Expedientes de distribución de beneficios y cargas

Cannabis cultivation presents an ideal platform to look at the impact of criminal networks and achievement for several reasons. Domestic cannabis cultivation

experienced extraordinary growth in many industrialized nations over the past 25 years (Bouchard, 2007; Malm & Tita, 2006; Potter & Dann, 2005; Weisheit, 1991; Wilkins et al., 2002). In North America, the most recent data suggests that the Canadian market is now considered self sufficient (Bouchard, 2008; Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2004) and that the US cannabis industry is the country’s largest cash crop, with over 50% of available cannabis grown domestically (Gettman, 2006).

First, the presence of this expanding industry may offer diverse roles in which youth can participate in the industry. Marijuana markets are very different from markets for other drugs (Caulkins & Pacula, 2006), and this difference starts at the production level. Production of heroin or cocaine is difficult in North American climates (or not cost efficient), and these drugs are typically imported from developing countries. Hence, for juveniles, participation in importation driven drug markets is often limited to low-level retail roles (Harrison et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2000). The presence of a domestic cultivation industry, however, may offer plenty of opportunities for juveniles. Starting a

marijuana cultivation site can be relatively simple and inexpensive (Weisheit, 1992; Morrison, 1997), easy enough for an adolescent to maintain a small outdoor site alone or with a few peers. Indoor sites, especially large ones, require considerable skills,

equipment, startup capital, and a more extensive division of labour (Bouchard, 2008; Weisheit, 1992; Wilkins & Casswell, 2003; Potter, 2006). Enter the juveniles, who represent a suitable and affordable labour force for older growers to use on indoor or larger cultivation sites. In certain contexts, juveniles may serve the same functions as youths in more traditional production countries that participate on the farms, help harvest and tend to poppy and coca fields. These dynamics provide an interesting way to look at both size and composition of criminal networks.

Second, police forces have recognized the consequences of this growing industry and have invested considerable resources to eradicate the problem (Plecas et al., 2005; Malm & Tita, 2006; Wilkins & Casswell, 2004), which provides a good

opportunity to assess the impact of increased law enforcement initiatives and its consequences on juveniles. The region under study is known for having a larger than average outdoor cannabis industry, and adolescent participation in the industry has been especially been under the spotlight. To the extent that various media reports suggested that a substantial number of students missed school days during the cannabis harvest season, in October (Journal de Montreal, September 17, 2004). Further, the nature cultivation, unlike most predatory offences, requires several months of work before uncertain rewards are attained, prolonging the length of time a grower is at risk of being detected (a minimum of 3 to 6 months). The time frame for being considered ―at risk‖ of being arrested is extended with cultivation, even when compared to drug dealers, whose ―dealing cycles‖ last a few days to a few weeks _{(Caulkins et al., 1999).}

Third, previous studies suggest that cannabis growers are quite a heterogeneous group: some participate for the monetary rewards while others participate for intangible

ones (Weisheit, 1991; Hafley & Tewksbury, 1996; Potter, 2006). This diversity provides an interesting sample of offenders to measure criminal achievement. A handful of qualitative studies have proposed typologies of adult growers based on the differential motivations for participating in the industry. For example, through interviews with 31 domestic growers and 30 law enforcement officials, Weisheit (1991; 1992) found three types of commercial cannabis growers in rural Illinois: the hustler whose primary

motivation is profit and is enticed by the danger of involvement in an illegal industry; the pragmatist cultivates cannabis out of financial necessity; and the communal grower is often a cannabis user and tends to operate smaller sites in conjunction with his/her legitimate endeavors. Hafley and Tewksbury (1996) found two additional types of cannabis growers in their sample of 55 rural Kentucky growers: the young punk and the entrepreneur. The young punk is the wannabe cannabis grower who occupies low level roles because he/she does not have kinship relations or resources to support his/her own site.

Researchers in United Kingdom have also looked at grouping cannabis growers. Hough et al. (2003) looked at 37 growers in the UK and found five different motivations for growing. They found the sole-grower; the medical grower; the social grower; the social/commercial grower and the commercial grower. Most recently, with a sample of growers found through ethnography and internet message boards, Potter (2006) looked at both growers’ motivations and their relationships with _{other growers. Potter divided his} sample into financial and non-financial motivation. The not-for profit group of growers include personal use, medical and activist growers. The financially motivated group includes the small-scale grower, the one-off opportunist and the self-employed grower. Potter (2006) also classifies the large scale for profit cultivator as the corporate grower, who is fuelled by solely financial gains, is often involved in other crimes, and has the potential for violence.

Two important points are worth mentioning regarding the implications of these studies. First, although these studies provide an important glimpse into the motivations of cannabis growers, they focus on adult growers and relatively little is known about youth participation in the industry. Second, they highlight the diversity of motivation among cannabis growers. Along with the diversity of motivations, criminal achievement among commercial growers and personal growers would be relative to their aspirations.

Finally, cannabis cultivation is a social endeavour. The size of co-offending groups involved in cannabis cultivation should be larger than what is usually found for more straightforward offenses. Maintaining a cannabis cultivation site involves numerous tasks often performed by different offenders, such as installing equipment, plant

maintenance, harvesting, and manicuring. Hence, Bouchard (2007) found that the average size of offending groups per cultivation site ranged from a minimum of three to more than a dozen individuals involved in larger sites. While a division of labour is useful for practical purposes, it can also be detrimental in terms of risk. Weisheit (1992) found that growers use tactics such as minimizing contact with others, reducing the number of clients, maintaining small operations to reduce the risk of being detected by police. Interestingly, nearly all of the cultivators in Weisheit’s study were identified through police informants in the community.

Studying variations in co-offending dynamics and achievement is, therefore, especially meaningful for cannabis cultivation. The diverse roles in which adolescents can participate in the industry, the heightened police attention, the varied earning

potential and the social nature of cannabis cultivation presents an interesting opportunity to explore the impact of different criminal network dynamics on criminal achievement.