Are cannabis use problems comparable across individuals using for recreational and medical purposes? An international cross-sectional study of individuals who use self-grown cannabis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about cannabis use problems among individuals who use cannabis for medical purposes and whether rates and determinants of cannabis use problems in medical users differ to those observed among individuals using for recreational reasons. This study examines whether Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) scores differ across individuals who use self-grown cannabis for the following reasons: "recreational only", "medical and recreational" and "medical only". Furthermore, the study tests whether cannabis use frequency, cannabis strain, and type of cannabis influences the strength of the association between purpose of use and cannabis use problems. METHODS: Data (n = 5,347) were collected from a subsample of the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium project, focusing on small-scale cannabis growers in 18 countries. Robust regressions analyzed differences in SDS scores across the three use motivation groups. RESULTS: Compared with respondents reporting only recreational motivations of cannabis use, those with medical (with and without recreational) motivations were associated with lower SDS scores (B: -0.190 and B: -0.459, p < 0.001 respectively). Daily use was associated with significantly higher SDS scores across all cannabis motivation groups, albeit the magnitude of the association was significantly smaller among individuals with medical motivations of use. CONCLUSION: The extent to which people experience cannabis use problems, and the determinants of these problems may differ depending on whether cannabis use is motivated by recreational or medical purposes. As such, the findings of the current study suggest that public education efforts, harm reduction approaches and policy responses should be tailored depending on whether cannabis is used for recreational or medical purposes.

The three betrayals of the medical cannabis growing activist: From multiple victimhood to reconstruction, redemption and activism.

While cannabis has been widely used in the UK for over 50 years, it is only in recent decades that domestic cultivation has become established. Public concern, media reporting and policing policy has emphasised the role of profit motivated criminal organisations often working on a large scale and with coerced labour. However, increasingly, another population are growing for medical reasons, to help themselves and others treat or manage difficult, poorly understood, or incurable conditions. Our study sought to further understand the motives, techniques and interactions of cannabis cultivators through interviews with 48 growers and supplementary ethnographic work. As well as those motivated to grow for personal use, social and commercial supply purposes we identified a cohort growing to provide themselves and others with cannabis used for therapeutic purposes. This paper draws primarily on interviews with a sub-group of sixteen medically-motivated growers who were not only involved in treatment, but also embraced the label "activist". Rather than develop techniques of deception they were organising to effect a change in legislation. Rejecting the image of criminal perpetrators, they presented themselves as victims of unjust government policy, an indifferent medical establishment, and brutal and immoral criminal markets. Through cultivation, association, self-healing and apomedication, they have found voice and are shifting the debate over the status of growers and of cannabis itself. The ambiguity of their position as both producers and patients challenges the assumptions underlying legal distinctions between suppliers and users, with potentially profound implications for policy.

Growing practices and the use of potentially harmful chemical additives among a sample of small-scale cannabis growers in three countries.

BACKGROUND: With the growth of legal cannabis markets there has been recognition of the adverse impacts of certain cannabis growing practices, notably, use of harmful chemicals. A major concern has been the use of Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) which limit plant size and stimulate bud production. These chemicals, many of which have been banned from food crops, have been found unlisted in cannabis growing nutrients sold online or in hydroponic stores. This study describes the cannabis growing practices used by small-scale recreational cannabis growers and specifically their self-reported use of chemicals. METHODS: Web survey data from 1722 current and recent cannabis growers in Australia, Denmark, and the UK, who were asked about their cannabis growing practices, including the use of fertilizers and supplements. RESULTS: Overall 44% of the sample reported using any chemical fertilizers, supplements or insecticides. Logistic regression indicated that the unique predictor of the use of chemicals was growing hydroponically. CONCLUSION: Problems associated with product labeling and uncertainty regarding product constituents made it difficult for growers and the researchers to determine which products likely contained PGRs or other harmful chemicals. There is a need for further research to analyze constituents of chemical products marketed to cannabis growers.

Attitudes of cannabis growers to regulation of cannabis cultivation under a non-prohibition cannabis model.

BACKGROUND: How cannabis cultivation is dealt with under various examples of cannabis legalization or regulation is an important consideration in design of such schemes. This study aimed to (i) investigate support among current or recent cannabis growers, for various potential policy options for cannabis cultivation if prohibition were repealed, and (ii) explore the support for these options across countries, scale of growing operations, demographics, drug use and cannabis supply involvement variables. METHODS: This study utilized data from the online web survey of largely 'small-scale' cannabis cultivators, aged 18yrs and over, in eleven countries conducted by the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium (GCCRC). Data from 1722 current and recent cannabis growers in Australia, Denmark and the UK, who were all asked about policy, were included in the analysis. It investigated support for various frameworks for cultivation: (no regulation (free market); adult only; growing licenses; restrictions on plant numbers; licensed business-only sale; approved commercial growing; etc.). Among current growers, support for these options were compared across countries, across scale of growing operations, and by demographics, drug use and crime variables. RESULTS: Although there were some between country differences in support for the various policy options, what was striking was the similarity of the proportions for each of the eight most popular policy options. Among current growers, many of these positions were predicted by demographic, drug use and cannabis growing variables which were conceptually congruent with these positions. CONCLUSION: The results have relevance for the provisions regarding cannabis cultivation in the design of new non-prohibitionist models of cannabis which are increasingly under consideration. It should be of interest to policy makers, drug policy researchers, law enforcement and cannabis cultivators.

Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries.

BACKGROUND: This article aims to provide an overview of: demographic characteristics; experiences with growing cannabis; methods and scale of growing operations; reasons for growing; personal use of cannabis and other drugs; participation in cannabis and other drug markets; contacts with the criminal justice system for respondents to an online survey about cannabis cultivation drawn from eleven countries (N=6530). Important similarities and differences between the national samples recruited will be discussed. METHODS: This paper utilizes data from the online web survey of predominantly 'small-scale' cannabis cultivators in eleven countries conducted by the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium (GCCRC). Here we focus primarily on descriptive statistics to highlight key similarities and differences across the different national samples. RESULTS: Overall there was a great deal of similarity across countries in terms of: demographic characteristics; experiences with growing cannabis; methods and scale of growing operations; reasons for growing; use of cannabis and other drugs; participation in cannabis and other drug markets, and; contacts with the criminal justice system. In particular, we can recognise that a clear majority of those small-scale cannabis cultivators who responded to our survey are primarily motivated for reasons other than making money from cannabis supply and have minimal involvement in drug dealing or other criminal activities. CONCLUSIONS: These growers generally come from 'normal' rather than 'deviant' backgrounds. Some differences do exist between the samples drawn from different countries suggesting that local factors (political, geographical, cultural, etc.) may have some influence on how small-scale cultivators operate, although differences in recruitment strategies in different countries may also account for some differences observed.

Lessons from conducting trans-national Internet-mediated participatory research with hidden populations of cannabis cultivators.

BACKGROUND: Internet-mediated research methods are increasingly used to access hidden populations. The International Cannabis Cultivation Questionnaire (ICCQ) is an online survey designed to facilitate international comparisons into the relatively under-researched but increasingly significant phenomenon of domestic cannabis cultivation. The Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium has used the ICCQ to survey over 6000 cannabis cultivators across 11 countries. In this paper, we describe and reflect upon our methodological approach, focusing on the digital and traditional recruitment methods used to access this hidden population and the challenges of working across multiple countries, cultures and languages. METHODS: Descriptive statistics showing eligibility and completion rates and recruitment source by country of residence. RESULTS: Over three quarters of eligible respondents who were presented with the survey were included in the final sample of n=6528. English-speaking countries expended more effort to recruit participants than non-English-speaking countries. The most effective recruitment modes were cannabis websites/groups (33%), Facebook (14%) and news articles (11%). While respondents recruited through news articles were older, growing practice variables were strikingly similar between these main recruitment modes. CONCLUSION: Through this process, we learnt that there are trade-offs between hosting multiple surveys in each country vs. using one integrated database. We also found that although perceived anonymity is routinely assumed to be a benefit of using digital research methodologies, there are significant limits to research participant anonymity in the current era of mass digital surveillance, especially when the target group is particularly concerned about evading law enforcement. Finally, we list a number of specific recommendations for future researchers utilising Internet-mediated approaches to researching hidden populations.