Uruguayan Cannabis Social Clubs: From activism to dispensaries?

Pardal, Mafalda; Queirolo, Rosario; Álvarez, Eliana; Repetto, Lorena

doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.022

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The benefit of non‐commercial or not‐for‐profit operators is they can provide legal access to cannabis while avoiding profit‐driven commercial companies focused on expanding sales. A number of jurisdictions have adopted largely non‐commercial models for legal cannabis supply, including Uruguay, Vermont and Washington DC [1,2,12,36,37]. In Canada, decisions about retail distribution were delegated to individual provinces and territories, and this has resulted in regional heterogeneity in retail approaches (e.g.…”

Section: Opportunities For Non‐commercial Supplymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It appears that the CLCB would not permit cannabis social clubs similar to those that operate in Uruguay, Spain and Belgium [36,45]. The CLCB allows home cultivation for personal use and social sharing of up to 14 g of cannabis with others, but restricts home cultivation to a maximum of four plants per household, seemingly preventing the larger communal crops required for a cannabis social club.…”

Section: Opportunities For Non‐commercial Supplymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is reason to believe that cannabis social clubs could encourage users to transition to the legal market, provide a forum to communicate health information and help to address equity issues related to the practicality of cannabis growing (e.g. for renters) [36,46,47], particularly if clubs were supported with an appropriate regulatory framework [37,48]. In Uruguay, despite the controversial user registration requirement, both home cultivation and cannabis social clubs have proved to be popular cannabis supply options [12].…”

Section: Opportunities For Non‐commercial Supplymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing New Zealand’s Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill: prospects and challenges

Wilkins

Rychert

2020

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Few countries have developed detailed legislative proposals for legalizing cannabis. New Zealand recently released the Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill (CLCB) that will be the subject of a referendum in September 2020. Aims To assess the CLCB, drawing on emerging evidence from cannabis legalization overseas, public health research on alcohol and tobacco and the attempt to establish a regulated market for ‘legal highs’ in New Zealand. Discussion The CLCB proposes a strictly regulated commercial cannabis market that resembles the Canadian approach, but notably without on‐line sales or regional heterogeneity in retail distribution. The objective of the CLCB of lowering cannabis use over time appears at odds with the largely commercial cannabis sector that will focus on expanding sales. The CLCB includes provision for home cultivation and social benefit operators, but it is not clear what priority these operators will receive. A potency cap of 15% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for cannabis plants is included, and this is at the high end of black‐market cannabis. The proposed progressive product tax based on THC will be challenging to implement. There is no formal minimum price, but rather discretionary powers to raise the excise if the price drops too much. The CLCB includes a comprehensive ban on advertising, but non‐conventional on‐line promotion will be difficult to suppress. The central government cannabis authority is tasked with developing local retail outlet policies. We caution against the temptation to employ an interim regulatory regime following a positive referendum result, because a partially regulated market will expose users to health risks and undermine public support. Conclusions New Zealand’s Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill’s objective of reducing cannabis use via a commercial market will be challenging to achieve. The bill could be strengthened with formal minimum pricing, lower potency cap and greater clarity concerning social benefit operators and the role of local government.

show abstract

Section: Opportunities For Non‐commercial Supplymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Opportunities For Non‐commercial Supplymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Opportunities For Non‐commercial Supplymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing New Zealand’s Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill: prospects and challenges

Wilkins

Rychert

2020

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…features of CSCs may be (Queirolo et al, 2016;Pardal et al, 2019). In addition, CSCs operating outside of that legal framework may share a very different vision of the model.…”

Section: Conceptual Fuzzinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some CSCs, as it is the case with other activist groups or social movement organizations, may see participation in a research project as a way to “make their voices heard in a different arena” (Balsinger and Lambelet, 2014: 156; Klein and Potter, 2018), not all will share this view, and some may prefer to keep their existence and activities away from outsiders’ eyes. 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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pardal

Bone

Decorte

et al. 2020

Methodological Innovations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cannabis Social Clubs are typically non-profit associations established by adult users of cannabis, which produce and distribute cannabis among their members. Such associations can be found in several European countries and beyond, but with exception of Uruguay, they are illegal or otherwise operate at the margins of domestic drug control legislation, at risk for law enforcement detection. We have conducted several individual and collaborative studies on Cannabis Social Clubs and their key actors (e.g. Cannabis Social Clubs leaders, users affiliated as members, cannabis growers, other stakeholders), primarily drawing on qualitative methods (e.g. ethnographic fieldwork, interviews, qualitative media analyses) but also employing a quantitative approach (e.g. online surveys). In this article, we reflect on the research experiences of the authors in studying Cannabis Social Clubs, providing insights for future research in this area and within criminology and socio-legal studies. In particular, we aim to examine our approaches with regard to the recruitment of participants and research design, identifying good practices, but also discussing what the less successful strategies were. We draw on research conducted since 2014 in different countries, with different legal frameworks, which provides an opportunity for a comparative and more in-depth critical consideration of what might be helpful ways of reaching and researching hard-to-reach populations.

show abstract

Harm reduction strategies for cannabis-related problems: a literature review and typology

Pratschke

2024

Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measures that seek to minimise the health and social consequences of substance use are an integral part of national drug strategies in many European countries. Against the backdrop of a high prevalence of cannabis use in the economically advanced countries, and increasing demand for treatment for cannabis-related problems, a range of harm reduction measures have been implemented by peers, statutory bodies and third-sector organisations. Based on a systematic review of the literature, the author describes these different forms of intervention, identifies innovative strategies and presents a simple typology that can be used when exploring existing measures or seeking to develop new policies. This typology covers different kinds of legal, socio-organisational and health-related interventions. All study designs were eligible for inclusion, with the exception of case reports, non-systematic reviews, editorials and news stories. Studies had to be published between 2011 and 2022, in English, and they had to refer to Europe, the Americas, Australia or New Zealand. A two-concept search was implemented using Embase.com and a number of other databases, combined with citation searches and manual website searching to improve coverage of research reports and advocacy documents. A total of 35 documents were deemed eligible, many of which rely on qualitative research methods.

show abstract

Uruguayan Cannabis Social Clubs: From activism to dispensaries?

Cited by 17 publications

References 13 publications

Assessing New Zealand’s Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill: prospects and challenges

Assessing New Zealand’s Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill: prospects and challenges

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

Harm reduction strategies for cannabis-related problems: a literature review and typology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About