We inform municipalities and municipal councils about coffeeshop policy, but the same questions keep coming back.

We send municipalities and municipal councils legal arguments, jurisprudence, and examples regarding scarce permits and permit duration. Yet, the same questions reappear months later. An acknowledgement of receipt is not yet a transfer of knowledge.

We regularly send information to municipalities and municipal councils about coffeeshop policy. This includes information on scarce permits, permit duration, selection procedures, and the legal scope municipalities have. In doing so, we not only try to put our own viewpoint on paper but also include legal arguments, jurisprudence, and examples from other municipalities. We usually receive a prompt acknowledgement of receipt from the clerks' offices.

But what actually happens with it afterwards?

That question comes to mind more and more often. Not because I expect a municipality or municipal council to automatically agree with us. Of course not. We represent the interests of coffeeshop entrepreneurs, and municipalities make their own considerations. But if the same legal questions are asked again a few months later, despite the information having already been sent, then it seems something is getting lost between receiving a letter and actually using its content.

We have been writing about this for years.

In July 2024, together with eight other coffeeshop organisations, we wrote to the VNG (Association of Netherlands Municipalities) about the application of the doctrine of scarce permits to coffeeshops. In that letter, we highlighted, among other things, the distinction between an operating permit and a gedoogverklaring (tolerance statement) and the potential consequences of municipalities' choices for existing entrepreneurs.¹

In March 2025, we wrote to the VNG again. Precisely because we saw that the previous information had apparently not sufficiently reached municipal practice. We then cited concrete examples from, among others, Zwijndrecht and Amersfoort, and again asked for attention to the way municipalities deal with this issue.²

Subsequently, on 8 April 2026, we directly informed municipalities and municipal councils. In that letter, we again set out the questions that we believe should precede a decision on scarcity and permit duration. Why is a maximum set, what purpose does that maximum serve, is it still currently substantiated, and are there other ways to protect the same municipal interests? We included the earlier correspondence, precisely so that municipalities and municipal councils would not have to start from scratch every time.³

That costs us time, but that's not the problem. This is exactly one of the things a trade association is for. The problem arises when information is indeed sent and received, but apparently not available later when the topic is discussed again within the same municipality.

Maashorst highlights where the shoe pinches.

This became concrete for me again with the written questions posed by the Gewoon VVD Maashorst (Simply VVD Maashorst) faction on 16 June concerning a possible second coffeeshop. The faction inquired, among other things, about the legal possibilities and limitations regarding scarcity and equal opportunities, and about the possibility of including a proven record of careful, controlled operation with minimal nuisance from an entrepreneur in a future selection process.⁴

These are good and relevant questions. So, this is emphatically not a criticism of the faction asking them. If the information is not available or has not reached the right place, councillors should indeed ask those questions.

However, part of the answer had already been sent by us less than three months prior. The VNG (Association of Netherlands Municipalities) guideline on scarce permits also discusses various allocation methods and the possibility of applying substantive criteria in a comparative assessment.⁵ If that information had been used in the handling of the case, the discussion could already have been a step further. Then the question wouldn't just be whether quality can be weighed, but also what quality requirements are appropriate, objective, and legally sound.

I find that difference important. Not because our letter should be the final word, but because available information should be able to change the starting point of a discussion. Otherwise, municipalities, municipal councils, and political factions will keep re-examining the same basic questions.

We see the same pattern with permit duration.

I see a similar pattern with permit duration. Municipalities sometimes reason directly from an existing maximum number of coffeeshops to scarcity, and then to the conclusion that permits or gedoogverklaringen (tolerance statements) must be made temporary. We, on the other hand, always try to put the preceding question on the table. Why does that maximum apply, what interest does it protect, and has it been sufficiently investigated whether that interest can also be safeguarded in another way?

We haven't written about that just once and then left it at that. We have repeatedly brought the topic to the attention of the VNG (Association of Netherlands Municipalities), municipalities, municipal councils, and the central government. I wrote extensively about this earlier in Sliedrecht, because it clearly showed what can happen when a legal doctrine is applied almost as an automatic procedure to an existing coffeeshop.⁶

You can agree or disagree with our legal analysis. That is part of the debate. But when the same fundamental questions repeatedly arise in different municipalities, while the documents and arguments are already available, for me it's no longer just about the legal content. Then it's also about how knowledge within municipalities and municipal councils is received, stored, and retrieved.

Receiving is not the same as using.

I don't know how each municipality handles our letters internally. Perhaps a councillor reads the letter, but it never reaches the policy officer who works on the same dossier months later. Perhaps it is registered as incoming correspondence but not linked to the coffeeshop dossier. Perhaps staffing changes, and the information disappears from view with it. And perhaps a letter from a trade association is simply not considered interesting enough to actually read.

I can even imagine the latter. We are an interest group, and that is clearly stated at the top of our letters. Therefore, a municipality does not have to automatically assume that our conclusion is correct. But that doesn't make the jurisprudence, legal sources, policy documents, and examples from other municipalities that we include disappear, of course. You don't have to adopt our conclusion to assess and use the information.

For me, there's an important difference there. I don't expect agreement just because a letter comes from the BCD (Bond van Cannabis Detaillisten - Association of Cannabis Retailers). I also don't expect a municipal council to prioritise our explanation over that of its own lawyers. What I would find logical, however, is that the information becomes part of the deliberation. Compare our arguments with your own legal advice. Look at the jurisprudence we refer to. Ask why other municipalities make different choices. And then come to your own conclusion.

Fortunately, we also see that things can be different.

Fortunately, we also regularly receive messages from policy officers and coffeeshop entrepreneurs who actively use our documents. They let us know that the legal reasoning, references to jurisprudence, and examples from other municipalities help in discussions about local policy. Sometimes our information is used to better substantiate a proposal, and sometimes to critically review a proposed choice internally.

That is precisely why we create these documents. Not to convince municipalities and municipal councils to adopt the industry's position, but to share knowledge and contribute to thinking about what is legally and practically possible. Of course, we consider the interests of coffeeshop entrepreneurs, but a solution must also be feasible and defensible for the municipality.

These interests do not have to be at odds with each other. Public order, safety, public health, liveability, and professional entrepreneurship can precisely be reasons to seek each other out sooner. Dutch coffeeshop policy has functioned for decades through cooperation between entrepreneurs, mayors, policy officers, police, prevention organizations, and other local partners. This cooperation is not something that exists alongside policy. It is an important part of how policy works in practice.

That is why we are happy to contribute when a municipality, municipal council, or political faction is grappling with these kinds of questions. Not by dictating an answer, but by making the information, jurisprudence, and examples we have collected available. Sometimes it helps just to jointly examine what possibilities actually exist before a choice is presented as unavoidable.

An acknowledgement of receipt is not yet a transfer of knowledge.

The point of this story, therefore, is not that municipalities should read our letters better because we believe we are right. The point is that a lot of time and knowledge is available, both within municipalities themselves and externally, while the same discussions nevertheless seem to be conducted repeatedly from the beginning.

If we send information in April and questions are asked in June within the same municipality, to which that information largely already responds, then something is getting lost somewhere. Perhaps it's not read. Perhaps it's not shared. Perhaps it's not linked to the dossier. Perhaps it's not considered relevant enough at that moment. I don't know the precise reason, but the result is visible. Available knowledge is not utilised, and the same questions are put back on the table.

I think that's a shame, precisely because municipalities and municipal councils already have enough work to do on complex dossiers. Re-investigating questions for which research, jurisprudence, experiences, and arguments are already available elsewhere, again costs capacity and time. Moreover, there is a risk that policy choices are made without all relevant information having been considered.

The question for me, therefore, is not whether we should send even more letters. We will continue to inform municipalities and municipal councils when we see developments relevant to local coffeeshop policy. The more interesting question lies with the reader. What needs to happen so that information that is already available also reaches the people who prepare policy, make decisions, and ask political questions?

Because if we keep sending knowledge but the same questions keep coming back, perhaps we shouldn't just look at what is being written. We also need to look at what happens after it is received.