Cannabis Social Clubs (CSCs) are typically non-profit associations of adult cannabis users who collectively produce and distribute cannabis among themselves. Since the emergence of the model in Spain during the 1990s, other countries may have seen the appearance of CSCs (or CSC-like associations) but there is a dearth of knowledge about the phenomenon in Europe. The goals of this analysis are to: (1) map the presence of CSCs across the European Union; and (2) examine how CSCs are operating in such settings. The data included in our analysis derive from a 2018–19 survey. The 30-item questionnaire comprised questions about CSCs’ origins and relations with other stakeholders and organizations, the types of activities the CSCs developed and their views on cannabis regulation. The questionnaire was translated into all the official languages of the EU zone and sent via email to the participants. In total, 81 CSCs completed the questionnaire. Beyond Spain and Belgium, where the CSC presence has already been documented, we were able to identify CSCs in 11 other countries. The longest-running CSC in our sample was established in 1999, but most emerged in the past decade. The smallest CSC in our sample reported 6 registered members, whereas the largest counted a total of 5000 members. Most CSCs were cultivating or distributing cannabis to their members at the time of the survey, but engaged in other informative, entertainment and activist activities as well. The CSC model remains prohibited across the EU. CSC activists have thus by and large shaped the way CSCs operate, often adapting to domestic law particularities or law enforcement activities. In this article, we present and discuss the range of CSC practices from 13 different European countries, and what these represent for the consideration of the CSC model in current policy debates.

No abstract

BackgroundThere is increasing support to include people who use drugs (PWUD) into debates about drug policy reform in order to improve policy legitimacy and outcomes. The aim of this paper is thus to critically analyse the perspectives of PWUD on UK drug policy and the law. This is the first empirical study to apply the four philosophical positions that underpin drug policy debates: Millian liberalism, legal moralism, strict libertarianism and paternalism (MacCoun and Reuter, 2001) to understand opinions and ideology. MethodsForty interviews were conducted with PWUD about the meaning of and motivation for their substance consumption and about their opinions on drug policy and the law. The responses were analysed using the sociocognitive approach pioneered by van Dijk 2014; 2015 from the field of critical discourse studies. The analysis involved connecting personal experiences, knowledge and opinions to broader values, attitudes and ideology, specifically the analysis focused upon the extent to which participants challenged or supported prohibitionist ideology. ResultsThe opinions of those PWUD studied were diverse and complex. There was some support for prohibition, but overwhelmingly there was resistance and challenge to it. We theorise the challenge to prohibitionist ideology on a continuum from anti-prohibition to pro-reform. Key themes from the analysis included: knowledge gaps regarding terminology; uncertainty about and lack of consideration of policy and reform; political dissonance; apprehension about public attitudes and behaviours; reform rooted in social welfare and human rights ideology; and apathy through counterculture. ConclusionThe findings demonstrate a lack of clarity amongst some PWUD regarding drug policy and reform. Educational initiatives outlining the different reform approaches would therefore provide PWUD with invaluable knowledge and help facilitate their engagement into reform debates. Despite a lack of clarity and consistency within opinions, participants were united in their discussion of human rights, health, economics and education; therefore these topics could help frame future approaches that seek to include PWUD into debates about drug policy.

Drugs and Alcohol Today1 Abstract Purpose: To document a leading UK cannabis activist's efforts to bring about policy change and to convey his human story as a medical consumer. The paper contends that it is not enough to present evidence based policies (EBP) to effect change in drug policy, it is also vital to tell human stories, to develop narratives which speak to people's values.

This paper explores the interplay between the human rights and drug control frameworks and critiques case law on medicinal cannabis use to demonstrate that a bona fide human rights perspective allows for a broader conception of ‘health’. This broad conception, encompassing both medicalised and social constructionist definitions, can inform public health policies relating to medicinal cannabis use. The paper also demonstrates how a human rights lens can alleviate a core tension between the State and the individual within the drug policy field. The leading medicinal cannabis case in the UK highlights the judiciary’s failure to engage with an individual’s human right to health as they adopt an arbitrary, externalist view, focussing on the legality of cannabis to the exclusion of other concerns. Drawing on some international comparisons, the paper considers how a human rights perspective can lead to an approach to medicinal cannabis use which facilitates a holistic understanding of public health.