The burgeoning recognition and accommodation of the social supply of drugs in international criminal justice systems: An eleven-nation comparative overview

Global patterns in small-scale cannabis growers' distribution practices: Exploring the grower-distributor nexus

BACKGROUND

While the supply of cannabis is commonly assumed to be dominated by criminal gangs, a sizable share of the domestic cannabis supply is provided by small-scale growers. This article examines the nature and scope of small-scale growers' distribution practices, with a particular focus on cross-country differences and variations between different types of grower-distributors, i.e., "non-suppliers", "exclusive social suppliers", "sharers and sellers" and "exclusive sellers".

METHODS

Based on a large convenience web survey sample of predominantly small-scale cannabis growers from 18 countries, this article draws on data from two subsamples. The first subsample includes past-year growers in all 18 countries who answered questions regarding their market participation (n = 8,812). The second subsample includes past-year growers in 13 countries, who answered additional questions about their supply practices (n = 2,296).

RESULTS

The majority of the cannabis growers engaged in distribution of surplus products, making them in effect "grower-distributors". Importantly, many did so as a secondary consequence of growing, and social supply (e.g., sharing and gifting) is much more common than selling. While growers who both shared and sold ("sharers and sellers"), and especially those who only sold ("exclusive sellers"), grew a higher number of plants and were most likely to grow due to a wish to sell for profits, the majority of these are best described as small-scale sellers. That is, the profit motive for growing was often secondary to non-financial motives and most sold to a limited number of persons in their close social network.

CONCLUSION

We discuss the implications of the findings on the structural process of import-substitution in low-end cannabis markets, including a growing normalization of cannabis supply.

Cannabis Social Clubs in Contemporary Legalization Reforms: Talking Consumption Sites and Social Justice

There is ongoing debate about what policy approaches to cannabis use might best address health and social related harm. Profit-driven, adult-use cannabis markets have been introduced in the United States and Canada, where legalization reform has had mixed effects to date in terms of public health and has made limited progress in achieving social justice aims. Meanwhile, several jurisdictions have seen an organic evolution of alternative cannabis-supply regimes. Cannabis social clubs (CSCs), the focus of this commentary, are nonprofit cooperatives that supply cannabis to consumers with the goal of harm reduction. The peer and participatory aspects of CSCs may have positive effects on health-related outcomes of cannabis use, such as through encouraging the use of safer products and responsible use practices. The nonprofit objectives of CSCs may diminish the risk for increasing cannabis consumption in wider society. CSCs have recently made an important transition from grassroots organizations in Spain and elsewhere. In particular, they have become key players in top-down cannabis legalization reform in Uruguay and, most recently, Malta. The history of CSCs in reducing harm from cannabis use is an important advantage, but there might be concerns around the grassroots origins, low taxation opportunities, and capacity to sustain social objectives. Also, the CSC model might not seem unique, as contemporary cannabis entrepreneurs have absorbed some features of their community-based predecessors. CSCs can play an important role in future cannabis legalization reform due to their unique strengths as cannabis-consumption sites and can be effective in advancing social justice by giving people affected by cannabis prohibition agency and direct access to resources.

Thresholds: First gradually, then suddenly?

Writing in the context of proposal to expand the decriminalisation of illicit drugs in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia's smallest and most progressive jurisdiction, this article explores the key question of the use of quantitative thresholds to determine the level of drug use distinguishing personal use from trafficking. Recent literature demonstrates the use of quantitative thresholds has yielded highly divergent approaches in jurisdictions around the world. The literature also points to the underlying challenges involved in evaluating whether it is appropriate to employ quantitative figures to make that distinction, and if so how and to what ends. Harris (2011) goes so far as to describe 'conviction by numbers' as a 'lazy shorthand' that may exact an 'immeasurable cost of injustice' (3). Yet practices which do not rely on quantitative measures are at real risk of exacerbating discretionary judgments by police and prosecutors that may well result in discriminatory application of the laws. The basis on which the balance between these two countervailing considerations is struck in these discussions is not always clear. The paper focuses first on the merits of adopting an approach based on quantitative thresholds and argues that the implications of applying legally mandated drug quantities is in fact not as cut and dried as many authors have assumed. There is an important 'middle way' between the rote application of quantitative measures and their abandonment. This middle way has previously been ignored. The article then addresses exactly how and on what basis quantitative thresholds should be determined if they are to reflect and advance harm reduction principles. Finally, the paper considers and critiques arguments that quantitative thresholds should be set not only by reference to the consumption patterns of users but also in relation to the relative harm of particular substances. As a whole, the essay aims to contribute to a broader international literature on thresholds, a vexed question which matters not only in Canberra, but around the world.

Legalization of recreational cannabis: Facilitators and barriers to switching from an illegal to a legal source

•

Limiting surveillance, quantity limits, and preserving anonymity is a facilitator.

•

Competitive pricing from the illicit market and heavy regulation are barriers.

•

Loyalty to current illicit suppliers is a barrier to switching to a licit market.

Illicit markets persist in places where recreational cannabis has been legalized. This study aimed to identify perceived facilitators/barriers of switching from an illicit to a licit cannabis source. Using a cross-sectional qualitative approach, 529 students, from one New Zealand university, completed a survey investigating the facilitators/barriers to switching through two open-ended questions. Perceived facilitators for switching included: safety (63.1%); price (42.7%); legal, no risk of convictions (35.3%); increased accessibility (32.3%); product diversity (14.2%). Perceived barriers included: price (66.4%); judgement (36%); regulation (28.9%); loyalty to current supplier (27.2%); reduced accessibility (13.2%). The findings provide recommendations for policies aimed at tipping people in favor of a licit over an illicit source. Avoiding arrest/convictions, and easier access, were not primary facilitators for switching. Thus, providing a licit market might be insufficient in the absence of other competitive factors, such as communicating improved product safety. Competitive pricing and regulation (tetrahydrocannabinol strength/quantity limits) were also barriers. Given legal markets aimed at minimizing harm are constrained with competing in these areas, it is significant that our findings identified other barriers which could be overcome, including limiting surveillance and quantity limits and positioning stores to preserve anonymity. The findings also highlight that loyalty to current illicit suppliers will be a significant barrier.

Sources of drug acquisition among females and males in the European Web Survey on Drugs

BACKGROUND

Social networks determine the availability of drugs, which in turn affects use patterns. Yet, there is some limited evidence that as frequency of drug use increases, people who use drugs increasingly utilize drug dealers. Further, females more often report receiving drugs for free. Studies on these two phenomena are limited by the substances they examine and the countries in which they have been conducted, and they have not been considered together. We examine whether gender differences in sources is moderated by increased frequency of use across four different substances in a web survey of sixteen European countries.

METHODS

The European Web Survey on Drugs was collected from 2016-2018 among the national partners of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Individuals who use drugs in sixteen European countries completed an online survey. For herbal cannabis, cannabis resin, cocaine, and MDMA, we examine drug acquisition sources by gender and frequency of use. Sources include through dealers and sharing or free, as well as growing and online markets for cannabis. We model each source with logistic regression with chained multiple imputation and a country fixed-effect and clustered standard errors.

RESULTS

Across all substances, females who use drugs at low frequencies had significantly lower probabilities than males in using dealers; however, females were equally likely to use dealers when use is frequent. The probability of acquiring drugs for free was higher for females except among those who use most frequently, where the difference became non-significant except for herbal cannabis.

CONCLUSIONS

Females and males use dealers to acquire illicit drugs at similar rates when use is more frequent. Except for highest frequency use, females are typically more likely than males to acquire drugs for free. Examinations of supply should consider these gendered differences in acquisition.

The price and mark up of pharmaceutical drugs supplied on the black market

BACKGROUND

Research examining illicit drug markets has shown that price affects consumption and mark ups are extremely high. However, the economics of black market pharmaceutical supply remains unknown, despite increasing harms due to pharmaceuticals.

METHODS

Semi-structured, telephone interviews were conducted in Australia with 51 people involved in supplying pharmaceuticals in the previous six months. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and quantitative information on costs, sale price, quantity and frequency of supply were coded and used to calculate the mark up ratio for each drug transaction 'cycle', accounting for distribution via selling, gifting and trading. Mixed effects gamma regressions were used to identify predictors of price and mark up, clustering by participant.

RESULTS

There were 29 drugs supplied over 111 cycles, including hypnotic-sedatives (38%), pharmaceutical opioids (32%), stimulants (18%) and others (12%). Sedatives were sold at lower prices than opioids and there was a negative relationship between unit price and transaction size, consistent with a discount effect. For every dollar spent acquiring the drugs, the supplier earned a median of $3.19. Cycles involving the distribution of drugs sourced via intermediaries (e.g. friends/family) had lower mark up than drugs sourced directly from the medical system.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is one of few studies to analyse economic aspects of the pharmaceutical black market from a supply perspective. There were a small number of cycles that realised large profits that may warrant different types of policy responses, however for most suppliers in our sample gross revenue and gross profit was modest.

Prevalence and correlates of selling illicit cannabis among people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada: A ten-year prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The illicit selling and use of cannabis is prevalent among marginalized people who use illicit drugs (PWUD). Given that participation in illicit drug markets has been previously associated with a range of health and social harms, we sought to examine the predictors of selling cannabis among PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, a setting with a de facto legalized cannabis market, on the eve of the planned implementation of legalized non-medical cannabis including measures to regulate the existing illicit market.

METHODS

Multivariable generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression was used to analyze longitudinal factors associated with selling illicit cannabis among three prospective cohorts of PWUD between September 2005 and May 2015.

RESULTS

Among the 3258 participants included in this study, 328 (10.1%) reported selling illicit cannabis at baseline, and 46 (5.1%) initiated cannabis selling over the study period. In the multivariable analysis of the whole sample, factors significantly associated with selling cannabis included cannabis use (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 4.05), dealing other drugs (AOR = 3.87), being male (AOR = 1.83), experiencing violence (AOR = 1.40), non-medical prescription opioid use (AOR = 1.32), non-custodial involvement in the criminal justice system (AOR = 1.31), being stopped by police (AOR = 1.30), crack use (AOR = 1.25), homelessness (AOR = 1.23), age (AOR = 0.96 per year) and participation in sex work (AOR = 0.67) (all p < 0.05). The subanalyses indicated that dealing drugs other than cannabis, cannabis use, and non-custodial involvement in the criminal justice system were the only factors significantly associated with selling cannabis in all four subgroups.

CONCLUSION

These findings support existing evidence indicating that selling illicit cannabis is often a survival-driven strategy to support the basic needs and substance use of some PWUD. Our findings suggest jurisdictions with planned or impending cannabis legalization and regulation should consider the vulnerability of PWUD when seeking to eradicate illicit cannabis markets, for example, in setting criminal penalties for selling cannabis outside of regulatory frameworks.

Drug sourcing and motivations among a sample of people involved in the supply of pharmaceutical drugs in Australia

BACKGROUND

The non-medical use (NMU) of pharmaceuticals is increasing internationally, along with mortality. Previous research indicates that end-users access pharmaceuticals through social networks, however little is known about supplier sources particularly outside the US. This study examined sourcing and motivations among a sample of people involved in pharmaceutical diversion and supply in Australia.

METHODS

Semi-structured, telephone interviews were conducted with 51 people involved in supplying pharmaceuticals in the previous six months. Multi-stage recruitment involved the distribution of flyers to participants of two Australian drug-monitoring programs: the Ecstasy and related Drugs Reporting System (capturing regular psycho-stimulant users) and the Illicit Drug Reporting System (capturing people who regularly inject drugs), followed by a screening of interested participants. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a mixed methods approach. First, correlates of drug sourcing and motivations were examined including demographics, frequency and quantity of supply. Second, thematic analysis of the qualitative data was undertaken on strategies for obtaining the drugs and motivating factors.

RESULTS

Drug supplies were sourced from a variety of medical and non-medical sources, primarily legitimately obtained prescriptions (47%), friends or family (18%) and dealers (14%). Suppliers using medical sources were more likely to be unemployed/retired and reported supplying for therapeutic purposes, while suppliers using non-medical sources were more likely to be employed/students, earned higher incomes and reported supplying for recreational purposes. Those who sourced via doctor shopping (IRR = 47.5) and friends and family (IRR = 10.1) distributed higher quantities, while those who sourced legitimately obtained prescriptions (IRR = 0.1) and from illicit drug dealers (IRR = 0.0) distributed lower quantities. Similar proportions supplied for financial (65%) and altruistic (61%) reasons, however the latter supplied lower quantities (IRR = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

This study offers novel insight into the diversion of pharmaceuticals from the supplier perspective. A nuanced policy approach is required to address varied supply practices by source and motive.