Accepted Manuscript Title: ‘Assessing the harms of cannabis cultivation in Belgium’ Author: Letizia Paoli Tom Decorte Loes Kersten PII: DOI: Reference:
S0955-3959(14)00359-4 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.003 DRUPOL 1499
To appear in:
International Journal of Drug Policy
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
17-8-2014 5-12-2014 7-12-2014
Please cite this article as: Paoli, L., Decorte, T., and Kersten, L.,‘Assessing the harms of cannabis cultivation in Belgium’, International Journal of Drug Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.003 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Highlights (for review)
Highlights
Cannabis cultivation has become an endemic activity in Belgium, and reduction of supply is not a realistic objective.
ip t
Cannabis cultivation should not be a priority in law enforcement strategies, as it generates limited harms. Virtually all the harms associated with cannabis cultivation are the result of the current criminalizing policies.
Ac ce pt e
d
M
an
us
cr
Policy-makers should be committed to reduce the harms that result from criminalizing policies to a minimum.
Page 1 of 40
*Revised Manuscript
‘Assessing the harms of cannabis cultivation in Belgium’ Short title (running head):
ip t
Harms of cannabis cultivation in Belgium
Authors and affiliation:
cr
Letizia Paoli Professor of Criminology,
us
Leuven Institute of Criminology, University of Leuven
an
Tom Decorte Professor of Criminology Institute for Social Drug research (ISD)
ed
Loes Kersten
M
Ghent University
Researcher
ce pt
Leuven Institute of Criminology, University of Leuven
Correspondence:
Ac
Prof. Dr. Letizia Paoli
Leuven Institute of Criminology, University of Leuven E-mail: [email protected]
Page 2 of 40
Structured abstract Background. Since the 1990s, a shift from the importation of foreign cannabis to domestic cultivation has taken place in Belgium, as it has in many other countries. This shift has prompted Belgian policy-making bodies to prioritize the repression of cannabis cultivation.
ip t
Against this background, the article aims to systematically map and assess for the first time ever the harms associated with cannabis cultivation, covering the whole spectrum of
cr
growers.
Methods. This study is based on a web survey primarily targeting small scale growers
us
(N=1,293) and on three interconnected sets of qualitative data on large-scale growers and traffickers (34 closed criminal proceedings, interviews with 32 criminal justice experts, and
an
with 17 large-scale cannabis growers and three traffickers). The study relied on Greenfield and Paoli’s (2013) harm assessment framework to identify the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and to assess the incidence, severity and causes of such harms.
M
Results. Cannabis cultivation has become endemic in Belgium. Despite that, it generates, for Belgium, limited harms of medium-low or medium priority. Large-scale growers tend to
ed
produce more harms than the small-scale ones. Virtually all the harms associated with cannabis cultivation are the result of the current criminalizing policies.
ce pt
Conclusions. Given the spread of cannabis cultivation and Belgium’s position in Europe, reducing the supply of cannabis does not appear to be a realistic policy objective. Given the limited harms generated, there is scarce scientific justification to prioritize cannabis cultivation in Belgian law enforcement strategies. As most harms are generated by large-
Ac
scale growers, it is this category of cultivator, if any, which should be the focus of law enforcement repression. Given the policy origin of most harms, policy-makers should seek to develop policies likely to reduce such harms. At the same time, further research is needed to comparatively assess the harms associated with cannabis cultivation (and trafficking) with those arising from use.
Introduction Over the last three decades, the supply side of the worldwide cannabis market has changed significantly. Numerous countries around the world have switched from importing foreign 2 Page 3 of 40
cannabis to domestically producing their own supplies. This shift to domestic cultivation has been particularly pronounced in North America and Europe, and seems irreversible in the medium-term (Hafley & Tewksbury, 1995; Walker, Cocklin, & Blunden, 1998; Plecas et al., 2002; Spapens et al., 2007; Decorte, Potter & Bouchard, 2011). In Belgium too, domestic cultivation has boomed. The number of plantations
ip t
dismantled by the Belgian law enforcement authorities increased exponentially from 35 in 2003 to 1,212 in 2013, while the number of plants discovered grew over 440% from 73,344 in 2006 to 396,758 in 2013 (Centrale Dienst Drugs, 2014). Belgium is one of the European
cr
countries that tolerate small-scale cultivation for personal use. The changes in legislation
us
that occurred in 2003 and 2004 made the possession of 3 grams of cannabis by adults and the cultivation of one female plant for personal use tolerable (not meaning ‘decriminalized’ offences). This legislative shift separated cannabis from other drugs and granted the
an
prosecution more discretion regarding the enforcement of cannabis-related offences (Decorte, 2007; EMCCDA, 2011). However, the increase in plantations as well as the fear of
M
growing violence and organized crime involvement prompted the highest Belgian policymaking bodies to prioritize the repression of cannabis cultivation in the last two National
ed
Security Plans, the two multi-annual documents defining the police strategic priorities (Ministeries van Binnenlandse Zaken en Justitie, 2008 and 2012). By doing so, Belgium has gone in the opposite direction of other jurisdictions that have recently legalized cannabis
ce pt
cultivation: Uruguay, as well as Colorado and Washington State and, more recently, Alaska, Oregon and Washington DC in the United States (e.g., Bewley-Taylor, Blickman & Jelsma, 2014; Sebens, 2014).
Ac
The Belgian policy-makers’ decisions have not been based on an empirical analysis of the domestic cannabis production. There is only one empirical study of cannabis cultivation in Belgium, which was co-authored by one of us (Decorte & Tuteleers, 2007) and focused on small-scale cultivation. The majority of studies in other countries has, instead, focused on large-scale, commercially oriented growers, mostly relying on police data (Weisheit, 1991; Bovenkerk & Hogewind, 2002; Hough et al., 2003; among the few exceptions, see Decorte & Tuteleers, 2007 and Potter, 2010). Empirical studies that focus only on large-scale commercially oriented growers, base their conclusions on police data, and take the perspective of law enforcement agencies, may lead to false perceptions of the prevalence of different types of growers and growing operations and related criminal behaviors (Wilkins & 3 Page 4 of 40
Casswell, 2003). They can have important consequences for future policy choices. Very few studies have yet tackled the whole spectrum of cannabis cultivation from small-scale to large-scale growers. Moreover, no study has ever been carried out in Belgium or elsewhere to systematically map and assess the harms associated with cannabis cultivation or to
ip t
distinguish these harms by type of growers. In the legal doctrine, though, the harm “caused” by a criminal activity is considered crucial in justifying the very criminalization of such an
activity and the assignment of penalties (e.g., Ashworth, 2006: 30-39; for a review of this
cr
debate, see Paoli and Greenfield, 2013). Moreover, several national and regional policy-
us
making and law-enforcement agencies in Europe and elsewhere are currently considering “harm” as a basis for prioritizing and targeting criminal activities (Paoli, 2014). In its latest Serious and Organized Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA), for example, Europol (2013)
an
identifies the crimes to be considered most serious and thus to be prioritized in the new EUwide multi-annual policy cycle on serious and organized crime, largely on the basis of the
M
harm these crimes generate.
Thus, identifying the bearers of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and
ed
systematically assessing the incidence and severity of these harms constitute an innovative and valuable contribution not only to the scientific but also the policy debate on crime and crime control, and specifically on cannabis legalization. An empirical assessment of the
ce pt
harms, in fact, can provide the evidence needed to elevate the debate on cannabis legalization beyond mere moral values or governments’ financial appetites. For such an exercise, we have relied on a new methodology developed by Greenfield
Ac
and Paoli (2013) and already tested to assess the harms of cocaine and human trafficking (Paoli et al. 2013; Vander Beken et al. 2012). Greenfield and Paoli’s “harm assessment framework” provides the means of identifying, evaluating and, with some restrictions, comparing harms across criminal activities, and thus constitutes a potentially important advancement for evidence-informed policy making. It extends von Hirsch and Jareborg’s (1991) seminal typology of harms, by considering other bearers, in addition to individuals. Unlike this and other drug-related taxonomic predecessors (e.g. MacCoun et al. 1996; Newcombe 1992), Greenfield and Paoli’s framework has the advantage of being applicable to many different forms of crime, including those complex crimes wherein harms do not derive from a single actor or activity. In the case of cannabis cultivation, we can thus assess 4 Page 5 of 40
not only the harms resulting from the cultivation process itself but also those resulting from its accompanying activities, such as electricity theft, use and threat of violence and corruption. Moreover, unlike the cost-of-crime literature (for a review, see, Heaton, 2010), the framework does not focus only on the harms that can be quantified, realizing—as others
ip t
have done (e.g., Caulkins et al., 2011)—the incalculability of some harms. Where available, we use quantitative data to inform our evaluation, but the framework does not
fundamentally require quantification. This flexibility buys us the freedom of employing
cr
alternative means of analysis; we do not, so to speak, leave any credible information on the
us
table. Following von Hirsch and Jareborg (1991), the national security doctrine and other scholars in the drug policy community (e.g. Nutt et al. 2010), the framework also acknowledges the limitations of expert judgment, but accepts it as valid. In such a way, it
an
avoids giving “a misleading sense of precision” (von Hirsch and Jareborg 1991: 28). Last but not least, Paoli and Greenfield (2013) acknowledge the daunting conceptual and technical
M
challenges of assessing the harms of a criminal activity and spell out the limitations of the framework.
ed
To meet both the above-mentioned knowledge gaps and policy needs, we designed our study in such a way as to cover the whole spectrum of cannabis growers. Given our focus
or use.
ce pt
on cannabis cultivation, though, we do not assess the harms resulting from cannabis dealing
The paper is organized as follows. In the first section we describe the multi-method research design underlying the study, including the harm assessment methodology, and
Ac
briefly present our data. In the second section, we sketch the business model of cannabis cultivation in Belgium, single out its accompanying criminal activities and identify the resulting possible harms. In the third section, we assess the severity and incidence of the harms related with cannabis cultivation. In the fourth we consider which harms deserve prioritization and, in the fifth, the causes of the harms. Some concluding remarks and policy implications follow.
The research design and the data
5 Page 6 of 40
Our assessment of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation in Belgium is based on extensive data collection and analysis in the two main language communities of Belgium, Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia. The data collection and analysis
ip t
To scope the whole spectrum of cannabis growers, we used both quantitative and
qualitative data collection and analysis techniques (for more details, see Decorte et al.
cr
2014).
The first of these techniques consisted of an internet survey primarily targeting small-
us
scale growers (for a detailed description of our internet-mediated study, see Barratt, Potter et al. in this volume). Selection criteria were experience with cannabis cultivation, residence
an
in Belgium and adulthood. For the survey questionnaire, we drew on a previous study of domestic cultivation in Flanders conducted by Decorte and Tuteleers (2007) and the core
M
questionnaire of the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium (see Barratt, Potter et al in this volume; Decorte et al., 2012) but also added specific questions on harms following Greenfield and Paoli’s (2013) harm assessment framework and its first application to cocaine
ed
trafficking (Paoli et al. 2013). These extra items were constructed on the basis of the data collection protocol for the qualitative interviews and the analysis of criminal proceedings we
ce pt
describe below. We set up a Dutch (www.cannabiskweken.be) and a French (www.cultiverducannabis.be) website, explaining clearly the objectives of the study and stressing that we would not collect identifying information or IP addresses and that participants were free to use an anonymizer (e.g. Tor) for added protection.
Ac
The internet survey could be filled in online during a period of six months (roughly
from June until December 2012). To boost response rates, we publicized the survey through a variety of online and offline means (Mann & Stewart, 2000): e-mails to staff members and students of Belgian universities; a press release; a Facebook page and Twitter account; messages to specialized cannabis related internet sites and discussion forums for cannabis growers and users; and an intensive poster and flyer campaign (for a more detailed discussion of the internet-mediated recruitment methods, see Barratt, Potter et al. in this special issue). A number of flyers were sent to three growshops in Belgium after contacting them by e-mail. Ultimately, the answers of 1,293 respondents were retained for the analysis. 6 Page 7 of 40
In the rest of this paper we will refer to them as “survey respondents”. It is important to note that in the subsequent analyses the base N is often lower than 1,293, because of missing values (item non-response) or cases. If N is lower because the survey question did not apply to all participants, it is mentioned explicitly. Simultaneously, we collected three interconnected sets of qualitative data about and
ip t
from large-scale growers, primarily but not exclusively through the criminal justice system. First, we analyzed 34 closed criminal proceedings that were opened by the Belgian
Prosecutor’s Offices between 2005 and 2012 as well as all available official data. The
cr
proceedings were selected in cooperation with specialized federal police officers from all the
us
cases that involved more than 50 plants, in ten of the 15 Belgian judicial districts with the highest number of plantations discovered. The proceedings ranged from ten to 180 pages in length, in total involving 241 defendants. We refer to these data as “criminal proceedings”.
an
Second, we interviewed 32 experts. These were mainly criminal justice experts—14 police officers, four police analysts, six prosecutors, three examining magistrates, a solicitor
M
general—as well as the employees of Flanders’ largest electricity (and gas) company and of a company dismantling plantations. We selected the criminal justice experts from the
ed
Federal Police and Prosecutor’s Office and the above-mentioned 10 judicial districts, based on the experts’ experience with investigating or prosecuting cases of cannabis cultivation. The respondents working at the electricity company and the dismantling agency were added
ce pt
to generate additional information on the harms of cannabis cultivation. We used ‘snowballing’ to get in touch with the persons most experienced with the topic of cannabis cultivation. We made the interviews in the respondents’ offices, in a few cases with more
Ac
than one person at a time. We held semi-structured interviews based on common topic lists and then transcribed the interviews in summaries organized by topic. We refer to all these respondents as “experts”. Last but not least, we interviewed 20 persons who had direct experience with cannabis cultivation or wholesale trafficking. We constructed this sample with the help of the 12 Flemish prisons (out of 16) that had agreed to support the study and identified (or allowed us to identify on the basis of their data) a list of 140 potential interviewees. These were all invited to take part in the study with a letter of ours, which was sent through the prison administration, and 29 of them agreed to do so. Ultimately, only 20 respondents turned out to effectively meet our selection criterion, namely experience with either cannabis cultivation or wholesale trafficking: 17 of them had been involved in 7 Page 8 of 40
growing, while three had experience with cannabis wholesale trafficking. We carried out 27 semi-structured interviews in prisons and two in public places, as the interviewees had already left prison. The interviews lasted 15 minutes to 3.5 hours. We were allowed to record 17 interviews and transcribed these literally. For the three others, we relied on notes. We refer to the 17 respondents with experience in cannabis cultivation as the “interviewed
ip t
growers”. If we also include the three traffickers of our sample, we more generally refer to them as the “interviewees”.
Our study is unique in its triangulation of data from different sources, which allows us
cr
to shed light on all the different segments of cannabis cultivation and their harms. As the
us
whole GCCRC project shows, web surveys can provide rich data on small-scale growers but large-scale growers are unlikely to fill them in (see Barratt, Potter et al. and Potter, Barratt et al in this volume). To collect information on the latter’s modus operandi and related harms,
an
we therefore interviewed a sample of them directly and additionally collected data on their activities and associated harms via criminal proceedings and criminal justice experts. To
M
collect first-hand data on the broadest possible spectrum of harms, we also interviewed the representatives of an electrical and a dismantling company. Despite these advantages, our
ed
research design also imposed considerable limitations. The internet survey does not provide a representative sample of growers. The criminal justice data as well as the interviews with the convicted growers are skewed towards those growers who were not capable of avoiding
ce pt
detection or involved in the riskiest phases of the process. Both respondents and interviewees might have given socially desirable or partial answers, whereas the proceedings did sometimes not contain detailed information on accompanying criminal activities and
Ac
their consequences.
Table 1 about here
The data: a brief overview
The overwhelming majority of the growers in our three samples—the 1,293 survey respondents, the 241 defendants charged in the criminal proceedings and the 20 growers
8 Page 9 of 40
and traffickers interviewed—are male (91%, 85% and 100%, respectively; see Decorte et al., 2014). The survey respondents report that they are mainly motivated by the pleasure of growing, their personal consumption and the wish to share their home-grown cannabis with their friends and family (for a more detailed description of characteristics and patterns of
ip t
growing in this sample and comparable samples in ten other countries, see Potter, Barratt et al. in this volume). Only 8.3% of them indicated that they grow cannabis to sell it for profit (n=94; N=1,135). Most of the respondents are frequent cannabis consumers, with 50.9%
cr
(n=492) of those who did use cannabis in the last month (N=967) using cannabis 21 to 30
us
days of the past month and a further 21.0% (n=203) using it 11 to 20 days. A very large majority of the survey respondents are small-scale growers: 73.4% (n=757) typically grow one to five plants, 22.8% (n=235) six to 20 and only 3.8% (n=39) more than 20 plants
an
(N=1,031). More than 60% of them have never cultivated more than five mature plants at once (n=681; N=1,103; this question did not apply to participants who had not harvested
M
their first crop yet). Only a small proportion of the survey respondents (7.9%; n=84; N=1,066) indicate that they have ever come into contact with the police because of the cultivation,
ed
and, of that group, not even a fifth (18.1%, n=15), was convicted for it. The information we have of the growers interviewed or charged in the criminal proceedings give a rather different picture. As expected, most of them grow for profit (see
ce pt
infra) and cultivate on a much larger scale than the survey respondents. In the 34 proceedings, 86 plantations were reported in total, 75 of which were mainly located in Belgium, 11 in the Netherlands and one in Spain. The scale on which cannabis was produced
Ac
is known of 70 cultivation sites; three of them were seedling farms; the other 67 plantations had a size of 1,199 plants on average. Of the 17 growers interviewed, 13 cultivated more than 20 plants per harvest. Three owned one or more plantations involving 50 to 500 plants and ten produced on an industrial-scale with more than 500 plants per plantation, up to a maximum of 3,800 plants.
The harm assessment framework
To assess the harms associated with cannabis cultivation, we have used the harm 9 Page 10 of 40
assessment framework (Greenfield & Paoli, 2013). Pursuant to it, we define harm as a violation of stakeholders’ legitimate interests, thus acknowledging the inherently normative nature of harm. Following Greenfield and Paoli (2013), we further specify the harms on the basis of a taxonomy that distinguishes among both different bearers and types of harms (table 1). The taxonomy identifies four classes of bearers: individuals, private-sector entities,
ip t
including businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government entities, and the environment, both physical and social. It also specifies the different types of harms in relation to the “interest dimensions” of each class of bearer. The first one consists of
cr
functional integrity: in the case of individuals this means physical and psychological integrity,
us
in the case of private sector and government entities, operational integrity and, in the case of the environment, physical, operational and aesthetical integrity. The other three dimensions are only applicable to the first three types of bearers, i.e., individuals, private
an
sector and government entities and are: material interest, reputation and privacy. These three categories are either not applicable to the environment, or are duplicative. In fact,
M
Greenfield and Paoli’s framework aims to allocate the communal harms to their ultimate bearers and thus, unlike other classification systems (e.g. Newcombe 1992), also excludes
ed
harms to the community or economy.
ce pt
Table 2 about here
The framework weaves together the taxonomy and other tools and applies them in a multistep process. The other tools are a model of the logistics of the criminal activity, which Greenfield and Paoli (2013) refer to as a “business model,” two scales for evaluating the
Ac
severity and incidence of harms, and a matrix for prioritizing harms (figure 1).
Figure 1 about here
In particular, we evaluate the severity using an ordinal scale with five broad categories, ranging from catastrophic to marginal. We use individuals’ living standard and (private and government) entities’ ability to purse their mission as benchmarks to assess the severity of the harms. We rate the incidence on the basis of another five-point scale ranging from always to never or rarely. The prioritization matrix jointly rates the severity and 10 Page 11 of 40
incidence of harms (see table 3). Taken together, these ratings can provide a preliminary basis for prioritizing harms, whereas a severity or incidence rating, alone, cannot (see table 3; Greenfield & Paoli, 2013). A harm may be catastrophic but if it happens only rarely, it may still be considered a low priority. Nonetheless, the rankings enable prioritization only up to a point. While Greenfield and Paoli’s approach facilitates the systematic assessment of wide-
ip t
ranging harms, it does not allow direct comparisons of analogous harms across classes of bearers, as harms remain incommensurable across classes, nor does it enable the
cr
aggregation of harms within a particular class of bearers.
us
Table 3 about here
While we refer to Greenfield and Paoli (2013) for further details about the
an
framework, we point to a few specificities of this approach. First, the framework uses benchmarks to assess the severity of the harms. For individuals, the benchmark is--pursuant
M
to von Hisch and Jareborg (1991: 3-4)—the immediate victim’s “standard of living”. This is defined, following Sen (1987: 7, 10–11), as the “economic means” and “non-economic
ed
capabilities” for achieving a certain quality of life. A corollary of using the living standard as a benchmark is that some interest dimensions emerge as more ‘basic’ than others: whereas the violation of an individual’s functional integrity may result in a catastrophic harm, the
ce pt
violation of his or her reputation cannot (see von Hirsch and Jareborg 1991: 21). The framework uses a standard-of-living analogy for private-sector and government entities. Namely, it assesses the harms to an entity in relation to its ability to fulfil its “mission”,
Ac
defined as the entity’s raison d’être. In assessing harms to individuals, the frameworks attempts to estimate the standard impact of a criminal activity on the living standard of individual victims, and thus does not take into account the individuals’ specific life circumstances. In contrast, for other bearers, Greenfield and Paoli (2013) suggest considering the level of analysis, thus distinguishing, for example, between large- and smallscale companies. The framework also excludes law enforcement costs. If these were added, the criminal activities that are already most heavily prioritized by law enforcement agencies—as reflected in the agencies’ funding—would likely appear to be more harmful than others that have been less heavily prioritized, thereby creating a vicious cycle (see also Levi and 11 Page 12 of 40
Burrows, 2008 294). Along similar lines, the framework also excludes harms deriving from the generic fear of crime and costs incurred by private entities or individuals to protect themselves from crime. It does, however, consider remediation and replacement costs, such as the costs of healthcare borne by individuals or government entities for treating injuries accruing from a criminal activity. As Paoli, Greenfield and Zoutendijk (2013) did in the first
ip t
application of the framework to cocaine trafficking, we also excluded any benefits associated with the criminal activities and thus also the harms resulting from the theft or destruction of illegal property or revenues and unfair pay. Given our data, we only assess the harms
us
cr
resulting from cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities occurring in Belgium.
The business model and the possible harms of cannabis cultivation in
an
Belgium
M
As suggested in Greenfield and Paoli (2013), we began by constructing a business model to characterize the key operational phases of the activity and describe the functions and modes
ed
of possible accompanying and enabled activities. The business model provides essential building blocks of information for the identification of the possible harms and bearers, the
ce pt
assessment of the harms and the establishment of the latter’s causality. For cannabis cultivation, as it occurs in Belgium and presumably also elsewhere, we distinguished three main phases—the acquisition of raw material and equipment, the growing process, and the harvesting—and a fourth possible one, the sale and trafficking of
Ac
the cannabis, of which we consider only wholesale trafficking (see figure 2).
Figure 2 about here
We also identified eight accompanying activities, namely: 1) theft of electricity; 2) intentional damage to property; 3) forgery of identity and other official documents; 4) exploitation of the “cutters;” 5) money laundering; 6) theft and destruction of plants, harvest or equipment; 7) use and threat of violence and 8) corruption (understood broadly as the abuse of public or private office for personal gain). The first three accompanying activities are inherent to the growing process, the fourth to the harvesting and the fifth to 12 Page 13 of 40
sale/trafficking—and we have therefore examined them along with the respective phases of cannabis cultivation. We exclude the theft and destruction of plants, harvest or equipment, although they are frequently reported by all sources, because they involve illegal property and thus do not generate harms to be accounted in the harm assessment framework. We consider retail dealing and use as activities enabled by cannabis cultivation but, given the
ip t
research design, we have excluded them from our analysis. On the basis of the description of the business model, we then identified the possible harms and potential bearers for each phase of cannabis cultivation and its accompanying
cr
activities. The results of this exercise are shown in table 4. That a harm is listed in this table
us
does not imply that it occurs to any great extent, only that it is relevant or plausible given the business model.
M
Acquisition of raw material and equipment
an
Table 4 about here
Belgian growers appear to buy frequently their seeds, seedlings and equipment in Dutch
ed
growshops. More than 20% of the survey respondents who reported buying their seeds from Dutch growshops (n=258; N=1,194) and 33.7% (n=402; N=1,194) ordered them on the
ce pt
internet, also presumably from Dutch growshops. Fifteen of the 17 growers interviewed also supplied themselves in Dutch growshops, as did the defendants of 17 criminal proceedings. In ten other criminal proceedings, the raw material and equipment also probably came from the Netherlands, as the defendants were Dutch and/or lived in the Netherlands.
Ac
The survey respondents’ investment was limited (median amount of money invested
in their most recent harvest was 50 euros). By contrast, the investment of the growers interviewed or charged in the proceedings was more considerable (up to 62,500 euros in one case). Nine of the growers interviewed and the defendants of two criminal proceedings received advances from growshops or other Dutch contacts. Although these advances put some of the Belgian growers in a subordinated position, we could identify no harms to individuals or other bearers associated with this phase. Growing process, theft of electricity, damage to property and forgery
13 Page 14 of 40
Small- and large-scale growers use different cultivation techniques, which vary in their likely harmfulness. Half of the survey respondents grew exclusively or mainly outdoors (n=600; N=1,160). Moreover, over half of the survey respondents who grew indoors (N=1,044) only used plain sunlight in their most recent harvest (56,2%; n=447). Given these cultivation techniques, 75.3% of the survey respondents (n=854; N=1,108) indicated that they had
ip t
never caused damages or nuisance, and 20.5% (n=232) reported only bad smell and 3.5% (n=40) noise nuisance. None of them mentioned fire damage. Only 7.1% of them admitted stealing electricity (n=81; N=1,134)—a percentage that amounts to 18.4% among the survey
cr
respondents cultivating more than 20 plants (n=7; N=38). This higher percentage suggests a
us
link between scale and type and extent of damage, which however could not be confirmed statistically given the limited number of large-scale growers among the survey respondents. The only two harms frequently reported by the survey respondents are thus bad smell and
Paoli’s (2013) typology of harms and bearers.
an
noise, which are inherently mild and might affect the social environment in Greenfield and
M
Given the large scale of their operations, most of the growers interviewed or charged in the criminal proceedings cultivated only indoors. Only four of the growers interviewed
ed
mentioned cultivating also outdoors, while the proceedings gave no evidence of outdoor cultivation. With two exceptions, all the growers interviewed (thus 15) admitted to having manipulated the electricity meter. In 26 of the analyzed 34 criminal proceedings, the
ce pt
electricity was also obtained illegally and only in two was it explicitly reported that no electricity theft had occurred. With reference to the types of bearers and the interest dimensions of the harm assessment framework, these thefts produce harms to the material
Ac
interest of private-sector entities, i.e., the Belgian electrical companies—and indirectly to their customers, thus individuals, who had to pay a higher price for their electricity as a result. On basis of data in relation to 411 of the 1,040 plantations discovered in 2003-2010, a representative of the largest Flemish electrical company assessed the total harm to the financial interests of the Belgian electrical companies in over 9 million euros. Similar estimates in the Netherlands suggest that the cost per household is about two euros per year (Platform Energiediefstal Netbeheer Nederland, 2013). The manipulation of the electricity meter and wires sometimes causes fires. Four of the growers interviewed had themselves experienced such fires. Fires were also reported in four of the criminal proceedings and presented as a recurrent harm by at least nine experts. 14 Page 15 of 40
However, between 2006 and 2013 the Belgian police discovered on average only 18 plantations per year because of a fire outbreak. The police reported water damage even less frequently: in the period 2006-13, they discovered less than five plantations per year because of this reason (Centrale Dienst Drugs, 2014). These data are in line with the accounts of the growers interviewed. Twelve out of the 17 interviewed growers claimed
ip t
never having caused any harm to the building in which they cultivated. Three others stated that they only had made holes to install the plantation.
Fire and water damage and repair costs are borne by the owners of the properties—
cr
thus individuals and businesses, i.e., private-sector entities, in the framework’s
us
terminology—whose material interest is harmed. In turn, these bearers might pass on these costs to insurance companies, thus again private-sector entities. Both individuals and
property is misused without their knowledge.
an
private-sector entities might also suffer harm to their reputation and privacy, if their
Thirteen proceedings also mentioned the costs of dismantling the plantation after
M
detection and repairing the buildings—the only of our sources to do so. The costs ranged between 725 and 5,558 euros, with an average of 2,339 euros per plantation. The
ed
dismantling costs are borne in Belgium by the courts and thus constitute harms to the material interest of the government.
Harms to individuals’ reputation and privacy might also accrue as a result of growers’
ce pt
misuse of falsified identity cards—the last of the three possible accompanying activities associated with the phase of growing. Only three criminal proceedings reported the use of counterfeited documents. It is unclear, though, if the cards mentioned the name of real
Ac
persons who were unaware of the misuse of their identity documents or were just fake documents.
Harvesting and exploitation of the “cutters”
The internet survey posed no specific questions on the harvesting and drying of the cannabis leaves. However, most of the survey respondents presumably harvested themselves, as they generally grew five plants per crop, thus causing no harm to others. Four of the 17 growers interviewed also cut and dried the leaves themselves. Five others were involved in cutting and drying but also mentioned hiring and/or supervising other “cutters”. Cutting teams were 15 Page 16 of 40
also reported in ten criminal proceedings. In six of these proceedings, the teams consisted of Eastern Europeans, mostly women—and such teams were also mentioned by two interviewed growers and several experts. The interviews with the growers and experts and the criminal proceedings indicate that the “cutters” are sometimes in a very weak position, have to work long hours, do not
ip t
know where they are brought to and cannot leave until the harvest is completed. These practices might thus result in harms to the “cutters”’ (i.e., individuals’) psychological integrity, reputation and privacy. The pay often seems to be unfair but this does not
cr
generate harms accounted for in our analysis, as it involves an illegal income.
us
Sale and money laundering
an
Only 17.9% (n=115; N=642) of the survey respondents conceded having sold cannabis for profit at least once, and another overlapping 25.1% (n=161) admitted selling it to cover the
M
expenses (N=642; this question did not apply to participants who did not grow cannabis or did not yet harvest cannabis in the last 12 months). These answers are strongly associated with the scale of cultivation. Eight of the 15 respondents typically growing more than 20
ed
plants indicated doing it for commercial reasons, whereas only 6% of those cultivating up to five plants did so (n=13; N=221). Fifteen of the 17 growers we interviewed face-to-face
ce pt
admitted selling their yield for profit, although three also mentioned their personal consumption needs. The criminal proceedings did not provide any specific insight on these issues but, given the scale of average plantations identified, it seems likely that the defendants involved also had profit-making motivations.
Ac
The cannabis cultivated on a large-scale is meant predominantly for the Dutch
market. Only two of the growers interviewed stated that their cannabis would be consumed (partly) in Belgium. Seventeen criminal proceedings also provided evidence of sales of the yield in the Netherlands or to Dutch mediators. Only three survey respondents admitted selling their cannabis to Dutch coffeeshops, with none to growshops or via the internet. Of the survey respondents who sold a part of their most recent harvest, 43.6% (n=82; N=226) stated that they had earned less than 50 euros. Only 13.3% admitted profits higher than 2,500 euros (n=30; N=226).
16 Page 17 of 40
Large-scale producers, such as the growers interviewed and charged in the criminal proceedings, can obviously earn much more money, but it is unclear how much more. On the basis of a back of the envelope calculation weaving together scattered data from different sources, we estimate that a 1,000-plant plantation can generate yearly revenues of 700,000 euros, assuming that the grower has five harvests per year with an average yield of
ip t
40 grams per plant, sells his cannabis at 3,500 euros per kilo, thus generating 140,000 euros per harvest, and suffers no setbacks. We estimate costs at about 50,000 euros (21,000 euros for rent and deposit; 18,000 euros for a cutting team of six people working four days per
cr
each harvest and paid 150 per day and 12,500 for the seedlings), thus leaving about 650,000
us
euros of profits. Revenues and profits could diminish to 490,000 and 440,000 euros respectively, assuming that the grower returns his first full harvest (-140,000 euros) and half of the second (-70,000 euros) to the malafide growshop that set up the plantation and paid
an
for the seedlings of the first two harvests. Many interviewed growers and traffickers stressed however that setbacks, and particularly thefts, occur frequently and the profits are often
M
much lower than expected.
Despite the considerable differences in scale and potential earnings, both the survey
ed
respondents and growers and the traffickers interviewed reported similar, rather simple patterns of using such earnings: namely, they reinvest the money in cannabis cultivation, use it to pay regular living expenses or, more rarely, to buy luxury goods. Only two survey
ce pt
respondents admitted investing their earnings in another illegitimate business and seven others reported investment in a legitimate business. The criminal proceedings provided, instead, no systematic information on the
Ac
defendants’ money laundering practices. Three such cases as well as nine interviews with convicted growers and traffickers suggest that the earnings of large-scale cannabis cultivation are also often used to repay preceding debts. Only two interviews with growers and three criminal proceedings provided
information about “real” money laundering, such as buying real estate in Belgium or abroad and setting up businesses and foundations. There is no evidence that such investments damaged any sector of the Belgian legitimate economy, even locally (for similar results, see Van Duyne & Levi, 2005: 180 and Paoli et al., 2013). However, the few financial facilitators (e.g. lawyers, bank employees) who helped the growers with their investments might have
17 Page 18 of 40
damaged the functional integrity and reputation of their own businesses (thus private sector entities). Other accompanying activities
All sources indicate that actual violence is a rare event. Only 1.7% (n=17; N=1,022) of the
ip t
survey respondents and three of the 20 interviewees had direct experience of it. The survey respondents reported beatings (n=12), three stabbings and shootings (or their attempts) and
cr
two kidnappings. Unsurprisingly, a much larger share of the survey respondents growing for profit had had experience with physical violence (10.9%; n=8; N=73) than the non-profit
us
growers (1.0%, n=9; N=932). The three interviewees were involved in a shooting and other assaults.
an
Incidents of actual use of violence were also reported in two criminal proceedings. In one of them, an attempted robbery led to two shootings, causing damage to a car and a
M
house. In the other case, the member of a group cultivating cannabis and her son were kidnapped for a few hours and a shooting occurred when thieves attacked a plantation of the group.
ed
Threats of violence are reported slightly more frequently: 6.6% of the survey respondents (n=68; N=1,028), for example, did so. Five of the growers interviewed, however,
ce pt
stressed the low level of violence related to cannabis cultivation, contrasting it with that of other drug markets. Seven experts also confirmed that they have so far seen no actual violence in the business.
In most cases, violence only led to superficial wounds, with psychological
Ac
consequences probably being most lasting. Out of 62 respondents providing information on this, 52 reported no injuries and five injuries requiring no hospitalization. However, three others mentioned injuries requiring hospitalization, one a permanent and another one a lethal injury. According to the interviews with the growers, traffickers and experts and the criminal proceedings, only one violent incident had serious consequences: a beating caused a brain haemorrhage and the subsequent paralysis of the victim. The use and the threat of violence thus may generate harms to individuals’ physical and psychological integrity, material interest and reputation. In a country such as Belgium, where health care is heavily subsidized, these instances of violence also harms the material 18 Page 19 of 40
interest of the government and therefore indirectly those of all Belgian taxpayers (thus, individuals). Corruption appears to be even rarer than violence. The little evidence we have points more to corruption of private sector entity representatives than public officials. Nine survey respondents (1.2%; N=767) admitted receiving (non-specified) practical help from police
ip t
officers and eight others from public servants. Two interviewees mentioned being slightly favored by court officials and, according to one of them, other growers had contact with some police officers in both Belgium and the Netherlands willing to sell information on
cr
ongoing investigations and other personal data (such as the identity of a car owner) in
us
exchange for bribes. Four experts also recalled suspicions about corrupt police officials, warders and/or a mayor.
More widespread is the involvement of employees of private businesses in cannabis
an
cultivation. Out of 1,199 survey respondents, 149 (12.4%) admitted receiving practical help from employees of grow-, smart- or coffee-shops. Forty-five also reportedly received help
M
from electricians, 22 from farmers, seven from lawyers and two, each, from insurance sale agents and tax consultants. About a quarter (n=8; 25.8%) of those growing more than 20
ed
plants (N=31) received help from the latter group of non-cannabis professionals, whereas those receiving help from such professionals represented only 7.6% (n=35; N=463) of the respondents cultivating no more than five plants (Decorte et al., 2014). According to the
ce pt
criminal proceedings and most growers and traffickers interviewed, too, employees of growshops and electricians serve most frequently as facilitators. It is unclear, though, if the corrupt electricians worked independently or for a business.
Ac
Another group of facilitators mentioned by the interviewees consists of real estate agents who help large-scale cultivators finding suitable properties. One of the interviewed growers knew a real estate agent, who let rental contracts to be signed by a strawman, thus facilitating fraud—and a similar practice also emerged from a criminal proceeding. According to five experts, logistics businesses, and specifically rental car companies or their employees, know or should know that their vehicles are occasionally misused for transporting cannabis. In the framework terminology, these instances of corruption generate possible harms to the government and private sector entities’ functional integrity, privacy and reputation.
19 Page 20 of 40
What is the severity and incidence of the harms? The next step in the harm assessment framework consists of evaluating the severity and incidence of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities on the basis of the two above-mentioned scales. In this evaluation we only include harms for
ip t
which we have credible evidence from our primary data or the literature. As such, a harm that we deemed possible on the basis of the business model might not materialize in our
cr
analysis with a rating.
We begin by evaluating the incidence of the primary activity, i.e. cannabis cultivation.
us
Recalling the sharp increase in the number of plantations and plants detected in Belgium since 2003, we describe cultivation as an activity that occurs always.
an
Next, we evaluate severity and “within-activity” incidence of the harms of each primary and accompanying activity. If the harm is tied to an accompanying activity, we define that activity in sufficiently specific terms to establish a one-to-one correspondence
M
between that activity and the harm. In effect, we create sub-categories of activities for corruption, violence, etc., such as threats, petty assaults, assaults, kidnappings, and murders.
ed
In this case, the within-activity incidence of each harm also corresponds to its overall incidence. To arrive at the latter, in fact, we multiply in concept each within-activity
ce pt
incidence by the incidence of the activity itself—thus in this case with always. Table 5 synthesizes our assessment of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities for the different bearers.
Ac
Table 5 about here
Harms to individuals
We find that cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities yield marginal to catastrophic harms to individuals in Belgium, but only rarely. Lethal violence is the only activity that yields a catastrophic functional harm – i.e., death. We assess the incidence of this harm as rare, as our sources indicate only one lethal incident. We also score grave harms to individuals’ functional integrity—that is, permanent injuries—as rare as they were reported only twice by our sources. Considering the latter, we conclude that the use of 20 Page 21 of 40
violence also yields marginal to serious harms to individuals’ physical and psychological integrity, including dignity, rarely. Our findings are consistent with a growing literature on the sparsity of violence on the drug markets of developed countries (for a review, see Dorn, Levi & King, 2005). Verbal and physical threats and intimidation are reported more frequently by the survey
ip t
respondents and the growers, traffickers and experts interviewed. We conclude that the resulting harms to psychological integrity occur seldom and have only a marginal impact on the individuals’ mid-term living standard. The evidence concerning the intimidation of the
cr
“cutters” is not straightforward. We thus conclude that restrictions of the “cutters”’
us
movements also generate marginal and rare harms to individuals’ psychological integrity. The use or threat of violence also affects individuals’ reputation. The incidence of such intrusions varies by type of assault, from rarely to seldom. Given the long-term perspective
an
of the living standard approach, we find that the effect of an assault on one’s reputation is marginal to moderate. Individuals’ privacy is also moderately affected by certain types of
M
violence that occur rarely, such as kidnappings and the restrictions of “cutters”’ freedom. Whereas violence only affects individuals directly involved in the cultivation process, the
ed
growing process and harvesting can cause harms to uninvolved individuals. Harms of various degrees occur to the material interest of the owners of property, if the latter is rented and damaged by growers. Fire causes serious harms, but only occurs rarely to seldom. Water
ce pt
flows harm the material interest of the property owners moderately but marginally. Other damage to the interiors, such as holes in walls, floors and ceilings or rotten walls, generate only marginal harm but occur persistently. Owners of property also experience marginal
Ac
harm to their privacy and reputation, when their property is misused without their consent, and, on the basis of the available data, we estimate this harm to occur seldom. Finally, the forgery of IDs cause to the victims moderate harms to their psychological integrity, reputation and privacy, but only marginally. Harms to private-sector entities
From our business model we identified no harm to NGOs. In this case therefore private sector entities coincide with businesses. Whenever the latter rent property, which is then misused for cannabis cultivation purposes, they suffer the harms to their material interest 21 Page 22 of 40
similar to these suffered by individual owners. Other harms results from the accompanying activities of corruption, money laundering and the theft of electricity. As for corruption, our data show that Dutch growshops and coffeeshops play a pivotal role throughout the cultivation process but we exclude them from our analysis, as we only account for the harms to Belgium. Several electricians are also repeatedly reported to work as facilitators but it is
ip t
unclear if they do so during their working hours and in their capacity as employees of larger business. We thus tentatively estimate the harms to businesses’ functional integrity, privacy and reputation arising from electricians’ facilitation and other instances of private sector
cr
corruption as occurring rarely to seldom. Given the low level of the employees involved,
us
these harms appear to be marginal in severity.
The facilitation of money laundering also yields marginal and rare harms, touching the affected businesses’ operational integrity, material interest, reputation, and privacy. The
an
theft of electricity also causes marginal, but occasional harms to Belgium’s electrical
M
companies. Harms to government
ed
On the basis of the available data, we conclude that corruption related to cannabis cultivation only generates marginal and rare harms to the government’s functional integrity
ce pt
and reputation (see table 5). The harm to the government’s reputation is also marginal but occurs always. It stems in fact from the government’s inability to enforce its law prohibiting cannabis cultivation and its associated criminal activities. Lastly, violence and the growing process itself can also yield harms to the
Ac
government’s material interest, as the Belgian government has to pay both for the medical treatment of the victims of assaults and the dismantling costs of plantations. Depending on the seriousness of the damages, violence yield moderate to marginal harms, but only rarely. The growing process generates marginal harms but, given the number of plantations detected each year, generates them persistently. Harms to the environment
22 Page 23 of 40
On the basis of our data and expertise we cannot estimate the harms to the physical environment resulting from the use of pesticides. We conclude, instead, that bad smell and noise generate marginal but occasional harms to the social environment.
ip t
Which harms deserve prioritization? Next, by combining the two scales of severity and incidence, we can identify the harms
deserving prioritization (see table 3). As shown in the fourth column of table 5, few of the
cr
harms associated with cannabis cultivation in Belgium rank higher than low. Within the
us
category of the harms to individuals, we rank the loss of life generated by violence as a medium-high priority because it is catastrophic but happens rarely. We consider the grave but rare harms to individuals’ physical and psychological integrity arising from serious
an
assaults as medium priorities. Harms resulting from the growing process itself for owners of property (either individuals or private-sector entities) are ranked medium-low to medium
M
priorities, depending on the severity of the damage done. Among the harms to other bearers, only two warrant a medium priority: the harm to the government’s material
ed
interest resulting from the dismantling costs and the general reputational harm. Both these harms are of marginal severity but they, respectively, take place persistently or always.
ce pt
Which types of growers generate most harms? A systematic analysis of the survey data based on the respondents’ scale of cultivation and
Ac
motivation is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, the data used earlier indicate that some harms are almost exclusively generated by large-scale commercially oriented growers. These harms are never or hardly ever admitted by the survey respondents, who— as described earlier—are predominantly small-scale growers with no or very limited commercial motivation. They were instead identified through interviews with large-scale commercially oriented growers and traffickers or the analysis of the criminal justice data and other experts’ interviews that also focused on large-scale growers and traffickers. In particular, large-scale commercially oriented growers and traffickers appear to be responsible for most of 1) the harms to individuals’ and private sector entities’ material interest resulting from electricity theft and damages to property, two accompanying 23 Page 24 of 40
activities of growing; 2) the harms to individuals’ reputation and privacy resulting from the forgery of identity documents, another accompanying activity of growing; 3) the harms to individuals’ functional integrity, reputation and privacy, resulting from the exploitation of the “cutters” during harvesting; 4) the harms to private-sector entities’ and the government’s functional integrity, reputation and privacy resulting from corruption and 5)
ip t
the harms to government’s material interest arising from the dismantling of plantations. We note that the harms to individuals’ and private-sectors entities’ material interest are
classified as medium to medium-low priority in table 5, because they are serious to marginal
cr
in severity and occur rarely to persistently. The harms to government’s material interest
us
arising from the dismantling of plantations are also granted a medium priority, because they occur persistently even if they are marginal in severity. The harms resulting from forgery and the exploitation of the “cutters” occur only very rarely and our evidence base for both of
an
them, even in relation to large-scale growers, is rather weak. Finally, the harms resulting from the use of violence are not exclusively related to large-scale commercially-oriented
M
growers, although the latter seem to be over-proportionally responsible for them.
ed
What are the causes of the harms?
The final step of the assessment process consists of establishing the causality of harms.
ce pt
Following Greenfield and Paoli (2013), we proceeded in two steps: we assessed, first, the distance between harms and the primary activity and, second, the extent to which the harms arise from the policy environment. As for the distance, we conclude that all the harms are
Ac
directly associated with cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities, as they transpire in Belgium.
In the case of the link with policy, counterfactual reasoning shows that most or all of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities stem from the illegal status of cannabis and from law enforcement practices around that status. There would be little or no harms of growing and hardly any corruption or violence, if cannabis could be legally cultivated, distributed and exported from Belgium (see MacCoun & Reuter, 2001: 105-112). Having linked most or all of the harms of cannabis cultivation, per se, to the policy environment, we must, however, caution against over-interpretation. Without carefully 24 Page 25 of 40
assessing the harms associated with cannabis use and establishing their causes, which we have not done in our analysis, it is impossible to say whether the balance of the harms resulting from cannabis itself, and those produced by the policy—legal status, regulations, and enforcement practices—is positive or negative. Realizing that a policy gives rise to harm may provide policymakers with an opportunity. In New York, for example, changes in local
ip t
police enforcement practices have led to a radical decline in drug-related killings, even if
cr
drug consumption, and presumably dealing, remained stable (Zimring, 2012: 191-193).
us
Conclusions
This article has aimed to map and assess the harms associated with cannabis cultivation in Belgium. To fulfil its aim, the article has relied on a multi-method research design, involving a
an
web survey of 1,293 respondents, primarily, small-scale growers, and the analysis of three interconnected sets of qualitative data on large-scale growers and traffickers. The mapping
M
and assessment of the harm was carried out on the basis of a seminal methodology developed by Greenfield and Paoli (2013), which allows comparison with the harms of other
ed
criminal activities.
The data sources we have triangulated have obvious limitations. On the one hand, the sample of growers we recruited through our web survey is clearly biased towards
ce pt
smaller-scale growers (see also the contributions by Potter, Barratt et al. and by Barratt, Potter et al. in this volume). On the other hand, we have pointed at the potential biases resulting from our reliance on criminal justice data for the study of large-scale commercially
Ac
oriented growers--biases that are only partially tempered by the interviews we carried out with the growers themselves.. A rare but important feature of our study is that we draw on different data sources to triangulate the analysis of illicit cannabis cultivation in Belgium. As is the case in many other countries, cannabis cultivation is widespread and
spreading ever more widely in Belgium as well. It truly is a global phenomenon, as is the knowledge and technology that became increasingly available (Bouchard & Dion, 2009); the role of the internet as a vital source of information, equipment and even cannabis seeds (Potter, 2008); the development in varieties of cannabis (Leggett, 2006); a sustained supply of motivated offenders (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011); and of course a sustained demand for cannabis creating incentives for increased production (UNODC, 2009). In Belgium too, 25 Page 26 of 40
cannabis cultivation has become endemic, both to answer the local demand and that of the Dutch coffeeshops. Another explanatory factor relates to the relative failure of drug policy to prevent or stop the spread of cannabis cultivation. Difficulties in drug-crop eradication efforts in traditional producer nations have been well documented (Farrell, 1998; Gallupe, Bouchard & Caulkins, 2011), but it seems that similar difficulties confront eradication efforts
ip t
and even policies of official tolerance in the industrialized world. Cannabis cultivation has been booming in repressive and tolerant countries alike, without distinction. Forces other
than official cannabis policies are at play, and for a country such as Belgium that occupies a
cr
central position in Western Europe and no longer has border controls with most of its
us
neighbors, reducing the supply of cannabis does not appear to be a realistic policy objective. The findings we presented in this paper suggest cannabis cultivation generates, for Belgium, limited harms of medium-low or medium priority. There is therefore scarce or no
an
scientific justification to list cannabis cultivation as a priority for Belgian law enforcement, as it instead has been the case since 2008 (Ministeries van Binnenlandse Zaken en Justitie, 2008
M
and 2012).
We have also argued that most of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and
ed
its accompanying activities stem from the illegal status of cannabis and from law enforcement practices around that status (cfr. MacCoun & Reuter, 2001). As we did not identify or assess the harms associated with drug use, we do not know if on balance the
ce pt
harms prevented on the demand side via the criminalization and the resulting discouragement of cannabis use are higher or lower than the harms generated by restrictive policies on the supply-side of the market. Pending such an empirical assessment, policy-
Ac
makers should at least be committed to reduce policy-related harms at a minimum and consider alternative policy options likely to minimize the harms resulting from cultivation, trafficking and use for the broadest range of bearers. At the very least, a reflection on the opportunities for differential enforcement for
different types of cannabis cultivation is warranted. Over the years, several authors have produced typologies of cannabis cultivators within the countries they have studied (Weisheit, 1992; Hafley & Tewksbury, 1995; Bovenkerk & Hogewind, 2002; Hough et al., 2003; Potter & Dann, 2005; Nguyen & Bouchard, 2010). An analytic useful differentiation between types of growers relates to the reasons why people grow, often beyond the usual motivations for crime involvement: avoiding contacts with drug dealers and other criminal 26 Page 27 of 40
elements; intangible reasons (like a love for growing) (Weisheit, 1991; Potter, 2010; Decorte, 2010); the potential of cannabis to provide benefits for certain medicinal conditions (see for example the contribution by Hakkarainen, Frank et al., in this volume); the search for more control over the strength and quality of cannabis (Decorte, 2010, 2011); as a social or political message (Arana & Montañés Sánchez, 2011); and of course the commercial
ip t
motivations (Weisheit, 1992; Bovenkerk & Hogewind, 2002). While it is not easy to draw a line between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” growing (given the range of growers and of motivations), the problem is that all growers are largely dealt with in the same way (in
cr
policy, if not necessarily in practice) (Bouchard, Potter & Decorte, 2011). Our findings
us
suggest that large-scale growers tend to produce more harms than the smaller-scale producers. In particular, growers cultivating up to five plants, that is, the large majority of our survey respondents, seem to generate little or no harm. As a matter of fact, one could
an
even argue that the small-scale growers produce “benefits,” as they subtract market shares to large-scale growers more likely to be driven by commercial intent or part of an organized
M
crime groups. Many authors have argued that cannabis markets have the least unacceptable consequences, if criminal entrepreneurs do not crowd them (Dorn & South, 1990; Gettman,
ed
2006). Perhaps the most pressing policy issue raised by our study and those of others relates to the question of whether policy-makers and law enforcement agencies should target the
ce pt
most harmful growers, overlooking those generating little harm to others.
Ac
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on the research project ‘Cannabis production in Belgium: assessment of the nature and harms, and implications for priority setting’ (CANMARKT; No DR/63). The study was commissioned and funded by the Belgian Science Policy Department, in the framework of the ‘Research programme in support of the Federal Drugs Policy Document’. References Arana, X. & Montañés Sánchez, V. (2011). Cannabis cultivation in Spain. The case of cannabis social clubs, In: Decorte, T., Potter, G.R. & Bouchard, M. (eds.). World Wide Weed. Global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control, 163-177. Farnham: Ashgate. Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of Criminal Law, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 27 Page 28 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Barratt, M., Potter, G., Wouters, M., Wilkins, C., Werse, B., Perälä, J. et al. (2015). Lessons from conducting trans-national internet-mediated participatory research with hidden populations of cannabis cultivators, International Journal of Drug Policy, this volume. Bewley-Taylor, D., Blickman, T. & Jelsma, M. (2014). The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition: The History of Cannabis in the UN Drug Control System and Options for Reform. Amsterdam: TNI. Bouchard, M. & Dion, C.B. (2009). Growers and facilitators: probing the role of entrepreneurs in the development of the cannabis cultivation industry, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 25-38. Bouchard, M. & Nguyen, H. (2011). The notion of professional crime in the context of cannabis cultivation. In: Decorte, T., Potter, G.R. & Bouchard, M. (eds.). World Wide Weed. Global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control, 109-125. Farnham: Ashgate. Bouchard, M., Potter, G.R. & Decorte, T. (2011). Emerging trends in cannabis cultivation – and the way forward. In: Decorte, T., Potter, G.R. & Bouchard, M. (eds.). World Wide Weed. Global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control, 273-285. Farnham: Ashgate. Bovenkerk, F., & Hogewind, W. I. M. (2002). Hennepteelt in Nederland: het probleem van de criminaliteit en haar bestrijding. Politie en Wetenschap, nr. 8. Utrecht: Willem Pompe Instituut voor Strafwetenschappen. Caulkins, J.P., Reuter, P. and Coulson, C. (2011). Basing Drug Scheduling Decisions on Scientific Ranking of Harmfulness: False Promise from False Premises’, Addiction 106: 1886–1890. Centrale Dienst Drugs. (2014). Data on cannabis cultivation. Mimeo. Decorte, T., Paoli, L ., Kersten, L., Heyde, J., Van Dun, E. & Vlaemynck, M. (2014). Cannabis production in Belgium : assessment of the nature and harms, and implications for priority setting. Ghent : Academia Press. Decorte, T., Barratt, M.J., Nguyen, H., Bouchard, M., Malm, A., & Lenton, S. (2012). International Cannabis Cultivation Questionnaire (ICCQ) (Version 1.1). Ghent: Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium. Decorte, T., Potter, G.R., & Bouchard, M., eds.. (2011). World Wide Weed: Global Trends in Cannabis Cultivation and Its Control. Farnham: Ashgate. Decorte, T. (2011). ‘Stories’, ‘facts’ and ‘myths’. Perceptions of domestic cultivators on potency and quality of cannabis. In: Decorte, T., Potter, G.R. & Bouchard, M. (eds.). World Wide Weed. Global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control, 91-108. Farnham: Ashgate. Decorte, T. (2010). Small scale domestic cannabis cultivation: an anonymous web survey among 659 cannabis cultivators in Belgium, Contemporary Drug Problems, 37 (summer 2010), 341-370. Decorte, T., & Tuteleers, P. (2007). Cannabisteelt in Vlaanderen. Patronen en motieven van 748 telers [Cannabis cultivation in Flanders. Patterns and motives of 748 growers]. Leuven: Acco. Decorte, T. (2007). Characteristics of the cannabis market in Belgium. In J. Fountain & D.J. Korf (Eds.). Drugs in society: European perspectives (pp. 28-38). Oxford, UK: Radcliffe. Dorn, N., Levi, M., & King, L. (2005). Literature review on upper level drug trafficking. Home Office Online Report 22/05. London: Home Office.
28 Page 29 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Dorn, N., & South, N. (1990). Drug markets and law enforcement. British Journal of Criminology, 30(2), 171-188. EMCDDA (2011). Country overview: Belgium. ‘National drug laws’. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Webpage. Retrieved from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/be#laws Europol. (2013). SOCTA 2013: EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment. ’sGravenzande: Deventer. Farrell, G. (1998). A global empirical review of drug crop eradication and United Nations’ crop substitution and alternative development strategies. Journal of Drug Issues, 28(2), 395-436. Gallupe, O., Bouchard, M. & Caulkins, J. (2011). No change is a good change? Restrictive deterrence in illegal drug markets. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 81-89. Gettman, J. (2006), Marijuana production in the United States (2006). The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://www.drugscience.org/bcr/index.html Greenfield, V., & Paoli, L. (2013). A Framework to Assess the Harms of Crimes. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 864-885. Hafley, S.R., & Tewksbury, R. (1995). The rural Kentucky marijuana industry: organization and community involvement. Deviant Behaviors, 16, 201-221. Hakkarainen, P., Frank, V.A., Barratt, M., Dahl, H.V., Decorte, T., Karjalainen, K. et al. Growing medicine: small-scale cannabis cultivation for medical purposes in six different countries, International Journal of Drug Policy, this volume. Heaton, P. (2010). Hidden in Plain Sight. What Cost-of-Crime Research Can Tell Us about Investing in Police, Rand Occasional Paper.http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/ OP279.html. Hough, M., Warburton, H., Few, B., May, T., Man, L., Witton, J., & Turnbull, P. J. (2003). A growing market: The domestic cultivation of cannabis. Joseph Rowntree Foundation & National Addiction Centre. Leggett, T. (2006). Review of the world cannabis situation. Bulletin on Narcotics, 58 (volumes 1 and 2). Levi, M. & Burrows, J. (2008). Measuring the Impact of Fraud in the UK, British Journal of Criminology, 48: 293gyogy MacCoun, R. & Reuter, P. (2001). Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 123-128. MacCoun, R.J., Reuter, R. & Schelling, P. (1996). Assessing Alternative Drug Control Regimes, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15, 1–23. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage. Ministeries van Binnenlandse Zaken en Justitie (2008). Nationaal Veiligheidsplan 2008-2011. Ministeries van Binnenlandse Zaken en Justitie (2012). Nationaal Veiligheidsplan 2012-2015. Newcombe, R., (1992). The Reduction of Drug-Related Harm: A Conceptual Framework for Theory, Practice, and Research. In P. O’Hare, Newcombe, R., Matthews, A., Buning, E.C. & Drucker, E., eds, The Reduction of Drug-Related Harm London: Routledge, 1–14. Nguyen, H. & Bouchard, M. (2010). Patterns of youth participation in cannabis cultivation. Journal of Drug Issues, 40(2), 264-293. Nutt, D. J., King, L. A. & Philips, L. D. (2010). Drug Harms in the UK: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Lancet, 376, 1558–65. 29 Page 30 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Paoli, L. (2014). How to Tackle (Organized) Crime in Europe? The EU Policy Cycle on Serious and Organized Crime and the New Emphasis on Harm. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 22, 1-12. Paoli, L. & Greenfield, V.A. (2013). Harm: a Neglected Concept in Criminology, a Necessary Benchmark for Crime-Control Policy. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 21, 359–377. Paoli, L. Greenfield, V., & Zoutendijk, A. (2013). The Harms of Cocaine Trafficking: Applying a New Framework for Assessment. Journal of Drug Issues, 20(10), 1-30. Platform Energiediefstal Netbeheer Nederland (1013). Brochure Netbeheer Nederland. http://www.netbeheernederland.nl/publicaties/position-papers-factsheets/ [Retrieved: 27 July 2014]. Plecas, D., Dandurand, Y., Chin, V., & Segger, T. (2002). Marijuana grow operations in British Columbia: An empirical survey 1997-2000. Vancouver, BC: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy. Potter, G.R. (2008). The growth of cannabis cultivation: explanations for import substitution in the UK, in Korf, D.J. (ed.). Cannabis in Europe: dynamics in perception, policy and markets, 69-86. Lengerich: Pabst science Publishers. Potter, G.R. (2010). Weed, Need and Greed: A Study of Domestic Cannabis Cultivation. London: Free Association Books. Potter, G.R., Barratt, M., Malm, A., Bouchard, M., Blok, T., Christensen, A.S., et al. (2015). Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries, International Journal of Drug Policy, this volume. Potter, G.R. & Dann, S. (2005). Urban crop circles: urban cannabis growing in the north of England, in Palacios, W. (ed.), Cocktails and dreams: perspectives on drug and alcohol use. Upper saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 89-109. Sen, A. 1987. The Standard of Living: Lecture I, Concepts and Critiques.In Geoffrey Hawthorn, ed. The Standard of Living -- The Tanner Lectures, Clare Hall, Cambridge, 1985, 1-19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sebens, S. Voters give nod to legal marijuana in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/05/us-usa-elections-marijuanaidUSKBN0IO13620141105 [Retrieved: 20 November 2014] Spapens, T., van de Bunt, H., & Rastovac, L. (2007). The world behind cannabis cultivation [De wereld achter de wietteelt]. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers. Vander Beken, T., Paoli, L., Zoutendijk, A. and Klima, N. 2012. Het inschatten van de gevaarlijkheid van georganiseerde criminaliteit. Gent: Academia Press. UNODC (2009). World Drug Report, 2009. Vienna: UNODC. Van Duyne, P.C., & Levi, M. (2005). Drugs and Money. Managing the drug trade and crimemoney in Europe. London: Routledge. Von Hirsch, A., & Jareborg, N. (1991). Gauging criminal harms: A living standard analysis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 11(1), 1-38. Walker, L., Cocklin, C., & Blunden, G. (1998). Cannabis highs and lows: Sustaining and dislocating rural communities in Northland. Auckland: Department of Geography, University of Auckland. Weisheit, R.A. (1991). The intangible rewards from crime: the case of domestic marijuana cultivation. Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 506-27. Weisheit, R.A. (1992). Domestic marijuana. A neglected industry. New York: Greenwood Press. 30 Page 31 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Wilkins, C. & Casswell, S. (2003). Organized crime in marijuana cultivation in New Zealand: an economic analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems, 30, 757-777. Zimring, F.E. (2012). The city that became safe: New York’s lessons for urban crime and its control. New York: Oxford University Press.
31 Page 32 of 40
Table 1. Data sources
Inclusion criteria
- experience with cannabis cultivation - residence in Belgium - 18 years or older
Selection bias
Referred to as
self-selection
“survey respondents”
N=34 (including a total of 241 suspects; and 86 grow sites) - closed criminal proceedings (opened between 2005-2012) - involving plantations with more than 50 plants selection in cooperation with specialized federal police officers, examining magistrates and public (and federal) prosecutors “suspects”
N=32
particular expertise or experience with the theme of cannabis cultivation
Interviews with cannabis growers or wholesale traffickers N=20
experience with cannabis cultivation or wholesale trafficking
ip t
N=1.293
Interviews with experts
- selection in cooperation with 12 Flemish prisons - self-selection
cr
N=
Criminal proceedings
us
Web survey
“interviewed growers” or “interviewees”* *We use the expression “interviewees” when we refer not only to the 17 growers but also to the three traffickers we
M
an
interviewed.
“experts”
Table 2. Bearers and types of harms
Bearer of harm Private-sector Government
ed
Individuals
Environment
Ac
ce pt
Type of harm Functional integrity X* X** X** X*** Material interest X X X n/a Reputation X X X n/a Privacy X X X n/a Legend: X = applicable n/a = not applicable * Functional integrity = Physical and psychological integrity ** Functional integrity = Operational integrity ***Functional integrity = Physical, operational, and aesthetic integrity. Source: Greenfield and Paoli (2013).
32 Page 33 of 40
Figure 1. The harm assessment process
Construct business model
Rate incidence of criminal activity and of harm in relation to criminal activity (scale)
Rate severity of harm (scale)
cr
Evaluate severity and incidence of harm
ip t
Identify possible harms and bearers (Taxonomy)
us
Prioritize harms (matrix)
an
Establish causality of harm
M
Potential roles in policy analysis
ed
Source: Greenfield and Paoli (2013).
Table 3. Scales of severity and incidence and matrix for prioritizing harms
Incidence
Catastrophic Grave Serious Moderate
ce pt
Severity Always
Persistently
Occasionally
Seldom
Rarely
H
H
H
H/M
M/H
H
H
H/M
M/H
M
H
H/M
M/H
M
L
H/M
M/H
M
L
L
L
L
Ac
Marginal M/H M L Notes: H = Highest priority; M = Medium priority; L = Lowest priority Source: Based on Greenfield and Camm, 2005, 48.
33 Page 34 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Figure 2. The business model of cannabis cultivation
34 Page 35 of 40
ip t cr
n/a
n/a
n/a
X
and psychological
n/a
X
n/a
X
Material interest
X
X
n/a
Reputation
X
X
n/a
n/a n/a
X
n/a
X
n/a
X
n/a
n/a
X
ep te
d
Other physical
M
an
us
Table 4. Possible harms and bearers in different phases of cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities Growing, el. Harvesting & Sale & money theft,damages Violence Corruption Bearers exploitation laundering & forgery HARMS TO INDIVIDUALS, specifically to their Functional integrity Loss of life n/a n/a n/a X n/a - All persons targeted by use of lethal violence
n/a
n/a
n/a
X
X
n/a
X
n/a
X
Privacy X n/a HARMS TO GOVERNMENT, specifically to its:
n/a
n/a
X
Functional integrity
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
X
Material interest
n/a
n/a
n/a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Privacy X X n/a HARMS TO PRIVATE-SECTOR ENTITIES, specifically to their:
Material interest
Reputation
Reputation
n/a
n/a
X
X
Ac c
Functional integrity
- All persons targeted by use of violence -
All persons targeted by threats “Cutters,” if intimidated All persons targeted by use or threat of violence Owners of property, if this is damaged Ancillary to electricity theft All persons targeted by use or threat of violence Owners of property, if this is misused w/o their knowledge “Cutters,” if controlled All persons, whose identity is misused Same four categories as for reputation
- Electrical companies, law and logistic firms, if corrupt employees misuse assets w/o their knowledge - Electrical companies, if electricity is stolen - Owners of property, if this is damaged - Insurance companies, if they have to reimburse property damages - Electrical companies, law and logistic firms, if corrupt employees misuse assets w/o their knowledge - Owners of property, if this is misused w/o their knowledge - Same two categories as for reputation - Government agencies, if representatives engage in corrupt practices - Ancillary to individuals’ functional harms - Courts when paying for plantation dismantling costs - Government agencies, if representatives engage in corrupt
35 Page 36 of 40
ip t cr n/a
HARMS TO ENVIRONMENT, specifically to its: Functional integrity X n/a Notes: X = applicable; n/a= not applicable.
n/a
n/a
us
n/a
X
n/a
- Neighborhoods, if affected by bad smell and noise
an
n/a
ep te
d
M
n/a
Ac c
Privacy
practices - Government writ large, if it cannot enforce its laws - Government agencies, if representatives engage in corrupt practices
36 Page 37 of 40
ip t cr
Material interest
Marginal
Seldom
Li
Marginal
Rarely
Li
Serious
Seldom to rarely
M/Li
Serious damages to rented property during growing (e.g., fire)
Moderate Marginal
Occasionally Persistently
Mi Mi
d
Only psychological
M
an
us
Table 5. Evaluation of harms associated with cannabis cultivation in Belgium Severity Incidence** Priority Activity HARMS TO INDIVIDUALS, specifically to their: Functional integrity Loss of life Catastrophic Rarely M/Hi Violence Grave Rarely Mi Violence (i.e., assault causing permanent damages) Serious Rarely L Violence (i.e., assault, and kidnapping) Other physical and i psychological Moderate Rarely Li " Marginal Rarely Li Violence (i.e., petty assault) Moderate Rarely Li Forgery, if other persons’ ID is used for rent of property Violence threatened (i.e., intimidation) Exploitation of “cutters” during harvesting
Li
Lps Lps
Corruption Money laundering
M/Lps
Serious damages to rented property during growing (e.g., fire)
Mps Mps Lps
Moderate damages to rented property during growing (e.g., water flow) Minor damages to rented property during growing (e.g., holes in walls) Theft of electricity
Marginal Marginal
Lps Lps
Corruption Money laundering
Moderate Reputation Marginal Moderate
Rarely
Li
Seldom
Li
Rarely
Li
Ac c
Privacy
ep te
Marginal Seldom HARMS TO PRIVATE-SECTOR ENTITIES, specifically to their: Marginal Seldom to rarely Functional integrity Marginal Rarely Seldom to Serious Rarely Moderate Occasionally Marginal Persistently Material interest Marginal Occasionally
Moderate damages to rented property during growing (e.g., water flow) Minor damages to rented property during growing (e.g., holes in walls) Violence (i.e., all forms of assault) Forgery, if other persons’ ID is used for rent of property Violence threatened (i.e., intimidation) Growing, if rented properties are misused w/o the owner’s knowledge Violence (i.e., assault and kidnapping) Forgery, if other persons’ ID is used for rent of property Growing, if rented properties are misused w/o the owner’s knowledge
Seldom to rarely Rarely
37 Page 38 of 40
ip t cr
Seldom
Lps
Marginal
Rarely
Lps
Corruption Growing, if rented properties are misused w/o the owner’s knowledge Money laundering
Marginal Seldom Marginal Seldom to rarely Marginal Rarely HARMS TO GOVERNMENT, specifically to its: Functional integrity Marginal Rarely Moderate Rarely Marginal Persistently Material interest
Lps Lps Lps
Growing, if rented properties are misused w/o the owner’s knowledge Corruption Money laundering
Lg Lg Mg
Corruption Violence (i.e., medical treatment of assaults) Growing, costs of dismantling plantations
Marginal
Lg
Rarely
an
M
'Privacy'
us
Marginal
Reputation
Violence (i.e., medical treatment of petty assaults)
Marginal Always Mg All criminal activities (non-enforcement effect) Marginal Rarely Lg Corruption Privacy Marginal Rarely Lg Corruption HARMS TO ENVIRONMENT, specifically to its: Functional integrity Marginal Occasionally Le Growing (bad smells and noise) * Estimates exclude harms associated with cannabis distribution and use. **Overall incidence, accounting for incidence of activities and of harms in relation to activities.
Ac c
ep te
d
Reputation
38 Page 39 of 40
*Conflict of Interest Statement
Gent, 31 July 2014 Author declaration
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
ip t
There are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with the office).
cr
Letizia Paoli will act as the corresponding author, but Tom Decorte has submitted the manuscript in order to speed up the review process (the two other authors are on holiday).
an
us
Signed by
Ac ce pt e
d
M
Tom Decorte
Page 40 of 40
S0955-3959(14)00359-4 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.003 DRUPOL 1499
To appear in:
International Journal of Drug Policy
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
17-8-2014 5-12-2014 7-12-2014
Please cite this article as: Paoli, L., Decorte, T., and Kersten, L.,‘Assessing the harms of cannabis cultivation in Belgium’, International Journal of Drug Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.003 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Highlights (for review)
Highlights
Cannabis cultivation has become an endemic activity in Belgium, and reduction of supply is not a realistic objective.
ip t
Cannabis cultivation should not be a priority in law enforcement strategies, as it generates limited harms. Virtually all the harms associated with cannabis cultivation are the result of the current criminalizing policies.
Ac ce pt e
d
M
an
us
cr
Policy-makers should be committed to reduce the harms that result from criminalizing policies to a minimum.
Page 1 of 40
*Revised Manuscript
‘Assessing the harms of cannabis cultivation in Belgium’ Short title (running head):
ip t
Harms of cannabis cultivation in Belgium
Authors and affiliation:
cr
Letizia Paoli Professor of Criminology,
us
Leuven Institute of Criminology, University of Leuven
an
Tom Decorte Professor of Criminology Institute for Social Drug research (ISD)
ed
Loes Kersten
M
Ghent University
Researcher
ce pt
Leuven Institute of Criminology, University of Leuven
Correspondence:
Ac
Prof. Dr. Letizia Paoli
Leuven Institute of Criminology, University of Leuven E-mail: [email protected]
Page 2 of 40
Structured abstract Background. Since the 1990s, a shift from the importation of foreign cannabis to domestic cultivation has taken place in Belgium, as it has in many other countries. This shift has prompted Belgian policy-making bodies to prioritize the repression of cannabis cultivation.
ip t
Against this background, the article aims to systematically map and assess for the first time ever the harms associated with cannabis cultivation, covering the whole spectrum of
cr
growers.
Methods. This study is based on a web survey primarily targeting small scale growers
us
(N=1,293) and on three interconnected sets of qualitative data on large-scale growers and traffickers (34 closed criminal proceedings, interviews with 32 criminal justice experts, and
an
with 17 large-scale cannabis growers and three traffickers). The study relied on Greenfield and Paoli’s (2013) harm assessment framework to identify the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and to assess the incidence, severity and causes of such harms.
M
Results. Cannabis cultivation has become endemic in Belgium. Despite that, it generates, for Belgium, limited harms of medium-low or medium priority. Large-scale growers tend to
ed
produce more harms than the small-scale ones. Virtually all the harms associated with cannabis cultivation are the result of the current criminalizing policies.
ce pt
Conclusions. Given the spread of cannabis cultivation and Belgium’s position in Europe, reducing the supply of cannabis does not appear to be a realistic policy objective. Given the limited harms generated, there is scarce scientific justification to prioritize cannabis cultivation in Belgian law enforcement strategies. As most harms are generated by large-
Ac
scale growers, it is this category of cultivator, if any, which should be the focus of law enforcement repression. Given the policy origin of most harms, policy-makers should seek to develop policies likely to reduce such harms. At the same time, further research is needed to comparatively assess the harms associated with cannabis cultivation (and trafficking) with those arising from use.
Introduction Over the last three decades, the supply side of the worldwide cannabis market has changed significantly. Numerous countries around the world have switched from importing foreign 2 Page 3 of 40
cannabis to domestically producing their own supplies. This shift to domestic cultivation has been particularly pronounced in North America and Europe, and seems irreversible in the medium-term (Hafley & Tewksbury, 1995; Walker, Cocklin, & Blunden, 1998; Plecas et al., 2002; Spapens et al., 2007; Decorte, Potter & Bouchard, 2011). In Belgium too, domestic cultivation has boomed. The number of plantations
ip t
dismantled by the Belgian law enforcement authorities increased exponentially from 35 in 2003 to 1,212 in 2013, while the number of plants discovered grew over 440% from 73,344 in 2006 to 396,758 in 2013 (Centrale Dienst Drugs, 2014). Belgium is one of the European
cr
countries that tolerate small-scale cultivation for personal use. The changes in legislation
us
that occurred in 2003 and 2004 made the possession of 3 grams of cannabis by adults and the cultivation of one female plant for personal use tolerable (not meaning ‘decriminalized’ offences). This legislative shift separated cannabis from other drugs and granted the
an
prosecution more discretion regarding the enforcement of cannabis-related offences (Decorte, 2007; EMCCDA, 2011). However, the increase in plantations as well as the fear of
M
growing violence and organized crime involvement prompted the highest Belgian policymaking bodies to prioritize the repression of cannabis cultivation in the last two National
ed
Security Plans, the two multi-annual documents defining the police strategic priorities (Ministeries van Binnenlandse Zaken en Justitie, 2008 and 2012). By doing so, Belgium has gone in the opposite direction of other jurisdictions that have recently legalized cannabis
ce pt
cultivation: Uruguay, as well as Colorado and Washington State and, more recently, Alaska, Oregon and Washington DC in the United States (e.g., Bewley-Taylor, Blickman & Jelsma, 2014; Sebens, 2014).
Ac
The Belgian policy-makers’ decisions have not been based on an empirical analysis of the domestic cannabis production. There is only one empirical study of cannabis cultivation in Belgium, which was co-authored by one of us (Decorte & Tuteleers, 2007) and focused on small-scale cultivation. The majority of studies in other countries has, instead, focused on large-scale, commercially oriented growers, mostly relying on police data (Weisheit, 1991; Bovenkerk & Hogewind, 2002; Hough et al., 2003; among the few exceptions, see Decorte & Tuteleers, 2007 and Potter, 2010). Empirical studies that focus only on large-scale commercially oriented growers, base their conclusions on police data, and take the perspective of law enforcement agencies, may lead to false perceptions of the prevalence of different types of growers and growing operations and related criminal behaviors (Wilkins & 3 Page 4 of 40
Casswell, 2003). They can have important consequences for future policy choices. Very few studies have yet tackled the whole spectrum of cannabis cultivation from small-scale to large-scale growers. Moreover, no study has ever been carried out in Belgium or elsewhere to systematically map and assess the harms associated with cannabis cultivation or to
ip t
distinguish these harms by type of growers. In the legal doctrine, though, the harm “caused” by a criminal activity is considered crucial in justifying the very criminalization of such an
activity and the assignment of penalties (e.g., Ashworth, 2006: 30-39; for a review of this
cr
debate, see Paoli and Greenfield, 2013). Moreover, several national and regional policy-
us
making and law-enforcement agencies in Europe and elsewhere are currently considering “harm” as a basis for prioritizing and targeting criminal activities (Paoli, 2014). In its latest Serious and Organized Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA), for example, Europol (2013)
an
identifies the crimes to be considered most serious and thus to be prioritized in the new EUwide multi-annual policy cycle on serious and organized crime, largely on the basis of the
M
harm these crimes generate.
Thus, identifying the bearers of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and
ed
systematically assessing the incidence and severity of these harms constitute an innovative and valuable contribution not only to the scientific but also the policy debate on crime and crime control, and specifically on cannabis legalization. An empirical assessment of the
ce pt
harms, in fact, can provide the evidence needed to elevate the debate on cannabis legalization beyond mere moral values or governments’ financial appetites. For such an exercise, we have relied on a new methodology developed by Greenfield
Ac
and Paoli (2013) and already tested to assess the harms of cocaine and human trafficking (Paoli et al. 2013; Vander Beken et al. 2012). Greenfield and Paoli’s “harm assessment framework” provides the means of identifying, evaluating and, with some restrictions, comparing harms across criminal activities, and thus constitutes a potentially important advancement for evidence-informed policy making. It extends von Hirsch and Jareborg’s (1991) seminal typology of harms, by considering other bearers, in addition to individuals. Unlike this and other drug-related taxonomic predecessors (e.g. MacCoun et al. 1996; Newcombe 1992), Greenfield and Paoli’s framework has the advantage of being applicable to many different forms of crime, including those complex crimes wherein harms do not derive from a single actor or activity. In the case of cannabis cultivation, we can thus assess 4 Page 5 of 40
not only the harms resulting from the cultivation process itself but also those resulting from its accompanying activities, such as electricity theft, use and threat of violence and corruption. Moreover, unlike the cost-of-crime literature (for a review, see, Heaton, 2010), the framework does not focus only on the harms that can be quantified, realizing—as others
ip t
have done (e.g., Caulkins et al., 2011)—the incalculability of some harms. Where available, we use quantitative data to inform our evaluation, but the framework does not
fundamentally require quantification. This flexibility buys us the freedom of employing
cr
alternative means of analysis; we do not, so to speak, leave any credible information on the
us
table. Following von Hirsch and Jareborg (1991), the national security doctrine and other scholars in the drug policy community (e.g. Nutt et al. 2010), the framework also acknowledges the limitations of expert judgment, but accepts it as valid. In such a way, it
an
avoids giving “a misleading sense of precision” (von Hirsch and Jareborg 1991: 28). Last but not least, Paoli and Greenfield (2013) acknowledge the daunting conceptual and technical
M
challenges of assessing the harms of a criminal activity and spell out the limitations of the framework.
ed
To meet both the above-mentioned knowledge gaps and policy needs, we designed our study in such a way as to cover the whole spectrum of cannabis growers. Given our focus
or use.
ce pt
on cannabis cultivation, though, we do not assess the harms resulting from cannabis dealing
The paper is organized as follows. In the first section we describe the multi-method research design underlying the study, including the harm assessment methodology, and
Ac
briefly present our data. In the second section, we sketch the business model of cannabis cultivation in Belgium, single out its accompanying criminal activities and identify the resulting possible harms. In the third section, we assess the severity and incidence of the harms related with cannabis cultivation. In the fourth we consider which harms deserve prioritization and, in the fifth, the causes of the harms. Some concluding remarks and policy implications follow.
The research design and the data
5 Page 6 of 40
Our assessment of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation in Belgium is based on extensive data collection and analysis in the two main language communities of Belgium, Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia. The data collection and analysis
ip t
To scope the whole spectrum of cannabis growers, we used both quantitative and
qualitative data collection and analysis techniques (for more details, see Decorte et al.
cr
2014).
The first of these techniques consisted of an internet survey primarily targeting small-
us
scale growers (for a detailed description of our internet-mediated study, see Barratt, Potter et al. in this volume). Selection criteria were experience with cannabis cultivation, residence
an
in Belgium and adulthood. For the survey questionnaire, we drew on a previous study of domestic cultivation in Flanders conducted by Decorte and Tuteleers (2007) and the core
M
questionnaire of the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium (see Barratt, Potter et al in this volume; Decorte et al., 2012) but also added specific questions on harms following Greenfield and Paoli’s (2013) harm assessment framework and its first application to cocaine
ed
trafficking (Paoli et al. 2013). These extra items were constructed on the basis of the data collection protocol for the qualitative interviews and the analysis of criminal proceedings we
ce pt
describe below. We set up a Dutch (www.cannabiskweken.be) and a French (www.cultiverducannabis.be) website, explaining clearly the objectives of the study and stressing that we would not collect identifying information or IP addresses and that participants were free to use an anonymizer (e.g. Tor) for added protection.
Ac
The internet survey could be filled in online during a period of six months (roughly
from June until December 2012). To boost response rates, we publicized the survey through a variety of online and offline means (Mann & Stewart, 2000): e-mails to staff members and students of Belgian universities; a press release; a Facebook page and Twitter account; messages to specialized cannabis related internet sites and discussion forums for cannabis growers and users; and an intensive poster and flyer campaign (for a more detailed discussion of the internet-mediated recruitment methods, see Barratt, Potter et al. in this special issue). A number of flyers were sent to three growshops in Belgium after contacting them by e-mail. Ultimately, the answers of 1,293 respondents were retained for the analysis. 6 Page 7 of 40
In the rest of this paper we will refer to them as “survey respondents”. It is important to note that in the subsequent analyses the base N is often lower than 1,293, because of missing values (item non-response) or cases. If N is lower because the survey question did not apply to all participants, it is mentioned explicitly. Simultaneously, we collected three interconnected sets of qualitative data about and
ip t
from large-scale growers, primarily but not exclusively through the criminal justice system. First, we analyzed 34 closed criminal proceedings that were opened by the Belgian
Prosecutor’s Offices between 2005 and 2012 as well as all available official data. The
cr
proceedings were selected in cooperation with specialized federal police officers from all the
us
cases that involved more than 50 plants, in ten of the 15 Belgian judicial districts with the highest number of plantations discovered. The proceedings ranged from ten to 180 pages in length, in total involving 241 defendants. We refer to these data as “criminal proceedings”.
an
Second, we interviewed 32 experts. These were mainly criminal justice experts—14 police officers, four police analysts, six prosecutors, three examining magistrates, a solicitor
M
general—as well as the employees of Flanders’ largest electricity (and gas) company and of a company dismantling plantations. We selected the criminal justice experts from the
ed
Federal Police and Prosecutor’s Office and the above-mentioned 10 judicial districts, based on the experts’ experience with investigating or prosecuting cases of cannabis cultivation. The respondents working at the electricity company and the dismantling agency were added
ce pt
to generate additional information on the harms of cannabis cultivation. We used ‘snowballing’ to get in touch with the persons most experienced with the topic of cannabis cultivation. We made the interviews in the respondents’ offices, in a few cases with more
Ac
than one person at a time. We held semi-structured interviews based on common topic lists and then transcribed the interviews in summaries organized by topic. We refer to all these respondents as “experts”. Last but not least, we interviewed 20 persons who had direct experience with cannabis cultivation or wholesale trafficking. We constructed this sample with the help of the 12 Flemish prisons (out of 16) that had agreed to support the study and identified (or allowed us to identify on the basis of their data) a list of 140 potential interviewees. These were all invited to take part in the study with a letter of ours, which was sent through the prison administration, and 29 of them agreed to do so. Ultimately, only 20 respondents turned out to effectively meet our selection criterion, namely experience with either cannabis cultivation or wholesale trafficking: 17 of them had been involved in 7 Page 8 of 40
growing, while three had experience with cannabis wholesale trafficking. We carried out 27 semi-structured interviews in prisons and two in public places, as the interviewees had already left prison. The interviews lasted 15 minutes to 3.5 hours. We were allowed to record 17 interviews and transcribed these literally. For the three others, we relied on notes. We refer to the 17 respondents with experience in cannabis cultivation as the “interviewed
ip t
growers”. If we also include the three traffickers of our sample, we more generally refer to them as the “interviewees”.
Our study is unique in its triangulation of data from different sources, which allows us
cr
to shed light on all the different segments of cannabis cultivation and their harms. As the
us
whole GCCRC project shows, web surveys can provide rich data on small-scale growers but large-scale growers are unlikely to fill them in (see Barratt, Potter et al. and Potter, Barratt et al in this volume). To collect information on the latter’s modus operandi and related harms,
an
we therefore interviewed a sample of them directly and additionally collected data on their activities and associated harms via criminal proceedings and criminal justice experts. To
M
collect first-hand data on the broadest possible spectrum of harms, we also interviewed the representatives of an electrical and a dismantling company. Despite these advantages, our
ed
research design also imposed considerable limitations. The internet survey does not provide a representative sample of growers. The criminal justice data as well as the interviews with the convicted growers are skewed towards those growers who were not capable of avoiding
ce pt
detection or involved in the riskiest phases of the process. Both respondents and interviewees might have given socially desirable or partial answers, whereas the proceedings did sometimes not contain detailed information on accompanying criminal activities and
Ac
their consequences.
Table 1 about here
The data: a brief overview
The overwhelming majority of the growers in our three samples—the 1,293 survey respondents, the 241 defendants charged in the criminal proceedings and the 20 growers
8 Page 9 of 40
and traffickers interviewed—are male (91%, 85% and 100%, respectively; see Decorte et al., 2014). The survey respondents report that they are mainly motivated by the pleasure of growing, their personal consumption and the wish to share their home-grown cannabis with their friends and family (for a more detailed description of characteristics and patterns of
ip t
growing in this sample and comparable samples in ten other countries, see Potter, Barratt et al. in this volume). Only 8.3% of them indicated that they grow cannabis to sell it for profit (n=94; N=1,135). Most of the respondents are frequent cannabis consumers, with 50.9%
cr
(n=492) of those who did use cannabis in the last month (N=967) using cannabis 21 to 30
us
days of the past month and a further 21.0% (n=203) using it 11 to 20 days. A very large majority of the survey respondents are small-scale growers: 73.4% (n=757) typically grow one to five plants, 22.8% (n=235) six to 20 and only 3.8% (n=39) more than 20 plants
an
(N=1,031). More than 60% of them have never cultivated more than five mature plants at once (n=681; N=1,103; this question did not apply to participants who had not harvested
M
their first crop yet). Only a small proportion of the survey respondents (7.9%; n=84; N=1,066) indicate that they have ever come into contact with the police because of the cultivation,
ed
and, of that group, not even a fifth (18.1%, n=15), was convicted for it. The information we have of the growers interviewed or charged in the criminal proceedings give a rather different picture. As expected, most of them grow for profit (see
ce pt
infra) and cultivate on a much larger scale than the survey respondents. In the 34 proceedings, 86 plantations were reported in total, 75 of which were mainly located in Belgium, 11 in the Netherlands and one in Spain. The scale on which cannabis was produced
Ac
is known of 70 cultivation sites; three of them were seedling farms; the other 67 plantations had a size of 1,199 plants on average. Of the 17 growers interviewed, 13 cultivated more than 20 plants per harvest. Three owned one or more plantations involving 50 to 500 plants and ten produced on an industrial-scale with more than 500 plants per plantation, up to a maximum of 3,800 plants.
The harm assessment framework
To assess the harms associated with cannabis cultivation, we have used the harm 9 Page 10 of 40
assessment framework (Greenfield & Paoli, 2013). Pursuant to it, we define harm as a violation of stakeholders’ legitimate interests, thus acknowledging the inherently normative nature of harm. Following Greenfield and Paoli (2013), we further specify the harms on the basis of a taxonomy that distinguishes among both different bearers and types of harms (table 1). The taxonomy identifies four classes of bearers: individuals, private-sector entities,
ip t
including businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government entities, and the environment, both physical and social. It also specifies the different types of harms in relation to the “interest dimensions” of each class of bearer. The first one consists of
cr
functional integrity: in the case of individuals this means physical and psychological integrity,
us
in the case of private sector and government entities, operational integrity and, in the case of the environment, physical, operational and aesthetical integrity. The other three dimensions are only applicable to the first three types of bearers, i.e., individuals, private
an
sector and government entities and are: material interest, reputation and privacy. These three categories are either not applicable to the environment, or are duplicative. In fact,
M
Greenfield and Paoli’s framework aims to allocate the communal harms to their ultimate bearers and thus, unlike other classification systems (e.g. Newcombe 1992), also excludes
ed
harms to the community or economy.
ce pt
Table 2 about here
The framework weaves together the taxonomy and other tools and applies them in a multistep process. The other tools are a model of the logistics of the criminal activity, which Greenfield and Paoli (2013) refer to as a “business model,” two scales for evaluating the
Ac
severity and incidence of harms, and a matrix for prioritizing harms (figure 1).
Figure 1 about here
In particular, we evaluate the severity using an ordinal scale with five broad categories, ranging from catastrophic to marginal. We use individuals’ living standard and (private and government) entities’ ability to purse their mission as benchmarks to assess the severity of the harms. We rate the incidence on the basis of another five-point scale ranging from always to never or rarely. The prioritization matrix jointly rates the severity and 10 Page 11 of 40
incidence of harms (see table 3). Taken together, these ratings can provide a preliminary basis for prioritizing harms, whereas a severity or incidence rating, alone, cannot (see table 3; Greenfield & Paoli, 2013). A harm may be catastrophic but if it happens only rarely, it may still be considered a low priority. Nonetheless, the rankings enable prioritization only up to a point. While Greenfield and Paoli’s approach facilitates the systematic assessment of wide-
ip t
ranging harms, it does not allow direct comparisons of analogous harms across classes of bearers, as harms remain incommensurable across classes, nor does it enable the
cr
aggregation of harms within a particular class of bearers.
us
Table 3 about here
While we refer to Greenfield and Paoli (2013) for further details about the
an
framework, we point to a few specificities of this approach. First, the framework uses benchmarks to assess the severity of the harms. For individuals, the benchmark is--pursuant
M
to von Hisch and Jareborg (1991: 3-4)—the immediate victim’s “standard of living”. This is defined, following Sen (1987: 7, 10–11), as the “economic means” and “non-economic
ed
capabilities” for achieving a certain quality of life. A corollary of using the living standard as a benchmark is that some interest dimensions emerge as more ‘basic’ than others: whereas the violation of an individual’s functional integrity may result in a catastrophic harm, the
ce pt
violation of his or her reputation cannot (see von Hirsch and Jareborg 1991: 21). The framework uses a standard-of-living analogy for private-sector and government entities. Namely, it assesses the harms to an entity in relation to its ability to fulfil its “mission”,
Ac
defined as the entity’s raison d’être. In assessing harms to individuals, the frameworks attempts to estimate the standard impact of a criminal activity on the living standard of individual victims, and thus does not take into account the individuals’ specific life circumstances. In contrast, for other bearers, Greenfield and Paoli (2013) suggest considering the level of analysis, thus distinguishing, for example, between large- and smallscale companies. The framework also excludes law enforcement costs. If these were added, the criminal activities that are already most heavily prioritized by law enforcement agencies—as reflected in the agencies’ funding—would likely appear to be more harmful than others that have been less heavily prioritized, thereby creating a vicious cycle (see also Levi and 11 Page 12 of 40
Burrows, 2008 294). Along similar lines, the framework also excludes harms deriving from the generic fear of crime and costs incurred by private entities or individuals to protect themselves from crime. It does, however, consider remediation and replacement costs, such as the costs of healthcare borne by individuals or government entities for treating injuries accruing from a criminal activity. As Paoli, Greenfield and Zoutendijk (2013) did in the first
ip t
application of the framework to cocaine trafficking, we also excluded any benefits associated with the criminal activities and thus also the harms resulting from the theft or destruction of illegal property or revenues and unfair pay. Given our data, we only assess the harms
us
cr
resulting from cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities occurring in Belgium.
The business model and the possible harms of cannabis cultivation in
an
Belgium
M
As suggested in Greenfield and Paoli (2013), we began by constructing a business model to characterize the key operational phases of the activity and describe the functions and modes
ed
of possible accompanying and enabled activities. The business model provides essential building blocks of information for the identification of the possible harms and bearers, the
ce pt
assessment of the harms and the establishment of the latter’s causality. For cannabis cultivation, as it occurs in Belgium and presumably also elsewhere, we distinguished three main phases—the acquisition of raw material and equipment, the growing process, and the harvesting—and a fourth possible one, the sale and trafficking of
Ac
the cannabis, of which we consider only wholesale trafficking (see figure 2).
Figure 2 about here
We also identified eight accompanying activities, namely: 1) theft of electricity; 2) intentional damage to property; 3) forgery of identity and other official documents; 4) exploitation of the “cutters;” 5) money laundering; 6) theft and destruction of plants, harvest or equipment; 7) use and threat of violence and 8) corruption (understood broadly as the abuse of public or private office for personal gain). The first three accompanying activities are inherent to the growing process, the fourth to the harvesting and the fifth to 12 Page 13 of 40
sale/trafficking—and we have therefore examined them along with the respective phases of cannabis cultivation. We exclude the theft and destruction of plants, harvest or equipment, although they are frequently reported by all sources, because they involve illegal property and thus do not generate harms to be accounted in the harm assessment framework. We consider retail dealing and use as activities enabled by cannabis cultivation but, given the
ip t
research design, we have excluded them from our analysis. On the basis of the description of the business model, we then identified the possible harms and potential bearers for each phase of cannabis cultivation and its accompanying
cr
activities. The results of this exercise are shown in table 4. That a harm is listed in this table
us
does not imply that it occurs to any great extent, only that it is relevant or plausible given the business model.
M
Acquisition of raw material and equipment
an
Table 4 about here
Belgian growers appear to buy frequently their seeds, seedlings and equipment in Dutch
ed
growshops. More than 20% of the survey respondents who reported buying their seeds from Dutch growshops (n=258; N=1,194) and 33.7% (n=402; N=1,194) ordered them on the
ce pt
internet, also presumably from Dutch growshops. Fifteen of the 17 growers interviewed also supplied themselves in Dutch growshops, as did the defendants of 17 criminal proceedings. In ten other criminal proceedings, the raw material and equipment also probably came from the Netherlands, as the defendants were Dutch and/or lived in the Netherlands.
Ac
The survey respondents’ investment was limited (median amount of money invested
in their most recent harvest was 50 euros). By contrast, the investment of the growers interviewed or charged in the proceedings was more considerable (up to 62,500 euros in one case). Nine of the growers interviewed and the defendants of two criminal proceedings received advances from growshops or other Dutch contacts. Although these advances put some of the Belgian growers in a subordinated position, we could identify no harms to individuals or other bearers associated with this phase. Growing process, theft of electricity, damage to property and forgery
13 Page 14 of 40
Small- and large-scale growers use different cultivation techniques, which vary in their likely harmfulness. Half of the survey respondents grew exclusively or mainly outdoors (n=600; N=1,160). Moreover, over half of the survey respondents who grew indoors (N=1,044) only used plain sunlight in their most recent harvest (56,2%; n=447). Given these cultivation techniques, 75.3% of the survey respondents (n=854; N=1,108) indicated that they had
ip t
never caused damages or nuisance, and 20.5% (n=232) reported only bad smell and 3.5% (n=40) noise nuisance. None of them mentioned fire damage. Only 7.1% of them admitted stealing electricity (n=81; N=1,134)—a percentage that amounts to 18.4% among the survey
cr
respondents cultivating more than 20 plants (n=7; N=38). This higher percentage suggests a
us
link between scale and type and extent of damage, which however could not be confirmed statistically given the limited number of large-scale growers among the survey respondents. The only two harms frequently reported by the survey respondents are thus bad smell and
Paoli’s (2013) typology of harms and bearers.
an
noise, which are inherently mild and might affect the social environment in Greenfield and
M
Given the large scale of their operations, most of the growers interviewed or charged in the criminal proceedings cultivated only indoors. Only four of the growers interviewed
ed
mentioned cultivating also outdoors, while the proceedings gave no evidence of outdoor cultivation. With two exceptions, all the growers interviewed (thus 15) admitted to having manipulated the electricity meter. In 26 of the analyzed 34 criminal proceedings, the
ce pt
electricity was also obtained illegally and only in two was it explicitly reported that no electricity theft had occurred. With reference to the types of bearers and the interest dimensions of the harm assessment framework, these thefts produce harms to the material
Ac
interest of private-sector entities, i.e., the Belgian electrical companies—and indirectly to their customers, thus individuals, who had to pay a higher price for their electricity as a result. On basis of data in relation to 411 of the 1,040 plantations discovered in 2003-2010, a representative of the largest Flemish electrical company assessed the total harm to the financial interests of the Belgian electrical companies in over 9 million euros. Similar estimates in the Netherlands suggest that the cost per household is about two euros per year (Platform Energiediefstal Netbeheer Nederland, 2013). The manipulation of the electricity meter and wires sometimes causes fires. Four of the growers interviewed had themselves experienced such fires. Fires were also reported in four of the criminal proceedings and presented as a recurrent harm by at least nine experts. 14 Page 15 of 40
However, between 2006 and 2013 the Belgian police discovered on average only 18 plantations per year because of a fire outbreak. The police reported water damage even less frequently: in the period 2006-13, they discovered less than five plantations per year because of this reason (Centrale Dienst Drugs, 2014). These data are in line with the accounts of the growers interviewed. Twelve out of the 17 interviewed growers claimed
ip t
never having caused any harm to the building in which they cultivated. Three others stated that they only had made holes to install the plantation.
Fire and water damage and repair costs are borne by the owners of the properties—
cr
thus individuals and businesses, i.e., private-sector entities, in the framework’s
us
terminology—whose material interest is harmed. In turn, these bearers might pass on these costs to insurance companies, thus again private-sector entities. Both individuals and
property is misused without their knowledge.
an
private-sector entities might also suffer harm to their reputation and privacy, if their
Thirteen proceedings also mentioned the costs of dismantling the plantation after
M
detection and repairing the buildings—the only of our sources to do so. The costs ranged between 725 and 5,558 euros, with an average of 2,339 euros per plantation. The
ed
dismantling costs are borne in Belgium by the courts and thus constitute harms to the material interest of the government.
Harms to individuals’ reputation and privacy might also accrue as a result of growers’
ce pt
misuse of falsified identity cards—the last of the three possible accompanying activities associated with the phase of growing. Only three criminal proceedings reported the use of counterfeited documents. It is unclear, though, if the cards mentioned the name of real
Ac
persons who were unaware of the misuse of their identity documents or were just fake documents.
Harvesting and exploitation of the “cutters”
The internet survey posed no specific questions on the harvesting and drying of the cannabis leaves. However, most of the survey respondents presumably harvested themselves, as they generally grew five plants per crop, thus causing no harm to others. Four of the 17 growers interviewed also cut and dried the leaves themselves. Five others were involved in cutting and drying but also mentioned hiring and/or supervising other “cutters”. Cutting teams were 15 Page 16 of 40
also reported in ten criminal proceedings. In six of these proceedings, the teams consisted of Eastern Europeans, mostly women—and such teams were also mentioned by two interviewed growers and several experts. The interviews with the growers and experts and the criminal proceedings indicate that the “cutters” are sometimes in a very weak position, have to work long hours, do not
ip t
know where they are brought to and cannot leave until the harvest is completed. These practices might thus result in harms to the “cutters”’ (i.e., individuals’) psychological integrity, reputation and privacy. The pay often seems to be unfair but this does not
cr
generate harms accounted for in our analysis, as it involves an illegal income.
us
Sale and money laundering
an
Only 17.9% (n=115; N=642) of the survey respondents conceded having sold cannabis for profit at least once, and another overlapping 25.1% (n=161) admitted selling it to cover the
M
expenses (N=642; this question did not apply to participants who did not grow cannabis or did not yet harvest cannabis in the last 12 months). These answers are strongly associated with the scale of cultivation. Eight of the 15 respondents typically growing more than 20
ed
plants indicated doing it for commercial reasons, whereas only 6% of those cultivating up to five plants did so (n=13; N=221). Fifteen of the 17 growers we interviewed face-to-face
ce pt
admitted selling their yield for profit, although three also mentioned their personal consumption needs. The criminal proceedings did not provide any specific insight on these issues but, given the scale of average plantations identified, it seems likely that the defendants involved also had profit-making motivations.
Ac
The cannabis cultivated on a large-scale is meant predominantly for the Dutch
market. Only two of the growers interviewed stated that their cannabis would be consumed (partly) in Belgium. Seventeen criminal proceedings also provided evidence of sales of the yield in the Netherlands or to Dutch mediators. Only three survey respondents admitted selling their cannabis to Dutch coffeeshops, with none to growshops or via the internet. Of the survey respondents who sold a part of their most recent harvest, 43.6% (n=82; N=226) stated that they had earned less than 50 euros. Only 13.3% admitted profits higher than 2,500 euros (n=30; N=226).
16 Page 17 of 40
Large-scale producers, such as the growers interviewed and charged in the criminal proceedings, can obviously earn much more money, but it is unclear how much more. On the basis of a back of the envelope calculation weaving together scattered data from different sources, we estimate that a 1,000-plant plantation can generate yearly revenues of 700,000 euros, assuming that the grower has five harvests per year with an average yield of
ip t
40 grams per plant, sells his cannabis at 3,500 euros per kilo, thus generating 140,000 euros per harvest, and suffers no setbacks. We estimate costs at about 50,000 euros (21,000 euros for rent and deposit; 18,000 euros for a cutting team of six people working four days per
cr
each harvest and paid 150 per day and 12,500 for the seedlings), thus leaving about 650,000
us
euros of profits. Revenues and profits could diminish to 490,000 and 440,000 euros respectively, assuming that the grower returns his first full harvest (-140,000 euros) and half of the second (-70,000 euros) to the malafide growshop that set up the plantation and paid
an
for the seedlings of the first two harvests. Many interviewed growers and traffickers stressed however that setbacks, and particularly thefts, occur frequently and the profits are often
M
much lower than expected.
Despite the considerable differences in scale and potential earnings, both the survey
ed
respondents and growers and the traffickers interviewed reported similar, rather simple patterns of using such earnings: namely, they reinvest the money in cannabis cultivation, use it to pay regular living expenses or, more rarely, to buy luxury goods. Only two survey
ce pt
respondents admitted investing their earnings in another illegitimate business and seven others reported investment in a legitimate business. The criminal proceedings provided, instead, no systematic information on the
Ac
defendants’ money laundering practices. Three such cases as well as nine interviews with convicted growers and traffickers suggest that the earnings of large-scale cannabis cultivation are also often used to repay preceding debts. Only two interviews with growers and three criminal proceedings provided
information about “real” money laundering, such as buying real estate in Belgium or abroad and setting up businesses and foundations. There is no evidence that such investments damaged any sector of the Belgian legitimate economy, even locally (for similar results, see Van Duyne & Levi, 2005: 180 and Paoli et al., 2013). However, the few financial facilitators (e.g. lawyers, bank employees) who helped the growers with their investments might have
17 Page 18 of 40
damaged the functional integrity and reputation of their own businesses (thus private sector entities). Other accompanying activities
All sources indicate that actual violence is a rare event. Only 1.7% (n=17; N=1,022) of the
ip t
survey respondents and three of the 20 interviewees had direct experience of it. The survey respondents reported beatings (n=12), three stabbings and shootings (or their attempts) and
cr
two kidnappings. Unsurprisingly, a much larger share of the survey respondents growing for profit had had experience with physical violence (10.9%; n=8; N=73) than the non-profit
us
growers (1.0%, n=9; N=932). The three interviewees were involved in a shooting and other assaults.
an
Incidents of actual use of violence were also reported in two criminal proceedings. In one of them, an attempted robbery led to two shootings, causing damage to a car and a
M
house. In the other case, the member of a group cultivating cannabis and her son were kidnapped for a few hours and a shooting occurred when thieves attacked a plantation of the group.
ed
Threats of violence are reported slightly more frequently: 6.6% of the survey respondents (n=68; N=1,028), for example, did so. Five of the growers interviewed, however,
ce pt
stressed the low level of violence related to cannabis cultivation, contrasting it with that of other drug markets. Seven experts also confirmed that they have so far seen no actual violence in the business.
In most cases, violence only led to superficial wounds, with psychological
Ac
consequences probably being most lasting. Out of 62 respondents providing information on this, 52 reported no injuries and five injuries requiring no hospitalization. However, three others mentioned injuries requiring hospitalization, one a permanent and another one a lethal injury. According to the interviews with the growers, traffickers and experts and the criminal proceedings, only one violent incident had serious consequences: a beating caused a brain haemorrhage and the subsequent paralysis of the victim. The use and the threat of violence thus may generate harms to individuals’ physical and psychological integrity, material interest and reputation. In a country such as Belgium, where health care is heavily subsidized, these instances of violence also harms the material 18 Page 19 of 40
interest of the government and therefore indirectly those of all Belgian taxpayers (thus, individuals). Corruption appears to be even rarer than violence. The little evidence we have points more to corruption of private sector entity representatives than public officials. Nine survey respondents (1.2%; N=767) admitted receiving (non-specified) practical help from police
ip t
officers and eight others from public servants. Two interviewees mentioned being slightly favored by court officials and, according to one of them, other growers had contact with some police officers in both Belgium and the Netherlands willing to sell information on
cr
ongoing investigations and other personal data (such as the identity of a car owner) in
us
exchange for bribes. Four experts also recalled suspicions about corrupt police officials, warders and/or a mayor.
More widespread is the involvement of employees of private businesses in cannabis
an
cultivation. Out of 1,199 survey respondents, 149 (12.4%) admitted receiving practical help from employees of grow-, smart- or coffee-shops. Forty-five also reportedly received help
M
from electricians, 22 from farmers, seven from lawyers and two, each, from insurance sale agents and tax consultants. About a quarter (n=8; 25.8%) of those growing more than 20
ed
plants (N=31) received help from the latter group of non-cannabis professionals, whereas those receiving help from such professionals represented only 7.6% (n=35; N=463) of the respondents cultivating no more than five plants (Decorte et al., 2014). According to the
ce pt
criminal proceedings and most growers and traffickers interviewed, too, employees of growshops and electricians serve most frequently as facilitators. It is unclear, though, if the corrupt electricians worked independently or for a business.
Ac
Another group of facilitators mentioned by the interviewees consists of real estate agents who help large-scale cultivators finding suitable properties. One of the interviewed growers knew a real estate agent, who let rental contracts to be signed by a strawman, thus facilitating fraud—and a similar practice also emerged from a criminal proceeding. According to five experts, logistics businesses, and specifically rental car companies or their employees, know or should know that their vehicles are occasionally misused for transporting cannabis. In the framework terminology, these instances of corruption generate possible harms to the government and private sector entities’ functional integrity, privacy and reputation.
19 Page 20 of 40
What is the severity and incidence of the harms? The next step in the harm assessment framework consists of evaluating the severity and incidence of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities on the basis of the two above-mentioned scales. In this evaluation we only include harms for
ip t
which we have credible evidence from our primary data or the literature. As such, a harm that we deemed possible on the basis of the business model might not materialize in our
cr
analysis with a rating.
We begin by evaluating the incidence of the primary activity, i.e. cannabis cultivation.
us
Recalling the sharp increase in the number of plantations and plants detected in Belgium since 2003, we describe cultivation as an activity that occurs always.
an
Next, we evaluate severity and “within-activity” incidence of the harms of each primary and accompanying activity. If the harm is tied to an accompanying activity, we define that activity in sufficiently specific terms to establish a one-to-one correspondence
M
between that activity and the harm. In effect, we create sub-categories of activities for corruption, violence, etc., such as threats, petty assaults, assaults, kidnappings, and murders.
ed
In this case, the within-activity incidence of each harm also corresponds to its overall incidence. To arrive at the latter, in fact, we multiply in concept each within-activity
ce pt
incidence by the incidence of the activity itself—thus in this case with always. Table 5 synthesizes our assessment of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities for the different bearers.
Ac
Table 5 about here
Harms to individuals
We find that cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities yield marginal to catastrophic harms to individuals in Belgium, but only rarely. Lethal violence is the only activity that yields a catastrophic functional harm – i.e., death. We assess the incidence of this harm as rare, as our sources indicate only one lethal incident. We also score grave harms to individuals’ functional integrity—that is, permanent injuries—as rare as they were reported only twice by our sources. Considering the latter, we conclude that the use of 20 Page 21 of 40
violence also yields marginal to serious harms to individuals’ physical and psychological integrity, including dignity, rarely. Our findings are consistent with a growing literature on the sparsity of violence on the drug markets of developed countries (for a review, see Dorn, Levi & King, 2005). Verbal and physical threats and intimidation are reported more frequently by the survey
ip t
respondents and the growers, traffickers and experts interviewed. We conclude that the resulting harms to psychological integrity occur seldom and have only a marginal impact on the individuals’ mid-term living standard. The evidence concerning the intimidation of the
cr
“cutters” is not straightforward. We thus conclude that restrictions of the “cutters”’
us
movements also generate marginal and rare harms to individuals’ psychological integrity. The use or threat of violence also affects individuals’ reputation. The incidence of such intrusions varies by type of assault, from rarely to seldom. Given the long-term perspective
an
of the living standard approach, we find that the effect of an assault on one’s reputation is marginal to moderate. Individuals’ privacy is also moderately affected by certain types of
M
violence that occur rarely, such as kidnappings and the restrictions of “cutters”’ freedom. Whereas violence only affects individuals directly involved in the cultivation process, the
ed
growing process and harvesting can cause harms to uninvolved individuals. Harms of various degrees occur to the material interest of the owners of property, if the latter is rented and damaged by growers. Fire causes serious harms, but only occurs rarely to seldom. Water
ce pt
flows harm the material interest of the property owners moderately but marginally. Other damage to the interiors, such as holes in walls, floors and ceilings or rotten walls, generate only marginal harm but occur persistently. Owners of property also experience marginal
Ac
harm to their privacy and reputation, when their property is misused without their consent, and, on the basis of the available data, we estimate this harm to occur seldom. Finally, the forgery of IDs cause to the victims moderate harms to their psychological integrity, reputation and privacy, but only marginally. Harms to private-sector entities
From our business model we identified no harm to NGOs. In this case therefore private sector entities coincide with businesses. Whenever the latter rent property, which is then misused for cannabis cultivation purposes, they suffer the harms to their material interest 21 Page 22 of 40
similar to these suffered by individual owners. Other harms results from the accompanying activities of corruption, money laundering and the theft of electricity. As for corruption, our data show that Dutch growshops and coffeeshops play a pivotal role throughout the cultivation process but we exclude them from our analysis, as we only account for the harms to Belgium. Several electricians are also repeatedly reported to work as facilitators but it is
ip t
unclear if they do so during their working hours and in their capacity as employees of larger business. We thus tentatively estimate the harms to businesses’ functional integrity, privacy and reputation arising from electricians’ facilitation and other instances of private sector
cr
corruption as occurring rarely to seldom. Given the low level of the employees involved,
us
these harms appear to be marginal in severity.
The facilitation of money laundering also yields marginal and rare harms, touching the affected businesses’ operational integrity, material interest, reputation, and privacy. The
an
theft of electricity also causes marginal, but occasional harms to Belgium’s electrical
M
companies. Harms to government
ed
On the basis of the available data, we conclude that corruption related to cannabis cultivation only generates marginal and rare harms to the government’s functional integrity
ce pt
and reputation (see table 5). The harm to the government’s reputation is also marginal but occurs always. It stems in fact from the government’s inability to enforce its law prohibiting cannabis cultivation and its associated criminal activities. Lastly, violence and the growing process itself can also yield harms to the
Ac
government’s material interest, as the Belgian government has to pay both for the medical treatment of the victims of assaults and the dismantling costs of plantations. Depending on the seriousness of the damages, violence yield moderate to marginal harms, but only rarely. The growing process generates marginal harms but, given the number of plantations detected each year, generates them persistently. Harms to the environment
22 Page 23 of 40
On the basis of our data and expertise we cannot estimate the harms to the physical environment resulting from the use of pesticides. We conclude, instead, that bad smell and noise generate marginal but occasional harms to the social environment.
ip t
Which harms deserve prioritization? Next, by combining the two scales of severity and incidence, we can identify the harms
deserving prioritization (see table 3). As shown in the fourth column of table 5, few of the
cr
harms associated with cannabis cultivation in Belgium rank higher than low. Within the
us
category of the harms to individuals, we rank the loss of life generated by violence as a medium-high priority because it is catastrophic but happens rarely. We consider the grave but rare harms to individuals’ physical and psychological integrity arising from serious
an
assaults as medium priorities. Harms resulting from the growing process itself for owners of property (either individuals or private-sector entities) are ranked medium-low to medium
M
priorities, depending on the severity of the damage done. Among the harms to other bearers, only two warrant a medium priority: the harm to the government’s material
ed
interest resulting from the dismantling costs and the general reputational harm. Both these harms are of marginal severity but they, respectively, take place persistently or always.
ce pt
Which types of growers generate most harms? A systematic analysis of the survey data based on the respondents’ scale of cultivation and
Ac
motivation is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, the data used earlier indicate that some harms are almost exclusively generated by large-scale commercially oriented growers. These harms are never or hardly ever admitted by the survey respondents, who— as described earlier—are predominantly small-scale growers with no or very limited commercial motivation. They were instead identified through interviews with large-scale commercially oriented growers and traffickers or the analysis of the criminal justice data and other experts’ interviews that also focused on large-scale growers and traffickers. In particular, large-scale commercially oriented growers and traffickers appear to be responsible for most of 1) the harms to individuals’ and private sector entities’ material interest resulting from electricity theft and damages to property, two accompanying 23 Page 24 of 40
activities of growing; 2) the harms to individuals’ reputation and privacy resulting from the forgery of identity documents, another accompanying activity of growing; 3) the harms to individuals’ functional integrity, reputation and privacy, resulting from the exploitation of the “cutters” during harvesting; 4) the harms to private-sector entities’ and the government’s functional integrity, reputation and privacy resulting from corruption and 5)
ip t
the harms to government’s material interest arising from the dismantling of plantations. We note that the harms to individuals’ and private-sectors entities’ material interest are
classified as medium to medium-low priority in table 5, because they are serious to marginal
cr
in severity and occur rarely to persistently. The harms to government’s material interest
us
arising from the dismantling of plantations are also granted a medium priority, because they occur persistently even if they are marginal in severity. The harms resulting from forgery and the exploitation of the “cutters” occur only very rarely and our evidence base for both of
an
them, even in relation to large-scale growers, is rather weak. Finally, the harms resulting from the use of violence are not exclusively related to large-scale commercially-oriented
M
growers, although the latter seem to be over-proportionally responsible for them.
ed
What are the causes of the harms?
The final step of the assessment process consists of establishing the causality of harms.
ce pt
Following Greenfield and Paoli (2013), we proceeded in two steps: we assessed, first, the distance between harms and the primary activity and, second, the extent to which the harms arise from the policy environment. As for the distance, we conclude that all the harms are
Ac
directly associated with cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities, as they transpire in Belgium.
In the case of the link with policy, counterfactual reasoning shows that most or all of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities stem from the illegal status of cannabis and from law enforcement practices around that status. There would be little or no harms of growing and hardly any corruption or violence, if cannabis could be legally cultivated, distributed and exported from Belgium (see MacCoun & Reuter, 2001: 105-112). Having linked most or all of the harms of cannabis cultivation, per se, to the policy environment, we must, however, caution against over-interpretation. Without carefully 24 Page 25 of 40
assessing the harms associated with cannabis use and establishing their causes, which we have not done in our analysis, it is impossible to say whether the balance of the harms resulting from cannabis itself, and those produced by the policy—legal status, regulations, and enforcement practices—is positive or negative. Realizing that a policy gives rise to harm may provide policymakers with an opportunity. In New York, for example, changes in local
ip t
police enforcement practices have led to a radical decline in drug-related killings, even if
cr
drug consumption, and presumably dealing, remained stable (Zimring, 2012: 191-193).
us
Conclusions
This article has aimed to map and assess the harms associated with cannabis cultivation in Belgium. To fulfil its aim, the article has relied on a multi-method research design, involving a
an
web survey of 1,293 respondents, primarily, small-scale growers, and the analysis of three interconnected sets of qualitative data on large-scale growers and traffickers. The mapping
M
and assessment of the harm was carried out on the basis of a seminal methodology developed by Greenfield and Paoli (2013), which allows comparison with the harms of other
ed
criminal activities.
The data sources we have triangulated have obvious limitations. On the one hand, the sample of growers we recruited through our web survey is clearly biased towards
ce pt
smaller-scale growers (see also the contributions by Potter, Barratt et al. and by Barratt, Potter et al. in this volume). On the other hand, we have pointed at the potential biases resulting from our reliance on criminal justice data for the study of large-scale commercially
Ac
oriented growers--biases that are only partially tempered by the interviews we carried out with the growers themselves.. A rare but important feature of our study is that we draw on different data sources to triangulate the analysis of illicit cannabis cultivation in Belgium. As is the case in many other countries, cannabis cultivation is widespread and
spreading ever more widely in Belgium as well. It truly is a global phenomenon, as is the knowledge and technology that became increasingly available (Bouchard & Dion, 2009); the role of the internet as a vital source of information, equipment and even cannabis seeds (Potter, 2008); the development in varieties of cannabis (Leggett, 2006); a sustained supply of motivated offenders (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011); and of course a sustained demand for cannabis creating incentives for increased production (UNODC, 2009). In Belgium too, 25 Page 26 of 40
cannabis cultivation has become endemic, both to answer the local demand and that of the Dutch coffeeshops. Another explanatory factor relates to the relative failure of drug policy to prevent or stop the spread of cannabis cultivation. Difficulties in drug-crop eradication efforts in traditional producer nations have been well documented (Farrell, 1998; Gallupe, Bouchard & Caulkins, 2011), but it seems that similar difficulties confront eradication efforts
ip t
and even policies of official tolerance in the industrialized world. Cannabis cultivation has been booming in repressive and tolerant countries alike, without distinction. Forces other
than official cannabis policies are at play, and for a country such as Belgium that occupies a
cr
central position in Western Europe and no longer has border controls with most of its
us
neighbors, reducing the supply of cannabis does not appear to be a realistic policy objective. The findings we presented in this paper suggest cannabis cultivation generates, for Belgium, limited harms of medium-low or medium priority. There is therefore scarce or no
an
scientific justification to list cannabis cultivation as a priority for Belgian law enforcement, as it instead has been the case since 2008 (Ministeries van Binnenlandse Zaken en Justitie, 2008
M
and 2012).
We have also argued that most of the harms associated with cannabis cultivation and
ed
its accompanying activities stem from the illegal status of cannabis and from law enforcement practices around that status (cfr. MacCoun & Reuter, 2001). As we did not identify or assess the harms associated with drug use, we do not know if on balance the
ce pt
harms prevented on the demand side via the criminalization and the resulting discouragement of cannabis use are higher or lower than the harms generated by restrictive policies on the supply-side of the market. Pending such an empirical assessment, policy-
Ac
makers should at least be committed to reduce policy-related harms at a minimum and consider alternative policy options likely to minimize the harms resulting from cultivation, trafficking and use for the broadest range of bearers. At the very least, a reflection on the opportunities for differential enforcement for
different types of cannabis cultivation is warranted. Over the years, several authors have produced typologies of cannabis cultivators within the countries they have studied (Weisheit, 1992; Hafley & Tewksbury, 1995; Bovenkerk & Hogewind, 2002; Hough et al., 2003; Potter & Dann, 2005; Nguyen & Bouchard, 2010). An analytic useful differentiation between types of growers relates to the reasons why people grow, often beyond the usual motivations for crime involvement: avoiding contacts with drug dealers and other criminal 26 Page 27 of 40
elements; intangible reasons (like a love for growing) (Weisheit, 1991; Potter, 2010; Decorte, 2010); the potential of cannabis to provide benefits for certain medicinal conditions (see for example the contribution by Hakkarainen, Frank et al., in this volume); the search for more control over the strength and quality of cannabis (Decorte, 2010, 2011); as a social or political message (Arana & Montañés Sánchez, 2011); and of course the commercial
ip t
motivations (Weisheit, 1992; Bovenkerk & Hogewind, 2002). While it is not easy to draw a line between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” growing (given the range of growers and of motivations), the problem is that all growers are largely dealt with in the same way (in
cr
policy, if not necessarily in practice) (Bouchard, Potter & Decorte, 2011). Our findings
us
suggest that large-scale growers tend to produce more harms than the smaller-scale producers. In particular, growers cultivating up to five plants, that is, the large majority of our survey respondents, seem to generate little or no harm. As a matter of fact, one could
an
even argue that the small-scale growers produce “benefits,” as they subtract market shares to large-scale growers more likely to be driven by commercial intent or part of an organized
M
crime groups. Many authors have argued that cannabis markets have the least unacceptable consequences, if criminal entrepreneurs do not crowd them (Dorn & South, 1990; Gettman,
ed
2006). Perhaps the most pressing policy issue raised by our study and those of others relates to the question of whether policy-makers and law enforcement agencies should target the
ce pt
most harmful growers, overlooking those generating little harm to others.
Ac
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on the research project ‘Cannabis production in Belgium: assessment of the nature and harms, and implications for priority setting’ (CANMARKT; No DR/63). The study was commissioned and funded by the Belgian Science Policy Department, in the framework of the ‘Research programme in support of the Federal Drugs Policy Document’. References Arana, X. & Montañés Sánchez, V. (2011). Cannabis cultivation in Spain. The case of cannabis social clubs, In: Decorte, T., Potter, G.R. & Bouchard, M. (eds.). World Wide Weed. Global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control, 163-177. Farnham: Ashgate. Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of Criminal Law, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 27 Page 28 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Barratt, M., Potter, G., Wouters, M., Wilkins, C., Werse, B., Perälä, J. et al. (2015). Lessons from conducting trans-national internet-mediated participatory research with hidden populations of cannabis cultivators, International Journal of Drug Policy, this volume. Bewley-Taylor, D., Blickman, T. & Jelsma, M. (2014). The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition: The History of Cannabis in the UN Drug Control System and Options for Reform. Amsterdam: TNI. Bouchard, M. & Dion, C.B. (2009). Growers and facilitators: probing the role of entrepreneurs in the development of the cannabis cultivation industry, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 25-38. Bouchard, M. & Nguyen, H. (2011). The notion of professional crime in the context of cannabis cultivation. In: Decorte, T., Potter, G.R. & Bouchard, M. (eds.). World Wide Weed. Global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control, 109-125. Farnham: Ashgate. Bouchard, M., Potter, G.R. & Decorte, T. (2011). Emerging trends in cannabis cultivation – and the way forward. In: Decorte, T., Potter, G.R. & Bouchard, M. (eds.). World Wide Weed. Global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control, 273-285. Farnham: Ashgate. Bovenkerk, F., & Hogewind, W. I. M. (2002). Hennepteelt in Nederland: het probleem van de criminaliteit en haar bestrijding. Politie en Wetenschap, nr. 8. Utrecht: Willem Pompe Instituut voor Strafwetenschappen. Caulkins, J.P., Reuter, P. and Coulson, C. (2011). Basing Drug Scheduling Decisions on Scientific Ranking of Harmfulness: False Promise from False Premises’, Addiction 106: 1886–1890. Centrale Dienst Drugs. (2014). Data on cannabis cultivation. Mimeo. Decorte, T., Paoli, L ., Kersten, L., Heyde, J., Van Dun, E. & Vlaemynck, M. (2014). Cannabis production in Belgium : assessment of the nature and harms, and implications for priority setting. Ghent : Academia Press. Decorte, T., Barratt, M.J., Nguyen, H., Bouchard, M., Malm, A., & Lenton, S. (2012). International Cannabis Cultivation Questionnaire (ICCQ) (Version 1.1). Ghent: Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium. Decorte, T., Potter, G.R., & Bouchard, M., eds.. (2011). World Wide Weed: Global Trends in Cannabis Cultivation and Its Control. Farnham: Ashgate. Decorte, T. (2011). ‘Stories’, ‘facts’ and ‘myths’. Perceptions of domestic cultivators on potency and quality of cannabis. In: Decorte, T., Potter, G.R. & Bouchard, M. (eds.). World Wide Weed. Global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control, 91-108. Farnham: Ashgate. Decorte, T. (2010). Small scale domestic cannabis cultivation: an anonymous web survey among 659 cannabis cultivators in Belgium, Contemporary Drug Problems, 37 (summer 2010), 341-370. Decorte, T., & Tuteleers, P. (2007). Cannabisteelt in Vlaanderen. Patronen en motieven van 748 telers [Cannabis cultivation in Flanders. Patterns and motives of 748 growers]. Leuven: Acco. Decorte, T. (2007). Characteristics of the cannabis market in Belgium. In J. Fountain & D.J. Korf (Eds.). Drugs in society: European perspectives (pp. 28-38). Oxford, UK: Radcliffe. Dorn, N., Levi, M., & King, L. (2005). Literature review on upper level drug trafficking. Home Office Online Report 22/05. London: Home Office.
28 Page 29 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Dorn, N., & South, N. (1990). Drug markets and law enforcement. British Journal of Criminology, 30(2), 171-188. EMCDDA (2011). Country overview: Belgium. ‘National drug laws’. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Webpage. Retrieved from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/be#laws Europol. (2013). SOCTA 2013: EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment. ’sGravenzande: Deventer. Farrell, G. (1998). A global empirical review of drug crop eradication and United Nations’ crop substitution and alternative development strategies. Journal of Drug Issues, 28(2), 395-436. Gallupe, O., Bouchard, M. & Caulkins, J. (2011). No change is a good change? Restrictive deterrence in illegal drug markets. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 81-89. Gettman, J. (2006), Marijuana production in the United States (2006). The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://www.drugscience.org/bcr/index.html Greenfield, V., & Paoli, L. (2013). A Framework to Assess the Harms of Crimes. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 864-885. Hafley, S.R., & Tewksbury, R. (1995). The rural Kentucky marijuana industry: organization and community involvement. Deviant Behaviors, 16, 201-221. Hakkarainen, P., Frank, V.A., Barratt, M., Dahl, H.V., Decorte, T., Karjalainen, K. et al. Growing medicine: small-scale cannabis cultivation for medical purposes in six different countries, International Journal of Drug Policy, this volume. Heaton, P. (2010). Hidden in Plain Sight. What Cost-of-Crime Research Can Tell Us about Investing in Police, Rand Occasional Paper.http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/ OP279.html. Hough, M., Warburton, H., Few, B., May, T., Man, L., Witton, J., & Turnbull, P. J. (2003). A growing market: The domestic cultivation of cannabis. Joseph Rowntree Foundation & National Addiction Centre. Leggett, T. (2006). Review of the world cannabis situation. Bulletin on Narcotics, 58 (volumes 1 and 2). Levi, M. & Burrows, J. (2008). Measuring the Impact of Fraud in the UK, British Journal of Criminology, 48: 293gyogy MacCoun, R. & Reuter, P. (2001). Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 123-128. MacCoun, R.J., Reuter, R. & Schelling, P. (1996). Assessing Alternative Drug Control Regimes, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15, 1–23. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage. Ministeries van Binnenlandse Zaken en Justitie (2008). Nationaal Veiligheidsplan 2008-2011. Ministeries van Binnenlandse Zaken en Justitie (2012). Nationaal Veiligheidsplan 2012-2015. Newcombe, R., (1992). The Reduction of Drug-Related Harm: A Conceptual Framework for Theory, Practice, and Research. In P. O’Hare, Newcombe, R., Matthews, A., Buning, E.C. & Drucker, E., eds, The Reduction of Drug-Related Harm London: Routledge, 1–14. Nguyen, H. & Bouchard, M. (2010). Patterns of youth participation in cannabis cultivation. Journal of Drug Issues, 40(2), 264-293. Nutt, D. J., King, L. A. & Philips, L. D. (2010). Drug Harms in the UK: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Lancet, 376, 1558–65. 29 Page 30 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Paoli, L. (2014). How to Tackle (Organized) Crime in Europe? The EU Policy Cycle on Serious and Organized Crime and the New Emphasis on Harm. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 22, 1-12. Paoli, L. & Greenfield, V.A. (2013). Harm: a Neglected Concept in Criminology, a Necessary Benchmark for Crime-Control Policy. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 21, 359–377. Paoli, L. Greenfield, V., & Zoutendijk, A. (2013). The Harms of Cocaine Trafficking: Applying a New Framework for Assessment. Journal of Drug Issues, 20(10), 1-30. Platform Energiediefstal Netbeheer Nederland (1013). Brochure Netbeheer Nederland. http://www.netbeheernederland.nl/publicaties/position-papers-factsheets/ [Retrieved: 27 July 2014]. Plecas, D., Dandurand, Y., Chin, V., & Segger, T. (2002). Marijuana grow operations in British Columbia: An empirical survey 1997-2000. Vancouver, BC: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy. Potter, G.R. (2008). The growth of cannabis cultivation: explanations for import substitution in the UK, in Korf, D.J. (ed.). Cannabis in Europe: dynamics in perception, policy and markets, 69-86. Lengerich: Pabst science Publishers. Potter, G.R. (2010). Weed, Need and Greed: A Study of Domestic Cannabis Cultivation. London: Free Association Books. Potter, G.R., Barratt, M., Malm, A., Bouchard, M., Blok, T., Christensen, A.S., et al. (2015). Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries, International Journal of Drug Policy, this volume. Potter, G.R. & Dann, S. (2005). Urban crop circles: urban cannabis growing in the north of England, in Palacios, W. (ed.), Cocktails and dreams: perspectives on drug and alcohol use. Upper saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 89-109. Sen, A. 1987. The Standard of Living: Lecture I, Concepts and Critiques.In Geoffrey Hawthorn, ed. The Standard of Living -- The Tanner Lectures, Clare Hall, Cambridge, 1985, 1-19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sebens, S. Voters give nod to legal marijuana in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/05/us-usa-elections-marijuanaidUSKBN0IO13620141105 [Retrieved: 20 November 2014] Spapens, T., van de Bunt, H., & Rastovac, L. (2007). The world behind cannabis cultivation [De wereld achter de wietteelt]. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers. Vander Beken, T., Paoli, L., Zoutendijk, A. and Klima, N. 2012. Het inschatten van de gevaarlijkheid van georganiseerde criminaliteit. Gent: Academia Press. UNODC (2009). World Drug Report, 2009. Vienna: UNODC. Van Duyne, P.C., & Levi, M. (2005). Drugs and Money. Managing the drug trade and crimemoney in Europe. London: Routledge. Von Hirsch, A., & Jareborg, N. (1991). Gauging criminal harms: A living standard analysis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 11(1), 1-38. Walker, L., Cocklin, C., & Blunden, G. (1998). Cannabis highs and lows: Sustaining and dislocating rural communities in Northland. Auckland: Department of Geography, University of Auckland. Weisheit, R.A. (1991). The intangible rewards from crime: the case of domestic marijuana cultivation. Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 506-27. Weisheit, R.A. (1992). Domestic marijuana. A neglected industry. New York: Greenwood Press. 30 Page 31 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Wilkins, C. & Casswell, S. (2003). Organized crime in marijuana cultivation in New Zealand: an economic analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems, 30, 757-777. Zimring, F.E. (2012). The city that became safe: New York’s lessons for urban crime and its control. New York: Oxford University Press.
31 Page 32 of 40
Table 1. Data sources
Inclusion criteria
- experience with cannabis cultivation - residence in Belgium - 18 years or older
Selection bias
Referred to as
self-selection
“survey respondents”
N=34 (including a total of 241 suspects; and 86 grow sites) - closed criminal proceedings (opened between 2005-2012) - involving plantations with more than 50 plants selection in cooperation with specialized federal police officers, examining magistrates and public (and federal) prosecutors “suspects”
N=32
particular expertise or experience with the theme of cannabis cultivation
Interviews with cannabis growers or wholesale traffickers N=20
experience with cannabis cultivation or wholesale trafficking
ip t
N=1.293
Interviews with experts
- selection in cooperation with 12 Flemish prisons - self-selection
cr
N=
Criminal proceedings
us
Web survey
“interviewed growers” or “interviewees”* *We use the expression “interviewees” when we refer not only to the 17 growers but also to the three traffickers we
M
an
interviewed.
“experts”
Table 2. Bearers and types of harms
Bearer of harm Private-sector Government
ed
Individuals
Environment
Ac
ce pt
Type of harm Functional integrity X* X** X** X*** Material interest X X X n/a Reputation X X X n/a Privacy X X X n/a Legend: X = applicable n/a = not applicable * Functional integrity = Physical and psychological integrity ** Functional integrity = Operational integrity ***Functional integrity = Physical, operational, and aesthetic integrity. Source: Greenfield and Paoli (2013).
32 Page 33 of 40
Figure 1. The harm assessment process
Construct business model
Rate incidence of criminal activity and of harm in relation to criminal activity (scale)
Rate severity of harm (scale)
cr
Evaluate severity and incidence of harm
ip t
Identify possible harms and bearers (Taxonomy)
us
Prioritize harms (matrix)
an
Establish causality of harm
M
Potential roles in policy analysis
ed
Source: Greenfield and Paoli (2013).
Table 3. Scales of severity and incidence and matrix for prioritizing harms
Incidence
Catastrophic Grave Serious Moderate
ce pt
Severity Always
Persistently
Occasionally
Seldom
Rarely
H
H
H
H/M
M/H
H
H
H/M
M/H
M
H
H/M
M/H
M
L
H/M
M/H
M
L
L
L
L
Ac
Marginal M/H M L Notes: H = Highest priority; M = Medium priority; L = Lowest priority Source: Based on Greenfield and Camm, 2005, 48.
33 Page 34 of 40
Ac
ce pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Figure 2. The business model of cannabis cultivation
34 Page 35 of 40
ip t cr
n/a
n/a
n/a
X
and psychological
n/a
X
n/a
X
Material interest
X
X
n/a
Reputation
X
X
n/a
n/a n/a
X
n/a
X
n/a
X
n/a
n/a
X
ep te
d
Other physical
M
an
us
Table 4. Possible harms and bearers in different phases of cannabis cultivation and its accompanying activities Growing, el. Harvesting & Sale & money theft,damages Violence Corruption Bearers exploitation laundering & forgery HARMS TO INDIVIDUALS, specifically to their Functional integrity Loss of life n/a n/a n/a X n/a - All persons targeted by use of lethal violence
n/a
n/a
n/a
X
X
n/a
X
n/a
X
Privacy X n/a HARMS TO GOVERNMENT, specifically to its:
n/a
n/a
X
Functional integrity
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
X
Material interest
n/a
n/a
n/a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Privacy X X n/a HARMS TO PRIVATE-SECTOR ENTITIES, specifically to their:
Material interest
Reputation
Reputation
n/a
n/a
X
X
Ac c
Functional integrity
- All persons targeted by use of violence -
All persons targeted by threats “Cutters,” if intimidated All persons targeted by use or threat of violence Owners of property, if this is damaged Ancillary to electricity theft All persons targeted by use or threat of violence Owners of property, if this is misused w/o their knowledge “Cutters,” if controlled All persons, whose identity is misused Same four categories as for reputation
- Electrical companies, law and logistic firms, if corrupt employees misuse assets w/o their knowledge - Electrical companies, if electricity is stolen - Owners of property, if this is damaged - Insurance companies, if they have to reimburse property damages - Electrical companies, law and logistic firms, if corrupt employees misuse assets w/o their knowledge - Owners of property, if this is misused w/o their knowledge - Same two categories as for reputation - Government agencies, if representatives engage in corrupt practices - Ancillary to individuals’ functional harms - Courts when paying for plantation dismantling costs - Government agencies, if representatives engage in corrupt
35 Page 36 of 40
ip t cr n/a
HARMS TO ENVIRONMENT, specifically to its: Functional integrity X n/a Notes: X = applicable; n/a= not applicable.
n/a
n/a
us
n/a
X
n/a
- Neighborhoods, if affected by bad smell and noise
an
n/a
ep te
d
M
n/a
Ac c
Privacy
practices - Government writ large, if it cannot enforce its laws - Government agencies, if representatives engage in corrupt practices
36 Page 37 of 40
ip t cr
Material interest
Marginal
Seldom
Li
Marginal
Rarely
Li
Serious
Seldom to rarely
M/Li
Serious damages to rented property during growing (e.g., fire)
Moderate Marginal
Occasionally Persistently
Mi Mi
d
Only psychological
M
an
us
Table 5. Evaluation of harms associated with cannabis cultivation in Belgium Severity Incidence** Priority Activity HARMS TO INDIVIDUALS, specifically to their: Functional integrity Loss of life Catastrophic Rarely M/Hi Violence Grave Rarely Mi Violence (i.e., assault causing permanent damages) Serious Rarely L Violence (i.e., assault, and kidnapping) Other physical and i psychological Moderate Rarely Li " Marginal Rarely Li Violence (i.e., petty assault) Moderate Rarely Li Forgery, if other persons’ ID is used for rent of property Violence threatened (i.e., intimidation) Exploitation of “cutters” during harvesting
Li
Lps Lps
Corruption Money laundering
M/Lps
Serious damages to rented property during growing (e.g., fire)
Mps Mps Lps
Moderate damages to rented property during growing (e.g., water flow) Minor damages to rented property during growing (e.g., holes in walls) Theft of electricity
Marginal Marginal
Lps Lps
Corruption Money laundering
Moderate Reputation Marginal Moderate
Rarely
Li
Seldom
Li
Rarely
Li
Ac c
Privacy
ep te
Marginal Seldom HARMS TO PRIVATE-SECTOR ENTITIES, specifically to their: Marginal Seldom to rarely Functional integrity Marginal Rarely Seldom to Serious Rarely Moderate Occasionally Marginal Persistently Material interest Marginal Occasionally
Moderate damages to rented property during growing (e.g., water flow) Minor damages to rented property during growing (e.g., holes in walls) Violence (i.e., all forms of assault) Forgery, if other persons’ ID is used for rent of property Violence threatened (i.e., intimidation) Growing, if rented properties are misused w/o the owner’s knowledge Violence (i.e., assault and kidnapping) Forgery, if other persons’ ID is used for rent of property Growing, if rented properties are misused w/o the owner’s knowledge
Seldom to rarely Rarely
37 Page 38 of 40
ip t cr
Seldom
Lps
Marginal
Rarely
Lps
Corruption Growing, if rented properties are misused w/o the owner’s knowledge Money laundering
Marginal Seldom Marginal Seldom to rarely Marginal Rarely HARMS TO GOVERNMENT, specifically to its: Functional integrity Marginal Rarely Moderate Rarely Marginal Persistently Material interest
Lps Lps Lps
Growing, if rented properties are misused w/o the owner’s knowledge Corruption Money laundering
Lg Lg Mg
Corruption Violence (i.e., medical treatment of assaults) Growing, costs of dismantling plantations
Marginal
Lg
Rarely
an
M
'Privacy'
us
Marginal
Reputation
Violence (i.e., medical treatment of petty assaults)
Marginal Always Mg All criminal activities (non-enforcement effect) Marginal Rarely Lg Corruption Privacy Marginal Rarely Lg Corruption HARMS TO ENVIRONMENT, specifically to its: Functional integrity Marginal Occasionally Le Growing (bad smells and noise) * Estimates exclude harms associated with cannabis distribution and use. **Overall incidence, accounting for incidence of activities and of harms in relation to activities.
Ac c
ep te
d
Reputation
38 Page 39 of 40
*Conflict of Interest Statement
Gent, 31 July 2014 Author declaration
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
ip t
There are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with the office).
cr
Letizia Paoli will act as the corresponding author, but Tom Decorte has submitted the manuscript in order to speed up the review process (the two other authors are on holiday).
an
us
Signed by
Ac ce pt e
d
M
Tom Decorte
Page 40 of 40
