- Email: [email protected]
Why small-scale cannabis growers stay small: Five mechanisms that prevent small-scale growers from going large scale
International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Drug Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo
Research paper
Why small-scale cannabis growers stay small: Five mechanisms that prevent small-scale growers from going large scale Eirik Hammersvik ∗ , Sveinung Sandberg, Willy Pedersen Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Post Box 1096, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 March 2012 Received in revised form 9 August 2012 Accepted 13 August 2012 Keywords: Cannabis Marihuana Cultivation Black market Culture
a b s t r a c t 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 largescale. 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. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Introduction Domestic cultivation of cannabis is increasingly replacing its importation and smuggling (Decorte, 2007; EMCDDA, 2008; Jansen, 2002; Potter, Bouchard, & Decorte, 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 & 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, 2010a). Equipment for
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 22 84 34 86; mobile: +47 920 18 109; fax: +47 22 85 52 53. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Hammersvik). 0955-3959/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.08.001
cannabis cultivation is easily accessible via the Internet and from so-called ‘grow-shops’ (Bouchard & 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,
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
2007; Bouchard, Alain, & Nguyen, 2009; Bouchard & Dion, 2009; Decorte, 2007, 2010a; Hough et al., 2003; Jansen, 2002; Nguyen & 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, Fisher, Hall, Lenton, & Reuter, 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 smallscale 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, Asmussen, Perälä, & Dahl, 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 & Savage, 2010; Wilkins & Casswell, 2003). Different studies have employed different measurements and criteria for categorizing growers and distinguishing between smallscale and large-scale growers (Bouchard & 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 largescale? 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.
Methods The data in this paper stem from two studies. The first study was an extensive investigation of cannabis users (N = 100) in Norway in
459
2006–2010 (for details, Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010). Participants were recruited through the researchers’ networks, students at the University of Oslo and Bergen, from cannabis interest organizations and through an Internet advertisement. Respondents were distributed across Norway. Twenty of the participants had experience in cultivating cannabis. Some had tried to grow cannabis but had failed, others were sporadic small-scale growers (growing up to 20 plants) and one had developed into a large-scale grower (usually growing approximately 250 plants). These interviews taught us much about cannabis cultivation in Norway and inspired an ethnographic follow-up study in which we explored this area in more detail. In the second study, a year of fieldwork was conducted (by the first author) among regular cannabis growers in the Oslo area. The fieldwork was carried out at 14 grow-sites. We categorized three of them as large grow-sites and 11 as small. Some of the respondents allowed us to follow the production and distribution of the crop throughout the whole year. Fieldwork included socializing with participants at gyms, at their friends’ places, in bars, cafés and at concerts. All growers were men aged between 23 and 45 years; some highly educated with good jobs whereas others were living on social benefits. In this study, we were in contact with nine categorized as ‘large-scale’ growers and 16 ‘small-scale’ growers. All were growing indoors. When analysing interviews and notes from fieldwork, we coded them for themes pertaining to movement up and down in the cannabis growing hierarchies. After this initial coding, and once we reached agreement on the dominant themes, the first author analysed all statements and fieldwork notes consistent with the five mechanisms that make up the results of the current analysis. Such style of coding is consistent with standards of qualitative research techniques, grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) and qualitative criminological research method (Copes, 2011). It is not easy to find valid criteria by which to categorize growers as either ‘small’ or ‘large’. Current definitions usually rest on the size of the cannabis market, geographical location, policy and police strategies, and how production size is measured (Hakkarainen et al., 2011, p. 123, 126; Potter, 2010a, p. 87, 201; Wouters, 2008, p. 55–59). Studies of growers and cannabis policies often refer to the number of plants and/or the weight of the dried cannabis (see Hough et al., 2003, p. xi). The ‘number of plants’ is an imprecise measurement (Potter, 2010a, p. 87, 157), but it may indicate production size if the size of the plant is controlled for. We categorized as small-scale those growers who grew fewer than 20 small plants, usually using the ‘sea of green’ method (see Thomas, 2010, p. 91). ‘Large-scale growers’ grew between 100 and 350 plants, producing between 3 kg and 12 kg per batch (each 8–10 weeks). In an international context, these growers are located in the grey zone between large- and small-scale producers. However, with the low supply of and high demand for high-quality cannabis in Norway, grow operations are potentially very profitable. The price per kilogram received by our most successful participants ranged from 100,000 NOK to 120,000 NOK (13–16 EUR per g), which is higher than the mean price on the retail level in Europe (6–11 EUR per g) (EMCDDA, 2011, p. 42) and most other countries (UNODC, 2011, p. 194, Fig. 159). These high wholesale prices made the growers’ operations potentially very profitable—in an international context. The analysis is based on interviews with 20 growers from the first study, as well as fieldwork and interviews with 25 growers from the second study. The data provide a solid ethnographic platform for an analysis of cannabis cultivation and growers in Norway. The study was designed according to the standards of the Norwegian Data Inspectorate, and approved by the same agency. All respondent names are pseudonyms.
460
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
Findings Organizational challenges Growing small amounts of cannabis requires little work; most of the small-scale growers spent less than 20 min a day caring for their plants, some even less than 5 min. Larger-scale growers spend much more time on watering, mixing nutrients and checking equipment. Some growers in our sample had temporarily increased their production before realizing that the work and security challenges involved would severely affect their social lives. We observed Kenneth during his transition from growing 2 to 20 plants, at which point the growing operation (‘grow-op’) covered most of his studio apartment. He described the problems that arose: I couldn’t hang out with my friends since many of them don’t like that kind of stuff. It stinks. I have always had different kinds of friends, but when I was growing, I could only hang out with smokers. . . and that became boring. . . Kenneth gained a reputation as a ‘stoner’ and was uncomfortable with how the grower identity became more and more important. He also found that it demanded too much work and quit growing. Ex-growers often mentioned the work-load when asked why they had stopped. Even when growing on the same relatively small scale as Kenneth, growers’ personal lives may suffer from the work and security demands involved in cannabis cultivation (see also Potter, 2010b, p. 146). Joachim was growing much larger quantities than Kenneth, and his story reveals how challenging it is to grow on a large scale. Joachim grew up to 250 plants and he described the common way of organizing a plantation: You have a group of three [people] and use a rotating schedule that organizes the responsibility. It’s an awful lot of work, they need daily care, like checking that everything works and that pipes are closed, that the water goes right, and that the lights are on and run as they should, and. . . Joachim and his colleague hired a gardener, which solved some of the problems. However, they still had to set up timetables, and at times Joachim worked more or less as a professional administrator. Other large-scale growers were less structured and organized, which resulted in repeated arguments over the distribution of work. Nguyen and Bouchard (2010) suggest that small-scale growers are prevented from going large-scale by labour and logistics. The literature demonstrates how the work-load raises organizational challenges, and that it is necessary to be a skilled organizer to run a large grow-op (Bouchard et al., 2009; Weisheit, 1991). In our study, growers who had increased their production size for a short period had experienced the large work-load involved. Although they had been looking for fun and leisure, the amount of time and work necessary for large-scale cultivation had given growing the character of work and commercialism. Most of the small-scale growers we talked with did not have the necessary organizational skills or knowledge required to go largescale.
Financial challenges Cannabis growing at a basic level is cheap or even free. Most of the small-scale growers we met did not see raising money as a
challenge for growing. Their only expenses were lamps, fertilizer, and sometimes seeds. Some of the small-scale growers who used advanced cultivation equipment had cultivated for years, and had gradually become able to buy increasingly more sophisticated and expensive equipment, such as running timers and regulators that they can monitor via the Internet. Several small-scale growers complained about the high prices of cultivation equipment in grow-shops. A few, like Tom (45), accepted the prices as long as they were justified by the quality: ‘Well, it costs a lot to grow. All the equipment cost me more than buying hash [laughs], but it’s much better than the shit you get elsewhere’. Tom had spent between 5000 and 10,000 EUR on equipment during the past 7 years. He never sold cannabis, and had to finance his equipment with his ordinary—and rather high—income. However, most growers in this study were young and many were students, and they were not in a financial position to buy expensive equipment. Those who did usually financed it by selling cannabis to their friends. Over a 1-year period, we followed one of the larger producers who had made sizeable investments before making a profit. The location was an expensive neighbourhood in Oslo, which made housing especially costly. Ole (34), the main grower in this large grow-op, explained: We spent more than 26,000 EUR before we took out profit. Money came in the whole time, but we used it to cover operating costs and equipment. Most of the money was used on housing, electricity and equipment. We had a lot of equipment just lying around right, but most of the money was used on rent and the housing deposit. We paid 2300 EUR [per month] in rent and paid like a three-month deposit and we first took out money after 12 months, so umm. . . I guess we spent 33,000 EUR on housing stuff. The growers spent a further 6500 EUR on equipment, 5000 EUR on electricity and 1900 EUR on high-quality plant nutrients. Because the first two crops partly failed, it took almost a year to generate sufficient income to offset the investment. The first crop lost 20 plants because of failing hydroponic equipment, and insects infected the second crop. During this period, the growers had spent most of their savings and income and they could afford the huge costs involved only because they had legitimate jobs and no families to support. The large-scale growers covered their set-up and operating costs by using legally obtained incomes and/or profit from previous grow-ops or wholesale hash operations. However, growers without the start-up capital can also form ‘grow-circles’ or be sponsored or hired by investors (Potter, 2010a; Potter & Dann, 2005). Previous research has described criminal entrepreneurs who invest in franchise-like operations (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011; Potter, 2010a). If growers manage a successful harvest, they obtain a share of the profit, but crop failure may have severe consequences. Potter (2010a) suggests that threats and violence may be the result of being sponsored by or cooperating with criminal entrepreneurs. The growers in our study also emphasized the serious economic loss from a failed large crop. In sum, building a large indoor grow-site is expensive (Nguyen & Bouchard, 2010; Potter, 2010a, 2010b). Housing, electricity and equipment require financial resources that most growers do not have. Young small-scale growers in particular are usually not in a financial position to run a large grow-site, and are thus prevented from producing large volumes (Bouchard et al., 2009; Nguyen & Bouchard, 2010). Large-scale cannabis cultivation demands sizeable financial assets, which acts as a barrier to small-scale growers increasing their production.
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
Black market skills Small-scale growers typically described distribution as ‘sharing with friends’ (see also Decorte, 2010b; Hakkarainen & Perälä, 2011; Potter, 2010a). Therefore, distribution did not represent a problem for them. By contrast, dealing outside their circle of friends was seen as stepping up a level in the drug trade, which most small-scale growers saw as problematic. Karl (43), for example, had 20–30 plants that took up one-third of a spare bedroom and he was satisfied with his production size: If I produce more than I do now, I’ll have to get a dealer or something. . . because of the risks, right. . . like, I can’t sell because I grow; you have to distinguish between those two, or you’ll get busted. But those I know who could sell are like real dope dealers. Tommy spoke of dope dealers with contempt. He did not want to involve a dealer—or ‘criminals’—in the distribution process, as that would turn his growing from being about helping friends into crime. The only drug dealers Tommy knew were heavy drug users who belonged to criminal networks that were monitored by the police. Involving them would critically increase the risk of growing. Tommy was deterred from going large-scale by the risks of violence, detection by police and fear of being stigmatized by the local community. For many small-scale growers, the motivation for growing in the first place had been to avoid the criminal scene and not support cynical criminals. The large-scale growers told us that they had had to expand their networks and engage with cannabis dealers to distribute their products. They also had to know how to act according to black market norms and safety rules. Some of them even enjoyed being involved in illegal activities. Joachim told us about the excitement of running an illegal enterprise. He described it as a ‘kick’ and ‘sensation-seeking’: Feeling the excitement, like, oh fuck, knowing what’s going on. What’s going to happen? It’s pretty crazy. You go there with a kilo of pot in your bag and are supposed to be going to the dealer and negotiate the price. That whole setting there, it’s like a film—only in reality—right? For Joachim, large-scale growing was not just about making a profit. Rather, what Katz (1988) describes as the ‘seduction of crime’ and Gross (1992) refers to as ‘outlaw attitude’ were important driving forces behind his enterprise. Other large-scale growers did not describe breaking the law as a symbol of resistance against the establishment. Yet others saw it as an unpleasant but necessary part of making money. Nevertheless, being able to handle the risky situations that arise when involved in illegal activities, and even enjoying them, is an important skill when expanding. Growers need other black market skills too. For example, Joachim was a large-scale grower and he had a number of strategies for avoiding the attention of the police. Most importantly, he sold to a selective group of people. Two large-scale dealers worked for him, each of whom distributed at least 1 kg. In this way, Joachim had nothing to do with the distribution of cannabis; he only had to relate to and trust the two dealers. Joachim emphasized that it was also important to ‘keep your mouth shut and not brag’. He had an ordinary job working for the municipality, so he could explain where his money came from, and thus could maintain a fac¸ade of innocence. At the same time, he knew enough about the criminal world to manage that part as well. Researchers have also pointed out that large-scale operators are concerned with constructing strategies that make it possible to operate under the radar of law enforcement agencies (Coomber, 2010; Pearson, 2007).
461
As other researchers have pointed out, growers seeking to expand their distribution network can organize distribution in several ways, such as by dealing to strangers, dealing to friends who are more peripheral and using friends as brokers (Hough et al., 2003; Potter, 2010a, 2010b). However, those who really want to go largescale must engage with dealers who have the capacity to sell large amounts (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011, p. 119). Such dealers are often involved in other types of crimes and criminal networks. They can be hard to locate, and interacting and arranging deals with them can be difficult. Knowing how to manoeuvre in their world may take years of experience. One can easily be cheated and it is difficult to know the hidden rules of conduct. Most of the small-scale dealers we talked with did not have access to distribution networks or possess the black market skills necessary for distributing large volumes of cannabis.
Horticultural challenges In outdoor growing, nature takes care of most of the process. At a basic level, indoor growing is also easy, but the yield and quality will usually be modest. At a more advanced level, growers use sophisticated equipment to maximize yield and quality (Potter, 2010, p. 102–103; Thomas, 2010), which demands horticultural skills and knowledge (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011). We asked Joachim, as a large-scale grower, how much time was needed from sowing the seed to having cannabis ready to sell: It depends on many things—on what kind of plant you have, I mean the genetics of the plant. How much light you have, in fact how professionally you can treat the plant. Because everything is manipulated. The cannabis plant is triggered to flower even though the day is shorter than 12 h. Still [clicks his fingers] it automatically produces a hormone, which triggers flowering! So you can manipulate it yourself, you can start the flowering when it is so big [shows the length with his fingers], right. There’s a whole science behind growing pot plants. Horticultural knowledge and skills were important prerequisites for going large-scale. Studies of small-scale growers have found that a passion for cultivation is a crucial motivation for many growers (Dahl, Frank, & Villumsen, 2010; Decorte, 2010b; Hakkarainen et al., 2011; Potter, 2010b; Weisheit, 1991); and even some of the smallest-scale growers we observed used very advanced equipment. However, most of the small-scale growers had no ambitions to manage the challenges related to growing large-scale. One of these was Bob (25), who occasionally grew cannabis outdoors during the summer, but saw large-scale indoor growing as too strenuous: It smells very strong if you do not have a charcoal filter and stuff like that—and then it suddenly becomes a very big thing. And it takes up a lot of space and then there is the light and. . . There is too much stress with it. The challenges of horticultural knowledge, space and electrical and carpentry skills deterred Bob from pursuing advanced indoor cultivation. Some of the small-scale growers tried cultivating outdoors during the summer, but the harsh Norwegian climate was a challenge. The technical and horticultural challenges intensify with the number of plants (Hough et al., 2003; Potter, 2010b). Frank (42) was an experienced grower who ran four small-scale growing operations (20–60 plants) and one large (150–200 plants). He often emphasized how large-scale operations require greater skills and
462
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
knowledge than small-scale growing, partly because of the potential consequences:
from large-scale growers, but stopped because he was worried it could cause health problems:
You know, big plantations need much more attention than smaller ones. It’s difficult to keep track of each plant. If you get diseases or bugs, it may take a long time before you detect them. If you run a large hydro-plantation without knowing what you are doing, you may lose the whole batch and that costs a lot. The risk of something going wrong is simply much greater.
It was awful [Vietnamese-produced cannabis]. When you grow cannabis, towards the end, you have to give it water to get the fertilizer out. In addition, you have to dry it properly. They sold wet cannabis and that results in fungus when you store it. They sold dangerous stuff.
Despite his expertise, Frank had experienced several failed crops because of technical problems and insects. The pattern was unambiguous: challenges related cannabis cultivation increased steeply with the number of plants. To overcome the horticultural challenges, it is important to have a mentor (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011), yet very few of the small-scale growers we met knew or were particularly interested in meeting experienced growers they could learn from. They thought large-scale growing would be too demanding. In sum, large-scale growers had elaborate knowledge about the process of cannabis cultivation, as they had developed skills over the years. The need for, and the tiresome process of acquiring, such a high level of horticultural knowledge deterred many small-scale growers from going large-scale.
The cannabis culture Studies of cannabis growers distinguish between those who are motivated by money—commercial growers—and those motivated by social or ideological factors (see Potter et al., 2011, p. 11–12). Unlike other illegal drug use, cannabis use tends to be associated with an ideology in favour of values such as anti-commercialism and social solidarity (Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010; Sandberg, 2012b; see also Booth, 2003; Matthews, 2003). We have conceptualized what others have termed ‘ideology’ as ‘cannabis culture’ (Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010; Sandberg, 2011, 2012a). However, rather than understanding culture as something that characterizes a distinct group of people, we see it is as a cluster of rituals, stories and symbols that people may employ to a greater or lesser degree in complex identity work. Many small-scale growers looked down upon the ‘big fish’. Anton (25), for example, described the large-scale growers in this manner: ‘They don’t participate in the rituals of the smoking of joints. They grow big amounts like hectares of buds and they sell it for the buck. They’re only in it for the money’. Most small-scale growers saw large-scale operators as criminal opportunists who made money because of the prohibition that they opposed. In addition, commercial markets were associated with cheating, violence, police detection and cannabis of poor quality. Lars (32) explained why he started growing: It was an idealistic thing. First, there’s the quality, right. The pot around was fucking awful. Second, there was this idea that we shouldn’t be a part of the crime scene, with all those links behind it and all that exploitation. The commercial markets were perceived as both dangerous and immoral (see also Decorte, 2010b). The market for homegrown cannabis, by contrast, was seen as based on community values and sharing between friends. The small-scale growers often referred to their growing and dealing as ‘helping’, and they were not interested in profit (see also Dahl et al., 2010; Hakkarainen & Perälä, 2011). Small-scale growers and cannabis users typically describe homegrown cannabis as being of higher quality than commercially grown cannabis. Bill (27) used to purchase contaminated cannabis
Many growers feared contaminated cannabis. They claimed that it came from commercial producers who increase the weight to boost profits, refraining from flushing out the fertilizers or not drying it properly (see also Potter, 2010a, p. 181). By growing their own cannabis, Bill and the other small-scale growers could be sure they got the quality they wanted, and at the same time avoid cynical and criminal markets with which they did not identify. However, economic demands will at some point make it difficult to remain true to the cannabis ideology (Hough et al., 2003; Potter, 2010a). The greatest challenges for large-scale ideologists were debt-collecting, distributing the drug and associating with other large-scale actors, without changing or renegotiating their values and identity. The anti-commercial and idealistic values of what can be best described as a cannabis culture make going largescale unattractive. Being small-scale resonates with the values of the traditional cannabis culture; while going large-scale means that you are ‘in it for the money’. This cultural barrier deters many small-scale growers from wanting to go large-scale.
Conclusion Most cannabis growers remain at a small scale, and this study identifies five mechanisms involved. The first four reflect practical challenges associated with starting a large illegal business: (i) the organizational challenges and large work-load; (ii) the need for financial investments; (iii) the knowledge required of how to operate in the illegal cannabis market; and (iv) horticultural skills and product knowledge. Finally, and most importantly, (v) most smallscale growers are embedded in a cannabis culture with an emphasis on anti-commercialism, anti-violence and ecological and community values. Hence, to develop large-scale production, ideologists must renegotiate or abandon these values. These five mechanisms are tightly interwoven and, combined, they prevent most smallscale growers from going large-scale. We suggest that our findings have important implications for cannabis cultivation policies that aim to reduce the harm associated with illegal cannabis markets. Traditionally, Norway has had a zero tolerance approach towards illegal drugs. However, harm reduction strategies have found increasing acceptance among politicians (Stoltenberg, 2010). Several international researchers and policy debaters have suggested that one possible approach—within the present political system—is to ‘soften the consequences of cannabis prohibition’ (Room et al., 2010, p. 75–107). However, a softer approach towards small-scale cannabis growers raises questions, in particular: Will a softer approach facilitate large-scale cannabis cultivation? The advocates for a softer approach claim that by decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis cultivation for personal use, growers may avoid supporting large-scale operators—who often are embedded in organized crime and violence (Decorte, 2007, 2008, 2010b; Lenton, 2011; Potter, 2010a). A strategy for reducing harm would then be to engineer a shift in the supply side from ‘harmful large-scale, criminal suppliers, to less risky small-scale and selfsuppliers’ (Lenton, 2011, p. 198). Not all large-scale growers are organized criminals or criminal entrepreneurs (Potter, 2010a; Spapens, 2011), but a number of studies have reported that largescale cannabis production often attracts serious criminals (Decorte,
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
2010a; Silverstone & Savage, 2010; Spapens, 2011; Wilkins & Casswell, 2003). Moreover, large-scale and commercial growers may, under certain conditions, recruit small-scale growers and vulnerable youth into commercial operations and criminal milieus (Bouchard et al., 2009, p. 471–473). Therefore, a challenge with regard to cannabis cultivation policy is to prevent large-scale growers from recruiting small-scale growers into criminal milieus (Bouchard et al., 2009, p. 473). Among the available strategies is to establish a limit for what constitutes ‘personal-use cultivation’. However, experiences from New Zealand and Australia suggest that if the limit is set too high, criminal gangs may create ‘franchise systems’ for small-scale growers (Lenton, 2011; Wilkins & Casswell, 2003). According to the police, small-scale growers produce the bulk of the domestic cannabis in Norway (KRIPOS, 2011), and the problem of recruitment into large-scale operations is marginal at present. However, there is no doubt that criminal entrepreneurs and gangs are involved in the illegal import and distribution of cannabis (Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010; Sandberg, 2012b). There is also reason to assume that these groups may seek to become involved in large-scale domestic cultivation. Thus, a policy with repressive approaches towards large-scale growers seems rational. However, is it possible to combine such a tough approach with a softer approach towards small-scale growers? Decorte (2007, 2008, 2010b) argues that cannabis users will often try to avoid buying from large-scale operators, if they are presented with a choice. Therefore, a strategy aiming at penalization of large-scale cultivation would probably receive support from many ordinary cannabis users (see also Decorte, 2007, p. 36). To target the ‘big fish’ is also a central aim of current Norwegian drug policy. However, this suggestion should come with a warning: experiences from the Netherlands and Belgium show that a repressive strategy regarding large-scale growers may inadvertently harm small-scale growers (Decorte, 2007, 2008, 2010a; Wouters, 2008). Many seem to exaggerate the risk of going from small-scale to large-scale cannabis growing. In our opinion, allowing cannabis users to cultivate small amounts may be a fruitful approach, as it may challenge the more destructive forces of cannabis commerce and serious crime. Therefore, within the framework of continued prohibition, we suggest that such a reform may ‘soften’ the harms of cannabis control. Indeed, this may create an opportunity for governments to join forces with cannabis users in the fight against crime and large-scale operators. References Bouchard, M. (2007). A capture–recapture model to estimate the size of criminal populations and the risks of detection in marijuana cultivation industry. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 221–241. Bouchard, M., Alain, M., & Nguyen, H. (2009). Convenient labour: The prevalence and nature of youth involvement in the cannabis cultivation industry. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(6), 467–474. Bouchard, M., & Dion, B. C. (2009). Growers and facilitators: Probing the role of entrepreneurs in the development of the cannabis cultivation industry. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 25–37. Bouchard, M., & Nguyen, H. (2011). Professionals or amateurs? Revisiting the notion of professional crime in the context of cannabis cultivation. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 109–125). London: Ashgate. Booth, M. (2003). Cannabis: A history. London: Doubleday. Coomber, R. (2010). Reconceptualising drug markets and drug dealers—The need for change. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 10(1), 10–13. Copes, H. (2011). Advancing qualitative methods in criminology and criminal justice. Abingdon: Routledge. Corbin, M. J., & Strauss, L. A. (2008). Developing grounded theory: The second generation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Dahl, H. V., Frank, V. A., & Villumsen, S. (2010). Hjemmedyrket cannabis—Dyrkernes egne erfaringer og perspektiver [Home grown cannabis—Growers’ own experiences and perspectives]. STOF, 15(Summer), 89–92. Decorte, T. (2007). Characteristics of the cannabis market in Belgium. In J. Fountain, & D. J. Korf (Eds.), Drugs in society: European perspectives (pp. 28–38). Oxford/New York: Radcliffe Publishing.
463
Decorte, T. (2008). Domestic marihuana cultivation in Belgium: On (un) intended effects of drug policy on the cannabis market. In J. Fountain, & D. J. Korf (Eds.), Cannabis in Europe: Dynamics in perception, policy and markets. (pp. 69–86). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Decorte, T. (2010a). The case for small-scale domestic cannabis cultivation. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(4), 271–275. Decorte, T. (2010b). Small-scale web survey of 687 small-scale growers in Belgium. Contemporary Drug Problems, 37(2), 341–370. European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction. (2008). A cannabis reader: Global issues and local experience. Monograph Issue 8. Lisbon: EMCDDA. European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction. (2011). 2011 Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe. Lisbon: EMCDDA. Gettman, J. (2006). Marijuana production in the United States (2006). The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform, December 2006, Issue number 2. Available from: http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/bcr2 index.html [Accessed 10.08.11]. Gross, K. H. (1992). Drug smuggling: The forbidden book. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press. Hakkarainen, P., Asmussen, F. A., Perälä, J., & Dahl, H. V. (2011). Small-scale cannabis growers in Denmark and Finland. European Addiction Research, 17(3), 119–128. Hakkarainen, P., & Perälä, J. (2011). With a little help from my friends—Justifications of small scale cannabis growers. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 75–89). London: Ashgate. Hough, M., Warburton, H., Few, B., May, T., Man, L., & Witton, J. (2003). A growing market: The domestic cultivation of cannabis. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation and National Addiction Centre. Jansen, A. C. M. (2002). The economics of cannabis cultivation in Europe. Paper presented at the 2nd European conference on drug trafficking and law enforcement Paris, 26–27 September 2002. Available from: http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/jansen.economics.html [Accessed 20.09.11]. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New York: Basic Books. Lenton, L. (2011). Reforming laws applying to domestic cannabis production as a harm reduction strategy—A case study. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 197–213). London: Ashgate. Matthews, P. (2003). Cannabis culture: A journey through disputed territory. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Nguyen, H., & Bouchard, M. (2010). Patterns of youth participation in cannabis cultivation. The Journal of Drug Issues, 40(2), 263–294. Pearson, G. (2007). Drug markets and dealing: From street dealers to Mr Big. In M. Simpson, T. Shildrick, & R. MacDonald (Eds.), Drugs in Britain supply consumption control (pp. 76–92). London: Palgrave. Potter, G. R. (2010a). Weed, need and greed: A study of domestic cannabis cultivation. London: Free Association Books. Potter, G. R. (2010b). You reap what you sow. Profit, pleasure and pain in domestic cannabis cultivation. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), Pleasure, pain and profit. European perspectives on drugs (pp. 134–148). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Potter, G. R., Bouchard, M., & Decorte, T. (2011). The globalization of cannabis cultivation. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 197–213). London: Ashgate. Potter, G., & Dann, S. (2005). Urban crop circles: Urban cannabis growers in the North of England. In W. Palacios (Ed.), Cocktails and dreams: Perspectives on drug and alcohol use (pp. 89–109). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Room, R., Fisher, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S., & Reuter, P. (2010). Cannabis policy: Moving beyond Stalemate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2004). Drug Situation in Canada––2003. Criminal Intelligence Directorate. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa. S. (2011). Is cannabis use normalized, celebrated or Sandberg, neutralized? Analysing talk as action. Addiction Research Theory, http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2011.638147 and Available online 12.12.11 Sandberg, S. (2012a). Cannabis culture: A stable subculture in a changing world. Criminology and Criminal Justice, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1748895812445620 Available online 28.05.12 Sandberg, S. (2012b). The importance of culture for cannabis markets. Towards an economic sociology of illegal drug markets. Journal of Criminology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azs031 British Available online 06.11.12 Sandberg, S., & Pedersen, W. (2010). Cannabiskultur. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Silverstone, D., & Savage, S. (2010). Farmers, factories and funds: organised crime and illicit drugs cultivation within the British Vietnamese community. Global Crime, 11(1), 16–33. Spapens, T. (2011). The cannabis market in the Netherlands. Available at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1856467 [Accessed 02.02.12]. Stoltenberg, T. (2010). (The Stoltenberg-committee: The rapport about narcotics) Stoltenberg-utvalget: Rapporten om narkotika. Oslo: Ministry of Health and Care Service. National Crime Investigation Service. (2010). (Drug statisThe tics 2010) Narkotikastatistikk 2010. Oslo: KRIPOS. Available at: https://www.politi.no/kripos/statistikk/narkotika/ [Accessed 10.20.11]
464
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
Thomas, M. (2010). European cannabis cultivation a complete grower’s guide (3rd ed.). Southsea, Hants: Avalon Wholesale Ltd. United Nations Office on Drugs Crime. (2011). World drug report 2011. Vienna: UNODC. Weisheit, R. A. (1991). The intangible rewards from crime: The case of domestic marijuana cultivation. Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 506–527.
Wilkins, C., & Casswell, S. (2003). Organized crime in cannabis cultivation in New Zealand: An economic analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems, 30(Winter), 757–777. Wouters, M. (2008). Controlling cannabis cultivation in the Netherlands. In J. Fountain, & D. J. Korf (Eds.), Cannabis in Europe: Dynamics in perception, policy and markets (pp. 69–86). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Drug Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo
Research paper
Why small-scale cannabis growers stay small: Five mechanisms that prevent small-scale growers from going large scale Eirik Hammersvik ∗ , Sveinung Sandberg, Willy Pedersen Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Post Box 1096, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 March 2012 Received in revised form 9 August 2012 Accepted 13 August 2012 Keywords: Cannabis Marihuana Cultivation Black market Culture
a b s t r a c t 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 largescale. 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. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Introduction Domestic cultivation of cannabis is increasingly replacing its importation and smuggling (Decorte, 2007; EMCDDA, 2008; Jansen, 2002; Potter, Bouchard, & Decorte, 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 & 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, 2010a). Equipment for
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 22 84 34 86; mobile: +47 920 18 109; fax: +47 22 85 52 53. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Hammersvik). 0955-3959/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.08.001
cannabis cultivation is easily accessible via the Internet and from so-called ‘grow-shops’ (Bouchard & 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,
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
2007; Bouchard, Alain, & Nguyen, 2009; Bouchard & Dion, 2009; Decorte, 2007, 2010a; Hough et al., 2003; Jansen, 2002; Nguyen & 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, Fisher, Hall, Lenton, & Reuter, 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 smallscale 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, Asmussen, Perälä, & Dahl, 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 & Savage, 2010; Wilkins & Casswell, 2003). Different studies have employed different measurements and criteria for categorizing growers and distinguishing between smallscale and large-scale growers (Bouchard & 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 largescale? 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.
Methods The data in this paper stem from two studies. The first study was an extensive investigation of cannabis users (N = 100) in Norway in
459
2006–2010 (for details, Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010). Participants were recruited through the researchers’ networks, students at the University of Oslo and Bergen, from cannabis interest organizations and through an Internet advertisement. Respondents were distributed across Norway. Twenty of the participants had experience in cultivating cannabis. Some had tried to grow cannabis but had failed, others were sporadic small-scale growers (growing up to 20 plants) and one had developed into a large-scale grower (usually growing approximately 250 plants). These interviews taught us much about cannabis cultivation in Norway and inspired an ethnographic follow-up study in which we explored this area in more detail. In the second study, a year of fieldwork was conducted (by the first author) among regular cannabis growers in the Oslo area. The fieldwork was carried out at 14 grow-sites. We categorized three of them as large grow-sites and 11 as small. Some of the respondents allowed us to follow the production and distribution of the crop throughout the whole year. Fieldwork included socializing with participants at gyms, at their friends’ places, in bars, cafés and at concerts. All growers were men aged between 23 and 45 years; some highly educated with good jobs whereas others were living on social benefits. In this study, we were in contact with nine categorized as ‘large-scale’ growers and 16 ‘small-scale’ growers. All were growing indoors. When analysing interviews and notes from fieldwork, we coded them for themes pertaining to movement up and down in the cannabis growing hierarchies. After this initial coding, and once we reached agreement on the dominant themes, the first author analysed all statements and fieldwork notes consistent with the five mechanisms that make up the results of the current analysis. Such style of coding is consistent with standards of qualitative research techniques, grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) and qualitative criminological research method (Copes, 2011). It is not easy to find valid criteria by which to categorize growers as either ‘small’ or ‘large’. Current definitions usually rest on the size of the cannabis market, geographical location, policy and police strategies, and how production size is measured (Hakkarainen et al., 2011, p. 123, 126; Potter, 2010a, p. 87, 201; Wouters, 2008, p. 55–59). Studies of growers and cannabis policies often refer to the number of plants and/or the weight of the dried cannabis (see Hough et al., 2003, p. xi). The ‘number of plants’ is an imprecise measurement (Potter, 2010a, p. 87, 157), but it may indicate production size if the size of the plant is controlled for. We categorized as small-scale those growers who grew fewer than 20 small plants, usually using the ‘sea of green’ method (see Thomas, 2010, p. 91). ‘Large-scale growers’ grew between 100 and 350 plants, producing between 3 kg and 12 kg per batch (each 8–10 weeks). In an international context, these growers are located in the grey zone between large- and small-scale producers. However, with the low supply of and high demand for high-quality cannabis in Norway, grow operations are potentially very profitable. The price per kilogram received by our most successful participants ranged from 100,000 NOK to 120,000 NOK (13–16 EUR per g), which is higher than the mean price on the retail level in Europe (6–11 EUR per g) (EMCDDA, 2011, p. 42) and most other countries (UNODC, 2011, p. 194, Fig. 159). These high wholesale prices made the growers’ operations potentially very profitable—in an international context. The analysis is based on interviews with 20 growers from the first study, as well as fieldwork and interviews with 25 growers from the second study. The data provide a solid ethnographic platform for an analysis of cannabis cultivation and growers in Norway. The study was designed according to the standards of the Norwegian Data Inspectorate, and approved by the same agency. All respondent names are pseudonyms.
460
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
Findings Organizational challenges Growing small amounts of cannabis requires little work; most of the small-scale growers spent less than 20 min a day caring for their plants, some even less than 5 min. Larger-scale growers spend much more time on watering, mixing nutrients and checking equipment. Some growers in our sample had temporarily increased their production before realizing that the work and security challenges involved would severely affect their social lives. We observed Kenneth during his transition from growing 2 to 20 plants, at which point the growing operation (‘grow-op’) covered most of his studio apartment. He described the problems that arose: I couldn’t hang out with my friends since many of them don’t like that kind of stuff. It stinks. I have always had different kinds of friends, but when I was growing, I could only hang out with smokers. . . and that became boring. . . Kenneth gained a reputation as a ‘stoner’ and was uncomfortable with how the grower identity became more and more important. He also found that it demanded too much work and quit growing. Ex-growers often mentioned the work-load when asked why they had stopped. Even when growing on the same relatively small scale as Kenneth, growers’ personal lives may suffer from the work and security demands involved in cannabis cultivation (see also Potter, 2010b, p. 146). Joachim was growing much larger quantities than Kenneth, and his story reveals how challenging it is to grow on a large scale. Joachim grew up to 250 plants and he described the common way of organizing a plantation: You have a group of three [people] and use a rotating schedule that organizes the responsibility. It’s an awful lot of work, they need daily care, like checking that everything works and that pipes are closed, that the water goes right, and that the lights are on and run as they should, and. . . Joachim and his colleague hired a gardener, which solved some of the problems. However, they still had to set up timetables, and at times Joachim worked more or less as a professional administrator. Other large-scale growers were less structured and organized, which resulted in repeated arguments over the distribution of work. Nguyen and Bouchard (2010) suggest that small-scale growers are prevented from going large-scale by labour and logistics. The literature demonstrates how the work-load raises organizational challenges, and that it is necessary to be a skilled organizer to run a large grow-op (Bouchard et al., 2009; Weisheit, 1991). In our study, growers who had increased their production size for a short period had experienced the large work-load involved. Although they had been looking for fun and leisure, the amount of time and work necessary for large-scale cultivation had given growing the character of work and commercialism. Most of the small-scale growers we talked with did not have the necessary organizational skills or knowledge required to go largescale.
Financial challenges Cannabis growing at a basic level is cheap or even free. Most of the small-scale growers we met did not see raising money as a
challenge for growing. Their only expenses were lamps, fertilizer, and sometimes seeds. Some of the small-scale growers who used advanced cultivation equipment had cultivated for years, and had gradually become able to buy increasingly more sophisticated and expensive equipment, such as running timers and regulators that they can monitor via the Internet. Several small-scale growers complained about the high prices of cultivation equipment in grow-shops. A few, like Tom (45), accepted the prices as long as they were justified by the quality: ‘Well, it costs a lot to grow. All the equipment cost me more than buying hash [laughs], but it’s much better than the shit you get elsewhere’. Tom had spent between 5000 and 10,000 EUR on equipment during the past 7 years. He never sold cannabis, and had to finance his equipment with his ordinary—and rather high—income. However, most growers in this study were young and many were students, and they were not in a financial position to buy expensive equipment. Those who did usually financed it by selling cannabis to their friends. Over a 1-year period, we followed one of the larger producers who had made sizeable investments before making a profit. The location was an expensive neighbourhood in Oslo, which made housing especially costly. Ole (34), the main grower in this large grow-op, explained: We spent more than 26,000 EUR before we took out profit. Money came in the whole time, but we used it to cover operating costs and equipment. Most of the money was used on housing, electricity and equipment. We had a lot of equipment just lying around right, but most of the money was used on rent and the housing deposit. We paid 2300 EUR [per month] in rent and paid like a three-month deposit and we first took out money after 12 months, so umm. . . I guess we spent 33,000 EUR on housing stuff. The growers spent a further 6500 EUR on equipment, 5000 EUR on electricity and 1900 EUR on high-quality plant nutrients. Because the first two crops partly failed, it took almost a year to generate sufficient income to offset the investment. The first crop lost 20 plants because of failing hydroponic equipment, and insects infected the second crop. During this period, the growers had spent most of their savings and income and they could afford the huge costs involved only because they had legitimate jobs and no families to support. The large-scale growers covered their set-up and operating costs by using legally obtained incomes and/or profit from previous grow-ops or wholesale hash operations. However, growers without the start-up capital can also form ‘grow-circles’ or be sponsored or hired by investors (Potter, 2010a; Potter & Dann, 2005). Previous research has described criminal entrepreneurs who invest in franchise-like operations (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011; Potter, 2010a). If growers manage a successful harvest, they obtain a share of the profit, but crop failure may have severe consequences. Potter (2010a) suggests that threats and violence may be the result of being sponsored by or cooperating with criminal entrepreneurs. The growers in our study also emphasized the serious economic loss from a failed large crop. In sum, building a large indoor grow-site is expensive (Nguyen & Bouchard, 2010; Potter, 2010a, 2010b). Housing, electricity and equipment require financial resources that most growers do not have. Young small-scale growers in particular are usually not in a financial position to run a large grow-site, and are thus prevented from producing large volumes (Bouchard et al., 2009; Nguyen & Bouchard, 2010). Large-scale cannabis cultivation demands sizeable financial assets, which acts as a barrier to small-scale growers increasing their production.
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
Black market skills Small-scale growers typically described distribution as ‘sharing with friends’ (see also Decorte, 2010b; Hakkarainen & Perälä, 2011; Potter, 2010a). Therefore, distribution did not represent a problem for them. By contrast, dealing outside their circle of friends was seen as stepping up a level in the drug trade, which most small-scale growers saw as problematic. Karl (43), for example, had 20–30 plants that took up one-third of a spare bedroom and he was satisfied with his production size: If I produce more than I do now, I’ll have to get a dealer or something. . . because of the risks, right. . . like, I can’t sell because I grow; you have to distinguish between those two, or you’ll get busted. But those I know who could sell are like real dope dealers. Tommy spoke of dope dealers with contempt. He did not want to involve a dealer—or ‘criminals’—in the distribution process, as that would turn his growing from being about helping friends into crime. The only drug dealers Tommy knew were heavy drug users who belonged to criminal networks that were monitored by the police. Involving them would critically increase the risk of growing. Tommy was deterred from going large-scale by the risks of violence, detection by police and fear of being stigmatized by the local community. For many small-scale growers, the motivation for growing in the first place had been to avoid the criminal scene and not support cynical criminals. The large-scale growers told us that they had had to expand their networks and engage with cannabis dealers to distribute their products. They also had to know how to act according to black market norms and safety rules. Some of them even enjoyed being involved in illegal activities. Joachim told us about the excitement of running an illegal enterprise. He described it as a ‘kick’ and ‘sensation-seeking’: Feeling the excitement, like, oh fuck, knowing what’s going on. What’s going to happen? It’s pretty crazy. You go there with a kilo of pot in your bag and are supposed to be going to the dealer and negotiate the price. That whole setting there, it’s like a film—only in reality—right? For Joachim, large-scale growing was not just about making a profit. Rather, what Katz (1988) describes as the ‘seduction of crime’ and Gross (1992) refers to as ‘outlaw attitude’ were important driving forces behind his enterprise. Other large-scale growers did not describe breaking the law as a symbol of resistance against the establishment. Yet others saw it as an unpleasant but necessary part of making money. Nevertheless, being able to handle the risky situations that arise when involved in illegal activities, and even enjoying them, is an important skill when expanding. Growers need other black market skills too. For example, Joachim was a large-scale grower and he had a number of strategies for avoiding the attention of the police. Most importantly, he sold to a selective group of people. Two large-scale dealers worked for him, each of whom distributed at least 1 kg. In this way, Joachim had nothing to do with the distribution of cannabis; he only had to relate to and trust the two dealers. Joachim emphasized that it was also important to ‘keep your mouth shut and not brag’. He had an ordinary job working for the municipality, so he could explain where his money came from, and thus could maintain a fac¸ade of innocence. At the same time, he knew enough about the criminal world to manage that part as well. Researchers have also pointed out that large-scale operators are concerned with constructing strategies that make it possible to operate under the radar of law enforcement agencies (Coomber, 2010; Pearson, 2007).
461
As other researchers have pointed out, growers seeking to expand their distribution network can organize distribution in several ways, such as by dealing to strangers, dealing to friends who are more peripheral and using friends as brokers (Hough et al., 2003; Potter, 2010a, 2010b). However, those who really want to go largescale must engage with dealers who have the capacity to sell large amounts (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011, p. 119). Such dealers are often involved in other types of crimes and criminal networks. They can be hard to locate, and interacting and arranging deals with them can be difficult. Knowing how to manoeuvre in their world may take years of experience. One can easily be cheated and it is difficult to know the hidden rules of conduct. Most of the small-scale dealers we talked with did not have access to distribution networks or possess the black market skills necessary for distributing large volumes of cannabis.
Horticultural challenges In outdoor growing, nature takes care of most of the process. At a basic level, indoor growing is also easy, but the yield and quality will usually be modest. At a more advanced level, growers use sophisticated equipment to maximize yield and quality (Potter, 2010, p. 102–103; Thomas, 2010), which demands horticultural skills and knowledge (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011). We asked Joachim, as a large-scale grower, how much time was needed from sowing the seed to having cannabis ready to sell: It depends on many things—on what kind of plant you have, I mean the genetics of the plant. How much light you have, in fact how professionally you can treat the plant. Because everything is manipulated. The cannabis plant is triggered to flower even though the day is shorter than 12 h. Still [clicks his fingers] it automatically produces a hormone, which triggers flowering! So you can manipulate it yourself, you can start the flowering when it is so big [shows the length with his fingers], right. There’s a whole science behind growing pot plants. Horticultural knowledge and skills were important prerequisites for going large-scale. Studies of small-scale growers have found that a passion for cultivation is a crucial motivation for many growers (Dahl, Frank, & Villumsen, 2010; Decorte, 2010b; Hakkarainen et al., 2011; Potter, 2010b; Weisheit, 1991); and even some of the smallest-scale growers we observed used very advanced equipment. However, most of the small-scale growers had no ambitions to manage the challenges related to growing large-scale. One of these was Bob (25), who occasionally grew cannabis outdoors during the summer, but saw large-scale indoor growing as too strenuous: It smells very strong if you do not have a charcoal filter and stuff like that—and then it suddenly becomes a very big thing. And it takes up a lot of space and then there is the light and. . . There is too much stress with it. The challenges of horticultural knowledge, space and electrical and carpentry skills deterred Bob from pursuing advanced indoor cultivation. Some of the small-scale growers tried cultivating outdoors during the summer, but the harsh Norwegian climate was a challenge. The technical and horticultural challenges intensify with the number of plants (Hough et al., 2003; Potter, 2010b). Frank (42) was an experienced grower who ran four small-scale growing operations (20–60 plants) and one large (150–200 plants). He often emphasized how large-scale operations require greater skills and
462
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
knowledge than small-scale growing, partly because of the potential consequences:
from large-scale growers, but stopped because he was worried it could cause health problems:
You know, big plantations need much more attention than smaller ones. It’s difficult to keep track of each plant. If you get diseases or bugs, it may take a long time before you detect them. If you run a large hydro-plantation without knowing what you are doing, you may lose the whole batch and that costs a lot. The risk of something going wrong is simply much greater.
It was awful [Vietnamese-produced cannabis]. When you grow cannabis, towards the end, you have to give it water to get the fertilizer out. In addition, you have to dry it properly. They sold wet cannabis and that results in fungus when you store it. They sold dangerous stuff.
Despite his expertise, Frank had experienced several failed crops because of technical problems and insects. The pattern was unambiguous: challenges related cannabis cultivation increased steeply with the number of plants. To overcome the horticultural challenges, it is important to have a mentor (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011), yet very few of the small-scale growers we met knew or were particularly interested in meeting experienced growers they could learn from. They thought large-scale growing would be too demanding. In sum, large-scale growers had elaborate knowledge about the process of cannabis cultivation, as they had developed skills over the years. The need for, and the tiresome process of acquiring, such a high level of horticultural knowledge deterred many small-scale growers from going large-scale.
The cannabis culture Studies of cannabis growers distinguish between those who are motivated by money—commercial growers—and those motivated by social or ideological factors (see Potter et al., 2011, p. 11–12). Unlike other illegal drug use, cannabis use tends to be associated with an ideology in favour of values such as anti-commercialism and social solidarity (Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010; Sandberg, 2012b; see also Booth, 2003; Matthews, 2003). We have conceptualized what others have termed ‘ideology’ as ‘cannabis culture’ (Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010; Sandberg, 2011, 2012a). However, rather than understanding culture as something that characterizes a distinct group of people, we see it is as a cluster of rituals, stories and symbols that people may employ to a greater or lesser degree in complex identity work. Many small-scale growers looked down upon the ‘big fish’. Anton (25), for example, described the large-scale growers in this manner: ‘They don’t participate in the rituals of the smoking of joints. They grow big amounts like hectares of buds and they sell it for the buck. They’re only in it for the money’. Most small-scale growers saw large-scale operators as criminal opportunists who made money because of the prohibition that they opposed. In addition, commercial markets were associated with cheating, violence, police detection and cannabis of poor quality. Lars (32) explained why he started growing: It was an idealistic thing. First, there’s the quality, right. The pot around was fucking awful. Second, there was this idea that we shouldn’t be a part of the crime scene, with all those links behind it and all that exploitation. The commercial markets were perceived as both dangerous and immoral (see also Decorte, 2010b). The market for homegrown cannabis, by contrast, was seen as based on community values and sharing between friends. The small-scale growers often referred to their growing and dealing as ‘helping’, and they were not interested in profit (see also Dahl et al., 2010; Hakkarainen & Perälä, 2011). Small-scale growers and cannabis users typically describe homegrown cannabis as being of higher quality than commercially grown cannabis. Bill (27) used to purchase contaminated cannabis
Many growers feared contaminated cannabis. They claimed that it came from commercial producers who increase the weight to boost profits, refraining from flushing out the fertilizers or not drying it properly (see also Potter, 2010a, p. 181). By growing their own cannabis, Bill and the other small-scale growers could be sure they got the quality they wanted, and at the same time avoid cynical and criminal markets with which they did not identify. However, economic demands will at some point make it difficult to remain true to the cannabis ideology (Hough et al., 2003; Potter, 2010a). The greatest challenges for large-scale ideologists were debt-collecting, distributing the drug and associating with other large-scale actors, without changing or renegotiating their values and identity. The anti-commercial and idealistic values of what can be best described as a cannabis culture make going largescale unattractive. Being small-scale resonates with the values of the traditional cannabis culture; while going large-scale means that you are ‘in it for the money’. This cultural barrier deters many small-scale growers from wanting to go large-scale.
Conclusion Most cannabis growers remain at a small scale, and this study identifies five mechanisms involved. The first four reflect practical challenges associated with starting a large illegal business: (i) the organizational challenges and large work-load; (ii) the need for financial investments; (iii) the knowledge required of how to operate in the illegal cannabis market; and (iv) horticultural skills and product knowledge. Finally, and most importantly, (v) most smallscale growers are embedded in a cannabis culture with an emphasis on anti-commercialism, anti-violence and ecological and community values. Hence, to develop large-scale production, ideologists must renegotiate or abandon these values. These five mechanisms are tightly interwoven and, combined, they prevent most smallscale growers from going large-scale. We suggest that our findings have important implications for cannabis cultivation policies that aim to reduce the harm associated with illegal cannabis markets. Traditionally, Norway has had a zero tolerance approach towards illegal drugs. However, harm reduction strategies have found increasing acceptance among politicians (Stoltenberg, 2010). Several international researchers and policy debaters have suggested that one possible approach—within the present political system—is to ‘soften the consequences of cannabis prohibition’ (Room et al., 2010, p. 75–107). However, a softer approach towards small-scale cannabis growers raises questions, in particular: Will a softer approach facilitate large-scale cannabis cultivation? The advocates for a softer approach claim that by decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis cultivation for personal use, growers may avoid supporting large-scale operators—who often are embedded in organized crime and violence (Decorte, 2007, 2008, 2010b; Lenton, 2011; Potter, 2010a). A strategy for reducing harm would then be to engineer a shift in the supply side from ‘harmful large-scale, criminal suppliers, to less risky small-scale and selfsuppliers’ (Lenton, 2011, p. 198). Not all large-scale growers are organized criminals or criminal entrepreneurs (Potter, 2010a; Spapens, 2011), but a number of studies have reported that largescale cannabis production often attracts serious criminals (Decorte,
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
2010a; Silverstone & Savage, 2010; Spapens, 2011; Wilkins & Casswell, 2003). Moreover, large-scale and commercial growers may, under certain conditions, recruit small-scale growers and vulnerable youth into commercial operations and criminal milieus (Bouchard et al., 2009, p. 471–473). Therefore, a challenge with regard to cannabis cultivation policy is to prevent large-scale growers from recruiting small-scale growers into criminal milieus (Bouchard et al., 2009, p. 473). Among the available strategies is to establish a limit for what constitutes ‘personal-use cultivation’. However, experiences from New Zealand and Australia suggest that if the limit is set too high, criminal gangs may create ‘franchise systems’ for small-scale growers (Lenton, 2011; Wilkins & Casswell, 2003). According to the police, small-scale growers produce the bulk of the domestic cannabis in Norway (KRIPOS, 2011), and the problem of recruitment into large-scale operations is marginal at present. However, there is no doubt that criminal entrepreneurs and gangs are involved in the illegal import and distribution of cannabis (Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010; Sandberg, 2012b). There is also reason to assume that these groups may seek to become involved in large-scale domestic cultivation. Thus, a policy with repressive approaches towards large-scale growers seems rational. However, is it possible to combine such a tough approach with a softer approach towards small-scale growers? Decorte (2007, 2008, 2010b) argues that cannabis users will often try to avoid buying from large-scale operators, if they are presented with a choice. Therefore, a strategy aiming at penalization of large-scale cultivation would probably receive support from many ordinary cannabis users (see also Decorte, 2007, p. 36). To target the ‘big fish’ is also a central aim of current Norwegian drug policy. However, this suggestion should come with a warning: experiences from the Netherlands and Belgium show that a repressive strategy regarding large-scale growers may inadvertently harm small-scale growers (Decorte, 2007, 2008, 2010a; Wouters, 2008). Many seem to exaggerate the risk of going from small-scale to large-scale cannabis growing. In our opinion, allowing cannabis users to cultivate small amounts may be a fruitful approach, as it may challenge the more destructive forces of cannabis commerce and serious crime. Therefore, within the framework of continued prohibition, we suggest that such a reform may ‘soften’ the harms of cannabis control. Indeed, this may create an opportunity for governments to join forces with cannabis users in the fight against crime and large-scale operators. References Bouchard, M. (2007). A capture–recapture model to estimate the size of criminal populations and the risks of detection in marijuana cultivation industry. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 221–241. Bouchard, M., Alain, M., & Nguyen, H. (2009). Convenient labour: The prevalence and nature of youth involvement in the cannabis cultivation industry. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(6), 467–474. Bouchard, M., & Dion, B. C. (2009). Growers and facilitators: Probing the role of entrepreneurs in the development of the cannabis cultivation industry. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 25–37. Bouchard, M., & Nguyen, H. (2011). Professionals or amateurs? Revisiting the notion of professional crime in the context of cannabis cultivation. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 109–125). London: Ashgate. Booth, M. (2003). Cannabis: A history. London: Doubleday. Coomber, R. (2010). Reconceptualising drug markets and drug dealers—The need for change. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 10(1), 10–13. Copes, H. (2011). Advancing qualitative methods in criminology and criminal justice. Abingdon: Routledge. Corbin, M. J., & Strauss, L. A. (2008). Developing grounded theory: The second generation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Dahl, H. V., Frank, V. A., & Villumsen, S. (2010). Hjemmedyrket cannabis—Dyrkernes egne erfaringer og perspektiver [Home grown cannabis—Growers’ own experiences and perspectives]. STOF, 15(Summer), 89–92. Decorte, T. (2007). Characteristics of the cannabis market in Belgium. In J. Fountain, & D. J. Korf (Eds.), Drugs in society: European perspectives (pp. 28–38). Oxford/New York: Radcliffe Publishing.
463
Decorte, T. (2008). Domestic marihuana cultivation in Belgium: On (un) intended effects of drug policy on the cannabis market. In J. Fountain, & D. J. Korf (Eds.), Cannabis in Europe: Dynamics in perception, policy and markets. (pp. 69–86). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Decorte, T. (2010a). The case for small-scale domestic cannabis cultivation. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(4), 271–275. Decorte, T. (2010b). Small-scale web survey of 687 small-scale growers in Belgium. Contemporary Drug Problems, 37(2), 341–370. European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction. (2008). A cannabis reader: Global issues and local experience. Monograph Issue 8. Lisbon: EMCDDA. European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction. (2011). 2011 Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe. Lisbon: EMCDDA. Gettman, J. (2006). Marijuana production in the United States (2006). The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform, December 2006, Issue number 2. Available from: http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/bcr2 index.html [Accessed 10.08.11]. Gross, K. H. (1992). Drug smuggling: The forbidden book. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press. Hakkarainen, P., Asmussen, F. A., Perälä, J., & Dahl, H. V. (2011). Small-scale cannabis growers in Denmark and Finland. European Addiction Research, 17(3), 119–128. Hakkarainen, P., & Perälä, J. (2011). With a little help from my friends—Justifications of small scale cannabis growers. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 75–89). London: Ashgate. Hough, M., Warburton, H., Few, B., May, T., Man, L., & Witton, J. (2003). A growing market: The domestic cultivation of cannabis. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation and National Addiction Centre. Jansen, A. C. M. (2002). The economics of cannabis cultivation in Europe. Paper presented at the 2nd European conference on drug trafficking and law enforcement Paris, 26–27 September 2002. Available from: http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/jansen.economics.html [Accessed 20.09.11]. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New York: Basic Books. Lenton, L. (2011). Reforming laws applying to domestic cannabis production as a harm reduction strategy—A case study. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 197–213). London: Ashgate. Matthews, P. (2003). Cannabis culture: A journey through disputed territory. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Nguyen, H., & Bouchard, M. (2010). Patterns of youth participation in cannabis cultivation. The Journal of Drug Issues, 40(2), 263–294. Pearson, G. (2007). Drug markets and dealing: From street dealers to Mr Big. In M. Simpson, T. Shildrick, & R. MacDonald (Eds.), Drugs in Britain supply consumption control (pp. 76–92). London: Palgrave. Potter, G. R. (2010a). Weed, need and greed: A study of domestic cannabis cultivation. London: Free Association Books. Potter, G. R. (2010b). You reap what you sow. Profit, pleasure and pain in domestic cannabis cultivation. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), Pleasure, pain and profit. European perspectives on drugs (pp. 134–148). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Potter, G. R., Bouchard, M., & Decorte, T. (2011). The globalization of cannabis cultivation. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 197–213). London: Ashgate. Potter, G., & Dann, S. (2005). Urban crop circles: Urban cannabis growers in the North of England. In W. Palacios (Ed.), Cocktails and dreams: Perspectives on drug and alcohol use (pp. 89–109). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Room, R., Fisher, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S., & Reuter, P. (2010). Cannabis policy: Moving beyond Stalemate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2004). Drug Situation in Canada––2003. Criminal Intelligence Directorate. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa. S. (2011). Is cannabis use normalized, celebrated or Sandberg, neutralized? Analysing talk as action. Addiction Research Theory, http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2011.638147 and Available online 12.12.11 Sandberg, S. (2012a). Cannabis culture: A stable subculture in a changing world. Criminology and Criminal Justice, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1748895812445620 Available online 28.05.12 Sandberg, S. (2012b). The importance of culture for cannabis markets. Towards an economic sociology of illegal drug markets. Journal of Criminology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azs031 British Available online 06.11.12 Sandberg, S., & Pedersen, W. (2010). Cannabiskultur. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Silverstone, D., & Savage, S. (2010). Farmers, factories and funds: organised crime and illicit drugs cultivation within the British Vietnamese community. Global Crime, 11(1), 16–33. Spapens, T. (2011). The cannabis market in the Netherlands. Available at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1856467 [Accessed 02.02.12]. Stoltenberg, T. (2010). (The Stoltenberg-committee: The rapport about narcotics) Stoltenberg-utvalget: Rapporten om narkotika. Oslo: Ministry of Health and Care Service. National Crime Investigation Service. (2010). (Drug statisThe tics 2010) Narkotikastatistikk 2010. Oslo: KRIPOS. Available at: https://www.politi.no/kripos/statistikk/narkotika/ [Accessed 10.20.11]
464
E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
Thomas, M. (2010). European cannabis cultivation a complete grower’s guide (3rd ed.). Southsea, Hants: Avalon Wholesale Ltd. United Nations Office on Drugs Crime. (2011). World drug report 2011. Vienna: UNODC. Weisheit, R. A. (1991). The intangible rewards from crime: The case of domestic marijuana cultivation. Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 506–527.
Wilkins, C., & Casswell, S. (2003). Organized crime in cannabis cultivation in New Zealand: An economic analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems, 30(Winter), 757–777. Wouters, M. (2008). Controlling cannabis cultivation in the Netherlands. In J. Fountain, & D. J. Korf (Eds.), Cannabis in Europe: Dynamics in perception, policy and markets (pp. 69–86). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.