The Netherlands Publishes First Results From Its Regulated Cannabis Experiment: More Choice, Lower Prices and an Illicit Market That Persists

The findings come from the first follow-up assessment of the Gesloten Coffeeshopketen experiment, currently being conducted across ten Dutch municipalities. The study was carried out by Breuer&Intraval, RAND Europe and the Trimbos Institute on behalf of the WODC, the Research and Data Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security. Researchers compared developments in the participating municipalities with those in ten other municipalities where the traditional supply model remains in place.

The experimental phase began on 7 April 2025, and the data included in this first assessment cover the period up to the first quarter of 2026. These are therefore still preliminary findings: the experiment will run for four years, with further assessments to be conducted ahead of the final evaluation scheduled for 2028. Even so, this first snapshot already reveals some significant changes in how the market is operating.

More variety and new products in coffeeshops

One of the clearest findings is an increase in product choice. Coffeeshops in the participating municipalities now offer more cannabis strains, types of hash and pre-rolls than they did before the experiment began. Moreover, this expansion in product range was greater than that recorded in the ten comparison municipalities, which are not participating in the experiment and where coffeeshops continue to operate under the traditional, unregulated supply model.

Regulation has also broadened the types of products available. Edibles, vapes and concentrates have begun appearing in many of the participating establishments, although this diversification has raised a new concern among municipalities and prevention organisations: some of these products are being sold with very high THC concentrations, prompting questions over whether consumers are receiving enough information to properly understand their potency and dosage. The government has already revised the consumer information provided with these products and commissioned the Trimbos Institute to conduct specific research into high-potency cannabis.

Developments on the supply side are particularly interesting because one of the main challenges during the experiment's initial rollout was ensuring that enough regulated cannabis was available. The situation is now beginning to reverse. During interviews conducted as part of the study, some producers warned that growing production capacity is bringing the sector closer to a situation of oversupply, with inventories building up and downward pressure on prices.

 

Cannabis prices fall, while hash prices nearly double

Prices provide a clear illustration of this imbalance. The average price of domestically produced regulated cannabis fell from €11.55 per gram before the experiment to €10.09 during this first phase. In municipalities where the previous system remains in place, the change was much smaller, from €11.23 to €11.04 per gram.

Hash followed exactly the opposite trajectory. In the experimental municipalities, the average price rose from €11.67 to €21.12 per gram, while in the comparison municipalities it increased from €10.62 to €12.65. The explanation appears to lie, at least partly, in the supply problems that accompanied the early stages of the experiment. It took longer for the regulated hash market to achieve sufficient volume and variety, to the extent that the requirement to sell exclusively hash supplied by licensed producers was not fully implemented until September 2025.

Consumer behaviour appears to have responded accordingly. The study recorded an increase in the amount of hash purchased through illicit transactions in the participating municipalities, while some consumers appear to have shifted their preference towards cannabis flower. The researchers themselves note that both trends may be linked to the shortage of regulated hash during the first few months.

The illicit market still has customers

One of the experiment's main objectives is to determine the extent to which a regulated supply chain can displace the illicit market. For now, the latter remains active, although researchers caution that they are not yet able to accurately determine its size or establish a clear effect of the experiment on illegal sales.

The reasons consumers give for continuing to buy outside coffeeshops are revealing:

• Lower prices
• Perceived better value for money
• The ability to purchase larger quantities

Delivery services and dealers contacted by phone or messaging apps remain the main channels used. The findings therefore highlight one of the practical challenges involved in cannabis regulation. Simply providing a legal alternative does not automatically eliminate the illicit market. To displace it, the regulated market must also compete on availability, variety and price. What happened with hash during the first few months provides a clear example: when legal supply failed to adequately meet demand, some consumers turned to illicit sources.

More cannabis available, but NO increase in consumption

Perhaps one of the most significant findings from this first evaluation is precisely what has NOT happened. The increase in legal supply has not, so far, translated into a noticeable rise in cannabis consumption. Researchers found no significant differences between participating and comparison municipalities in the number of coffeeshop visitors, frequency of visits, number of days cannabis was consumed per month or number of joints consumed per day.

Nor were there any clear changes attributable to the experiment in indicators relating to health, wellbeing or problematic cannabis use. Some purchasing patterns did change, however. Customers at participating coffeeshops rated the value for money of cannabis flower more positively than before the experiment, while the average amount purchased per transaction also increased.

The proportion of consumers who reported primarily using cannabis flower rather than hash or a combination of the two also increased. Researchers nevertheless stress that it is still too early to determine exactly what these changes mean.

No clear effects have yet been identified in terms of safety or quality of life around coffeeshops either. Ratings for quality of life in these areas remained between 7.6 and 7.8 out of ten, broadly in line with the levels recorded before the experiment. Although complaints relating to noise, traffic and people loitering increased, similar increases were also observed in the comparison municipalities, meaning they cannot be directly attributed to the new model.

A more transparent supply chain, but still a work in progress

Beyond prices and consumption, the study identifies another, less visible change: regulation has increased transparency throughout the supply chain. Producers, coffeeshops, municipalities and regulatory authorities now have access to more information about the origin of cannabis and the conditions under which it was produced, while the traceability system makes it possible to track products from cultivation through to retail sale.

Implementation has not been entirely smooth. During the first few months, there were complaints about a complex and failure-prone track & trace system, although many of these problems appear to have diminished as the experiment has progressed. It is precisely this adjustment period that means the initial findings need to be interpreted with caution.

Data collection took place relatively soon after the experiment began, and part of the period analysed was still affected by supply problems, particularly for hash. The WODC itself stresses that it is not yet possible to establish unequivocal effects on cannabis consumption, public health, safety, quality of life or the illicit market. Despite these limitations, the first evaluation is beginning to provide some interesting indications.

The regulated cannabis market has managed to expand product choice and compete on price in the cannabis flower segment without, so far, producing an overall increase in consumption. At the same time, the problems surrounding hash demonstrate that the illicit market retains a foothold when regulated products are scarce or too expensive. Future reports will help determine whether these early developments are simply teething problems or signs of some of the structural challenges involved in creating a fully regulated cannabis market.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Netherlands' regulated cannabis experiment?

It is a Dutch government project designed to examine what happens when coffeeshops begin sourcing their cannabis through a regulated supply chain. The experiment is taking place in ten municipalities, where participating coffeeshops sell cannabis produced by licensed growers and subject to traceability and quality-control requirements. The results are compared with those from ten other municipalities that are not participating in the experiment and continue to operate under the traditional supply model.

What are the first results of the Netherlands' cannabis experiment?

The first evaluation shows that the range of cannabis products available has increased in participating municipalities, while the average price of regulated cannabis flower has fallen from €11.55 to €10.09 per gram. So far, no significant increase in cannabis consumption attributable to the experiment has been observed. However, regulated hash has faced supply problems and sharp price increases, while the illicit market remains active.

Has regulated cannabis reduced the illicit market in the Netherlands?

It is still too early to say. The initial findings show that some consumers continue to buy from illicit sources, mainly because of price, perceived value for money and the ability to purchase larger quantities. The experience with hash also suggests that when regulated supply is insufficient or too expensive, some demand may shift back towards unregulated channels.