Pathways to Drug Dealing in the Middle and Upper Classes: Early Marginalization, Relative Disadvantage and Countercultural Opposition

Abstract

Drug dealing is widespread in all sectors of society but is still studied predominantly in disadvantaged urban areas. We identify three main pathways to drug dealing based on qualitative interviews with middle- and upper-class individuals in Oslo, Norway. First, problems in the family and school and a lack of belonging in affluent neighbourhoods intersected with drug use and eventually led to recruitment into the illegal drug economy. Second, criminal entrepreneurship developed among relatively disadvantaged people who dealt drugs in an affluent low-risk context. Third, dealing emerged from involvement in drug liberalization and medical marihuana countercultures. The first pathway is similar to trajectories in disadvantaged urban areas, while the others reveal the importance of studying drug dealing in the upper layers of society.

Law-abiding criminals: Young adults’ driftintoandout ofrecreational drug sales

“…And Jacinto et al (2008) argued that transitions into drug sales can also be driven by (9) profit motives, and more conscious choices. Finally, a recent study by Berger et al (2022) found that (10) ideological idealism, aimed at promoting a drug liberalisation agenda, can also play a role in middle-class individuals' drift into drug sales.…”

“…Moeller, 2017;Søgaard et al, 2019;Kalkan, 2021). As noted by Salinas (2018), however, there is today a small but growing body of research that explores drug sales among society's more privileged groups (see Curcione, 1997;Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010;Jacques & Wright, 2015;Salinas, 2018;Perrin et al, 2021;Berger et al, 2022). Furthermore, recent years have also seen a growth in studies focusing on so-called 'friendship markets' (Dickinson, 2017), composed of relatively mainstream young people who, aside from using drugs and functioning as 'friend suppliers' , live largely law-abiding lives (Coomber & Turnbull, 2007;Duffy et al, 2008;Potter, 2009;Coomber, 2010).…”