An analysis of media framing of and by Cannabis Social Clubs in Belgium: making the news?

Abstract

Aims: Cannabis Social Clubs (CSCs) are non-profit organizations that supply cannabis among their adult members. The goal of this paper is twofold: (1) to understand how Belgian CSCs have attempted to frame public debate through the media, and (2) to examine the ways in which the Belgian CSCs have been framed by that same domestic print media. Methods: We draw on semi-structured interviews with 15 CSC directors and a qualitative content analysis of Belgian print media (2006–2016), including 164 media articles. This dataset is complemented by a review of various Belgian CSCs’ internal documents. Findings: Most Belgian CSCs engaged with the domestic media. While the framing of the CSC model often focussed on legal issues, the news articles offered also some detail on CSCs’ functioning, in line with their self-defined practices. We noted a subtle shift in the framing over time. Conclusions: CSCs’ efforts in engaging with the media seem to have been somewhat successful, as they were able to contribute to the news production about the model. The media reporting was also generally less biased than previously anticipated. However, a public or political debate on the CSC model does not seem to have yet been initiated in Belgium.

Keywords:

• Cannabis Social Club
• framing
• media
• qualitative content analysis

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the representatives of the Belgian Cannabis Social Clubs who participate in this study. We would like also to thank Kimberly Lossie for her assistance in a preliminary analysis of the media dataset and the two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and comments. Also, thanks to Mark Monaghan for the helpful feedback on an earlier version of the paper.

Declaration of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

This research was conducted as part of a wider study funded by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO, grant no. G.0A85.15 N). Dr. Julie Tieberghien, co-author of this article, was funded by a post-doctoral fellowship by the FWO (grant no. 1201517 N).

Notes

1. Accordingly, the possession of cannabis in the presence of a minor, the involvement of a criminal organization, or causing harm to or resulting in the death of another individual constitute aggravating circumstances (Kilmer et al., 2013, Decorte, 2015). In addition, the possession of cannabis in prison, in youth protection institutes, in educational centers and surrounding area, or the blatant possession of cannabis in a public space constitute instances considered to disturb the public order (Kilmer et al., 2013, Decorte, 2015).

2. Many CSCs have also been supported by other umbrella organizations which play a role in promoting CSCs’ interests, such as for instance the CSC Federations active in Spain, or international networks as it is the case of the European Coalition for Justice and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD), which represents many European CSCs (Barriuso, 2011; Montañés & Oomen, 2009; Pardal, 2016b).

3. Translated terms in Dutch and French were used during the searches.

4. We were not able to get access to twelve newspaper articles (from “La Libre Belgique” and “Le Soir”), and thus those were not assessed for relevance nor included in our analysis.

5. One other CSC active at the time decided not to take part in the study.

6. Each CSC received a random code (CSC1–CSC6), which we use to refer to both the data from interviews with CSCs’ Board of Directors (adding a –D1 to –D15 suffix per respondent), as well as to the internal documents produced by each of the CSCs.

7. With exception of one interview session with CSC6, all other CSCs had two or more members of their Board of Directors participating in the interview (i.e., two CSC representatives took part in the interview sessions of CSC1 and CSC5 respectively; three Board members were interviewed in the corresponding interview sessions of CSC2 and CSC4; the interview session of CSC3 counted with the participation of four members of the Board of Directors).

8. However, most of the active CSCs are currently based in the Flemish region of the country.

9. Most CSCs have also drafted a protocol outlining the arrangements between the CSCs and the cannabis growers (who are also members of the Clubs), an issue we further explored elsewhere (Decorte et al., 2017).

10. The other CSC did not participate in the study.

11. A Royal Decree legalising the sale of cannabis (Sativex) for pain alleviation was signed by Health Minister Maggie De Block (B.S., 25 June 2015).