What Can We Learn from the Dutch Cannabis Coffeeshop Experience?

Robert J. MacCoun

Published Jul 6, 2010

In 1976 the Netherlands adopted a formal written policy of non-enforcement for violations involving possession or sale of up to 30 grams of cannabis. In the US, the "gateway theory" is usually seen as an argument for being tough on cannabis, but surprisingly, the notion of a gateway effect was part of the impetus for allowing coffeeshops to sell small quantities. Rather than seeing an inexorable psychophamacological link between marijuana and hard drugs, the Dutch hypothesized that the link was sociological, and they sought a way to "separate the markets" to keep soft drug users out of contact with hard drug addicts and dealers. The Dutch experience is challenging to characterize, because it is a moving target. The Dutch policy continues to evolve in response to internal and external political pressures as well as the nation's inherently pragmatic "learning by doing" orientation to drug problems. The purpose of this paper is to see what California can learn about potential policy options and outcomes by drawing on the Dutch experience.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

RAND Style Manual
MacCoun, Robert J., What Can We Learn from the Dutch Cannabis Coffeeshop Experience? RAND Corporation, WR-768-RC, 2010. As of September 10, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR768.html
Chicago Manual of Style
MacCoun, Robert J., What Can We Learn from the Dutch Cannabis Coffeeshop Experience? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2010. https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR768.html.
BibTeX RIS

The research in this report was conducted by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center.

This publication is part of the RAND working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers' latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND but may not have been formally edited or peer reviewed.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.