Drug Markets and Dealing: From’ Street Dealer’ to ‘Mr Big’

Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

South

2015

Aims: Describes how the relative normalisation of recreational drug use in the UK has been productive of, and fused with, the relatively normalised and non-commercial social supply of recreational drugs. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 60 social suppliers of recreational drugs in two studies (involving a student population n ¼ 30 and general population sample n ¼ 30). Respondents were recruited via purposive snowball sampling and local advertising. Findings: Both samples provided strong evidence of the normalised supply of recreational drugs in micro-sites of friendship and close social networks. Many social suppliers described ''drift'' into social supply and normalised use was suggested to be productive of supply relationships that both suppliers and consumers regard as something less than ''real'' dealing in order to reinforce their preconceptions of themselves as relatively non-deviant. Some evidence for a broader acceptance of social supply is also presented. Conclusions: The fairly recent context of relative normalisation of recreational drug use has coalesced with the social supply of recreational drugs in micro-sites of use and exchange whereby a range of ''social'' supply acts (sometimes even involving large amounts of drugs/money) have become accepted as something closer to gift-giving or friendship exchange dynamics within social networks rather than dealing proper. To some degree, there is increasing sensitivity to this within the criminal justice system.

Section: Duncan (21) Student Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

The normalisation of drug supply: The socialsupplyof drugs as the “other side” of the history of normalisation

Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

South

2015

“…In respect to blame-worthiness and harms related to small-scale addicted user-dealing, user-dealers are arguably less culpable than commercially orientated sellers and this is increasingly recognized in regard to sentencing practice in England (see Coomber, 2004; Harris, 2011; Moyle and Coomber, 2015; Moyle et al, 2013; Release, 2009; UNODC, 2015). Although a few studies have pointed to the importance of ‘addiction’ (Lewis, 1994; Pearson, 2007) and involvement in supply as an alternative to other acquisitive crime (Akhtar and South, 2000; Shammas et al, 2014), there have been few attempts (at the time of writing) to use Bourdieusian theory as a means of exploring choice, constraint and culpability concurrently.…”

Section: User-dealer Conceptualizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bourdieu on supply: Utilizing the ‘theory of practice’ to understand complexity and culpability in heroin and crack cocaine user-dealing

European Journal of Criminology

2016

The act of user-dealing has largely been explored within criminology in conjunction with the 'drug-crime' link or with a focus on ethnography and subculture. Whereas it is known that many users of drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine engage in small-scale supply as a way of generating revenue, less is known about the particular interplay of social context and choice that leads them to pick this income-generating activity over other potential options. Contributing to a burgeoning literature, this article explores the constrained choices of user-dealers with reference to Bourdieu's 'theory of practice ' (1977). Through locating stories of failure in user-dealer narratives, we utilize this novel approach in criminology, illuminating the importance of working with all of the interrelated concepts of habitus, field and capital in appreciating user-dealing as 'practice'. It is argued that application of this framework affords the previously unharnessed opportunity to use Bourdieusian theory to understand notions of culpability when sentencing this group.

“…Criticism has been levelled at the use of TQ’s due to the stark divisions between possession and supply thresholds. Such divisions have been suggested to lead to disproportionate responses regardless of culpability (Harris, 2011a), arguably a consequence of the homogenous depiction of drug dealers per se (Coomber, 2006, 2010), as well as a failure to recognise the blurred distinction between end users and retail dealers (Pearson, 2007). In real terms, the idea of intent being tied with quantity represents as equally a problematic position in respect of proportionality in relation to the new guidelines.…”

Section: Recent Developments: the Impact Of The Drug Offences Definitive Guideline (2012)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Crushing a Walnut With a Sledge Hammer? Analysing the Penal Response to the Social Supply of Illicit Drugs

Lowther

2013

Social & Legal Studies

The evidence base relating to illicit drug markets, drug supply activities and drug seller characteristics increasingly presents a picture of diversity, whereby differing motivations for supplying suggest different levels of culpability and divergence from a homogenised image of the drug dealer. This paper seeks to explore one specific aspect of this divergence, that of social supply and how the Criminal Justice System currently deals with this in practice and principle. It is argued that social supply is qualitatively distinct from drug dealing ‘proper’ and although this distinction is increasingly acknowledged within the Criminal Justice System, current approaches neither conform to principles of proportionality nor sufficiently understand the nature of social supply to deal with it effectively under existing legislation. Following consideration of these issues, it is argued that social supply should become a distinct offence in law, analogous to how manslaughter is distinguished from the more serious offence of murder.