BACKGROUND: It is now commonly accepted that there exists a form of drug supply, that involves the non-commercial supply of drugs to friends and acquaintances for little or no profit, which is qualitatively different from profit motivated 'drug dealing proper'. 'Social supply', as it has become known, has a strong conceptual footprint in the United Kingdom, shaped by empirical research, policy discussion and its accommodation in legal frameworks. Though scholarship has emerged in a number of contexts outside the UK, the extent to which social supply has developed as an internationally recognised concept in criminal justice contexts is still unclear. METHODS: Drawing on an established international social supply research network across eleven nations, this paper provides the first assessment of social supply as an internationally relevant concept. Data derives from individual and team research stemming from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, England and Wales, and the United States, supported by expert reflection on research evidence and analysis of sentencing and media reporting in each context. In situ social supply experts addressed a common set of questions regarding the nature of social supply for their particular context including: an overview of social supply research activity, reflection on the extent that differentiation is accommodated in drug supply sentencing frameworks; evaluating the extent to which social supply is recognised in legal discourse and in sentencing practices and more broadly by e.g. criminal justice professionals in the public sphere. A thematic analysis of these scripts was undertaken and emergent themes were developed. Whilst having an absence of local research, New Zealand is also included in the analysis as there exists a genuine discursive presence of social supply in the drug control and sentencing policy contexts in that country. RESULTS: Findings suggest that while social supply has been found to exist as a real and distinct behaviour, its acceptance and application in criminal justice systems ranges from explicit through to implicit. In the absence of dedicated guiding frameworks, strong use is made of discretion and mitigating circumstances in attempts to acknowledge supply differentiation. In some jurisdictions, there is no accommodation of social supply, and while aggravating factors can be applied to differentiate more serious offences, social suppliers remain subject to arbitrary deterrent sentencing apparatus. CONCLUSION: Due to the shifting sands of politics, mood, or geographical disparity, reliance on judicial discretion and the use of mitigating circumstances to implement commensurate sentences for social suppliers is no longer sufficient. Further research is required to strengthen the conceptual presence of social supply in policy and practice as a behaviour that extends beyond cannabis and is relevant to users of all drugs. Research informed guidelines and/or specific sentencing provisions for social suppliers would provide fewer possibilities for inconsistency and promote more proportionate outcomes for this fast-growing group.

Alcohol Drug and Addictions Unit National Institute for Health and Welfare PO Box 30 FI 00271 Helsinki Finland

Center for Drug Research Institute of Social Education and Adult Education Goethe University Theodor W Adorno Platz 6 D 60323 Frankfurt am Main Germany

Center for Substance Abuse Studies Institute for Scientific Analysis 390 4th Street 2nd Floor San Francisco CA 94107 USA

Department of Insitutional Economics University of Economics UE Prague W Churchill Sq 4 130 67 Prague 3 Czech Republic

Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of Guelph Guelph Ontario N1G 2W1 Canada

Department of Sociology Social Policy and Criminology University of Liverpool Eleanor Rathbone Building Bedford Street South L69 7ZA United Kingdom

Department of Sociology University of Hong Kong The Jockey Club Tower Centennial Campus Pokfulam Road Hong Kong China

Griffith Criminology Institute Griffith University Gold Coast Campus G06_2 08 Queensland 4222 Australia

Institute for Social Drug Research Ghent University Universiteitstraat 4 9000 Ghent Belgium

Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention Namesti 14 rijna 12 150 00 Prague 5 Czech Republic

National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052 Australia

National Drug Research Institute Curtin University Building 609 Level 2 7 Parker Place Technology Park Bentley WA 6102 Australia

School of Justice Faculty of Law Queensland University of Technology Level 4 C Block Gardens Point 2 George St Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org