Member involvement and connection reduces risks (2/2)

Cannabis social clubs go far beyond being simple points of access to cannabis; they have in their genetics the potential to become community spaces where participation and connection among members contribute to reducing risks and promoting a responsible cannabis culture. In this post we will review the findings of a research led by Mafalda Pardal on CSCs in Belgium that will help us reflect on participation in CSCs. We are interested in elucidating how community, transparency and education are essential to build a safe and well-informed cannabis culture, where members not only consume but also learn and build bonds.

Cannabis social clubs are located in a social context marked by multiple inequalities. These dynamics are often reproduced indoors. Thus, although CSCs are spaces that promote tolerance and respect in the cannabis environment, attitudes and discourses such as, for example, racism, classism or homophobia can also be found. In addition, gender stereotypes are all too often present. However, more and more CSCs are paying attention to these problems and working to reverse them. Involvement and co-responsibility among CSC members is essential to reduce situations of discrimination. In the training sessions offered by the RdRcannabis project, these episodes are discussed and the responses that each organization has found to deal with them are shared, i.e., good practices developed by the affected community itself.

In addition to the individual benefits for members, CSCs function as cohesive micro-communities. The truth is that there is a great heterogeneity of operating models within the wide diversity of the hundreds of existing CSCs. However, in the origins of the CSC model, now two decades ago, we find a primordial model. This first model has evolved to a large extent due to the lack of strict regulation. Moreover, the same thing has happened in different countries simultaneously. In Belgium, researcher Mafalda Pardal studied this process on the basis of a sample of 21 CSCs. 

The research, entitled An analysis of Belgian Cannabis Social Clubs' supply practices: A shapeshifting model? (2018), captured the diversity of Belgian CSC models along nine main dimensions. It is interesting to make a synthesis of the results, as all nine factors are related, to a greater or lesser extent, to community participation in CSCs and the benefits/risks derived. Let us look at them. They are as follows:

1.Degree of professionalization of CSC staff (volunteer vs. professional staff)

At one end we find CSCs with staff doing tasks on a voluntary basis and, at the other extreme, CSCs where all staff are hired, i.e., a professional team. In the middle of the two poles there are various formulas, such as low remuneration for specific tasks. It is interesting to note that in some of the CSCs where people worked on a voluntary basis, the research identified that most of them were health professionals. This was often related to whether the CSC offered access to cannabis for people with health conditions or not.

If we were to update this vector to our context, we could distinguish CSC staff who have gone through RdRCannabis program trainings. We are not referring to a minor element. At the beginning of 2025, more than 200 people have completed the various training courses on cannabis use run by the Ministry of Health.

2.Role of CSCs (activist vs. provider)

As Belgium is very close to the Netherlands, the coffee-shop model (originated in the late ‘70s) was very influential. This meant that there were big differences between CSCs that had an activist component and those that replicated an exclusively cannabis dispensary model.

3.Business model (non-profit vs. commercial)

CSCs are non-profit entities due to their legal form. As is the case in the world of associations in general, bad practices can also occur in the area of CSCs in relation to greater or lesser transparency in the management of the entity's accounts.

4.Public profile (open vs. underway CSCs)

The research identified different degrees to which CSCs were willing to face public scrutiny. For example, in an earlier analysis of media appearances on CSCs in Belgium, relevant differences were observed with respect to the public profile of Belgian CSCs. Some were heavily involved in the public debate and others opted for a lower or non-existent profile. 

As may happen in our context, the emergence of CSCs not formally registered in the Register of legal entities could represent a decrease in transparency and openness to dialogue with public authorities.

5.Size (small vs. medium vs. large)

The number of associate members makes a big difference in the functioning of  CSCs. Some CSCs had a maximum number of members and therefore operated with a waiting list. Others accepted the more members the better.

6.Organizational differentiation (single-unit vs. multi-unit)

Structural differences were identified with regard to the way Belgian CSCs adapted to the needs of members with medicinal consumption. Mixed CSCs were found where no formal distinction was made between recreational and medical use, CSCs where access was differentiated by a sub-unit of the CSC or CSCs only admitting members with medical needs.

7.Accessibility (mixed CSC vs. medical CSC)

With regard to member accessibility, entry into a medical-only CSC or a medical (sub)unit of a CSC was one of the most stringent requirements applied by mixed CSCs, as the applicant members were usually required to present a medical history or a doctor's recommendation, on top of being Belgian nationals or residents, current cannabis users and at least eighteen years of age. In exceptional cases, candidates not meeting the requirements were also admitted.

8.Position of CSCs in the supply chain (vertically integrated vs. buyers' club) 

The distribution of cannabis through Belgian CSCs underwent several changes over the years. Initially, the typical method consisted of so-called ‘exchange fairs’, which were social gatherings where members could pick up pre-ordered cannabis. When Mafalda Pardal conducted her research, she identified that CSCs preferred to distribute cannabis individually among their members (either at home, at a pre-arranged location, or at the CSC's premises). As the researcher explains, individual distribution hinders social contact between members, an aspect that, as we mentioned in the first part of this post, is very positive from a risk reduction perspective.

The original CSC model mentioned in the introduction of this text ensured what is called ‘vertical integration of the supply chain’, i.e., the distribution of cannabis to registered members is organized by the CSCs themselves. At the other end, buyers' clubs represent entities where the grower is not related to the members of the group.

There is a connection between the cannabis access models in the US and Canada and the model in Europe in the 1990s that is not well-known. In California (San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club, 1991) and Victoria (Victoria Cannabis Buyers Club, 1996), in response to the vulnerable situation of people with medical conditions such as HIV/AIDS, cancer and other chronic diseases, buyers clubs emerged supplying cannabis to patients on the basis of a prescription or medical recommendation. These clubs focused solely on the medical use of cannabis, and were not necessarily consumer-driven or based on collective growing principles (as is the case with many CSCs). The role of social interaction, however, was key in both cases. 

9.Degree of member interaction generated by CSCs (social vs. ‘solitary’ clubs) 

To be able to tell differences as to degree of socialization among members promoted by CSCs, the research distinguished between a truly ‘social’ club model and a ‘solitary’ model. From additional information on the range of social (non-supply) activities organized by CSCs, this distinction could be further explored. It should be noted that most of the Belgian CSCs included in the research did not have a social space for members to meet and interact on their own initiative. Additional information on the extent of social (non-provisioning) activities organized by CSCs could further inform the distinction between social vs. solitary clubs.

In practice, the research findings report that CSCs could vary between the two ends of each of the nine dimensions and could also align with different ‘types of CSCs’, as several dimensions could be applied at the same time to the operation of particular clubs.

An interesting fact identified is that most CSCs had been founded on the initiative of a group of cannabis users as a result of community movements seeking to (self-)organize access to cannabis for themselves and other cannabis users. Therefore, the CSC model can be integrated into the broader movement of people who use drugs and harm reduction responses.

Finally, and going back to the point where we started and talked about coexistence and respect for CSCs, emphasis must go to the plus that members do not only interact with people with similar interests, but in many CSCs they also actively participate in the running of the club: from decision-making to the quality of cannabis to the organization of educational and recreational activities. This participatory, assembly-based model fosters a sense of shared responsibility, strengthens the bonds between members and promotes an environment of mutual support.

In many cases, clubs offer more than cannabis: workshops, lectures and cultural events that enrich the experience and reinforce the role of CSCs as community centers. CSCs can be an effective alternative to reduce the harms associated with cannabis use through a combination of education, product quality, self-regulation of use and the creation of a safe social environment. Education and information should be fundamental pillars of CSCs. Unlike the unregulated market, where the consumer rarely has access to details about the product he or she is purchasing, knowledge about cannabis is encouraged in CSCs. Members have access to detailed information about the strains available, their psychoactive effects, and how to choose the most suitable product according to their needs or preferences.

As we have outlined throughout the two posts on the role of CSC members, the participatory and member-centered structure of the CSC model makes it a powerful tool for reducing risks and building a safer and more responsible cannabis culture.

Let's think it out: CSCs go beyond simple cannabis access; they are community centers where bonds are forged, knowledge is shared and collective well-being can be promoted. If you are in tune with the above, it is never too late to transform your CSC into a place where you dare to co-create, to do your bit to make it better, more vibrant and really yours. Join in the discussions, propose activities, build community! Together we can transform it into a place where, in addition to sharing what we smoke, we share who we are.