Cannabis laws in Europe FAQ: Is there a trend towards cannabis regulation in Europe — and if so, why?
This page is part of the Cannabis laws in Europe FAQ which answers some of the more frequently asked questions raised in discussions about cannabis legislation.
Last revised: 21 April 2026
Introduction
Over the last 20 years the general trend in national laws in Europe has been to reduce, or even remove, prison penalties for minor cannabis possession offences, although in a minority of countries the penalties for these offences have increased. In some countries there have been experiments with tolerating a restricted supply of cannabis for recreational use by adults, sometimes at city level. In these cases, the most common questions raised have been why the local authorities might choose to tolerate such use and distribution, and what happens as a result?
A Eurobarometer survey published in February 2022 (European Commission, 2022), canvased the opinions of over 25 000 people aged 15+ in 27 Member States and found that in 22 EU Member States a majority support the regulation of cannabis, with the figure rising to 70 % in Czechia, 71 % in Poland, 71 % in Slovenia and 72 % in Croatia. In four EU Member States, half or more of respondents think that the sale of cannabis should continue to be banned. In response to a subsequent question, an overwhelming majority of respondents (93 %) expressed the belief that cannabis should be available for medical use.
In this context, this section explores the various current proposals for cannabis regulation in Europe for recreational purposes and speculates on the possible motivations behind introducing them, while providing a brief overview of evidence from jurisdictions where the recreational use of cannabis has been legalised for some years already.
These proposals remain controversial at the international level, with the International Narcotics Control Board reminding governments in 2021 that the legalisation of the use of controlled substances for non-medical or non-scientific purposes is inconsistent with the obligations States parties have to the international drug control conventions (INCB, 2022).
Is it true that selling cannabis for recreational use is already legal in some places in Europe?
Before the change of law in Malta in December 2021 (read more details below), the two most well-known models for ‘legal’ cannabis supply in Europe were cannabis coffeeshops in the Netherlands and the cannabis ‘social clubs’ that existed in some other countries in Europe; but arguably neither of these approaches meant that supply of the drug was considered ‘legal’.
Cannabis coffeeshops in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, according to the law, the cultivation, supply and personal possession of cannabis are all criminal offences punishable with prison sentences. However, a practice of tolerance, first set out in local guidelines in 1979, has evolved into the present-day concept of ‘coffeeshops’. These cannabis sales outlets are licensed by individual municipalities. About three quarters of Dutch municipalities do not allow coffeeshops and their number across the country has decreased from 846 in 1999 to 567 in 2018 (Mennes et al., 2019). The sale of small quantities of cannabis to adults (aged over 18) in these coffeeshops is tolerated in an attempt to keep young adults who wish to experiment with cannabis away from what are regarded as more dangerous drugs (a policy referred to as ‘separation of the markets’).
A coffeeshop may be closed down and the operator or owner prosecuted if he or she does not meet the Prosecutor General’s criteria, which prohibit advertising, nuisance, sale to minors and the sale of hard drugs or alcohol, as well as prohibiting the sale of sizeable quantities or the holding of large amounts of stock. From January 2013, coffeeshops could only legally be used by residents of the Netherlands on production of an identity card or residence permit. However, the implementation and enforcement of this rule appears to vary by municipality.
No more than 5 grams of cannabis may be sold to any person in any one transaction and coffeeshops are not allowed to keep more than 500 grams in stock. As the wholesale cultivation and distribution of cannabis is not tolerated in the Netherlands, this results in what is known as ‘the back-door problem’; that is, cannabis may be ‘legally’ sold at the front door of the coffeeshop but it cannot be legally supplied through the back door. Alongside the coffeeshop system, police have the discretionary power to confiscate small amounts of cannabis or plants cultivated for personal use, but the owner will not be formally prosecuted if he or she hands over such items voluntarily.
An evaluation of this policy in 2009 found that the coffeeshops were the main source of cannabis for users, with the markets for soft and hard drugs remaining separate as the policy had originally intended, and that adult cannabis use was relatively low compared with other European countries (WODC, 2009). However, underage use of cannabis remained high (although it is unclear if this is linked to the existence of coffeeshops, greater acceptance of use, or other factors), while the sector had become increasingly commercialised and in some areas was creating a serious nuisance from drug tourism. There also appeared to be concerns about the involvement of organised crime groups, while the ‘back-door’ problem meant that money from coffeeshop sales was being funnelled into the illicit economy. Concerns about these issues were partly responsible for the residence criterion introduced in 2013, and in turn have been one reason for the new state-run experiment of regulating the supply of cannabis to coffeeshops in the Netherlands, discussed later in this chapter.
Cannabis social clubs
Cannabis social clubs operate on the assumption that if one person will not be prosecuted for cultivating a single cannabis plant in private for their personal use, then (for example) 20 people should not be prosecuted for cultivating 20 plants together, in private, exclusively for their own use. Clearly, this concept is not without problems. Establishing what constitutes ‘shared’ cultivation, for example, is problematic, and it is unclear how these activities can be legally distinguished from other drug supply offences. Across the European Union, drug supply offences themselves have varying legal definitions. However, they usually require the passing of drugs between persons and quantity criteria also sometimes apply.
In response, cannabis social clubs have tried to establish operating rules in order to avoid charges related to drug trafficking or supply or encouraging drug use. For example, the advocacy group ENCOD has proposed that clubs should operate under a collective agreement, with a register of members, costs calculated to reflect expected individual consumption, and the amount produced per person limited and intended for immediate consumption (ENCOD, 2011). Guidelines from this advocacy group also suggest that cannabis social clubs should be closed to the public and new members should be existing cannabis users who are admitted by invitation only. This model, although promoted by activists in Belgium, France, Germany, Slovenia and Spain, is not officially tolerated by the national authorities in those countries. This means that clubs cultivating cannabis are likely to be subject to legal sanctions should they be identified, or, if some degree of informal tolerance exists, they are operating in a legal grey area at best. In December 2021, Malta passed a law providing the basis for legally establishing such a model, and it has been proposed by the German government in April 2023 (see below What forms of cannabis regulation are proposed in Europe, and why?).
Cannabis social clubs do not appear to be widespread in Europe, although only limited information is available about their actual numbers. In a 2018 research project, which described the phenomenon as ‘volatile’, social clubs were found in 13 countries in Europe. The study discovered that these clubs were very heterogeneous, with variations in membership size, activities (cultivation, activism or both) and members’ motivations for joining (e.g. growing cannabis for recreational or medical purposes) (Pardal et al., 2022). In some regions of Spain, some clubs have tried to take advantage of the fact that although the production, supply and personal possession of cannabis in public are prohibited under Spanish law, possession in private spaces is not penalised. However, in 2015 three judgements of the Spanish Supreme Court concluded that organised, institutionalised and persistent cultivation and distribution of cannabis within an association open to new members is considered to be drug trafficking.
What forms of cannabis regulation are proposed in Europe, and why?
Over the last decade, some national parliaments in the European Union started to see detailed proposals for the regulation (legalisation with several restrictions) of cannabis for recreational use. These tended to be from political parties not in government. The models proposed were heterogeneous, with approaches including permitting home cultivation, allowing membership of non-profit social clubs, or planning for retail sales outlets, with associated taxation. Such proposals were rejected, and up to 2017 no national government in the European Union had expressed any support for the idea of regulating cannabis for recreational purposes.
Since then, however, there have been significant policy developments by national governments in five EU Member States, as well as in Switzerland, and it is interesting to explore the possible motivations for why such changes are being considered in some countries.
In Malta, the 2017 election manifesto of the incoming Labour Party promised a national debate on cannabis, including recreational use. A government White Paper was published in March 2021 which put forward eight proposals ‘guided by the principles of justice, proportionality and the individual’s freedom to make responsible choices’, and resulted in a law passed in December 2021. The law establishes that there will be no legal proceedings or punishment for possession of up to 7 grams of cannabis for personal use or the personal cultivation of up to four plants in a safe and discreet place, and allows non-profit cannabis clubs which could sell up to 7 grams of cannabis per day to a maximum of 500 members, cultivated from approved seeds. It also allows for the expungement of criminal records related to cannabis, an administrative fine in cases of public consumption, and an appropriate educational campaign. These measures will be overseen by the new Authority for the Responsible Use of Cannabis. The minister responsible for the reform stated that its aims were to stop ‘humiliating’ people caught with small quantities of cannabis, to increase the opportunities for harm reduction, and to reduce illicit drug market activities.
In October 2017, a new Dutch coalition government agreed to a cannabis policy experiment with a ‘closed coffeeshop circuit’ in 6–10 municipalities, known as the ‘controlled supply chain experiment’. In its introduction to the initiative, the government noted that ‘Public opinion is increasingly urging the government to address the problems caused by the toleration policy. Mayors, in particular, say that the policy has caused problems in their municipalities, for example in relation to public order, public health and crime that undermines society.’ In 2018 a new scientific advisory committee delivered a report on how to proceed. The Dutch parliament agreed that the experiment would take place in four phases, namely: preparation (launching the Experiment Act and legal basis), transitional, experiment (production and sale of cannabis in participating municipalities), and completion (a six-month period to revert to the situation before the experiment began). A requirement was that all coffeeshops in a municipality should participate, and this appears to have resulted in larger cities not applying to participate. Ten small to medium-sized municipalities were selected (Arnhem, Almere, Breda, Groningen, Heerlen, Hellevoetsluis, Maastricht, Nijmegen, Tilburg and Zaanstad.), covering 79 coffeeshops; in 2021, a revised Coalition Agreement stated that one large municipality should also be included. Results from the participating sites will be compared with 9–10 matched municipalities not participating in the programme. Eight Dutch-based growers have been selected who will need to be able to supply the coffeeshops with sufficient quantities and varieties of cannabis. The maximum stock level that the stores can hold will be adjusted to the average expected weekly sales of the coffeeshop, rather than the previous 500-gram limit. The Experiment Act entered into force in July 2020 and the experiment phase should last for four years. In February 2023 the public health and justice ministries announced that a preliminary phase of the experiment should start in Tilburg and Breda by the end of 2023. A scientific evaluation will accompany the experiment overall (Government of the Netherlands, no date).
In Luxembourg, the coalition agreement of 2018 stated that legislation on recreational cannabis would be developed, with the objective of regulating the purchase, consumption and possession of state-produced and controlled cannabis by adult residents. The stated aim of this new model is to remove consumers from the illicit market and its associated dangers, and to fight drug-supply-related crime. In October 2021, five government ministers announced that the plan for selling to residents would be delayed, but they would move forward with a proposal to permit the cultivation of up to four plants per household from seeds, as well as significantly reducing the penalties for consumption or possession in public. In June 2022, the minister of justice presented these draft amendments to the law, including the four-plant cultivation limit per household and non-criminal fines of EUR 145 for minor possession in public. In April 2023, the government published a report from the working group on a pilot project for legal access to cannabis for non-medical purposes. The two-step pilot model would permit home growing and foresee non-criminal fines of EUR 145 for possession in public of up to 3 grams, and later a system of 14 ‘dispensaries’ permitting sales of up to 30 grams per month per customer, at a price set by the state, tracked by a common computer system.
Following elections, the new government in Germany announced in the Coalition Agreement of December 2021 that it would ‘introduce the controlled sale of cannabis to adults for recreational purposes in licensed shops’ in order to control its quality, prevent the sale of contaminated substances, and ensure the protection of minors. In October 2022, the government published the ‘Key issues paper by the Federal Government on the introduction of the controlled dispensing of cannabis to adults for non-medical use’, stating that the aim was to enable quality control, prevent the distribution of contaminated substances and ensure youth and consumers’ health protection in the best possible way, with an evaluation of its impacts after four years. These key issues were further developed in a paper published in April 2023, ‘Controlled dispensing of cannabis to adults for non-medical use: Outline of a 2-pillar model’. This 2-pillar model was developed by several ministries but with the federal health ministry leading. The two pillars are national non-commercial private and community cultivation for personal use (first pillar), and a regional and time-limited pilot project including commercial supply chains (second pillar). For the first pillar, expected limits shall include private cultivation of no more than 3 female flowering plants, and public carrying of a maximum of 25 grams. Non-profit associations (cannabis clubs) shall be limited to 500 adult members domiciled or habitually resident in Germany. The harvested cannabis may be supplied exclusively to members (a maximum of 50 grams per person per month) with no on-site consumption. The regulations under this pillar shall be evaluated after 4 years. The second pillar shall permit sale in some specialist shops within particular regions in a scientific project to examine the effects on health and youth protection and the illegal market. For the limited sales, the project duration shall be 5 years after establishment of the supply chain. Health and youth protection shall be central to both pillars.
In Czechia, in April 2023, the government approved the revised addiction policy action plan 2023-2025, ‘based on a scientifically proven and balanced concept of risk prevention and harm reduction’. Overall, the action plan states that it balances regulation with a degree of freedom for individuals, the principle of the free market and the degree of harmfulness of individual addictive products. The action plan lists five priorities, one of which is a regulated drug market for cannabis and other substances, including tobacco and alcohol (and gambling), with varying regulatory models corresponding to their level of public health risk, including regulation of prices, taxation and advertising. The proposal for a regulated market includes a scientific assessment of the effects of cannabis regulation in order to preserve the principle of public health protection and minimisation of harm and risks, while also aiming to limit the illegal market. The models are expected to be supported by another of the five priorities, namely prevention and treatment of addictions, including early intervention programmes.
In Switzerland, in September 2020, Parliament passed an amendment to the Federal Act on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, to provide a legal basis for conducting limited scientific pilot trials on non-medical cannabis use in adults. The aim is to establish a sound scientific basis for any possible decisions on the design of cannabis regulation. The amended act came into force on 15 May 2021 and will remain in effect for 10 years. The pilot trials must be limited geographically to one or several communes and their duration limited to five years (with the possibility of extending this by up to two years). The number of participants will be limited to that necessary for the trial to be scientifically evaluated, but not more than 5 000 subjects will be recruited per pilot trial. The trials are designed to give a better understanding of the effects of controlled access to cannabis on the physical and mental health of users and on behaviour linked to cannabis consumption, as well as examining various socio-economic aspects, such as the effects on users’ work capacity (absenteeism) and on their family and social relationships. Also taken into consideration will be the impact on the local illicit market and the protection of young people and public safety. The implementing ordinance sets out measures to protect minors, which include childproof packaging for cannabis products for oral use; rules for the safe storage of cannabis products; and provisions for labelling with appropriate warnings (Federal Office of Public Health, 2023). The first pilot trial in Basel was launched in January 2023 and allows participants to buy cannabis products from selected pharmacies.
#EMBED-cannabis-laws-faq-box-9#
What are the possible effects of cannabis regulation?
Different countries in the Americas have undertaken the regulation of recreational cannabis use and supply since 2012. Models of regulating the legalised cannabis market have included permitting private cultivation, sale and consumption, cannabis social clubs, and the provision of state-grown cannabis, among other models. To see what lessons might be learned from these experiences of cannabis regulation in the Americas, the EUDA commissioned a review of studies that have been conducted on this topic (EMCDDA, 2020b). The review prioritised peer-reviewed studies over grey literature and excluded some studies that were considered to be too methodologically weak to be helpful in evaluating the impact of policy change.
Given that many of the jurisdictions relevant to this study are in the United States (US), the reader should keep in mind three key aspects of the US situation that are not found in the European Union.
- Legalisation had been preceded by well-established private systems of ‘medical cannabis dispensaries’, distributing loosely-controlled cannabis, which in turn supported a well-funded industry that could potentially have an influence on legislators’ decisions.
- Direct advertising of prescription medicines to consumers already existed and arguably supported a policy perspective that is open to a commercial model in which commercial marketing is an accepted practice.
- The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects ‘freedom of speech’, which has been interpreted as limiting a state’s ability to regulate the advertising of cannabis products if they are made commercially available.
Most American jurisdictions legalised cannabis via public ballots, forcing the legislators to construct a detailed regulatory model in a very short time. In contrast, the Canadian legalisation of cannabis in 2018 was initiated with a task force that took a year to draft a preliminary report, and it took over another year, and many parliamentary hearings, before the government was able to draft the legislation that was enacted.
The approach in Uruguay differed again. A highly state-supervised public health implementation model was developed after cannabis regulatory measures were passed in 2013. The Uruguayan model, for example, includes the registration of purchasers and their fingerprint identification at participating pharmacies, thus rendering its approach more restrictive than the commercial regimes adopted in the United States.
The EUDA-commissioned report noted that the stated objectives of these different legislative approaches were very diverse. However, both the objectives for legalisation and the concerns cited by critics lobbying against legislative change can broadly be classified into five categories: crime and public safety; health; prevention; economic/budgetary issues; and normative reasons. Policy objectives, that can be included in the law itself or based on statements made by policymakers, provide a sense of what might motivate a jurisdiction to reform its cannabis laws. These objectives provide the starting point for metrics to be considered when measuring the outcome of such a policy change.
Based on a review of the available studies on the topic of cannabis legalisation in the Americas, the report lists and discusses results found in the areas of:
- prevalence of use among different age groups;
- consumption patterns;
- product differentiation and price;
- treatment admissions;
- adverse medical events;
- impaired driving;
- consumption of other substances;
- criminal justice and public nuisance outcomes;
- tax revenues;
- public opinion.
Since cannabis regulation is a recent phenomenon in many of these jurisdictions, the report urges caution in interpreting short-term results identified across any of these areas. As a simple example, problematic cannabis use typically takes several years to develop and may not be identified in studies undertaken one or two years after a new cannabis policy has been implemented. The one- to two-year delay between the law passing and cannabis shops opening, and the fact that several municipalities within a state maintain a ban on any shops, even though recreational cannabis may have been legalised in their jurisdictions, are also points to bear in mind in interpreting results from the studies that have been conducted in this area.
Importantly, to come to any conclusion regarding the possible ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of a policy change, it would be crucial to establish the metrics of evaluation according to the original objectives of the change, and then to ensure that the appropriate data infrastructure is available to monitor these metrics. Having a baseline measurement pre-legalisation is also clearly important and desirable, but as many of the policy changes in North America have taken place rapidly following a public vote this has often not been possible. This complicates the interpretation of the data that is available and is a helpful point for policymakers in Europe who are considering changes to their cannabis laws.
Text boxes
Available text boxes: