Why small-scale cannabis growers stay small: Five mechanisms that prevent small-scale growers from going large scale

Abstract

Background

Over the past 15–20 years, domestic cultivation of cannabis has been established in a number of European countries. New techniques have made such cultivation easier; however, the bulk of growers remain small-scale. In this study, we explore the factors that prevent small-scale growers from increasing their production.

Methods

The study is based on 1 year of ethnographic fieldwork and qualitative interviews conducted with 45 Norwegian cannabis growers, 10 of whom were growing on a large-scale and 35 on a small-scale.

Results

The study identifies five mechanisms that prevent small-scale indoor growers from going large-scale. First, large-scale operations involve a number of people, large sums of money, a high work-load and a high risk of detection, and thus demand a higher level of organizational skills than for small growing operations. Second, financial assets are needed to start a large ‘grow-site’. Housing rent, electricity, equipment and nutrients are expensive. Third, to be able to sell large quantities of cannabis, growers need access to an illegal distribution network and knowledge of how to act according to black market norms and structures. Fourth, large-scale operations require advanced horticultural skills to maximize yield and quality, which demands greater skills and knowledge than does small-scale cultivation. Fifth, small-scale growers are often embedded in the ‘cannabis culture’, which emphasizes anti-commercialism, anti-violence and ecological and community values. Hence, starting up large-scale production will imply having to renegotiate or abandon these values.

Conclusion

Going from small- to large-scale cannabis production is a demanding task—ideologically, technically, economically and personally. The many obstacles that small-scale growers face and the lack of interest and motivation for going large-scale suggest that the risk of a ‘slippery slope’ from small-scale to large-scale growing is limited. Possible political implications of the findings are discussed.

Introduction

Domestic cultivation of cannabis is increasingly replacing its importation and smuggling (Decorte, 2007, European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction, 2008, Jansen, 2002, Potter et al., 2011). Potter (2010a, p. 64), for example, claims that more than 50% of the cannabis consumed in the UK is produced domestically. In Canada, the market is considered to be self-sufficient (Nguyen and Bouchard, 2010, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2004). In the USA, more than 50% of available cannabis is grown domestically, and the cannabis industry is considered to be the largest national cash-generating crop (Gettman, 2006). In the Netherlands and Belgium, cannabis production exceeds the consumption, with the surplus exported to neighbouring countries (Decorte, 2008, Decorte, 2010a). Equipment for cannabis cultivation is easily accessible via the Internet and from so-called ‘grow-shops’ (Bouchard and Dion, 2009, Decorte, 2007, Jansen, 2002, Potter, 2010a). This has opened a new window of opportunity for cannabis users who want to grow cannabis for their own consumption or to enter the cannabis trade. Norway is following the trend in other countries, albeit at a slower pace. For example, in the Norwegian police register, the proportion of cannabis seizures increased from 10% of total seizures in 2006 to approximately 20% of total seizures in 2010 (The National Crime Investigation Service, 2010). The police attribute this growth to an increase in domestic production (The National Crime Investigation Service, 2010, p. 7).

The new trend of import substitution is generating new research questions and discussions. Research topics include new estimations of the market share of small-scale and large-scale growers and the effects of market changes on market dynamics. For example, does easier access to cultivation know-how and equipment represent an opportunity for new offenders to enter the illegal trade? To what extent is increased commercialization taking place? (See Bouchard, 2007, Bouchard et al., 2009, Bouchard and Dion, 2009, Decorte, 2007, Decorte, 2010a, Hough et al., 2003, Jansen, 2002, Nguyen and Bouchard, 2010, Potter, 2010a.) Furthermore, many researchers have examined the implications of these changes for cannabis control policies (Decorte, 2010a, Hough et al., 2003, Lenton, 2011, Room et al., 2010).

Several researchers have constructed typologies of cannabis cultivators (see Potter et al., 2011, p. 11–12). The main distinction is between ‘commercial growers’ and ‘ideological growers’, who are not interested in profit. We still lack knowledge about crucial aspects regarding the growers’ careers. Nevertheless, the path from growing as an isolated occurrence to becoming a regular small-scale grower has been rather well described. Most growers start to experiment at a basic level. As they learn skills, they become more regular growers, producing larger surpluses, which they often share or sell. Some of them develop an interest in maximizing yield and quality, and start to use more advanced equipment (Decorte, 2010b, Potter, 2010a). However, most growers remain ‘small-scale’ (Decorte, 2010a). Small-scale growers are described as cannabis users who grow cannabis to solve supply issues such as irregular access, poor-quality products and criminal dealers (Decorte, 2010b, Hakkarainen et al., 2011, Potter, 2010a). By contrast, large-scale growers are described as ideologists (Potter, 2010a), criminal entrepreneurs (Spapens, 2011, Weisheit, 1991) or members of criminal organizations or gangs (Silverstone and Savage, 2010, Wilkins and Casswell, 2003).

Different studies have employed different measurements and criteria for categorizing growers and distinguishing between small-scale and large-scale growers (Bouchard and Nguyen, 2011, Potter, 2010a, Weisheit, 1991, Wouters, 2008). Hough et al. (2003, p. 9) found that large-scale production generates more money and thus attracts commercial growers, whereas small-scale growers often are embedded in cannabis-related ideology. Potter (2010a, p. 159–160), however, observing that some ideologists in fact do go large-scale, criticizes the typology of Hough et al. (2003) as being oversimplified. Nevertheless, the amount of money involved in large-scale production seems to provide less room for ideology.

Few researchers have scrutinized the practical challenges that prevent small-scale growers from going large-scale, but some exceptions should be mentioned. Bouchard et al. (2009) and Nguyen and Bouchard (2010) suggest that a lack of financial resources and various organizational challenges prevent adolescents from starting their own large-scale operations. Bouchard and Nguyen (2011, p. 211) argue that access to mentors who can teach them the necessary social and technical skills is a prerequisite for becoming a large-scale grower. Small-scale growers often lack knowledge about distribution networks and how to act according to black market norms.

It is a paradox that most transactions in the cannabis market are performed between small-scale actors, whereas most research emphasizes the process of becoming large-scale. Rather than asking why some growers go large-scale, we start from the fact that cannabis cultivation usually remains on a small scale, and therefore ask: What prevents most small-scale growers from going large-scale? In the analysis, we suggest five mechanisms that may affect growers’ opportunity and motivation to go large-scale. We conclude that our findings may support a soft policy approach towards small-scale growers.