Cannabis Social Clubs: A normalization experience at work.

Martin Barriuso Alonso

FAC members:
ACCI CANNABICA - (Igualada AECA (Asturias) AGUC ASTARTE (Cdiz) Asociacin Gaditana de Usuarios de Cannabis. AICC - Cannabis Caf ALACANNABIS (Alicante) AMEC (Madrid) AMESCA (Menorca) AMIGOS DE MARIA (Len) ARSECA (Mlaga) ARSEC.SE (Sevilla) AVE MARIA (Vigo) CANNARIAS (Tenerife) CANNAVIP (Matar) CARB - (Balears) CEC (Mlaga) CTCC (Osona) GANJAZZ (Gipuzkoa) HEMPORD - (Girona). LA MACA (Barcelona) PANNAGH (Bilbao) THC (Valencia)

Global Marijuana March: Madrid May 8 2006 25,000 people for cannabis normalization

Historical background (1)

1966: Spain signs up United Nations Single Convention on Drugs 1967: Drugs law

1973: Penal Code

Possesion always illicit except with authorization Only medical or scientific use (almost never authorized) Simple possession unpunished, just seizure Trafficking punished by prison

1974: Supreme Courts sentence

Consumption decriminalised Subsequent judicial doctrine unanimous

Historical background(2)
1975-1992: Decriminalisation is defined, but not completely Compassionate donation Sharing Buying and distributing inside pair group Cannabis possession and cultivation not regulated 1992: Organic Law on Public Security Punishes possession and consumption in public places (300-6000 and seizure) 1993: Creation of ARSEC (Ramn Santos Association for the Study of Cannabis) in Barcelona Question to anti-drug public prosecutor: Is it legal to collectively grow for self-consumption? 1994: First collective plantation Public and notified to public prosecutor 100 people / 200 plants

Associations and self-cultivation: Creating basis for a new model

Normalization (8 associations)

1996: Foundation of National Coordination for Cannabis

Against prohibition, I plant

1997-2000: Kalamudias public cultivations

2000: Legal report by Juan Muoz and Susana Soto for Andalusian Government on the conditions for legal distribution of cannabis

200 people (politicians, artists, therapeutic users, members of trade unions, farmers,...) / 600 plants Big presence in media and social debate First legal harvests

Concrete and limited adults group (closed circuit) Previously users Consumption at the moment and in a private place Non profit

Club model is born

2001: Founding of the Cannabis Tasters Club in Barcelona (CCCB) 2002-3: Founding of first clubs with distribution activities in the Basque Country 2005: Police operation against Pannagh

Polices mistake: 4 peoples arrest Seizure of 150 kg fresh marihuana / 17,4 kg of dried marihuana Parliamentary Question to European Commission (January 2006) and answer from Justice Commissioner (March 2006):

Sentences on ARSECSE, Ganjazz and SECA Basque Governments legal report on Greenfarm CSC

File closed by Province Court (march 2006) and return of seized plants

The regulation of personal drug use is a competence of member states and theres no international law binds them to pursue

How does a Cannabis Social Club work

Legal registration of association Collective cultivation agreement Rental of buildings or land for cultivation, which is calculated from the consumption forecast Care provided by volunteers, associations staff or farmers Distribution in the club in quantities for immediate consumption Products making (resin, alcohol, tinctures, creams, oils, sweets, etc.) Space for consumption Proportional consumption fees to cover production and management A members invitation or medical letter needed to enter the club Administrative and fiscal situation almost normal

Legally contracted staff Tax payment: Social Security System, Rent Tax, Corporate Income Tax and, in some cases,
VAT (18%). Social activities: courses, legal and medical advice, cannabis cups, research, cultural activities, demonstrations, etc.

Proposed mechanisms for control of Cannabis Social Clubs

Presented at Basque Parliament in November 2010 Separate Association Book of Records for groups that will cultivate cannabis (or other psychoactive plants )

Annual presentation of clubs accounts

Consumption record book of members Development of a protocol for the control of crops and transport

Census of growing sites Inspections after planting and during harvest time Authorization to transport from growing site to the club

An alternative to illicit market

CSCs take cannabis and users out from illicit market just from now Prevent access by minors Psychoactive tourism is limited, but it is possible to move Denounce of international treaties is not necessary A non profit circuit appears Theres a choice to do:

Mafia, lots of black money, huge repression expenses, illegal dealers, unknown quality, easy access for minors, and reduced liberties Non profit democratic organizations, legal workers, tax collection, controlled quality, limits to minors access, and assumed rights

The fiscal impact of CSCs

A concrete example: Pannagh association (200 members during 2009 exercise):

Scenario with 1 million members in clubs (60 % of diary users + 30 % of frequent users):

1.5 direct employs / 6 indirect employs Social Security fees: 17,000 direct / 14,000 indirect Rent tax: 7,700 direct / 3,000 indirect Society tax: 11,500 VAT ( direct if applied at 18 %): 14,000 / 6,000 indirect

Total direct income for institutions: 367 million Total income for 23 million EU users: 8,400 million

7,500 direct employs / 30,000 indirect employs Social Security fees: 85 million direct / 70 million indirect Rent tax: 39 million direct / 15 million indirect Society tax: 58 million VAT (direct if applied at 18 %): 70 million / 30 million indirect

CSCs, transitional solution or final model?

Advantages of the club model against full legalization of trade:

We dont like the idea of tobacco or alcohol production and distribution model applied to cannabis

No need to change UN Conventions Democratic management by the users themselves Non-profit that reduces the risk of commercial promotion Direct contact between producers and users. No middleman that can adulterate or make the product more expensive Direct quality control

CSCs are an opportunity for Europe to lead a change in current drug policies and to experiment with new approaches Club model can be developed in a national level, with some European common criteria Theres no need to wait for the necessary change

Promotion campaigns, profit based companies, lack of information about tobacco additives,

Drug harmed those who consumed, so they decided to pursue them Now they harm everybody. It has been a big success El Roto