Simone Van Breda writes
One year ago, we founded the Recreational Cannabis Foundation with one clear objective: to contribute to evidence-based, responsible and balanced cannabis regulation.
In our first year, we monitored legislative and regulatory developments across Europe and beyond, built an international knowledge network, published comparative analyses and documented the rapid evolution of cannabis policy worldwide.
To mark our first anniversary, we are publishing our first White Paper: Cannabis Regulation in Transition.
The paper compares cannabis regulation in more than 25 jurisdictions, examines how different regulatory models perform in practice, and shows why implementation, evaluation and regulated supply matter just as much as legal reform itself.
It also documents the Foundation’s first year of international monitoring, knowledge exchange and practical analysis.
None of this would have been possible without the dedication of our volunteers. The Foundation has no structural funding, and all our work is carried out entirely on a voluntary basis. If you value independent, evidence-based knowledge on cannabis regulation, your support helps us continue this work.
Here’s the paper
Executive summary
Cannabis policy is undergoing a fundamental but uneven transformation. Cannabis remains the most commonly used illicit drug in Europe, while legal responses now range from prohibition and reduced penalties to home cultivation, non-commercial associations, pilot projects, tolerated retail and nationally regulated commercial markets.
The international debate is therefore no longer limited to whether possession should be punished. Governments increasingly face questions of market design: how legal access should be organised, how consumers should be protected, how illicit supply can be reduced, how existing participants should be treated and how outcomes should be measured.
Europe has not developed one common cannabis model. Instead, it has produced a fragmented landscape of partial reforms. Germany permits private cultivation and non-commercial associations but no general retail market. Malta uses licensed non-profit associations.
Luxembourg and Czechia have expanded private-use legality. Switzerland combines scientific pilots with work towards national legislation. The Netherlands is testing regulated production and supply through existing coffeeshops.
Outside Europe, Canada and Uruguay operate national regulated systems, while the United States combines extensive state-level markets with continuing federal complexity. South Africa permits private use without a general lawful commercial supply route. Thailand illustrates the risks of rapid liberalisation before a complete regulatory framework is operational. Australia continues to develop through state and territorial variation.
This publication is limited to the Foundation’s public knowledge activities and to developments that can be documented through public sources. It does not describe private discussions, internal organisational matters or confidential relationships.
The main conclusions are:
• Legal reform and market regulation are not the same. Decriminalising possession does not create a controlled supply chain.
• Implementation determines whether reform can meet its objectives. Licensing, accessibility, product availability, price, transition and consumer confidence affect whether legal channels displace illicit supply.
• Public-health objectives and illicit-market reduction are connected. Product standards protect only consumers who actually use the regulated system.
• Evaluation is becoming central, but meaningful evaluation requires baseline data, clear objectives and sufficient time.
• The Dutch experience remains internationally relevant because it demonstrates both the value of accountable retail and the structural consequences of leaving production and wholesale supply unregulated.
Sean Hocking
Source link