The globalisation of cannabis cultivation: A growing challenge

Contemporary cannabis cultivation takes many different forms with variations in approach identifiable both within and between different countries. Clearly, there is not a single, simple explanation for the growth of the industry in every country, and there are undoubtedly a number of factors at play. A simple typology of modern cannabis cultivation might therefore be “old” or “traditional” cultivation, occurring in the developing world for exportation to the developed world, and “new” cultivation occurring in the developed world, primarily for domestic consumption.

Focusing on the “new”, we have argued elsewhere that the spread of cannabis cultivation can be seen as a convergence of opportunity and sustained demand for the (local) product alongside an ever growing supply of motivated offenders and relative failure of policy to prevent the spread (Bouchard, Potter, & Decorte, 2011). With knowledge and technology (grow-lights, hydroponics, etc.) gradually becoming easily available, opportunities to cultivate cannabis grew. The Internet helped make the knowledge widely available and sped up the learning process for new initiates (Bouchard and Dion, 2009, Potter, 2008). Grow guides and grow shops also facilitated the diffusion of cultivation. Person to person knowledge transfer and underground communication channels (books, magazines, word-of-mouth) were important before the advent of the Internet, but even now experienced mentors play an important role in introducing new people to cultivation (Bouchard et al., 2009, Potter, 2010b). Development of new varieties of cannabis paralleled the developments in local production, which enhanced the reputation and the quality of domestically grown cannabis. Today the plant can be grown virtually anywhere, and the knowledge necessary to do so is equally ubiquitous.

Surely, there would be no incentives to cultivate cannabis without the assurance that there is a market for it. Worldwide trends in cannabis use have been either stable or on the rise, creating incentives for increased production (UNODC, 2014). This growth in demand parallels the growth in production in developed countries: both phenomena undeniably feed upon each other (Bouchard, 2007).

In almost all of the countries witnessing increases in domestic cannabis cultivation, one can make the simple observation post facto that whatever policy was in place before the rise of contemporary cultivation patterns, it has not prevented their development: cannabis cultivation has been expanding in repressive and tolerant countries alike. Of course, nuances exist in the stories of specific countries and contexts: the industry may have developed in a different form or at a different time in regime X than under regime Y. Yet, the universal nature of contemporary cannabis cultivation suggests that forces other than policies are at play, and at some point are likely to take over. Cannabis cultivation may be too easily done, with demand for the product, alongside the knowledge and techniques needed for growing, too widespread to expect anything different.

The emergence of domestic cultivation has often been described as “import substitution” and has been explained largely in economic terms (Jansen, 2002). With high levels of demand there is clearly an economic incentive behind domestic cannabis cultivation, with numerous studies citing financial motivations as a major factor driving cannabis cultivators (Hafley and Tewksbury, 1996, Weisheit, 1992, Nguyen and Bouchard, 2010, Potter, 2010b, Jansen, 2002, Kilmer et al., 2010). However, it has also been noted that a significant number of cannabis growers in the industrialized world are motivated by non-financial, intangible, ‘ideological’ reasons (Weisheit, 1991, Potter, 2010a, Potter, 2010b). In fact, the diversity of reasons why people grow cannabis goes way beyond the usual motivations for criminal involvement, and includes avoiding contacts with drug dealers and other criminal elements (e.g. Weisheit, 1992, Potter, 2010a, Potter, 2010b, Decorte, 2008, Decorte, 2010b), a love for growing (as well as using) the plant (see e.g. Hakkarainen & Perälä, 2011), and production of cannabis for medical use (personal or for others) (Dahl & Asmussen Frank, 2011). Avoiding the criminal market may also result from dissatisfaction with the quality of the product available on the black market (Decorte, 2010a, Decorte, 2010b). Still other growers view their involvement as a social or political message (Arana and Montañés Sánchez, 2011, Hakkarainen and Perälä, 2011, Potter, 2010b).

The motivations behind cultivation are a potentially useful differentiation, but it must be noted that profit/non-profit is not a clear dichotomy: many authors recognize the interplay between financial and other motivational drivers, with some growers having purely financial concerns, others having no interest in profit whatsoever, and many (probably most) driven by a mixture of financial and non-financial interests (Weisheit, 1991, Weisheit, 1992, Potter, 2010a, Potter, 2010b).

The spread of cannabis cultivation has obvious implications for those countries where it is an emerging phenomenon, but also for those countries whose traditional position as major exporters is being undermined. An increasing number of countries have shown unease about the international treaty regime’s strictures on cannabis. Over the past decades, parties to the UN drug-control conventions have exploited flexibility within the international legislation to engage in decriminalization of possession for personal use (Bewley-Taylor, Blickman, & Jelsma, 2014). Room, Fischer, Hall, Lenton, and Reuter (2010) describe the heterogeneity and complexity of the alternative cannabis control regimes that have evolved in different countries in recent years, ranging from “depenalization” (i.e. prohibition with cautioning or diversion) and “decriminalization” (prohibition with civil penalties) to “de facto legalization” (e.g. prohibition with an expediency principle) or “de jure legalization”, and the differences in how they might be enforced. But while a number of countries have implemented reform measures aimed at controlling the use of cannabis, fewer have addressed the issue of cannabis supply.

Recently, detailed proposals for cannabis regulation were enacted in 4 US states (Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska) and in Uruguay. These will provide models that may be closely observed in the future to understand the advantages and disadvantages of particular regulated supply systems. In addition to these systems, the model of ‘cannabis social clubs’ developed in countries like Spain and Belgium has been increasingly mentioned in drug policy debates (Barriuso, 2011, Kilmer et al., 2013, Decorte, 2015). Its advocates argue that policies of non-prosecution of individuals in some countries can be equally applied to registered groups of individuals, to effectively permit a closed production and distribution system.

Whatever way forward is chosen globally, or by any individual country, no sound policy decision should be taken without knowledge of the markets involved, including the role played by cannabis cultivation – the necessary first link in any cannabis supply chain. In other words, any projections of the impact of legislative change need to be rooted in a thorough knowledge of the present. This is where academic studies of cannabis growing become important.

The earliest empirical studies on cannabis cultivation focused on large-scale, commercially oriented growers (Weisheit, 1991, Bovenkerk and Hogewind, 2002), or covered rather small samples (Hough et al., 2003). These studies often based their conclusions on police data, and may lead to false perceptions of the prevalence of different types of growers and growing operations and related criminal behaviours (Wilkins & Casswell, 2003), with important consequences for future policy choices.

Attempts to study patterns and motives of the relatively under-researched but increasingly significant phenomenon of smaller-scale cannabis cultivation soon followed. Potter (2010b) studied domestic cannabis production in the UK. His typology of growers and the variety of sizes, structures and types of cannabis distribution operations he describes resemble those identified by others. But most of the growers he studied were motivated at least in part, and often as much if not more, by ideological positions associated with cannabis itself – the plant, the drug, and what they represent socially and (sub-)culturally – than by financial incentives. Potter argued that the ideological approach to drug-dealing is increasingly competing with the criminal element and all that entails. Based on face-to-face interviews with 89 cannabis cultivators, Decorte (2010b) developed a questionnaire for use in an anonymous web survey, which resulted in a sample of 659 small-scale growers. Again, the findings suggested that small-scale or amateur home growers constitute a significant segment of the cannabis market, and pointed at important differences between the sample obtained online with those obtained through traditional methods in other studies.

After successful replications of the Belgian online survey in Denmark and Finland (Hakkarainen, Asmussen Frank, Perälä, & Dahl, 2011), and after scholars from different countries presented their work on cannabis cultivation and found their research had broad commonalities, the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium (GCCRC) was created at the 2009 annual meeting of the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy (ISSDP). A first collaboration of this consortium was the compendium World Wide Weed, drawing on original studies from a variety of angles, and from different countries and regions around the world (the Caribbean and Morocco from the developing world, and Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Canada, the US, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand and the UK from the global north) (Decorte et al., 2011). The collection we present here is, at least partly, a direct follow-on from that earlier work, bringing together further findings from the GCCRC and presenting them alongside a number of studies and viewpoints from other academics working in the field (sometimes literally) of cannabis cultivation.

The findings of the various studies included in this volume suggest the need for a serious reflection on the manner in which policy intervenes and handles cannabis growers. Seeing the cultivation industry as a one-dimensional phenomenon is a mistake. Instead, the heterogeneity of participants in this activity is probably the most robust finding of research on cannabis cultivation. Such variability in involvement makes policy recommendations so important yet so delicate at the same time. Can policy truly reflect the heterogeneity of the industry and if so, how would that operate in practice? Would it make sense to recognize a difference between small-scale cultivation for personal use and cultivation for commercial purposes? Could formalized tolerance of small-scale cultivation undermine the wider illegal market, encourage a greater respect for the law among those who grow for personal use, medical or “ideological” reasons, and offer opportunities for policing efforts to target resources in a more efficient way?

If politicians can muster the courage to abandon repressive strategies and authorize decriminalization experiments in the short term and on a local level, steps can be taken towards a pragmatic and realistic (and hence also a more effective) policy. At first sight, allowing small-scale domestic cannabis cultivation while combating large-scale cultivation seems an attractive option. Such a strategy would aim at nudging the whole cannabis market towards its least unacceptable form, rather than pursuing the failed aim of absolute eradication. Such a policy can perhaps lead to a structuring of the sector that offers limited possibilities for ‘organized crime’. However, mere decriminalisation of small-scale cultivation does not necessarily lead to better control over the strength and quality of cannabis on local markets. In view of the high demand for cannabis, the ineradicable nature of the plant, some regulation of the market is the best possible solution in our view. The regulation of points of sale (strictly for adults only) and production (through carefully selected and strictly controlled producers) and supply, is in our opinion the best strategy to expel the criminal elements from the sector, as well as to improve the quality of the product. The question is then whether there are safe and feasible options for policymakers to move a meaningful distance along the spectrum towards legally regulated cannabis markets without crossing over to full commercial availability. The cannabis social club model may have potential both as a transitional system of de facto legal production and supply that could operate within a prohibitionist framework, and as an alternative system of de jure legal production and supply that could be run in parallel with more conventional retail models.

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.