The Belgian Cannabis Social Club landscape

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to map the presence of the Cannabis Social Club (CSC) model in Belgium since its emergence in the country and to analyze the inter-organizational relations among CSCs and between the CSCs and other supportive actors engaged in the wider cannabis movement. Design/methodology/approach This analysis draws on qualitative interviews (n=42) with directors of seven currently active and one former Belgian CSC(s), as well as with organizations or individuals reportedly collaborating with the Belgian CSCs. That data are complemented by fieldwork observations and a review of CSC internal documents. Findings Despite an uninterrupted presence in the country over the last decade, CSC presence in Belgium remains rather volatile and vulnerable to external control pressure. The CSC landscape is a somewhat segmented field as cooperation among CSCs remains limited. At the same time, the support base for the movement is diverse, encompassing different types of secondary organizations ranging from national and international advocacy groups, to cannabis industry entrepreneurs and other consultants. Originality/value This paper contributes to the yet limited body of knowledge on CSCs, by providing a first comprehensive overview of the presence of CSCs in one of the key settings associated with the model, by shedding light into the interplay between CSCs, and between other organizations supportive of the cannabis movement.

The Supply of Cannabis for Medical Use Through Cannabis Social Clubs in Belgium

“…The schedule used in these interviews drew on the schedules used in previous studies of CSCs in Belgium (Decorte, 2015) and Uruguay (Queirolo et al, 2016) and addressed a range of aspects of the functioning of the CSCs. As noted elsewhere, the CSC landscape in Belgium is somewhat volatile, in part due to the domestic legal framework in which the associations are operating (Pardal, 2016a, 2018a). As such, we are aware that the number of active CSCs and/or some of their practices might have changed since these data were collected.…”

“…Nevertheless, they continue to operate in a vulnerable legal context (Pardal, 2016a). Despite the Belgian prohibition on cannabis supply, CSCs have based their actions on their interpretation of a policy guideline issued in 2005 by the Minister of Justice and the College of Public Prosecutors (Kilmer et al, 2013; Pardal, 2016a, 2018a). This Ministerial Guideline assigned the lowest priority to the prosecution of cases involving the possession of a maximum of 3 g of cannabis or one cannabis plant (in the absence of aggravating circumstances or disturbance to the public order).…”

“…However, this interpretation has not been supported by the relevant authorities, and the College of Public Prosecutors has recently contested it publicly (College van Procureurs-Generaal, 2017). Despite this unfavorable legal context, and the many court cases involving Belgian CSCs, the model has remained a constant presence in the country since 2006 (Pardal, 2018a). Those leading these organizations continue to argue for legal reform in the country (for instance, by engaging with the domestic media to communicate their activities and claims; Pardal, 2016b; Pardal & Tieberghien, 2017).…”

“…Cannabis Social Clubs (CSCs) emerged as a result of grassroots initiatives of groups of adult cannabis users who sought to create a model of (collective) self-supply, by ensuring the cultivation and distribution of cannabis among themselves, on a closed and nonprofit basis (Bewley-Taylor, Blickman, & Jelsma, 2014; Blickman, 2014; Kilmer, Kruithof, Pardal, Caulkins, & Rubin, 2013; Pardal, 2016b). The first such initiatives emerged in Spain during the 1990s (Arana & Montañés, 2011; Barriuso, 2011, 2012; Marín, 2008, 2009; Montañés, 2017; Parés & Bouso, 2015).…”

Hidden and uninterested populations: Methodological insights and unresolved issues from the study of Cannabis Social Clubs

“…There are also indications that CSC members may be primarily interested in joining a CSC to secure access to cannabis, and engagement in activism or in other CSC activities may be secondary for some of them (Pardal & Decorte, 2018; Pardal et al, 2019). Furthermore, at least in part, due to the legal constraints experienced by most of these associations, many close down following law enforcement interventions or due to fear of detection, making it particularly difficult to keep track of their presence, activities, or affiliated members (Pardal, 2018b). Some of the research in this area has also pointed to the co-existence of several types of CSCs, with different degrees of engagement in activism and a different positioning in relation to whether (and the extent to which) they are overt about what they do (Pardal, 2018a; Jansseune et al, 2019).…”