Research Paper
“The difference is in the tomato at the end”: Understanding the motivations and practices of cannabis growers operating within Belgian Cannabis Social Clubs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.02.016Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

In Belgium, Cannabis Social Clubs (CSCs) collectively organize the cultivation and distribution of cannabis for the personal use of their members. In this paper we seek to improve understanding of the motivations and practices of cannabis growers operating within CSCs, shedding light on the cultivation process.

Methods

We draw on data gathered through face-to-face semi-structured interviews with the directors of seven active Belgian CSCs (n = 21) and CSC growers (n = 23). These data are complemented by additional fieldwork and a review of policies relating to CSCs’, including bylaws and growing protocols.

Findings

The Belgian CSCs rely on single and multiple in-house grower arrangements. Most CSC growers had been cultivating cannabis prior to joining their current CSC, albeit growing in different contexts (non-commercial and commercial). The CSC growers discussed both ideological and pragmatic motives for operating within a CSC. Cultivation took place indoors and followed organic practices. Despite their small-scale (20 plants on average), the grow sites used specialized equipment. The growers reported receiving financial compensation to cover production costs.

Conclusion

This paper offers new insights into a particular sector of domestic cannabis cultivation – CSC growers and their practices within those collectives – which has not been studied previously. The Belgian CSCs have decentralized production among small-scale grow sites, at a size comparable to that found in other small-scale cultivation studies. In terms of motivations and practices, CSC growers share some features typically ascribed to small-scale cannabis cultivators. At the same time, CSC growers seemed particularly engaged with the CSC model and willing to adhere to the (self-)regulated practices developed by the organizations. This had implications for the way cultivation was organized and for the role of the grower within the CSC.

Section snippets

Background

Over the past three decades, the production of cannabis has increasingly shifted from traditional producer countries to a larger number of developed Western countries, which are able to supply their internal market, albeit to different degrees (Alvarez, Gamella, & Parra, 2016; Athey, Bouchard, Decorte, Frank, & Hakkarainen, 2013; Barratt et al., 2012; Belackova & Zabransky, 2014; Decorte, 2007, Decorte, 2010a, Decorte, 2010b; EMCDDA, 2012; Hough et al., 2003; Potter et al., 2015; Potter,

Methods

This analysis is part of a wider study examining the development of the CSC model in Belgium. Initial identification of the CSCs was based on a previous exploratory study by Decorte (2015), in which the author reported on the activities of the five CSCs active circa February 2014. We followed up on that initial list of CSCs during fieldwork, reaching out to other CSCs established since then. During the data collection phase, all the known active Belgian CSCs were identified and contacted to

Before the CSC: prior experience as cannabis cultivators

Most growers (n = 17) had grown cannabis before joining a CSC and had cumulated an average of about 11 years of experience as growers. There was some variation among this group of growers: the least experienced grower (from those with pre-CSC experience) reported cultivating cannabis for the past three years; the most experienced reported being a grower for 25 years. In addition, five of the current CSC growers had no experience of cannabis cultivation prior to joining a CSC, and thus their

Discussion and conclusions

This paper offers new insights into a particular sector of the domestic cannabis cultivation phenomenon, namely growers operating within CSCs in Belgium. Although the cultivation and distribution of cannabis remain prohibited in the country, these associations have sought to exploit the perceived room for manoeuvre brought about with the 2005 Ministerial Guideline. In practice, the clubs’ (contested) interpretation of that policy document has been translated into a system based on the

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the growers and other representatives of the Belgian Cannabis Social Clubs who participated in this study. We would like also to thank Jonathan Caulkins for his helpful remarks on an earlier version of this paper presented at the 11th annual conference of the ISSDP in Aarhus. We thank also the anonymous reviewers for their very useful suggestions.

This analysis is part of a wider study funded by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO, grant no. G.0A85.15N).

References (60)

  • G. Potter et al.

    Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: Sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2015)
  • R. Queirolo et al.

    Cannabis clubs in Uruguay: The challenges of regulation

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2016)
  • W. Vanhove et al.

    Yield and turnover of illicit indoor cannabis (cannabis spp.) plantations in Belgium

    Forensic Science International

    (2012)
  • W. Vanhove et al.

    Filling in the blanks. An estimation of illicit cannabis growers' profits in Belgium

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2014)
  • X. Arana et al.

    Cannabis cultivation in Spain – The case of cannabis social clubs

  • N.C. Athey et al.

    Cannabis cultivation and detection: A comparative study of Belgium, Finland, and Denmark

    Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

    (2013)
  • M.J. Barratt et al.

    Understanding global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation

    Drugs and Alcohol Today

    (2012)
  • M. Barriuso

    Cannabis social clubs in Spain: A normalizing alternative underway. [Y]

    Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies

    (2011)
  • V. Belackova et al.

    Transformation of the marijuana market in the Czech Republic – From free-of-charge outdoor cannabis to a competitive market in indoor products

    Adiktologie

    (2014)
  • M. Bouchard

    A capture-recapture model to estimate the size of criminal populations and the risks of detection in a marijuana cultivation industry

    Journal of Quantitative Criminology

    (2007)
  • F. Bovenkerk et al.

    Hennepteelt in Nederland: Het probleem van de criminaliteit en haar bestrijding

    (2002)
  • A. Bryman

    Social research methods

    (2012)
  • B.v. Camp

    Aspecten van de politionele aanpak van cannabisplantages in Belgie

  • J.P. Caulkins et al.

    Considering marijuana legalization: Insights for Vermont and other jurisdictions

    (2015)
  • College van Procureurs-Generaal

    Persbericht van het college van procureurs-generaal

    (2017)
  • J.W. Creswell

    Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches

    (2009)
  • T. Decorte et al.

    Cannabis social clubs in europe: Prospects and limits

  • T. Decorte

    Characteristics of the cannabis market in Belgium

  • Inheemse cannabisteelt in Belgie: omtrent de (on)bedoelde effecten van beleid op de cannabismarkt

  • T. Decorte

    Small scale domestic cannabis cultivation: An anonymous web survey among 659 cannabis cultivators in Belgium

    Contemporary Drug Problems

    (2010)
  • Cited by (8)

    • Uruguayan Cannabis Social Clubs: From activism to dispensaries?

      2019, International Journal of Drug Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The literature in this area has pointed to the potential of the CSC model to introduce a harm reduction programme (Arana & Montañés, 2011; Belackova & Wilkins, 2018; Belackova, Tomkova, & Zabransky, 2016; Caulkins et al., 2015; Decorte, 2015; Decorte et al., 2017; Kilmer, Kruithof, Pardal, Caulkins, & Rubin, 2013). Firstly, with regards to the quality of the cannabis per se, it has been noted that cannabis users may have access to a better product or at least gain more control over the production process (i.e. the cannabis strains grown, growing techniques, etc.) within a CSC, although production remains relatively artisanal (Belackova et al., 2016; Caulkins et al., 2015; Decorte, 2015; Pardal, 2018a). Secondly, CSCs allow also for peer-to-peer forms of ‘micro-social harm reduction’ (Friedman et al., 2007), such as the sharing of information about, for instance, different cannabis strains and their effects, different methods of consumption, and social support among users (Belackova et al., 2016; Pardal, 2016).

    • An analysis of Belgian Cannabis Social Clubs’ supply practices: A shapeshifting model?

      2018, International Journal of Drug Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      This membership requirement has become a more common practice among Belgian CSCs in comparison with earlier reports (Decorte, 2015). In most cases, CSC growers receive a financial compensation for the costs they are expected to incur during the cultivation cycle (e.g., electricity, water, seeds, labour, etc.), and are asked to follow a number of guidelines with regards to the location of the cultivation site, the equipment used, among other cultivation practices (in some cases these requirements are formally outlined in a so-called Code of Conduct and Protocol for plant care-takers) – these issues as well as the role of the CSC grower are explored in more detail elsewhere (Pardal, 2018b). The growers’ compensation is calculated per gram of cannabis produced and returned by the grower to the CSC and amounts to 4-4.50EUR per gram (instead of 2–4.50EUR per gram reported by Decorte, 2015).

    • Mapping Cannabis Social Clubs in Europe

      2022, European Journal of Criminology
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text