International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Drug Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo

Research paper

Why small-scale cannabis growers stay small: Five mechanisms that prevent
small-scale growers from going large scale
Eirik Hammersvik ∗ , Sveinung Sandberg, Willy Pedersen
Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Post Box 1096, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Background: Over the past 15–20 years, domestic cultivation of cannabis has been established in a number
Received 9 March 2012 of European countries. New techniques have made such cultivation easier; however, the bulk of growers
Received in revised form 9 August 2012 remain small-scale. In this study, we explore the factors that prevent small-scale growers from increasing
Accepted 13 August 2012
their production.
Methods: The study is based on 1 year of ethnographic fieldwork and qualitative interviews conducted
Keywords:
with 45 Norwegian cannabis growers, 10 of whom were growing on a large-scale and 35 on a small-scale.
Cannabis
Results: The study identifies five mechanisms that prevent small-scale indoor growers from going large-
Marihuana
Cultivation
scale. First, large-scale operations involve a number of people, large sums of money, a high work-load
Black market and a high risk of detection, and thus demand a higher level of organizational skills than for small grow-
Culture ing operations. Second, financial assets are needed to start a large ‘grow-site’. Housing rent, electricity,
equipment and nutrients are expensive. Third, to be able to sell large quantities of cannabis, growers
need access to an illegal distribution network and knowledge of how to act according to black market
norms and structures. Fourth, large-scale operations require advanced horticultural skills to maximize
yield and quality, which demands greater skills and knowledge than does small-scale cultivation. Fifth,
small-scale growers are often embedded in the ‘cannabis culture’, which emphasizes anti-commercialism,
anti-violence and ecological and community values. Hence, starting up large-scale production will imply
having to renegotiate or abandon these values.
Conclusion: Going from small- to large-scale cannabis production is a demanding task—ideologically,
technically, economically and personally. The many obstacles that small-scale growers face and the lack
of interest and motivation for going large-scale suggest that the risk of a ‘slippery slope’ from small-scale
to large-scale growing is limited. Possible political implications of the findings are discussed.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Domestic cultivation of cannabis is increasingly replacing its
importation and smuggling (Decorte, 2007; EMCDDA, 2008; Jansen,
2002; Potter, Bouchard, & Decorte, 2011). Potter (2010a, p. 64), for
example, claims that more than 50% of the cannabis consumed in
the UK is produced domestically. In Canada, the market is con-
sidered to be self-sufficient (Nguyen & Bouchard, 2010; Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, 2004). In the USA, more than 50% of
available cannabis is grown domestically, and the cannabis indus-
try is considered to be the largest national cash-generating crop
(Gettman, 2006). In the Netherlands and Belgium, cannabis pro-
duction exceeds the consumption, with the surplus exported to
neighbouring countries (Decorte, 2008, 2010a). Equipment for
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 22 84 34 86; mobile: +47 920 18 109;
fax: +47 22 85 52 53.
E-mail address: eirik.hammersvik@sosgeo.uio.no (E. Hammersvik).
cannabis cultivation is easily accessible via the Internet and from
so-called ‘grow-shops’ (Bouchard & Dion, 2009; Decorte, 2007;
Jansen, 2002; Potter, 2010a). This has opened a new window of
opportunity for cannabis users who want to grow cannabis for
their own consumption or to enter the cannabis trade. Norway
is following the trend in other countries, albeit at a slower pace.
For example, in the Norwegian police register, the proportion of
cannabis seizures increased from 10% of total seizures in 2006 to
approximately 20% of total seizures in 2010 (The National Crime
Investigation Service, 2010). The police attribute this growth to an
increase in domestic production (The National Crime Investigation
Service, 2010, p. 7).
The new trend of import substitution is generating new research
questions and discussions. Research topics include new estimations
of the market share of small-scale and large-scale growers and the
effects of market changes on market dynamics. For example, does
easier access to cultivation know-how and equipment represent an
opportunity for new offenders to enter the illegal trade? To what
extent is increased commercialization taking place? (See Bouchard,

0955-3959/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.08.001
 E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
2007; Bouchard, Alain, & Nguyen, 2009; Bouchard & Dion, 2009;
Decorte, 2007, 2010a; Hough et al., 2003; Jansen, 2002; Nguyen
& Bouchard, 2010; Potter, 2010a.) Furthermore, many researchers
have examined the implications of these changes for cannabis con-
trol policies (Decorte, 2010a; Hough et al., 2003; Lenton, 2011;
Room, Fisher, Hall, Lenton, & Reuter, 2010).
Several researchers have constructed typologies of cannabis cul-
tivators (see Potter et al., 2011, p. 11–12). The main distinction
is between ‘commercial growers’ and ‘ideological growers’, who
are not interested in profit. We still lack knowledge about crucial
aspects regarding the growers’ careers. Nevertheless, the path from
growing as an isolated occurrence to becoming a regular small-
scale grower has been rather well described. Most growers start
to experiment at a basic level. As they learn skills, they become
more regular growers, producing larger surpluses, which they often
share or sell. Some of them develop an interest in maximizing yield
and quality, and start to use more advanced equipment (Decorte,
2010b; Potter, 2010a). However, most growers remain ‘small-scale’
(Decorte, 2010a). Small-scale growers are described as cannabis
users who grow cannabis to solve supply issues such as irregular
access, poor-quality products and criminal dealers (Decorte, 2010b;
Hakkarainen, Asmussen, Perälä, & Dahl, 2011; Potter, 2010a). By
contrast, large-scale growers are described as ideologists (Potter,
2010a), criminal entrepreneurs (Spapens, 2011; Weisheit, 1991) or
members of criminal organizations or gangs (Silverstone & Savage,
2010; Wilkins & Casswell, 2003).
Different studies have employed different measurements and
criteria for categorizing growers and distinguishing between small-
scale and large-scale growers (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011; Potter,
2010a; Weisheit, 1991; Wouters, 2008). Hough et al. (2003, p.
9) found that large-scale production generates more money and
thus attracts commercial growers, whereas small-scale growers
often are embedded in cannabis-related ideology. Potter (2010a,
p. 159–160), however, observing that some ideologists in fact
do go large-scale, criticizes the typology of Hough et al. (2003)
as being oversimplified. Nevertheless, the amount of money
involved in large-scale production seems to provide less room for
ideology.
Few researchers have scrutinized the practical challenges
that prevent small-scale growers from going large-scale, but
some exceptions should be mentioned. Bouchard et al. (2009)
and Nguyen and Bouchard (2010) suggest that a lack of
financial resources and various organizational challenges pre-
vent adolescents from starting their own large-scale opera-
tions. Bouchard and Nguyen (2011, p. 211) argue that access
to mentors who can teach them the necessary social and
technical skills is a prerequisite for becoming a large-scale
grower. Small-scale growers often lack knowledge about dis-
tribution networks and how to act according to black market
norms.
It is a paradox that most transactions in the cannabis market
are performed between small-scale actors, whereas most research
emphasizes the process of becoming large-scale. Rather than ask-
ing why some growers go large-scale, we start from the fact that
cannabis cultivation usually remains on a small scale, and therefore
ask: What prevents most small-scale growers from going large-
scale? In the analysis, we suggest five mechanisms that may affect
growers’ opportunity and motivation to go large-scale. We con-
clude that our findings may support a soft policy approach towards
small-scale growers.
Methods
The data in this paper stem from two studies. The first study was
an extensive investigation of cannabis users (N = 100) in Norway in
459
2006–2010 (for details, Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010). Participants
were recruited through the researchers’ networks, students at the
University of Oslo and Bergen, from cannabis interest organiza-
tions and through an Internet advertisement. Respondents were
distributed across Norway. Twenty of the participants had experi-
ence in cultivating cannabis. Some had tried to grow cannabis but
had failed, others were sporadic small-scale growers (growing up
to 20 plants) and one had developed into a large-scale grower (usu-
ally growing approximately 250 plants). These interviews taught us
much about cannabis cultivation in Norway and inspired an ethno-
graphic follow-up study in which we explored this area in more
detail.
In the second study, a year of fieldwork was conducted (by the
first author) among regular cannabis growers in the Oslo area. The
fieldwork was carried out at 14 grow-sites. We categorized three of
them as large grow-sites and 11 as small. Some of the respondents
allowed us to follow the production and distribution of the crop
throughout the whole year. Fieldwork included socializing with
participants at gyms, at their friends’ places, in bars, cafés and at
concerts. All growers were men aged between 23 and 45 years;
some highly educated with good jobs whereas others were living
on social benefits. In this study, we were in contact with nine cat-
egorized as ‘large-scale’ growers and 16 ‘small-scale’ growers. All
were growing indoors.
When analysing interviews and notes from fieldwork, we
coded them for themes pertaining to movement up and down
in the cannabis growing hierarchies. After this initial coding, and
once we reached agreement on the dominant themes, the first
author analysed all statements and fieldwork notes consistent
with the five mechanisms that make up the results of the current
analysis. Such style of coding is consistent with standards of qual-
itative research techniques, grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss,
2008) and qualitative criminological research method (Copes,
2011).
It is not easy to find valid criteria by which to categorize grow-
ers as either ‘small’ or ‘large’. Current definitions usually rest on the
size of the cannabis market, geographical location, policy and police
strategies, and how production size is measured (Hakkarainen et al.,
2011, p. 123, 126; Potter, 2010a, p. 87, 201; Wouters, 2008, p.
55–59). Studies of growers and cannabis policies often refer to
the number of plants and/or the weight of the dried cannabis (see
Hough et al., 2003, p. xi). The ‘number of plants’ is an impre-
cise measurement (Potter, 2010a, p. 87, 157), but it may indicate
production size if the size of the plant is controlled for. We catego-
rized as small-scale those growers who grew fewer than 20 small
plants, usually using the ‘sea of green’ method (see Thomas, 2010,
p. 91). ‘Large-scale growers’ grew between 100 and 350 plants,
producing between 3 kg and 12 kg per batch (each 8–10 weeks).
In an international context, these growers are located in the grey
zone between large- and small-scale producers. However, with
the low supply of and high demand for high-quality cannabis in
Norway, grow operations are potentially very profitable. The price
per kilogram received by our most successful participants ranged
from 100,000 NOK to 120,000 NOK (13–16 EUR per g), which is
higher than the mean price on the retail level in Europe (6–11 EUR
per g) (EMCDDA, 2011, p. 42) and most other countries (UNODC,
2011, p. 194, Fig. 159). These high wholesale prices made the
growers’ operations potentially very profitable—in an international
context.
The analysis is based on interviews with 20 growers from the
first study, as well as fieldwork and interviews with 25 growers
from the second study. The data provide a solid ethnographic plat-
form for an analysis of cannabis cultivation and growers in Norway.
The study was designed according to the standards of the Nor-
wegian Data Inspectorate, and approved by the same agency. All
respondent names are pseudonyms.
460 E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
Findings
Organizational challenges
Growing small amounts of cannabis requires little work; most
of the small-scale growers spent less than 20 min a day caring
for their plants, some even less than 5 min. Larger-scale grow-
ers spend much more time on watering, mixing nutrients and
checking equipment. Some growers in our sample had tempo-
rarily increased their production before realizing that the work
and security challenges involved would severely affect their social
lives.
We observed Kenneth during his transition from growing 2 to
20 plants, at which point the growing operation (‘grow-op’) cov-
ered most of his studio apartment. He described the problems that
arose:
I couldn’t hang out with my friends since many of them don’t
like that kind of stuff. It stinks. I have always had different kinds
of friends, but when I was growing, I could only hang out with
smokers. . . and that became boring. . .
Kenneth gained a reputation as a ‘stoner’ and was uncomfortable
with how the grower identity became more and more important.
He also found that it demanded too much work and quit growing.
Ex-growers often mentioned the work-load when asked why they
had stopped. Even when growing on the same relatively small scale
as Kenneth, growers’ personal lives may suffer from the work and
security demands involved in cannabis cultivation (see also Potter,
2010b, p. 146).
Joachim was growing much larger quantities than Kenneth, and
his story reveals how challenging it is to grow on a large scale.
Joachim grew up to 250 plants and he described the common way
of organizing a plantation:
You have a group of three [people] and use a rotating schedule
that organizes the responsibility. It’s an awful lot of work, they
need daily care, like checking that everything works and that
pipes are closed, that the water goes right, and that the lights
are on and run as they should, and. . .
Joachim and his colleague hired a gardener, which solved some
of the problems. However, they still had to set up timetables, and
at times Joachim worked more or less as a professional administra-
tor. Other large-scale growers were less structured and organized,
which resulted in repeated arguments over the distribution of
work.
Nguyen and Bouchard (2010) suggest that small-scale grow-
ers are prevented from going large-scale by labour and logistics.
The literature demonstrates how the work-load raises organi-
zational challenges, and that it is necessary to be a skilled
organizer to run a large grow-op (Bouchard et al., 2009; Weisheit,
1991). In our study, growers who had increased their produc-
tion size for a short period had experienced the large work-load
involved. Although they had been looking for fun and leisure,
the amount of time and work necessary for large-scale cultiva-
tion had given growing the character of work and commercialism.
Most of the small-scale growers we talked with did not have the
necessary organizational skills or knowledge required to go large-
scale.
Financial challenges
Cannabis growing at a basic level is cheap or even free. Most
of the small-scale growers we met did not see raising money as a
challenge for growing. Their only expenses were lamps, fertilizer,
and sometimes seeds. Some of the small-scale growers who used
advanced cultivation equipment had cultivated for years, and had
gradually become able to buy increasingly more sophisticated and
expensive equipment, such as running timers and regulators that
they can monitor via the Internet.
Several small-scale growers complained about the high prices
of cultivation equipment in grow-shops. A few, like Tom (45),
accepted the prices as long as they were justified by the quality:
‘Well, it costs a lot to grow. All the equipment cost me more than
buying hash [laughs], but it’s much better than the shit you get
elsewhere’. Tom had spent between 5000 and 10,000 EUR on equip-
ment during the past 7 years. He never sold cannabis, and had to
finance his equipment with his ordinary—and rather high—income.
However, most growers in this study were young and many were
students, and they were not in a financial position to buy expensive
equipment. Those who did usually financed it by selling cannabis
to their friends.
Over a 1-year period, we followed one of the larger producers
who had made sizeable investments before making a profit. The
location was an expensive neighbourhood in Oslo, which made
housing especially costly. Ole (34), the main grower in this large
grow-op, explained:
We spent more than 26,000 EUR before we took out profit.
Money came in the whole time, but we used it to cover operating
costs and equipment. Most of the money was used on housing,
electricity and equipment. We had a lot of equipment just lying
around right, but most of the money was used on rent and the
housing deposit. We paid 2300 EUR [per month] in rent and paid
like a three-month deposit and we first took out money after 12
months, so umm. . . I guess we spent 33,000 EUR on housing
stuff.
The growers spent a further 6500 EUR on equipment, 5000 EUR
on electricity and 1900 EUR on high-quality plant nutrients.
Because the first two crops partly failed, it took almost a year to
generate sufficient income to offset the investment. The first crop
lost 20 plants because of failing hydroponic equipment, and insects
infected the second crop. During this period, the growers had spent
most of their savings and income and they could afford the huge
costs involved only because they had legitimate jobs and no families
to support.
The large-scale growers covered their set-up and operating
costs by using legally obtained incomes and/or profit from pre-
vious grow-ops or wholesale hash operations. However, growers
without the start-up capital can also form ‘grow-circles’ or be
sponsored or hired by investors (Potter, 2010a; Potter & Dann,
2005). Previous research has described criminal entrepreneurs
who invest in franchise-like operations (Bouchard & Nguyen,
2011; Potter, 2010a). If growers manage a successful harvest,
they obtain a share of the profit, but crop failure may have
severe consequences. Potter (2010a) suggests that threats and
violence may be the result of being sponsored by or co-
operating with criminal entrepreneurs. The growers in our study
also emphasized the serious economic loss from a failed large
crop.
In sum, building a large indoor grow-site is expensive (Nguyen
& Bouchard, 2010; Potter, 2010a, 2010b). Housing, electricity and
equipment require financial resources that most growers do not
have. Young small-scale growers in particular are usually not in a
financial position to run a large grow-site, and are thus prevented
from producing large volumes (Bouchard et al., 2009; Nguyen &
Bouchard, 2010). Large-scale cannabis cultivation demands size-
able financial assets, which acts as a barrier to small-scale growers
increasing their production.
 E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
Black market skills
Small-scale growers typically described distribution as ‘sharing
with friends’ (see also Decorte, 2010b; Hakkarainen & Perälä, 2011;
Potter, 2010a). Therefore, distribution did not represent a prob-
lem for them. By contrast, dealing outside their circle of friends
was seen as stepping up a level in the drug trade, which most
small-scale growers saw as problematic. Karl (43), for example, had
20–30 plants that took up one-third of a spare bedroom and he was
satisfied with his production size:
If I produce more than I do now, I’ll have to get a dealer
or something. . . because of the risks, right. . . like, I can’t sell
because I grow; you have to distinguish between those two, or
you’ll get busted. But those I know who could sell are like real
dope dealers.
Tommy spoke of dope dealers with contempt. He did not want
to involve a dealer—or ‘criminals’—in the distribution process, as
that would turn his growing from being about helping friends into
crime. The only drug dealers Tommy knew were heavy drug users
who belonged to criminal networks that were monitored by the
police. Involving them would critically increase the risk of grow-
ing. Tommy was deterred from going large-scale by the risks of
violence, detection by police and fear of being stigmatized by the
local community. For many small-scale growers, the motivation for
growing in the first place had been to avoid the criminal scene and
not support cynical criminals.
The large-scale growers told us that they had had to expand
their networks and engage with cannabis dealers to distribute their
products. They also had to know how to act according to black
market norms and safety rules. Some of them even enjoyed being
involved in illegal activities. Joachim told us about the excitement
of running an illegal enterprise. He described it as a ‘kick’ and
‘sensation-seeking’:
Feeling the excitement, like, oh fuck, knowing what’s going on.
What’s going to happen? It’s pretty crazy. You go there with
a kilo of pot in your bag and are supposed to be going to the
dealer and negotiate the price. That whole setting there, it’s like
a film—only in reality—right?
For Joachim, large-scale growing was not just about making a
profit. Rather, what Katz (1988) describes as the ‘seduction of crime’
and Gross (1992) refers to as ‘outlaw attitude’ were important driv-
ing forces behind his enterprise. Other large-scale growers did not
describe breaking the law as a symbol of resistance against the
establishment. Yet others saw it as an unpleasant but necessary
part of making money. Nevertheless, being able to handle the risky
situations that arise when involved in illegal activities, and even
enjoying them, is an important skill when expanding.
Growers need other black market skills too. For example,
Joachim was a large-scale grower and he had a number of strategies
for avoiding the attention of the police. Most importantly, he sold
to a selective group of people. Two large-scale dealers worked for
him, each of whom distributed at least 1 kg. In this way, Joachim had
nothing to do with the distribution of cannabis; he only had to relate
to and trust the two dealers. Joachim emphasized that it was also
important to ‘keep your mouth shut and not brag’. He had an ordi-
nary job working for the municipality, so he could explain where
his money came from, and thus could maintain a façade of inno-
cence. At the same time, he knew enough about the criminal world
to manage that part as well. Researchers have also pointed out that
large-scale operators are concerned with constructing strategies
that make it possible to operate under the radar of law enforcement
agencies (Coomber, 2010; Pearson, 2007).
461
As other researchers have pointed out, growers seeking to
expand their distribution network can organize distribution in sev-
eral ways, such as by dealing to strangers, dealing to friends who are
more peripheral and using friends as brokers (Hough et al., 2003;
Potter, 2010a, 2010b). However, those who really want to go large-
scale must engage with dealers who have the capacity to sell large
amounts (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011, p. 119). Such dealers are often
involved in other types of crimes and criminal networks. They can
be hard to locate, and interacting and arranging deals with them
can be difficult. Knowing how to manoeuvre in their world may
take years of experience. One can easily be cheated and it is diffi-
cult to know the hidden rules of conduct. Most of the small-scale
dealers we talked with did not have access to distribution networks
or possess the black market skills necessary for distributing large
volumes of cannabis.
Horticultural challenges
In outdoor growing, nature takes care of most of the process. At a
basic level, indoor growing is also easy, but the yield and quality will
usually be modest. At a more advanced level, growers use sophis-
ticated equipment to maximize yield and quality (Potter, 2010, p.
102–103; Thomas, 2010), which demands horticultural skills and
knowledge (Bouchard & Nguyen, 2011).
We asked Joachim, as a large-scale grower, how much time was
needed from sowing the seed to having cannabis ready to sell:
It depends on many things—on what kind of plant you have,
I mean the genetics of the plant. How much light you have,
in fact how professionally you can treat the plant. Because
everything is manipulated. The cannabis plant is triggered to
flower even though the day is shorter than 12 h. Still [clicks
his fingers] it automatically produces a hormone, which trigg-
ers flowering! So you can manipulate it yourself, you can start
the flowering when it is so big [shows the length with his
fingers], right. There’s a whole science behind growing pot
plants.
Horticultural knowledge and skills were important prerequi-
sites for going large-scale. Studies of small-scale growers have
found that a passion for cultivation is a crucial motivation for
many growers (Dahl, Frank, & Villumsen, 2010; Decorte, 2010b;
Hakkarainen et al., 2011; Potter, 2010b; Weisheit, 1991); and
even some of the smallest-scale growers we observed used very
advanced equipment. However, most of the small-scale growers
had no ambitions to manage the challenges related to growing
large-scale. One of these was Bob (25), who occasionally grew
cannabis outdoors during the summer, but saw large-scale indoor
growing as too strenuous:
It smells very strong if you do not have a charcoal filter and stuff
like that—and then it suddenly becomes a very big thing. And it
takes up a lot of space and then there is the light and. . . There
is too much stress with it.
The challenges of horticultural knowledge, space and electrical
and carpentry skills deterred Bob from pursuing advanced indoor
cultivation. Some of the small-scale growers tried cultivating out-
doors during the summer, but the harsh Norwegian climate was a
challenge.
The technical and horticultural challenges intensify with the
number of plants (Hough et al., 2003; Potter, 2010b). Frank (42)
was an experienced grower who ran four small-scale growing oper-
ations (20–60 plants) and one large (150–200 plants). He often
emphasized how large-scale operations require greater skills and
462 E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
knowledge than small-scale growing, partly because of the poten-
tial consequences:
You know, big plantations need much more attention than
smaller ones. It’s difficult to keep track of each plant. If you get
diseases or bugs, it may take a long time before you detect them.
If you run a large hydro-plantation without knowing what you
are doing, you may lose the whole batch and that costs a lot. The
risk of something going wrong is simply much greater.
Despite his expertise, Frank had experienced several failed crops
because of technical problems and insects. The pattern was unam-
biguous: challenges related cannabis cultivation increased steeply
with the number of plants. To overcome the horticultural chal-
lenges, it is important to have a mentor (Bouchard & Nguyen,
2011), yet very few of the small-scale growers we met knew or
were particularly interested in meeting experienced growers they
could learn from. They thought large-scale growing would be too
demanding.
In sum, large-scale growers had elaborate knowledge about the
process of cannabis cultivation, as they had developed skills over
the years. The need for, and the tiresome process of acquiring, such
a high level of horticultural knowledge deterred many small-scale
growers from going large-scale.
The cannabis culture
Studies of cannabis growers distinguish between those who are
motivated by money—commercial growers—and those motivated
by social or ideological factors (see Potter et al., 2011, p. 11–12).
Unlike other illegal drug use, cannabis use tends to be associated
with an ideology in favour of values such as anti-commercialism
and social solidarity (Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010; Sandberg, 2012b;
see also Booth, 2003; Matthews, 2003). We have conceptualized
what others have termed ‘ideology’ as ‘cannabis culture’ (Sandberg
& Pedersen, 2010; Sandberg, 2011, 2012a). However, rather than
understanding culture as something that characterizes a distinct
group of people, we see it is as a cluster of rituals, stories and
symbols that people may employ to a greater or lesser degree in
complex identity work.
Many small-scale growers looked down upon the ‘big fish’.
Anton (25), for example, described the large-scale growers in this
manner: ‘They don’t participate in the rituals of the smoking of
joints. They grow big amounts like hectares of buds and they sell
it for the buck. They’re only in it for the money’. Most small-scale
growers saw large-scale operators as criminal opportunists who
made money because of the prohibition that they opposed. In addi-
tion, commercial markets were associated with cheating, violence,
police detection and cannabis of poor quality. Lars (32) explained
why he started growing:
It was an idealistic thing. First, there’s the quality, right. The pot
around was fucking awful. Second, there was this idea that we
shouldn’t be a part of the crime scene, with all those links behind
it and all that exploitation.
The commercial markets were perceived as both dangerous and
immoral (see also Decorte, 2010b). The market for homegrown
cannabis, by contrast, was seen as based on community values and
sharing between friends. The small-scale growers often referred to
their growing and dealing as ‘helping’, and they were not interested
in profit (see also Dahl et al., 2010; Hakkarainen & Perälä, 2011).
Small-scale growers and cannabis users typically describe
homegrown cannabis as being of higher quality than commercially
grown cannabis. Bill (27) used to purchase contaminated cannabis
from large-scale growers, but stopped because he was worried it
could cause health problems:
It was awful [Vietnamese-produced cannabis]. When you grow
cannabis, towards the end, you have to give it water to get the
fertilizer out. In addition, you have to dry it properly. They sold
wet cannabis and that results in fungus when you store it. They
sold dangerous stuff.
Many growers feared contaminated cannabis. They claimed that
it came from commercial producers who increase the weight to
boost profits, refraining from flushing out the fertilizers or not dry-
ing it properly (see also Potter, 2010a, p. 181). By growing their own
cannabis, Bill and the other small-scale growers could be sure they
got the quality they wanted, and at the same time avoid cynical and
criminal markets with which they did not identify.
However, economic demands will at some point make it diffi-
cult to remain true to the cannabis ideology (Hough et al., 2003;
Potter, 2010a). The greatest challenges for large-scale ideologists
were debt-collecting, distributing the drug and associating with
other large-scale actors, without changing or renegotiating their
values and identity. The anti-commercial and idealistic values of
what can be best described as a cannabis culture make going large-
scale unattractive. Being small-scale resonates with the values of
the traditional cannabis culture; while going large-scale means that
you are ‘in it for the money’. This cultural barrier deters many
small-scale growers from wanting to go large-scale.
Conclusion
Most cannabis growers remain at a small scale, and this study
identifies five mechanisms involved. The first four reflect practi-
cal challenges associated with starting a large illegal business: (i)
the organizational challenges and large work-load; (ii) the need for
financial investments; (iii) the knowledge required of how to oper-
ate in the illegal cannabis market; and (iv) horticultural skills and
product knowledge. Finally, and most importantly, (v) most small-
scale growers are embedded in a cannabis culture with an emphasis
on anti-commercialism, anti-violence and ecological and commu-
nity values. Hence, to develop large-scale production, ideologists
must renegotiate or abandon these values. These five mechanisms
are tightly interwoven and, combined, they prevent most small-
scale growers from going large-scale. We suggest that our findings
have important implications for cannabis cultivation policies that
aim to reduce the harm associated with illegal cannabis markets.
Traditionally, Norway has had a zero tolerance approach
towards illegal drugs. However, harm reduction strategies have
found increasing acceptance among politicians (Stoltenberg, 2010).
Several international researchers and policy debaters have sug-
gested that one possible approach—within the present political
system—is to ‘soften the consequences of cannabis prohibition’
(Room et al., 2010, p. 75–107). However, a softer approach towards
small-scale cannabis growers raises questions, in particular: Will a
softer approach facilitate large-scale cannabis cultivation?
The advocates for a softer approach claim that by decriminal-
izing or legalizing cannabis cultivation for personal use, growers
may avoid supporting large-scale operators—who often are embed-
ded in organized crime and violence (Decorte, 2007, 2008, 2010b;
Lenton, 2011; Potter, 2010a). A strategy for reducing harm would
then be to engineer a shift in the supply side from ‘harmful
large-scale, criminal suppliers, to less risky small-scale and self-
suppliers’ (Lenton, 2011, p. 198). Not all large-scale growers are
organized criminals or criminal entrepreneurs (Potter, 2010a;
Spapens, 2011), but a number of studies have reported that large-
scale cannabis production often attracts serious criminals (Decorte,
 E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464
2010a; Silverstone & Savage, 2010; Spapens, 2011; Wilkins &
Casswell, 2003). Moreover, large-scale and commercial growers
may, under certain conditions, recruit small-scale growers and vul-
nerable youth into commercial operations and criminal milieus
(Bouchard et al., 2009, p. 471–473). Therefore, a challenge with
regard to cannabis cultivation policy is to prevent large-scale
growers from recruiting small-scale growers into criminal milieus
(Bouchard et al., 2009, p. 473). Among the available strategies is
to establish a limit for what constitutes ‘personal-use cultivation’.
However, experiences from New Zealand and Australia suggest that
if the limit is set too high, criminal gangs may create ‘franchise sys-
tems’ for small-scale growers (Lenton, 2011; Wilkins & Casswell,
2003).
According to the police, small-scale growers produce the bulk of
the domestic cannabis in Norway (KRIPOS, 2011), and the problem
of recruitment into large-scale operations is marginal at present.
However, there is no doubt that criminal entrepreneurs and gangs
are involved in the illegal import and distribution of cannabis
(Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010; Sandberg, 2012b). There is also rea-
son to assume that these groups may seek to become involved
in large-scale domestic cultivation. Thus, a policy with repressive
approaches towards large-scale growers seems rational. However,
is it possible to combine such a tough approach with a softer
approach towards small-scale growers?
Decorte (2007, 2008, 2010b) argues that cannabis users will
often try to avoid buying from large-scale operators, if they are pre-
sented with a choice. Therefore, a strategy aiming at penalization of
large-scale cultivation would probably receive support from many
ordinary cannabis users (see also Decorte, 2007, p. 36). To target
the ‘big fish’ is also a central aim of current Norwegian drug policy.
However, this suggestion should come with a warning: experiences
from the Netherlands and Belgium show that a repressive strategy
regarding large-scale growers may inadvertently harm small-scale
growers (Decorte, 2007, 2008, 2010a; Wouters, 2008).
Many seem to exaggerate the risk of going from small-scale to
large-scale cannabis growing. In our opinion, allowing cannabis
users to cultivate small amounts may be a fruitful approach, as it
may challenge the more destructive forces of cannabis commerce
and serious crime. Therefore, within the framework of continued
prohibition, we suggest that such a reform may ‘soften’ the harms of
cannabis control. Indeed, this may create an opportunity for gov-
ernments to join forces with cannabis users in the fight against
crime and large-scale operators.
References
Bouchard, M. (2007). A capture–recapture model to estimate the size of criminal
populations and the risks of detection in marijuana cultivation industry. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 221–241.
Bouchard, M., Alain, M., & Nguyen, H. (2009). Convenient labour: The prevalence and
nature of youth involvement in the cannabis cultivation industry. International
Journal of Drug Policy, 20(6), 467–474.
Bouchard, M., & Dion, B. C. (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), 25–37.
Bouchard, M., & Nguyen, H. (2011). Professionals or amateurs? Revisiting the notion
of professional crime in the context of cannabis cultivation. In T. Decorte, G. R.
Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation
and its control (pp. 109–125). London: Ashgate.
Booth, M. (2003). Cannabis: A history. London: Doubleday.
Coomber, R. (2010). Reconceptualising drug markets and drug dealers—The need for
change. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 10(1), 10–13.
Copes, H. (2011). Advancing qualitative methods in criminology and criminal justice.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Corbin, M. J., & Strauss, L. A. (2008). Developing grounded theory: The second generation
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Dahl, H. V., Frank, V. A., & Villumsen, S. (2010). Hjemmedyrket cannabis—Dyrkernes
egne erfaringer og perspektiver [Home grown cannabis—Growers’ own experi-
ences and perspectives]. STOF, 15(Summer), 89–92.
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/New
York: Radcliffe Publishing.
463
Decorte, T. (2008). Domestic marihuana cultivation in Belgium: On (un) intended
effects of drug policy on the cannabis market. In J. Fountain, & D. J. Korf (Eds.),
Cannabis in Europe: Dynamics in perception, policy and markets. (pp. 69–86).
Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Decorte, T. (2010a). The case for small-scale domestic cannabis cultivation. Interna-
tional Journal of Drug Policy, 21(4), 271–275.
Decorte, T. (2010b). Small-scale web survey of 687 small-scale growers in Belgium.
Contemporary Drug Problems, 37(2), 341–370.
European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction. (2008). A cannabis reader:
Global issues and local experience. Monograph Issue 8. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction. (2011). 2011 Annual report
on the state of the drugs problem in Europe. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
Gettman, J. (2006). Marijuana production in the United States (2006). The
Bulletin of Cannabis Reform, December 2006, Issue number 2. Available
from: http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/bcr2 index.html [Accessed
10.08.11].
Gross, K. H. (1992). Drug smuggling: The forbidden book. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin
Press.
Hakkarainen, P., Asmussen, F. A., Perälä, J., & Dahl, H. V. (2011). Small-scale
cannabis growers in Denmark and Finland. European Addiction Research, 17(3),
119–128.
Hakkarainen, P., & Perälä, J. (2011). With a little help from my friends—Justifications
of small scale cannabis growers. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.),
World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 75–89).
London: Ashgate.
Hough, M., Warburton, H., Few, B., May, T., Man, L., & Witton, J. (2003). A growing
market: The domestic cultivation of cannabis. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
and National Addiction Centre.
Jansen, A. C. M. (2002). The economics of cannabis cultivation in Europe.
Paper presented at the 2nd European conference on drug trafficking
and law enforcement Paris, 26–27 September 2002. Available from:
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/jansen.economics.html [Accessed 20.09.11].
Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New
York: Basic Books.
Lenton, L. (2011). Reforming laws applying to domestic cannabis production as a
harm reduction strategy—A case study. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard
(Eds.), World wide weed global trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp.
197–213). London: Ashgate.
Matthews, P. (2003). Cannabis culture: A journey through disputed territory. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Nguyen, H., & Bouchard, M. (2010). Patterns of youth participation in cannabis cul-
tivation. The Journal of Drug Issues, 40(2), 263–294.
Pearson, G. (2007). Drug markets and dealing: From street dealers to Mr Big. In M.
Simpson, T. Shildrick, & R. MacDonald (Eds.), Drugs in Britain supply consumption
control (pp. 76–92). London: Palgrave.
Potter, G. R. (2010a). Weed, need and greed: A study of domestic cannabis cultivation.
London: Free Association Books.
Potter, G. R. (2010b). You reap what you sow. Profit, pleasure and pain in domestic
cannabis cultivation. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), Pleasure,
pain and profit. European perspectives on drugs (pp. 134–148). Lengerich: Pabst
Science Publishers.
Potter, G. R., Bouchard, M., & Decorte, T. (2011). The globalization of cannabis culti-
vation. In T. Decorte, G. R. Potter, & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World wide weed global
trends in cannabis cultivation and its control (pp. 197–213). London: Ashgate.
Potter, G., & Dann, S. (2005). Urban crop circles: Urban cannabis growers in the North
of England. In W. Palacios (Ed.), Cocktails and dreams: Perspectives on drug and
alcohol use (pp. 89–109). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Room, R., Fisher, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S., & Reuter, P. (2010). Cannabis policy: Moving
beyond Stalemate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2004). Drug Situation in Canada––2003. Criminal
Intelligence Directorate. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa.
Sandberg, S. (2011). Is cannabis use normalized, celebrated or
neutralized? Analysing talk as action. Addiction Research
and Theory, http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2011.638147
Available online 12.12.11
Sandberg, S. (2012a). Cannabis culture: A stable subculture in a changing world.
Criminology and Criminal Justice, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1748895812445620
Available online 28.05.12
Sandberg, S. (2012b). The importance of culture for cannabis mar-
kets. Towards an economic sociology of illegal drug markets.
British Journal of Criminology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azs031
Available online 06.11.12
Sandberg, S., & Pedersen, W. (2010). Cannabiskultur. Oslo: Norwegian University
Press.
Silverstone, D., & Savage, S. (2010). Farmers, factories and funds: organised crime
and illicit drugs cultivation within the British Vietnamese community. Global
Crime, 11(1), 16–33.
Spapens, T. (2011). The cannabis market in the Netherlands. Available at
SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1856467 [Accessed
02.02.12].
Stoltenberg, T. (2010). (The Stoltenberg-committee: The rapport about narcotics)
Stoltenberg-utvalget: Rapporten om narkotika. Oslo: Ministry of Health and Care
Service.
The National Crime Investigation Service. (2010). (Drug statis-
tics 2010) Narkotikastatistikk 2010. Oslo: KRIPOS. Available at:
https://www.politi.no/kripos/statistikk/narkotika/ [Accessed 10.20.11]
464 E. Hammersvik et al. / International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 458–464

Thomas, M. (2010). European cannabis cultivation a complete grower’s guide (3rd ed.).
Southsea, Hants: Avalon Wholesale Ltd.
United Nations Office on Drugs Crime. (2011). World drug report 2011. Vienna:
UNODC.
Weisheit, R. A. (1991). The intangible rewards from crime: The case of domestic
marijuana cultivation. Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 506–527.
Wilkins, C., & Casswell, S. (2003). Organized crime in cannabis cultivation in
New Zealand: An economic analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems, 30(Winter),
757–777.
Wouters, M. (2008). Controlling cannabis cultivation in the Netherlands. In J. Foun-
tain, & D. J. Korf (Eds.), Cannabis in Europe: Dynamics in perception, policy and
markets (pp. 69–86). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.