Pilot programs are science, legalisation is politics

After fifty years of coffeeshop policy, we already know that regulated cannabis sales work. Yet political parties continue to hide behind “research,” even though their positions have long been determined by ideology.

We often hear that the legalisation of cannabis is only a matter of time — that once the Dutch cannabis experiment concludes, the data will speak for themselves. That is a misconception. The experiment concerns data, measurement and process — but legalisation is a political choice. And politics is not about facts; it is about belief, ideology and power.

It remains remarkable that parties claiming to stand for freedom only defend it when it fits within their own moral framework. For them, freedom is conditional — a privilege, not a principle. The right to self-determination, which in a mature democracy should be beyond dispute, suddenly seems negotiable when it concerns personal choices.

When we send letters to more conservative parties — asking for clarification, or offering to explain the policy context — the response is silence. The same parties that praise “freedom” in every speech go quiet when the subject no longer fits their moral mould.

Politics is shaped by conviction, not by data

Regulation and legalisation are political choices. They touch on values: freedom, responsibility, public health and morality. And that is where the divide becomes visible.

The Dutch Experiment (Experiment gesloten coffeeshopketen) was established as a temporary research project to study the effects of regulated cultivation and sales. It is scientific in nature: measuring, evaluating, reporting. Yet in political practice it is often used as a mechanism for delay. Politicians hide behind “the results of the experiment,” even though their opinions are already formed. Science becomes a shield against political courage.

But the facts have been on the table for decades. The Netherlands does not need to “discover” whether regulated sales work — we have known that for fifty years. Coffeeshops emerged in the 1970s as a pragmatic response to a heroin epidemic that was tearing communities apart. By separating the soft and hard drug markets, they proved their value: public nuisance declined, the number of heroin addicts dropped sharply, and the Netherlands was internationally praised for its realistic approach.

That historical context seems forgotten. Where coffeeshops once formed part of the solution, they are now too often portrayed as the problem. Politicians talk about “risks” and “experiments,” ignoring that this system has functioned for decades without the social collapse they predict. And this is precisely where we see that political decisions are not based on knowledge or experience — but on conviction.

When you review the party positions in the Cannabis Voting Guide (Cannabis Kieswijzer), it becomes clear how little the debate is still connected to facts, and how much it is driven by moral conviction. The differences are stark, yet predictable. Many parties appear to base their judgment not on evidence or the outcomes of the experiment, but on moral belief or political positioning.

The PVV sits firmly at the bottom: against regulation, against expansion of the experiment, and in favour of strict enforcement of prohibition. The party calls the experiment “a wrong signal” and seizes every opportunity to argue for its reversal.

The BBB follows a similar path, emphasising “protection” and “a healthy lifestyle” — phrases that sound benevolent but amount to paternalism in practice.

The SGP is at least honest: it believes freedom may be limited when morality demands it.

The VVD maintains the experiment as a trial but avoids any commitment to next steps, preferring bureaucratic comfort over vision: first evaluation, then perhaps a decision.

And then there is JA21, which for years remained silent on cannabis but, according to the Cannabis Voting Guide 2025, now takes a more constructive stance. The party supports expansion or even legalisation of the experiment — a welcome shift that shows space for realism is finally emerging within the political centre-right. That evolution deserves recognition, as it opens a debate others still refuse to have. The cannabis debate is not a matter of science, but of belief. Political parties use the experiment to reaffirm their ideological boundaries.

The pattern extends further

This pattern is not limited to cannabis. The same tension between freedom and morality surfaced in recent debates on nicotine products and vapes. In the parliamentary review of nicotine pouches and disposable vapes, the PVV, BBB and SGP called for new bans and harsher penalties — while the very same parties that decry “nanny-state interference” elsewhere suddenly refused to trust the citizen.

Even more striking: use of flavoured vapes has increased since the ban. Young people now access banned flavours more easily through illegal channels than before. The black market is thriving — just as it did with cannabis when repression triumphed over realism. The ban has not reduced use; it has merely shifted it from regulated to unregulated, from visible to invisible.

The VVD defended the ban with the same logic it uses to promote free markets: in the name of protecting the citizen. Economic freedom, it seems, is celebrated when it generates profit — but restricted when it challenges moral comfort.

This selective approach to freedom shows how hollow the concept has become. Freedom has turned into a political slogan rather than a principle.

Freedom as political property

The core of the problem is that in the Netherlands, freedom is treated as political property. One party claims economic freedom, another social freedom. But the freedom to make choices about one’s own body — to decide what to use, how to live, what to believe — remains taboo.

True defenders of self-determination should embrace diversity in lifestyle, belief and behaviour. Yet precisely that is where so-called “freedom-loving” parties reveal their weakness. The PVV champions free speech yet seeks to dictate what people may or may not consume. The BBB speaks of individual choice yet advocates state-led lifestyle policy. And the VVD — once the party of trust in the individual — has reduced freedom to a bureaucratic process: a consultation, an evaluation, a stack of reports.

That calculated caution has paralysed Dutch policy for decades. We know what works: regulate, control and tax — rather than prohibit. But political courage is something very different from administrative prudence.

Stagnation as Strategy

The strength of conservatism is that it wins by doing nothing. Every delay is a victory. As long as parties insist that regulation is “premature” and “requires more research,” the status quo prevails. The longer that lasts, the more political capital accrues to those who resist change. The irony is that this lack of decisiveness perpetuates criminality. Those who claim to defend order and safety yet refuse to replace the illegal market with a regulated, transparent one are in fact choosing chaos — not intentionally, but out of fear of taking responsibility.

The cannabis experiment is science. Legalisation is politics. And as long as politicians hide behind research to mask moral discomfort, nothing will change. The question is not what the data say, but what parties dare to decide once those data are known. Freedom is not a by-product of policy; it is its foundation. Those who claim to defend it should stop deciding which freedoms count.

Anyone who truly believes in freedom must also accept it for choices they personally disapprove of. That is where mature politics begins.

Sources

• Cannabis Kieswijzer 2025 – Overview of Dutch political parties’ positions on cannabis policy, published by Stichting Verbond voor Opheffing van het Cannabisverbod (VOC), 2025. www.cannabis-kieswijzer.nl

• Parliamentary Review on Nicotine Pouches and Disposable Vapes (April 2025) – Dutch parliamentary documents on tobacco and nicotine regulation, including data on increased use of illegal flavoured vapes.

• Parliamentary Question Hour on the Cannabis Experiment (March 11, 2025) – Debate transcript on implementation and government stance.

• Draft Decree Amending the Cannabis Experiment Regulation (February 2025) – Official documents from the Ministries of Health (VWS) and Justice (JenV).

• Public Health and Care (VZinfo.nl) – Statistics on substance use in the Netherlands (2024).

• Dutch Drug Strategy and Coffeeshop Policy (Government of the Netherlands) – Policy documents and background on the Closed Cannabis Chain Experiment Act.

• Trimbos Institute (2025) – Report on the increase in illegal vape use among youth.

•