The Authority for the Responsible Use of Cannabis recently held a conference where it outlined the rules for social clubs and the sale of home-grown cannabis.

The conference signalled the authority’s intention to move forward after a lull of almost a year, culminating in the removal of Mariella Dimech from her post as executive chairperson.

While news that cannabis social clubs – termed “Harm Reduction” clubs in an apparent nod to civil society – will be able to register for licences as from the end of this month, doubts have been raised as to whether the guidelines laid out by the authority will follow the spirit in which the law was written.

The primary aim was to decriminalise cannabis – against the objections of several NGOs. But now that the law has been enacted, the new regime must live up to another of its aims. This is to introduce a socially just model that avoids commercialisation. In creating a safe environment for cannabis users, the clubs to be formed under the new regulations are meant to follow a non-profit model.

However, reports from the conference say it did little to allay fears of business pouncing onto a new market. Many of those who took part seemed to have little contact with cannabis users. With the exception of a senior policy analyst from the UK, there wasn’t a single speaker with a background in either drug policy or harm reduction.

In fact, the key speakers were “industry leaders” and “experts in their respective fields”: cultivation, distribution, neuroscience, business and operations consultancy, law. None of these is directly related to the communitarian aspect of cannabis use.

New ARUC head Leonid McKay declared his opposition to commercialisation but a different picture emerges from the conference. Control over cannabis seems to be slipping away from the community into the hands of commercial interests.

For example, there are increasing complaints from civil society about the excessively expensive registration fees, which effectively price out large segments of cannabis users from opening their clubs. The €8,750 fee for a 50-member club and the €1,000 application on top of that effectively bring the cost of registering the club at €195 per member, excluding the costs related to the cultivation of the plants.

For cannabis clubs to break even within these regulations, they will have to employ commercial models which go directly against the philosophy of the law. This will lay the ground for these Harm Reduction clubs to become dispensaries instead of safe, non-profit spaces for the community of home growers and users.

In this light, it is legitimate to ask whether the ARUC is completely out of touch with the audience it aims to regulate. All this reinforces the fears of many that the regularisation of cannabis is really only a way to create new markets for big business to infiltrate.

Besides the year-long delay in the setting up of the clubs, the prohibitive costs suggested by the ARUC will only play into the hands of the illicit market, which remains the main source for cannabis users who are entitled by law to purchase the product through legal avenues.

It would be a pity, but not a surprise, if the government decides to favour business interests once again. It would be another show of disrespect towards civil society, which has actively contributed to the drafting of a law based on the community, not on profit.

As for users, they will go from being demonised to being cornered into a Hobson’s choice between greedy big business and illegal sources.