Search results

This paper aims to consider the nature of cannabis-related harms under the UK’s Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). Written for the specific context of this four-paper special section on 50 years of the MDA, it argues that the MDA may cause more harm than it prevents.

An opinion piece offering a structured overview of cannabis-related harms under prohibition. It summarises existing evidence of the ways in which prohibition may exacerbate existing – and create new – harms related to the production, distribution, use and control of cannabis.

The paper argues that prohibition of cannabis under the MDA may cause more harm than it prevents.

It has long been argued that the MDA does not accurately or fairly reflect the harms of the substances it prohibits, and much existing research points to different ways in which drug prohibition can itself be harmful. The originality of this paper lies in bringing together these arguments and developing a framework for analysing the contribution of prohibition to drug-related harm.

The question of “taking sides” has received a lot of attention within qualitative criminology. Much of this has focused on the moral-philosophical or value-laden aspects of taking sides, following Becker's 1967 essay “whose side are we on”. However, the question of taking sides also has methodological implications, especially for qualitative researchers who wish to study multiple sides of a criminological problem, such as the perspectives of offenders and law enforcement around a particular illegal activity.

This paper considers some of the practical, ethical and analytical challenges of studying illegal markets from opposing sides – the market participants' perspective on one side and law enforcement on the other. It outlines the advantages of researching both sides: the improved validity and reliability that comes with exploring and trying to reconcile different perspectives and the potential this has for developing theory and policy. It then explores the challenges researchers may face when trying to engage with opposing sides in qualitative fieldwork.

The paper pays particular attention to some practical and ethical questions researchers may face in this situation: who to research first, whether to be open about researching both sides and whether researchers should ever share information they have received from one side with their participants from the other side.

The authors do not offer absolute answers to these questions. Rather, the authors aim to outline some of the factors researchers may need to consider when juggling qualitative research involving participants on both sides of the law.

It is conceivable that cannabis cultivators who grow for medical purposes aim to improve the therapeutic index of their cannabis by attempting to produce particular concentrations of CBD and/or THC. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether small-scale medical cannabis growers differ from those growing for recreational reasons in terms of self-assessed concentrations of THC and CBD in the cannabis they grow.

Data collection was conducted online from a convenience sample of 268 cannabis growers visiting a popular Israeli cannabis internet forum. χ² and Kruskal–Wallis H were used to test bivariate associations between medical and recreational cannabis cultivators in terms of self-assessed cannabinoid concentrations.

In total, 40 percent of cannabis growers reported that they grow for medical purposes. Medical cannabis growers were more likely to report that they thought they knew the cannabinoid concentrations of the cannabis they grew and they reported higher self-assessed concentrations of THC, but not CBD.

Compared to recreational growers, medical cannabis growers are more likely to strive to be informed in terms of the content of their cannabis. Medical growers may also be attempting to grow more potent THC but not CBD cannabis.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the special issue on Illicit Cannabis Cultivation in a Time of Policy Change.

The paper reviews some of the different adaptations made by cannabis growers in countries where cannabis has not been legalised.

Cannabis growers are adjusting to different legal settings by focusing on home production. Participation in cultivation is a crime, but can also be activism: an effort to change the law. Medical use of cannabis is a particularly important driver here. Having to break the law to alleviate symptoms and treat illnesses provides both a greater sense of urgency and a level of sympathy not usually granted to illicit drug users.

Grass-roots advocacy may drive policy change.

This is an original assessment of current state of knowledge on cannabis cultivation in countries where cannabis cultivation remains restricted.

Unlike other plant‐based drugs, cannabis is increasingly grown within the country of consumption, requires minimal processing before consumption, and can be easily grown almost anywhere using indoor or outdoor cultivation techniques. Developments in agronomic technologies have led to global growth in domestic cultivation, both by cannabis users for self‐ and social‐supply, and by more commercially‐oriented growers. Cross‐national research is needed to better understand who is involved in domestic cultivation, the diversity in cultivation practices and motivations, and cultivators' interaction with the criminal justice system and cannabis control policies.

The article introduces the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium (GCCRC), describes its evolution and aims, and outlines the methodology of its ongoing cross‐national online survey of cannabis cultivation.

Despite differing national contexts, the GCCRC successfully developed a core questionnaire to be used in different countries. It accommodates varying research interests through the addition of optional survey sections. The benefits to forming an international consortium to conduct web‐based survey research include the sharing of expertise, recruitment efforts and problem‐solving.

The article discusses the limitations of using non‐representative online sampling and the strategies used to increase validity.

The GCCRC is conducting the largest cross‐national study of domestic cannabis cultivation to date. The aim is not only to better understand patterns of cannabis cultivation and how they differ between countries but also to build upon online engagement methodology with hidden populations.

This article aims to discuss the use of the word “skunk” in contemporary discourse as short‐hand for premium quality, indoor‐grown cannabis. Skunk, as used in this way, is a contested term that many cannabis users reject. The purpose of the article is to draw attention to some practical implications of this semantic dispute for academic research and for policy development.

The authors draw on qualitative data generated during an online survey project examining UK cannabis markets. Findings discussed are contextualised by reference to use of the word skunk in public discourse through the media and policy documents.

The uncritical use of the word “skunk” by researchers, the media and others can pose problems, particularly where the use and implied meaning of the word is rejected (as it is amongst a segment of the cannabis using population). Attempts to acquire or disseminate knowledge, or to develop or enact policy about cannabis use and distribution in the UK may encounter significant problems if attention is not paid to this issue.

The article offers a view of the impact of the increased and uncritical public use of the word “skunk” on those who may be of particular concern to policy makers and academic researchers: those who are most involved with cannabis (e.g. heavier users, cannabis connoisseurs and cannabis growers).