The powerful mix of capital and cannabis culture

Cannabis was introduced on a large scale in the western world in the 1960s, linked to what a contemporary sociologist labelled ‘a hang-loose ethic’ [1]. Recently we conducted a large study of cannabis use in the Norwegian context, based on fieldwork and qualitative interviews [2, 3]. The findings surprised us: the cannabis users still often echo the subcultural and ‘green’ values of the 1960s. In addition, regular users often become involved in low-level dealing, an activity coined as ‘helping’. The same picture has been revealed in longitudinal studies, where political opposition predicts cannabis use [4]. A surprisingly high proportion of regular cannabis users also gain drug-related charges, probably because of this involvement in small-scale dealing [5].

Is this link to subcultural values and illegal dealing restricted to the Norwegian context? Few studies have addressed such questions; the research on cannabis is overwhelmingly biomedical. However, based on scattered impressions, my hypothesis is that we find similar patterns in other countries as well: in Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, most of the cannabis is sold in ‘The Freetown Christiania’, a hippie-like community. However, behind the subcultural front stage, biker gangs have control over import and distribution [6]. The subcultural dimension and ‘green values’ are also visible in the coffeeshops in Amsterdam, as well as in medical marijuana dispensaries and ‘marijuana universities’ in the United States [7].
Robin Room’s presentation of paths to legal markets of cannabis [8] is timely and important, and I agree with his pragmatic emphasis on public health. In the United States there are already plans for a ‘Starbucks for Pot’, headed by a previous Microsoft manager. He said: ‘It’s a $100 billion industry in search of a brand. Never in the history of capitalism—forget America, in the world—has such a giant vacuum existed’ [9]. The new actors, who are now positioning themselves, know their primary customers. Probably they will draw upon the symbols and green values of the cannabis subculture. The multi-national Body Shop chain, founded by cannabis activist Anita Roddick, with the slogan ‘Natural, inspired by nature’ has already sold hemp-based skin products with success for many years (http://www.thebodyshop.co.uk/shop-by-range/hemp.aspx#/hemp.aspx).
However, the lessons from Amsterdam indicate that the shift from ‘passive de-penalization’ to ‘active commercialization’ in the 1980s may increase cannabis use [10]. Room is indeed right in that it is crucial to establish a defence towards commercial forces that will seize the new opportunities. That means that one also has to fight the expected branding of the new industry in an ecology-friendly and ‘green’ direction.
There are numerous lessons to learn from the tobacco field, with high taxes, ban on advertisement and increasingly tough regulations. In the alcohol field, the Norwegian state-owned wine monopoly, with no private commercial interests, no advertising, regulated opening hours and high prices, is an interesting model. However, for many it smells of ‘socialism’, and it is reasonable to expect opposition—from entrepreneurs in the new cannabis industry as well as from mainstream political segments.
The findings from our study indicate that nor will the cannabis users themselves applaud such a model. Many reflected on how possible legalization would affect them. Surprisingly, several were hesitant. They had the intuition that their subculture would not survive within a strongly regulated cannabis retail system, operated by public employees. Probably they are right, and that is—in my opinion—an argument for precisely such a model.