical improvements.

June 2024 - April 2025: The Transitional Phase & Delays

On June 17, 2024, the experiment expands into the transitional phase, covering all 10 participating municipalities. Coffeeshops are allowed to sell legal and illegal stock to introduce consumers to new products gradually.

The experimental phase (legal-only sales) was scheduled to begin on September 16, 2024. However, the government announced an indefinite delay in an August 5, 2024, letter to Parliament. Monitoring revealed that growers were not meeting the quantity, quality, and diversity preconditions—especially for hashish—needed to fully supply the market and prevent a resurgence of street dealing.

Following months of monitoring and intense discussions with stakeholders, the government set a new start date for the full experimental phase.

April 2025: The Experimental Phase Begins

On April 7, 2025, the four-year experimental phase officially launched. Coffeeshops in the 10 municipalities are now, by law, only permitted to sell regulated, quality-controlled, and tracked cannabis products supplied by the designated growers.

Reflecting ongoing supply concerns, a key exception was made: the ban on selling tolerated (illegal) hashish would not be enforced until September 1, 2025, giving growers more time to ramp up production of this difficult-to-produce product.

The Key Players: Municipalities, Growers, and Coffeeshops

The experiment brings together a wide range of public and private entities in a complex, interconnected chain.

The trial takes place in ten municipalities selected for their geographic and demographic diversity. The government has also proposed adding an eleventh participant, the Oost district of Amsterdam, a move requiring a legislative amendment, which has not occurred. The ten municipalities are:

1. Almere

2. Arnhem

3. Breda

4. Groningen

5. Heerlen

6. Maastricht

7. Nijmegen

8. Tilburg

9. Voorne aan Zee (which includes the formerly nominated Hellevoetsluis)

10. Zaanstad

After a rigorous selection, not without its issues, process that included a lottery and integrity screenings, these ten companies were designated to cultivate cannabis for the experiment legally:

1. Aardachtig (Earthy)

2. CanAdelaar

3. Cookies (as in the international brand)

4. Fyta Group

5. Holigram (Grassmeijers / Stichting Joinus)

6. Hollandse Hoogtes (Dutch Heights)

7. Leli Holland (a subsidiary of the Canadian public company Village Farms International)

8. Linsboer B.V. (The Plug)

9. Q-Farms (STRONG)

10. The Growery (Aurora)

Approximately 80 coffeeshops across the ten municipalities are taking part in the experiment. A March 2025 letter from the Steering Group Experiment Coffee Shops (SEC) listed 57 of these participants (grouped by municipality):

1. Arnhem (10): De Walm, Happy Days, Joint Venture, Lucky Luke, Omigo, Speak Easy, THC, Uncle Sam, Upstairs, Zero Zero.

2. Breda (6): Fly’n Hy, Majestic, Pax, Purple Rain, Sky, The Cat.

3. Groningen (5): Dees, Driemaster, Metamorphose, Rag-a-Muffin, Retro.

4. Maastricht (14): Black Widow, Boni, Club 69, Cool Running, Easy Going, Fantasia, Kosbor, Lucky Time/Mary Jane, Maxcy’s, Mississippi, Missouri, Roundabout 69, Slow Motion, Smokey Boot.

5. Nijmegen (10): Dakota, Dreadlock, Headshop, Ketama, Kronkel, Kruidentuin, ’t Kunstje, Lucky Luke, Wedren, Wonder.

6. Tilburg (9): Africa, Crackers, De Muze, Maximillian, Pasja, Shiva, The Grass Company, The Grass Company Piusstraat, Toermalijn.

7. Voorne aan Zee (2): Barbershop, Jon & Co.

8. Zaanstad (1): Squad.

Navigating the Transition: Tensions and Challenges

The transition from a decades-old illegal supply chain to a fully regulated one has been fraught with challenges, revealing a significant gap between government projections and the on-the-ground reality for operators.

Persistent Supply and Quality Issues

The most significant hurdle has been the designated growers' inability to produce a sufficient quantity, quality, and diversity of products to meet consumer demand. In a March 2025 “fire letter” to mayors, coffeeshop organizations declared the planned full transition “unworkable,” citing persistent shortages of affordable flower, quality hashish, pre-rolled joints, edibles, and popular legacy strains like Amnesia and White Widow.

Coffeeshop owners reported that the quality of regulated hashish was particularly poor, a point the government acknowledged by explaining that legally produced hash cannot be expected to have the same characteristics as illegal Moroccan hash made under very different conditions. These supply issues fueled fears that customers would turn to the illicit street market, undermining a core goal of the experiment.

Market Dynamics and Grower Accountability

Only a few of the ten growers were fully operational during the transitional phase, and coffeeshops complained that this gave producers undue market power, leading to preferential treatment for some shops, enforced minimum order quantities, and price discrepancies.

In response to these delays, the government imposed a “nine-month compliance requirement” in August 2024 on the five growers who had not yet begun cultivation, threatening to revoke their designation if they failed to become operational. While the government insisted in March 2025 that monitoring showed the criteria would be met by the April 7 start date, retailers' concerns were not fully resolved.

The Regulated Framework: Products, Consumers, and Research

Product Standards and Offerings

A key benefit of the experiment for consumers is access to quality-controlled cannabis. All products are tested by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) for contaminants like heavy metals and for THC and CBD content. The product assortment legally available includes:

• Dried flower (weed)

• Hashish

• Pre-rolled joints (must be prepared and packaged by the grower)

• Edibles (must be made with “raw” cannabis, not concentrates, and prepared by the grower)

Research and Evaluation

At its core, the experiment is a large-scale research project commissioned by the Research and Data Centre (WODC). An independent research consortium is conducting a quasi-experimental study, comparing outcomes in the ten participating municipalities against a set of control municipalities where the old tolerance policy remains in effect. Researchers will produce annual monitoring reports, with a final evaluation after approximately 2.5 years, to measure the effects on crime, safety, public nuisance, and public health. An independent guidance and evaluation committee will oversee the research and present a final evaluation to the government.

Conclusion: The High Stakes of the Dutch Experiment

The Netherlands' Controlled Cannabis Supply Chain Experiment represents a pivotal moment in the country's long and complex history with the plant. It is a pragmatic attempt to solve the central contradiction of its world-famous tolerance policy by creating a transparent, controllable, and legal market from seed to sale.

The path has been challenging, marked by delays, supply chain disruptions, and tensions between regulators and operators. The success of the four-year experimental phase is far from guaranteed. It will depend on whether the ten designated growers can consistently supply a diverse range of high-quality products to compete successfully with and displace the entrenched illicit market.

The stakes are incredibly high. The results of this trial will not only determine the future of cannabis policy in the Netherlands but will also be closely watched by governments across the globe. For the international cannabis industry, the Dutch experiment offers invaluable lessons on the complexities of transitioning from a legacy market to a fully regulated system. Its successes and failures will undoubtedly shape cannabis policy debates for years to come.

Interested in International Developments in Cannabis Policy?

Are you interested in understanding more about the implications of the Netherlands' Controlled Cannabis Supply Chain Experiment, or other new international approaches to cannabis, hemp, and psychedelic medicine? Vicente LLP is here to help. Our team of experts can provide you with in-depth insights and guidance on navigating the complexities of any new regulatory landscape. 

Stay ahead in the evolving cannabis market. If you want to learn more about recent developments in federal and international cannabis law and policy and how these changes could impact your business, contact Vicente LLP today.