Overview of "home" cultivation policies and the case for community-based cannabis supply.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis policies should be relevant to communities most impacted by them. Home cultivation policies can engage people who grow cannabis and build on their motivation to supply a safe product. This paper aims to examine the laws pertaining to "home" (i.e. personal, small-scale) cannabis cultivation internationally and their different aspects, and to discuss the potential of these policies to be expanded into community-level cannabis supply models. METHODS: We reviewed relevant laws and regulations in states/countries that legalised, decriminalised or applied other non-prohibitive approaches to home cannabis cultivation. FINDINGS: Non-prohibitive approaches to home cannabis cultivation have been adopted in at least 27 jurisdictions. Twelve jurisdictions "de jure" legalised home cultivation (three U.S. states and Antigua and Barbuda legalised only home cultivation; six U.S. states, Uruguay and Canada legalised commercial sales as well). Eight states/countries "de facto" (Belgium, the Netherlands) or "de jure" decriminalised it (Czech Republic, Spain, Jamaica, and three Australian states). "De jure" depenalisation was in place in Chile and Brazil and recent court rulings yielded "de facto" depenalisation or "de facto" legalisation in five other jurisdictions (South Africa, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica and Georgia). Varying number of plants (per person and per property) and the circumstances of cultivation were in place. The key limitations of the regulations included (i) possession thresholds for the produce from home cultivations, (ii) rules about sharing the produce, and (iii) potentially disproportionate sanctions for non-authorised behaviours. Despite currently being limited, home cultivation policies might have the capacity to engage cannabis networks that already exist in the community and like that, enhance their participation in legitimate policy schemes. CONCLUSIONS: Rules around pooled cultivation and sharing could be made fit for purpose to accommodate community supply of cannabis. Home cultivation policies could serve as a basis for community-level cannabis supply models and as such, for more inclusive cannabis policies.

The burgeoning recognition and accommodation of the social supply of drugs in international criminal justice systems: An eleven-nation comparative overview.

BACKGROUND: It is now commonly accepted that there exists a form of drug supply, that involves the non-commercial supply of drugs to friends and acquaintances for little or no profit, which is qualitatively different from profit motivated 'drug dealing proper'. 'Social supply', as it has become known, has a strong conceptual footprint in the United Kingdom, shaped by empirical research, policy discussion and its accommodation in legal frameworks. Though scholarship has emerged in a number of contexts outside the UK, the extent to which social supply has developed as an internationally recognised concept in criminal justice contexts is still unclear. METHODS: Drawing on an established international social supply research network across eleven nations, this paper provides the first assessment of social supply as an internationally relevant concept. Data derives from individual and team research stemming from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, England and Wales, and the United States, supported by expert reflection on research evidence and analysis of sentencing and media reporting in each context. In situ social supply experts addressed a common set of questions regarding the nature of social supply for their particular context including: an overview of social supply research activity, reflection on the extent that differentiation is accommodated in drug supply sentencing frameworks; evaluating the extent to which social supply is recognised in legal discourse and in sentencing practices and more broadly by e.g. criminal justice professionals in the public sphere. A thematic analysis of these scripts was undertaken and emergent themes were developed. Whilst having an absence of local research, New Zealand is also included in the analysis as there exists a genuine discursive presence of social supply in the drug control and sentencing policy contexts in that country. RESULTS: Findings suggest that while social supply has been found to exist as a real and distinct behaviour, its acceptance and application in criminal justice systems ranges from explicit through to implicit. In the absence of dedicated guiding frameworks, strong use is made of discretion and mitigating circumstances in attempts to acknowledge supply differentiation. In some jurisdictions, there is no accommodation of social supply, and while aggravating factors can be applied to differentiate more serious offences, social suppliers remain subject to arbitrary deterrent sentencing apparatus. CONCLUSION: Due to the shifting sands of politics, mood, or geographical disparity, reliance on judicial discretion and the use of mitigating circumstances to implement commensurate sentences for social suppliers is no longer sufficient. Further research is required to strengthen the conceptual presence of social supply in policy and practice as a behaviour that extends beyond cannabis and is relevant to users of all drugs. Research informed guidelines and/or specific sentencing provisions for social suppliers would provide fewer possibilities for inconsistency and promote more proportionate outcomes for this fast-growing group.