Cannabis use and proximity to coffee shops in the Netherlands
| Author | Margriet van Laar,Annemieke Benschop,Marije Wouters,Dirk J. Korf |
| Date | 01 July 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370812448033 |
| Published date | 01 July 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
9(4) 337 –353
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370812448033
euc.sagepub.com
Cannabis use and proximity
to coffee shops in the
Netherlands
Marije Wouters and Annemieke Benschop
Bonger Institute for Criminology, The Netherlands
Margriet van Laar
Trimbos Institute, The Netherlands
Dirk J. Korf
Bonger Institute for Criminology, The Netherlands
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to assess the influence of coffee shop availability on the prevalence and
intensity of cannabis use, as well as the effectiveness of the ‘separation of markets’ policy. A
convenience sample of nightlife visitors and a sub-selection of previous year cannabis users were
used for analyses on cannabis and hard drugs use. Logistic regression analyses showed that coffee
shop proximity does not seem to be linked to prevalence of cannabis use or intensity of use. In
addition, proximity of coffee shops does not seem to be linked directly to hard drugs use.
Keywords
cannabis, coffee shop, drugs policy, proximity
Introduction
Across Europe, the illicit retail market in cannabis is similar, with various levels of
distribution ranging from social suppliers to profit-making sellers (Sifaneck et al., 2007;
Stevenson, 2008; Werse, 2008). The Netherlands is an exception, however, because retail
sales of cannabis for personal consumption by adults are condoned in ‘coffee shops’,
Corresponding author:
Marije Wouters, Bonger Institute for Criminology, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030, Amsterdam,
1000 BA, The Netherlands.
Email: m.wouters1@uva.nl
448033EUC0010.1177/1477370812448033Wouters et al.European Journal of Criminology
2012
Article
338 European Journal of Criminology 9(4)
which are allowed to sell cannabis under certain conditions. From previous studies, it
remains undetermined whether or not the exceptional situation in the Netherlands
influences the prevalence of cannabis use. Whereas some authors have suggested that the
presence of coffee shops causes an increase in the prevalence of use (MacCoun and
Reuter, 1997; MacCoun and Reuter, 2001), others have argued that, across Western
countries, trends in cannabis prevalence seem to develop independently of drugs policy
(Korf, 2002; Reinarman and Cohen, 2007; Reuband, 1995). These studies have several
limitations. First, some studies base their conclusions on prevalence among minors, who
are not allowed in coffee shops. Second, they are mostly based on aggregate data (with
the exception of those using arrest rates). On an individual level, however, other factors
might play a role and aggregate data will not identify the underlying mechanisms. Third,
several of the studies are based on formal policies, but different conclusions may be
reached when considering policy in practice.
In the Netherlands, the sale of cannabis in coffee shops is tolerated only when certain
(nationally determined) criteria are met: no advertising, no sale of hard drugs, no
nuisance, a minimum of 18 years of age to enter a coffee shop and buy cannabis there,
and no sale or stock of large quantities (>5 grams per person per transaction, >500 grams
in stock). Another part of the coffee shop policy is determined at a local level, where
municipalities have the authority to determine if and where coffee shops can be
established. As a result, coffee shops are not evenly spread throughout the Netherlands,
as can be seen in Figure 1 (Bieleman and Nijkamp, 2010). Almost 80 percent of Dutch
municipalities have no coffee shops and, of all coffee shops (n = 666), one-third are
located in Amsterdam (Bieleman and Nijkamp, 2010).
A recent evaluation of Dutch drugs policy concluded that decreases in the prevalence
of cannabis use within the Netherlands developed in parallel with a reduction in the
number of coffee shops, and that these developments might (also) be influenced by other
factors, such as the decrease in tobacco smoking (Van Laar and Van Ooyen-Houben,
2009). Given the presence of coffee shops, one might expect cannabis users in the
Netherlands to buy there rather than on the illicit market. However, the limitations in the
availability of coffee shops (for example, minimum age, uneven geographical spread)
might induce users to (also) buy cannabis through illegal channels. Several studies show
that a substantial proportion indeed do (Abraham et al., 2002; Cohen and Kaal, 2001;
Korf et al., 2003; Monshouwer et al., 2004; Wouters and Korf, 2009). Availability entails
several aspects: the physical availability (to what extent is a coffee shop present and
accessible, including distance), availability in time (to what extent does someone have
the opportunity to visit a coffee shop, considering daily activities and opening hours) and
social availability (to what extent is someone motivated or inhibited to buy at a coffee
shop). In an earlier study, we looked at cannabis availability through (legal) coffee shops
and other (illegal) suppliers. A survey among current cannabis users was conducted in
seven Dutch cities (Wouters and Korf, 2009). Unsurprisingly, in municipalities without
coffee shops, significantly less cannabis was purchased through coffee shops. Significant
predictors of buying cannabis illegally were coffee shop density (a measure for
availability: the number of coffee shops per 100,000 inhabitants), age (minors) and sex
(male) (Wouters and Korf, 2009).
To continue reading
Request your trial