No abstract

Through this process, we learnt that there are trade-offs between hosting multiple surveys in each country vs. using one integrated database. We also found that although perceived anonymity is routinely assumed to be a benefit of using digital research methodologies, there are significant limits to research participant anonymity in the current era of mass digital surveillance, especially when the target group is particularly concerned about evading law enforcement. Finally, we list a number of specific recommendations for future researchers utilising Internet-mediated approaches to researching hidden populations.

Aims: To compare domestic cannabis cultivation in Denmark and Finland to describe national characteristics in small-scale cannabis growing. Design: A Web survey conducted among small-scale cannabis growers in Denmark (June to November 2008) and Finland (May to June 2009). Participants: Current cannabis growers (Denmark, 401; Finland, 1,054). Measurements: Comparisons in regard to social background, growing history, practices, purposes and motives of growing, and perceptions of risks. Findings: Cannabis was cultivated primarily for own use, but sharing with friends and avoiding criminal circles also were significant motives for growing. Finnish growers prioritized indoor cultivation, whereas the Danes were more in favor of open-air plantations. Risks of getting caught by the police were observed to be greater in Finland. Growing for medical purposes was twice as prevalent in Finland as in Denmark. Conclusions: Cannabis growing is a stronger and more novel phenomenon in Finland than in Denmark, but both countries have been influenced by international trends. Finnish and Danish small-scale cannabis cultivators can be considered to be ideologically oriented lifestyle growers. Differences in the magnitude of the phenomenon may reflect differences in the availability and quality of cannabis in national drug markets. The Internet had promoted the spreading of the trend.

Aims: To provide an overview of: demographic characteristics; experiences with growing cannabis; methods and scale of growing operations; reasons for growing; personal use of cannabis and other drugs; participation in cannabis and other drug markets; contacts with the criminal justice system for respondents to an online survey about cannabis cultivation drawn from eleven countries (N=6530). Important similarities and differences between the national samples recruited will be discussed.Method: This paper utilizes data from the online web survey of predominantly 'small-scale' cannabis cultivators in eleven countries conducted by the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium (GCCRC). Here we focus primarily on descriptive statistics to highlight key similarities and differences across the different national samples.Findings: Overall there was a great deal of similarity across countries in terms of: demographic characteristics; experiences with growing cannabis; methods and scale of growing operations; reasons for growing; use of cannabis and other drugs; participation in cannabis and other drug markets, and contacts with the criminal justice system. In particular, we can recognise that a clear majority of those small-scale cannabis cultivators who responded to our survey is primarily motivated for reasons other than making money from cannabis supply and have 1

According to a frequently voiced opinion drug seizures represent 5 to 10 percent of drug traded in the market. In this article we estimate the size of the Finnish cannabis trade by calculating the number of users and the amount of the substance consumed in a year. We divide the subjects into five different groups based on the annual frequency of use: experimenters (1–4 days), modest occasional users (5–12 days), frequent occasional users (13–51 days), weekly users (52–181 days) and, finally, daily users (182–365 days). The highest number of users was found in the group of modest occasional users, while daily users were accountable for the greatest share of total consumption. According to our calculations the amount of seized cannabis corresponds to 10–23 percent of the total amount on the market which means that authorities operate more effectively than what is generally believed.