Cannabis festivals and their attendees in four European cities with different national cannabis policies

Introduction

Cannabis festivals represent a category of special events in an era where cannabis legalization is gaining momentum. Particularly in Europe, cannabis festivals are organized in many countries by civic organizations who aim to intervene in the politics regarding cannabis legalization. The organizers aim to protest against the current drug laws and cannabis policies and at the same time to celebrate cannabis culture. In this paper, cannabis festivals and their participants are explored in four European capital cities: Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and Berlin (Germany), Rome (Italy) and Athens (Greece). The four European countries selected for this study represent maximum variation in national cannabis policy, on a continuum from relatively liberal to punitive, as well as geographical spread across Europe (North and South).

Cannabis festival is a term that is being used in a variety of contexts, ranging from political protests against cannabis prohibition to commercial fairs dominated by entrepreneurs in the cannabis industry. Recently, cannabis-related commercial events tend to be named as “cannabis expositions.” In the current study, cannabis festivals are defined as “social gatherings organized by civic society movements, where people congregate to oppose cannabis prohibition and advocate cannabis law reform” (Skliamis and Korf, 2018).

Cannabis festivals can be understood as a representation of a wider social phenomenon. Festivals are among the fastest growing types of events in the world and are considered important cultural practices (Quinn, 2005; Rouba, 2012). Festivals range from small street fairs to extravagant events (Wynn and Yetis-Bayraktar, 2016) and affect societies in economic, political and socio-cultural ways (Arcodia and Whitford, 2007). Festivals can be considered a “link between culture and politics,” and they provide a vehicle through which people can advocate or contest certain notions of identity and ideology (Smith, 1995). On the other hand, festivals are being used as commodities by entertainment industries (Jeong and Santos, 2004), and are vulnerable to overcommercialization (Rogers and Anastasiadou, 2011). Variation in aims, characteristics and context may explain why festivals are often studied individually (Rouba, 2012).

Cannabis festivals in different countries share the aim of decriminalization or legalization and may have other common features. The objective of the current study was: to describe and contextualize the aims and distinctive and common characteristics of cannabis festivals in countries with different cannabis policies; assess characteristics of participants; identify reasons to attend cannabis festivals; explore the potential contribution of cannabis festivals to the social and cultural acceptance of cannabis, as perceived by attendees.

Methods

A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was used. To capture the distinctive and common characteristics of the four cannabis festivals, semi-structured in-depth interviews with the organizers were conducted. Interviews were guided by a set of questions aimed at understanding the philosophy, aims, policies and practices of the festivals and also capturing the distinctive characteristics. The local organizers were contacted in the weeks before the festivals for a preliminary contact in order to collect more information about the festival, and to arrange an interview after the festival. This interview was conducted about one or two weeks after the festival, collecting more details about the background, aim, organizational structure, characteristics of the festival and their evaluation on the festival. One of the interviews was held at the organization’s office (Cannabis Liberation Day) and the others via Skype. Interviews lasted between one and three hours. Each interview was recorded and transcribed.

At all the festivals, the first author performed participant observations from start to finish; in Amsterdam together with four field assistants (each one in different location of the festival, collectively covering the whole festival); in Berlin with one field assistant (from start to finish); in Athens with one field assistant (from start to finish in both days) and in Rome also with one field assistant (from start to finish). Observations were loosely structured around the following pre-defined themes: characteristics of the festival site; general atmosphere; police presence; and participants’ demographic profile (age, gender and ethnicity), behavior and substance use. On the day after the festival, the observations were entered into the computer, and in subsequent days observations were completed with additional input from the field assistants and photos acquired at the festival or that could be found online.

A survey was also conducted among a convenience sample of participants at these four festivals, using a one-page custom-designed questionnaire. To approximate representativeness, with a small interview team (the same that performed the qualitative observations), taking into account gender and age distribution as much as possible, respondents were approached at various areas of the festivals (i.e. music stage, food area, market area, park and sound-systems area). The purpose of the survey was explained, the respondents’ anonymity was ensured, and they verbally consented to participation. The questionnaires were in Dutch and English in Amsterdam, in German and English in Berlin, in Italian and English in Rome and in Greek and English in Athens. The questionnaire contains five items about demographic characteristics (gender, age, place of birth and residence), three items about cannabis use, one question concerning reasons for attending the festival (protest/activism, entertainment/leisure, to meet people/socialize; to use cannabis; curiosity; and other/do not know/do not want to say), and last but not least two questions about social and cultural acceptance (Do you think that this cannabis festival affects the cultural and social acceptance of cannabis?; Would you let your colleagues/fellow students know that you attended the festival?).

Completing the questionnaire took 2–3 min. All data were processed with SPSS 24.0. Continuous variables were analyzed using ANOVA, and categorical and nominal variables were analyzed with χ² tests. Daily cannabis use was defined as “⩾20 days” in the past month. Non-daily cannabis use includes “not last month” and “never a user.” The variable “residency” was created by combining age, country of birth, age at arrival in the country of study (the Netherlands or Germany), and place of residence, leading to the formation of four categories: locals: persons born or living ⩾5 years in the respective country (the Netherlands/Germany/Italy/Greece) and a resident of the respective city (Amsterdam/Berlin/Rome/Athens); non-locals: persons born or living ⩾5 years in the respective country and resident of this country but not of the respective city; expats: persons not born or not living in the respective country for <5 years[1]; tourists: persons not born nor living in the respective country. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all the analyses and only significant results have been reported.

Results

Survey results

The respondents (n=1,355) included 387 attendants from Cannabis Bevrijdingsdag in Amsterdam, 341 from Hanfparade in Berlin, 251 from Million Marijuana March in Rome and 376 from Athens Cannabis Protestival in Athens. Demographic characteristics are presented in Table II. In the total sample, close to two-thirds were male (62.8 percent), with more males in Berlin and Amsterdam, and less in Athens and Rome. Age ranged from 14 to 70 years (mean age 24.9 years). On average, respondents in Amsterdam were the oldest (29.2 years). Respondents in Athens were 3 years younger than those in Amsterdam; respondents in Berlin were 3 years younger than those in Athens; and respondents in Rome were 3 years younger than those in Berlin and almost 10 years younger than those in Amsterdam. Overall, 18–24-year-old respondents constituted the largest age category, followed by 25–34-year-olds. However, in Rome the second largest age category were minors (<18 years of age; 29.1 percent). While minors were rare in Amsterdam and Athens, they represented 15.0 percent of respondents in Berlin. Conversely, respondents aged 35 years and older were rare in Berlin and in Rome, but represented close to a quarter of respondents in Amsterdam and one in ten in Athens.

Significant differences in the attendants’ residency were found between the festivals. In the total sample, over half of respondents were locals, but they constituted by far the largest group in Athens (more than eight of ten), and the smallest category in Amsterdam (less than three out of ten). In Amsterdam, close to four out of ten respondents were expats or tourists, followed by one out of seven respondents in Berlin. Expats and tourists were rare in Athens and Rome.

Discussion

All of these festivals share common characteristics such as the activist identity, the common aim to support cannabis policy reform, and last but not least to celebrate cannabis culture. On the other hand they had distinct differences not only in organizational structure and the level of politicization and commercialization but also in the profile of the participants.

The difference in the political characteristics of the festivals can first be explained by differences in the official status accorded by the respective municipalities (i.e. “a political march” in Berlin and Rome not allowing for commercial activities or “a festival” like many others in Amsterdam and in Athens). However, the Million Marijuana March in Rome was officially “a political march” but did not appear to have or embed any political characteristics. Therefore, it can be argued that an official status does not automatically define the character of a festival. Second, the differences in character between the festivals can be explained by differences in current cannabis policies and laws. Dutch drug law and cannabis policy allowed for the presence of Dutch cannabis-related companies (e.g. coffeeshops, cannabis seeds and electronic devices for using cannabis). Although Dutch politicians plea for further steps away from criminalization, the political debate on cannabis policy reform appears less fundamental than in Germany. German cannabis policy is more restrictive. Therefore, it can be argued that, for cannabis reformers, there is much more to be gained in Germany than in the Netherlands. In the same vein, it would be expected that the festivals in Athens and Rome would be characterized by a higher level of politicization as the cannabis laws in these countries are much stricter than in Amsterdam and Berlin. Also, despite that the festival in Rome had the special name of “Antimopolismo Cannabinico” which is directly related with the recent political discussions in the country, the festival did not have any political atmosphere or any political characteristics. Furthermore, in Athens Cannabis Protestival, the level of politicization was low and the political characteristics were limited, even if the official name was “Protestival.”

Cannabis festivals can attract people for a variety of reasons. They may come to protest current cannabis policy, but they may also have other reasons. Reasons for attending cannabis festivals can be derived from reasons for attending festivals in general, where often mentioned reasons include “curiosity,” “escape from routine” or “entertainment” (Scott, 1996). Analysis of over two dozen empirical studies found similar as well as other “motivators” but revealed socialization as the most common dimension in motivators for attending music festivals (Abreu-Novais and Arcodia, 2013). Given that music usually is an important element of cannabis festivals, socialization could similarly be a major reason for attendance. Research has also shown that the specific type or theme of a festival may alter the motivations of attendees (Yolal et al., 2009), e.g., wine in the case of a wine festival (Yuan et al., 2005) or food in a wine and food festival (Park et al., 2008). In the same vein, one of the expected reasons for attending a cannabis festival would be to use cannabis.

In our research, the most prevalent reasons for attendance were “protest/activism” and “entertainment/leisure,” but not in the same order in the four cities. Historically, festivals were produced for political purposes (Jarvis, 1994) and they have been used as a space for the public to express dissent to the established order (Abrahams, 1982; Waterman, 1998). Besides serving as a space for resistance, festivals have also been linked to more organized movements for social change (Sharpe, 2008). Therefore, in the context of the current study we could claim, in accordance with the opinions of the organizers, that the festivals create a space where people can gather in public and oppose current policies regarding cannabis. It could also be claimed that cannabis festivals provide a platform for those who oppose cannabis prohibition and seek an opportunity to publicly speak out on specific issues that concern them, opposing current drug laws in particular. People with common social demands gather to demand legal changes that require political and social changes. In this respect, cannabis festivals are operating as an instrument of social change.

In addition to social protest, one major reason that festivals historically used to take place is for celebration, specifically a celebration of a culture, i.e., cannabis culture in the current context. The most common and encompassing type of public community celebration remains the festival (Arcodia and Whitford, 2007). The key characteristic of a festival that distinguishes it from other events is that there is a clear community and celebratory focus to the occurrence (Arcodia and Robb, 2000). Therefore, cultural festivals emerged to be a common platform for individuals to come together and display a socio-cultural ethos (Rokam, 2005). Also, entertainment is considered as a main part of the celebration and it has become the core of festivalization in the cultural urban landscape (Doğan, 2011). Furthermore, cultural festivals ultimately promote the continuation of a culture (Lee et al., 2012), where in the present case cannabis festivals not only aim to celebrate the cannabis culture, but also to contribute to its continuation.

In Berlin and in Rome respondents more often opted “for protest,” whereas in Amsterdam and Athens “for entertainment” was more common. Various aspects might explain a stronger preference for protest in Berlin and Rome. These two cannabis festivals in Berlin were framed as political events and they were officially labeled as such. This could also explain why the demand for the legalization of cannabis is expressed through a political march. In particular, several political parties were represented in Berlin. Furthermore, the Million Marijuana March in Rome had a specific demand directly related with political decisions concerning the regulation of cannabis cultivation for personal use.

The current investigation also suggests that younger festival participants are less interested in protest and political activism for cannabis reform. Across the four cities, older respondents (25+ years of age) were more likely to choose protest/activism as the main reason for attending the cannabis festival. One explanation could be that, in statistical terms, this age gradient suggests a “survival bias.” That is, the cannabis users who keep attending festivals are the ones that are more ideologically dedicated to cannabis. Another explanation could be that the older cannabis users, whether because of more social responsibilities (e.g. job and family) or based on personal experience, are more afraid of the negative consequences of repressive cannabis policies such as legal sanctions and stigma (Hathaway et al., 2011) and are more inclined toward activism for legalization. Alternatively, it could be that today’s youth and young adults tend to worry less about cannabis legalization. They may believe that cannabis is available anyway, whether in coffeeshops (Amsterdam) or from other sources (Berlin, Athens and Rome), so why not choose to attend a cannabis festival for entertainment rather than for activism?

Furthermore, frequent cannabis users were more likely to choose protest/activism as the main reason for attending the cannabis festival. It can be argued that, with more frequent use, cannabis users would benefit more from legalization. Assuming that cannabis is a more important aspect in the self-defined identity of daily users (Liebregts et al., 2015), it may be that they are more inclined to consider cannabis use as an inalienable civil right – a right that calls for protest and activism.

At the cannabis festivals in Berlin and in Rome, which were framed as political events and they were officially labeled as such, respondents more often opted for protest in comparison with Amsterdam and Athens where participants mainly chose to attend for entertainment.

All festivals were less male-dominated than one would expect from the gender distribution in the user population. In Europe last year, male cannabis users outnumbered females by a factor of two (EMCDDA, 2016). In our survey, among festival attendees in these four cities, close to four out of ten respondents were female. The majority of respondents were youth and young adults (aged 18–34 years), the age group reported to have the highest rate of current cannabis use in the EU (EMCDDA, 2016). However, many more minors (<18 years) were interviewed in Rome (29.1 percent) and in Berlin (15.0 percent) than in Amsterdam (0.5 percent) and in Athens (1.6 percent). One explanation could be that, in Dutch cannabis policy, a clear distinction is made between minors and adults. Since the mid-1990s, the minimum age to be allowed in a coffeeshop is 18, and this legal restriction is actively enforced (Wouters, 2013). Although this policy does not keep Dutch youth from using cannabis – lifetime prevalence among students aged 15–16 years was 22 percent, above the EU average of 16 percent (The ESPAD Group, 2016) – the minimum age policy for coffeeshops might discourage youth from attending a cannabis festival.

More than one out of five of the minors in Rome chose “to use cannabis” as the main reason for attendance. Furthermore, because of the extended illegal sale of cannabis, it could be argued that younger participants and specifically minors attended the festivals as an easy opportunity to find street dealers in order to buy and use cannabis at the festival. The majority of festival participants were current cannabis users, often daily users, and most respondents used cannabis at the festival. However, when asked for their main reason for attending the festival only a few reported “to use cannabis.” This indicates that, at least in cities like Amsterdam, Berlin and Athens, they do not need the public space of a festival in order to smoke a joint. However, in Rome, one out of five had attended in order “to use cannabis,” with the vast majority (96.8 percent) using cannabis at the festival compared with ~80 percent in the other festivals. Table III indicates that for the total sample, the younger respondents are more likely to opt for “to use cannabis” as an attendance reason.

Regarding the residency of the respondents more than four out of five in Athens were locals while more than three out of five were locals in Rome. In Berlin, more than half of the respondents were locals vs one in five in Amsterdam. In Amsterdam, one out of three respondents were expats and tourists vs nearly one out of six in Berlin, while expats and tourists were rare in Athens and Rome. One of the reasons to pay attention to the residency and the presence of tourism is because festivals are emerging worldwide as a growing and vibrant sector of the tourism industry (Arcodia and Whitford, 2007) and they play a major role in tourism industry development (Arcodia and Robb, 2000). The use of the term “festival tourism” is increasing among tourism researchers, the vast majority of whom conceive of the festival primarily in terms of its economic potential (Quinn, 2005). In addition, governments, cities and municipalities have also begun to look at these events as economic opportunities for tourism (Sharpe, 2008). However, this is not the case in our research. In establishing the connection between festivals and tourism for cannabis festival, the organizers’ aim is particularly relevant. In selecting artists, themes and direction the festival producers and directors can be seen as the “gate keepers” (Derrett, 2003) as they have absolute control of the marketing processes and festival strategy (Jepso et al., 2008). Even if all of the cities are considered significant touristic destinations in Europe for different reasons, the organizers did not mainly target on attract tourists, and neither the government nor the municipalities promoted the festival locally or internationally. The organizers of Cannabis Bevrijdingsdag and Hanfparade tried to promote the festivals mainly in other provinces and also in other neighboring countries, such as Belgium and Austria, respectively. Furthermore, the fact that the websites were in both Dutch–English and German–English, respectively, could be considered a basic attempt to overcome the national borders. That did not happen in Athens Cannabis Protestival and Million Marijuana March where the promotion was limited at to national level.

Conclusion

Cannabis festivals represent a category of special events in an era where cannabis legalization is gaining momentum. Particularly in Europe, cannabis festivals are organized in many countries by civic organizations who aim to intervene in the politics regarding cannabis legalization. The organizers aim to protest against current drug laws and cannabis policies and at the same time celebrate cannabis culture. Cannabis festivals in Amsterdam, Berlin, Athens and Rome have common features but also maintain and reproduce local, social and cultural characteristics. Cannabis festivals, as well as their visitors, represent heterogeneous categories. They can be understood as an expression of cultural politics, a celebration of cannabis culture or represent a protest movement.

In the total sample, age ranged from 14 to 70 years (mean age 24.9 years) and close to two-thirds were male. Overall, 18–24-year-old respondents constituted the largest age category. The vast majority of respondents had used cannabis at least once in their lifetime, and nine out of ten had used cannabis in the past month. Over half of respondents were daily cannabis users, but more often in Amsterdam than in the other cities, and least often in Athens. The analysis also reveals that in the total sample, eight out of ten respondents used cannabis at the festival. A large majority of respondents thought that the cannabis festival they attended positively affects the social and cultural acceptance of cannabis. Furthermore, the vast majority of respondents replied that they would not hide their attendance of the festival. The negative answers were slightly higher in Berlin and Rome, the cities with rallies and younger respondents.

The most prevalent reason for participating in cannabis festivals was “entertainment/leisure” or “protest/activism,” but there were significant differences between the four cities, with “protest/activism” most often reported in Berlin (41.6 percent) and Rome (45.0 percent), and “entertainment/leisure” in Amsterdam (38.3 percent) and Athens (45.5 percent). The style of the festival – music festival or march combined with music – affects the main reason for attendance by the participants. In cannabis festivals more similar to music festivals, the majority of the respondents attended for entertainment while at the cannabis festivals in the form of a march combined with music the majority attended for protest. Furthermore, increasing age, residency and the high frequency of cannabis use are factors that led the participants to attend for protest.

This study has implications for research as well as policy making in various fields. Future studies may use this study and its results as a platform for guidance in further research. Cannabis festivals may serve as important research fields for getting in contact with large numbers of cannabis users. Future research on cannabis or cannabis users could be held at these festivals. Furthermore, this paper identifies motivations for attending cannabis festivals and could be added in the increasing literature of event studies concerning participant’s motivations. Last but not least, city officials, policy makers, festivals organizers and promoters could use such information to expand these events into new areas, i.e., tourism – in places that cannabis is legal, i.e., California, Colorado, etc. – in the same way that music festivals do. Cities that hold cannabis festivals could also conduct research in order to understand the potential benefits or the socioeconomic importance of holding such events; and to explore the potential impact of cannabis festivals on the national or regional drug policies.

The main limitations of this study must be acknowledged. Study limitations include restriction to only four capital cities from four European countries, respectively. Although our study in Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome and Athens guaranteed some variation in national drug policies, future research could include more variation. Another limitation refers to the survey among festival attendees. The festival participant samples were not normative, and we used a short questionnaire. However, given that festival attendees do not make up a well-defined population, the method we applied enabled surveying a large number of outdoor festival participants in a limited time. One more limitation to be mentioned is that participants in the survey could not be given private space to complete the questionnaires, and may therefore have been influenced by others in close proximity. Furthermore, qualitative interviews could deepen insight into attendees’ motivations for participation in cannabis festivals, the role of age (or maturity) in this matter and also provide a further insight on the social and cultural acceptance of cannabis as it is perceived by the attendees.