|
The U.S. public is concerned about drug sellers. In recognition of this concern, the present drug laws making drug possession illegal are generally aimed at the drug peddler. The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and other enforcement agencies insist that they are only after heavy drug sellers.
The official description of drug dealing assumes the existence of a highly profitable, well-organized, pyramid-structured criminal underworld controlling the distribution of drugs.' While this description may be true at the upper levels of cocaine and heroin selling, it is probably not true at the street level. Information on marihuana and hallucinogen dealing indicates the absence of a pyramidal structure. Even at the high levels of dealing, several marihuana dealers may import large quantities from Mexico. At the lower levels of selling, there are many sellers, but few profit significantly.' If anything, the average dealer of marihuana, hallucinogens, and pills probably earns a relatively low income compared to his earning potential in the "straight" world. Income from selling is further reduced by the sellers own use of drugs, gifts of drugs to friends, and informal constraints of the subculture such as demands in underground newspapers for dealers to "lower their prices and hand out more free drugs."3
The antimarihuana position and the vast majority of the public maintain and strongly believe that the crucial motivation for student drug selling is the desire for profit; marihuana sellers also sell hard drugs to enhance their wealth. Selling drugs is usually the means of making a living for long periods of time. Students who are marginal sellers are only a front for the real criminals controlling the drug market.4 Also common to the public image of drug sellers is the assumption that a nonusing adult is doing the pushing. Advertisements sponsored by Blue Shield show a picture of a handsome white man standing in a suburban setting with his eyes blacked out. The caption reads, "If you don't talk to your kid about drugs, this man will. Better you than the pusher on the corner" and urges the parent to send for a pamphlet published by Blue Shield.' This conveys the impression that pushers are adults who spend all their time selling drugs to children who are essentially nonusers and uninformed about drugs (like the parents' child).
Close observers of drug dealing attempt to show the public's image of drug pushing does not accord with actual practice, especially among the student, hippie, and professional worlds. Although the profit motive is not denied, Carey and Goode note many other factors that affect patterns of selling. The most important variable, neglected by the official position, in the selling of marihuana is the frequency of use. Goode demonstrates a powerful linear relationship among 200 marihuana smokers: 11% of the less than monthly versus 92% of the daily marihuana users have ever sold marihuana.6 He also indicates that having regular marihuana-using friends increases the probability of selling. Goode feels that selling marihuana is really a function of involvement in the drug subculture: "The fact that a given individual sells—whether it be done once, occasionally, or frequently, specifically for a profit—is determined mainly by his involvement in the drug, in its subculture, with others who smoke."' The same argument holds for other drugs. The more frequently a person uses the drug, the more likely he is to buy and to sell it.
Although the frequency of use is perhaps the most important variablKhaving contact with many regular users increases the likelihood of selling. Within drug-using circles, being a seller is associated with having knowledge about "what's happening" and occupying a prestigious position in the group. Selling also gives the person a chance to promote other drugs that he feels are beneficial and a chance to indoctrinate others to his point of view.8
The Blue Shield image of a drug pusher as a nonusing adult is also unacceptable, especially to Carey. The seller resembles his clientele and sells mainly to close friends who are very much like himself: "The anticipated customers are friends or friends of friends, so totally profit oriented motives are rare. Small users will decide to push anticipating profiting from small sales to their friends. Heads will figure to sell to fellow heads, Hell's Angels to Hell's Angels, professors to professors."9 In short, the seller, at least at the lower levels of dealing, is not a distant adult that the user buys drugs from on a few occasions. The seller is someone of the same age and much like the user, if not a close friend.
If this similarity between users, buyers, and sellers really exists, what is the process through which users become sellers? The transition from user to buyer and then to seller is a function of normal socialization into the subculture. Although many marihuana users never progress beyond the point where they share a joint with a circle of friends, many persons increase their use of cannabis and feel an obligation to supply the group of friends with marihuana. If the user buys in small quantities of individual joints or a "nickel" ($5) bag (about 1/5 ounce, enough for eight to fifteen joints), he pays a high price per joint. But buying small quantities on a regular basis greatly increases the risk of arrest. Furthermore, a buyer is likely to be offered an ounce on a "take it or leave it" basis; this is a larger quantity than he actually needs. The chance of being arrested with an ounce is about the same as with a nickel bag, and the purchase of a larger quantity saves money on a per joint basis. However, an ounce will provide fifty to seventy joints, more than a weekly user and his friends would generally consume in three months. If caught possessing this amount of marihuana, the person is subject to relatively heavy penalities (intent to sell rather than possession)." Thus present drug laws encourage the sale of an ounce.
A more important season for selling is that friends may want some marihuana and offer a reasonable price for part of the ounce; it is then extremely difficult not to sell. Indeed, Carey indicates that "hardly anyone thinks of himself as crossing a line that makes him a pusher," because he may be selling part of something he does not really want. 11 If he has marihuana-using friends, a buyer quickly learns that he can sell enough marihuana to cover his expenses and have enough left over for his own use; he can "smoke free."
Frequently, the person who sells at one point in time may later buy from the person he sold to previously. The person who sells is determined by who has the contact with a higher-level seller. The decision to move to a higher level of selling (pounds or kilograms or selling hard drugs) is a function of one's use, the size of one's circle of friends and friends of friends, the desire to be in the center of the drug scene, and the potential profit.
Carey and Goode suggest that a meaningful typology of drug sellers can be constructed. Although the data to develop a detailed typology are not available, dimensions that might differentiate different levels of drug selling will be discussed. The various types of sellers overlap to some extent, but each type indicates increasingly greater involvement in the selling of drugs.
The "trader" drug seller appears to be equivalent to Carey's "give-and-take barter system."12 The trader sells to close friends mainly because he wishes to smoke free. The profit obtained is so minor that he gains no more than spending money; he probably cannot live on what he obtains from selling. Furthermore, the trader is very likely to buy from someone to whom he has sold previously; the person who sells is the one with a contact who can supply the drug desired. The trader usually sells marihuana, although he may sell other drugs if he has them when a friend requests them.
The "dealer" has a wider circle of buyers. He probably sells to close friends for little profit and to friends of friends and those who can establish that they are not police for profit at current market prices. Usually the dealer will sell LSD and pills as well as cannabis but probably will not sell methedrine, heroin, or cocaine. 13 The dealer usually makes enough profit from his sales to use drugs free and to have enough money left over to provide a living. He probably clears (after expenses and gifts to friends are deducted) not much more than $100 per week, less than many factory laborers earn.14
The "pusher" may be divided into two types. The "hustler" is probably equivalent to Carey's "street pusher" or Goode's "nickels and dimes" hustler. The hustler actively searches for buyers whether they are friends or not. He actively sells to anyone who will buy and faces the greatest probability of arrest. The hustler will probably sell any drug he can obtain to those who wish to buy it. Although selling at the highest possible price, the hustler seldom makes much money because of competition from dealers and traders."
The most important pusher is the "big pusher," who almost always sells to other dealers or hustlers and generally in large quantities. He is the equivalent of the wholesale merchant and seldom sells less than a pound or a kilogram of marihuana in one sale. He may employ persons to sell drugs at a lower level to increase his profit. He probably sells to those who have a consistent record of selling fairly large quantities of marihuana or other drugs. The big pusher generally buys drugs in large quantities (frequently more than $1000 worth), imports marihuana from Mexico, or buys other drugs from underground chemists or "rip-off" men (burglars). However, the proportion of big pushers in a drug-using population is probably very small. For example, about 5% of Goode's marihuana sellers usually sold pounds of marihuana: in 1968, 8% of Blum's sellers claimed incomes of $1000 per month; in 1970-1971, 31% claimed such profits.16
Each type of seller is likely to buy from the level immediately above him. Thus, traders will probably buy from dealers, and dealers and hustlers from big pushers. The higher the level of selling, the greater the number of different drugs sold. Thus, most traders infrequently sell small quantities of cannabis; the sale of LSD or a few pills is rare. Most dealers probably have a basic supply of cannabis, can sell hallucinogens and pills, and may be able to obtain methedrine, cocaine, or heroin upon request of their buyers. Big pushers may have several kilograms of marihuana available and can quickly obtain large quantities of other drugs if they do not have their own stock.
Thus, according to Goode and Carey, the crucial factor in the selling of drugs is the illegality of cannabis. The increasingly regular user of marihuana needs a supply for his use. If he is using on a regular basis, he cannot obtain the drug legally, as he can cigarettes and alcohol; he must buy it illegally. But unless he has a very good friend who will sell him a few joints or nickel bag, he will have to buy large quantities. Goode indicates that in 1970 the most common retail quantity was the ounce, or "lid.' However, an ounce is more than a weekly user needs, so smaller quantities are sold to friends. Once a person has sold, he is likely to be approached again by friends and friends of friends. In short, the lack of legal cannabis and the structure of an economically feasible black market in cannabis lead the regular cannabis user into selling cannabis.
The data will show the following points that demonstrate the crucial nature of the illegality of cannabis: (1) Students sell cannabis as they become increasingly regular users of the drug; no other factors strongly affect the relationship between using and selling of cannabis. (2) The selling of cannabis is almost a prerequisite for the sale of hard drugs. (3) Among cannabis sellers, students sell other drugs (LSD, pills, etc.) because of their increasingly regular use of these substances. (4) Involvement in the illicit buying and especially the selling of drugs is a very good indicator of the concept of drug subculture participation.
In order to measure involvement in the illicit buying and selling of various drugs, the following questions were asked:
A much larger proportion of the total population indicated involvement in the buying or selling of cannabis (marihuana or hashish) than in the buying or selling of any hard drug. Cannabis sales will be examined first.
Persons were classified with respect to cannabis as follows: (1) "sellers" if they had ever sold cannabis, regardless of whether they had ever bought it (there were forty-six persons who had sold but not bought);" (2) "buyers" if they had bought but not sold the drug; and (3) "none" if they had never bought or sold the drug. The data indicate a very simple answer to why students buy or sell cannabis. The more frequently students use marihuana, the more likely they are to buy and to sell cannabis. In the present sample, of the 1567 noncannabis users, 99% had neither bought nor sold cannabis; 40%, 82%, and 95%, respectively, of experimental, moderate and regular users had ever bought or soldcannabis. In a similar fashion, 0.8% of the noncannabis users, 10% of the experimental, 41% of the moderate, and 72% of the regular users had ever sold cannabis; a very strong relationship is thus obtained between the use and sale of cannabis.
Hence, one must now investigate whether the relationship between the use and sale of cannabis is strongly affected by other factors also significantly related to the sale of cannabis. Three variables that either are theoretically interesting or have an important impact upon the use-sale relationship have been selected.
Graph 5.1 contains findings that tend to disprove some of the assumptions about drug selling made by supporters of present laws. The study did not, unfortunately, have a good question that might tap the desire for profits as an important motivation in cannabis selling. However, if there is an actual need for profit or money, marihuana selling should be most common among students from low-income backgrounds. Instead, Graph 5.1 shows that the students from high-income (more than $25,000) families are 14% (%S = 29%-15%) more likely than those from low-income (less than $7000) families to sell cannabis. But the truth of the matter is that the 14% difference due to family income is greatly reduced to an average percent difference of 3% when the use of cannabis is held constant. Among regular cannabis users, students from low-income families are as likely (71%) to sell as high-income students (73%). The importance of profit as an important factor in initiating cannabis selling is somewhat suspect, at least among the college students in the sample.
Another tactic used to prevent selling is to pass strong laws and to enforce them strongly. Such tough laws should deter cannabis users from selling. However, the data show that weekly cannabis users who fear arrest are almost as likely (69% versus 73%) as those who do not fear arrest to sell cannabis. Data presented in Appendix A show, furthermore, that very high selling rates (91%) occur among regular users who have been stopped or arrested for a drug violation. This high incidence of selling occurs because police accurately stop those who sell. This evidence demonstrates that the fear of drug-related arrest seldom deters a regular marihuana user from selling (also see Chapter 10).
Goode's emphasis upon the drug seller's involvement in the drug subculture is partially verified.19 In the third part of Graph 5.1 it is shown that having cannabis-using friends increases the probability of marihuana selling even when cannabis use is held constant. Among regular cannabis users, those with few, versus most, cannabis-using friends are less likely (50% to 74%) to sell cannabis. As can be seen in Graph 5.1, the use of cannabis is more important in determining cannabis selling than having cannabis-using peers. Appendix A presents additional information on other measures of subculture participation showing that the independent effect of marihuana use upon cannabis selling is about three times more powerful than the independent effect of other measures of subculture participation, such as one's life style, exposure to hard-drug-using friends, and belief in the benefits of drug use.20
Hence, the data demonstrate that cannabis selling is a direct function of cannabis use. In an attempt to disprove this relationship, thirty or more other variables were held constant. Holding constant the sex, religiosity, peer-culture participation, cigarette and alcohol use, disobeying parents, bullying, theft, anomie, alienation, exposure to friends who use other drugs, the use of other drugs, political orientation, living arrangements, college major, and other factors does not strongly affect the positive linear relationship between the use and the sale of marihuana.
And here is a central conclusion of this book: the illegality of cannabis is a very important factor in understanding the sale of cannabis. The reasoning behind this conclusion is as follows: College students engage in cannabis selling for one main, very rational reason; they need to obtain a supply of the drug that they use regularly. In the process of gaining this supply, students must frequently buy a larger quantity of marihuana than they can reasonably use in four months and are likely to sell it to friends who want some. They quickly learn that they can smoke free by selling to a few friends. This cycle of use, purchase, and sale of cannabis could be successfully altered by a fundamental change in U.S. drug laws. If laws were changed so that cannabis users could legally obtain what they needed, few persons would have a concrete reason to illicitly buy cannabis, and since there would be few buyers, the illicit sale of cannabis would be substantially reduced.
There is a compelling historical precedent that indicates the central role that laws may have upon illicit drug selling: alcohol prohibition. During Prohibition there was probably a strong relationship between the frequency of alcohol use and illicit buying. It is not clear, however, whether heavy drinkers also became involved in illegal selling. What is clear is that after prohibition ended the illegal production and sale of alcohol reached negligable levels in a few years." In a similar fashion, legal cannabis would probably reduce the illicit purchase or sale of cannabis to very low levels even among regular users; but this opinion, shared by Blum's drug sellers, cannot be proven at present.22
If the frequency of cannabis use is a major factor in the illicit purchase or sale of cannabis, may not a similar relationship exist between the frequency of use and the illicit purchase or sale of each hard drug? The study has classified students according to their use and nonmedical use of each drug and their source of each drug or involvement in illicit sale. Chapter 3 attempted to separate the nonmedical use of prescription drugs from medical usage. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had ever used methedrine, amphetamines, or sedatives (barbiturates or tranquilizers) more frequently or in larger doses than directed by a doctor, or in an international attempt to get high. Persons who responded positively to either item were classified as illicitly using the drug.
Respondents were then classified on each prescription drug: (1) "nonusers" if they had never used the drug; (2) "marginal users" if they indicated ever using a drug but had not illicitly used it; (3) "illicit: less than monthly" if they had illicitly used the drug but had never used it as frequently as once per month; (4) "illicit: monthly or more" if they had ever illicitly used it once per month or more frequently. For drugs such as hallucinogens, cocaine, and heroin, the "marginal" category does not apply. There is no way to medically use these drugs; present laws define all use as illicit use.
In a similar manner, an attempt was made to classify the source from which each hard drug was obtained and/or whether a person had ever illegally sold it. Respondents were classified as follows: (1) "sellers" if they had ever sold the drug; (2) "buyers" if they had ever bought the drug from a friend or illicit drug seller but had never sold it; (3) "prescription source" if they had obtained the drug from a doctor or doctor's prescription but not illegally bought or sold it; and (4) "none" if they had not legally purchased or illegally bought or sold the drug. In many cases, persons who have illegally bought or sold the drug may have also legally obtained it. Indeed, data not presented here demonstrates that a quarter of those who illicitly use sedatives and about 10% of the illicit amphetamine users obtain these drugs only from legal prescriptions.
Nevertheless, the majority of illicit drug users obtain their supplies from the illicit market, and many become involved in selling drugs. The sale of hard drugs will prove central to the theory and main empirical findings of this book. The following chapter will demonstrate that it is involvement in selling drugs (especially hard drugs) and not marihuana use that explains how marihuana users become heroin users and perhaps users of other hard drugs.
One can analyze how students become hard-drug sellers in Graph 5.2. In the original relationship, there is, as for cannabis, a strong relationship for each hard drug between drug use and drug sale. For example, almost none (0.2%) of the nonamphetamine users, 6% of the marginal users, 25% of the irregular, and 51% of the monthly or more amphetamine users have sold amphetamines. Similar two-way relationships hold for all other hard drugs: the more regular the use of each drug, the greater the involvement in selling that drug.
However, unlike the cannabis use-sale relationship (which is not affected by other variables), there is one factor that strongly affects the use-sale relationship for each hard drug. Graph 5.2 demonstrates that involvement in selling cannabis, not hard-drug use, is the crucial factor in explaining hard-drug sales. The top section of Graph 5.2 shows that regular (monthly or more) amphetamine users who neither buy nor sell cannabis are unlikely (4%) to sell amphetamines. Likewise, among persons who only buy cannabis, the illicit users of amphetamines (5% and 14%) are relatively unlikely to sell amphetamines, especially when compared to the original relationship. It is only among cannabis sellers that regular amphetamine users are much more likely than less regular users to sell amphetamines. It should also be noted that cannabis sellers seldom become involved in selling drugs that they do not also use. Among cannabis sellers only 2% of the nonamphetamine users sell it; 8% of the non-LSD users sell hallucinogens; and 1% of the nonheroin users sell heroin. Similar findings hold true for sedatives, cocaine, and methedrine (see Appendix A, Table 20).
The bottom section of Graph 5.2 is particularly crucial to the theory in the following chapter. One finds no heroin selling among heroin users who only buy cannabis or who neither buy nor sell marihuana. But there are also very few heroin users (numbers at bottom of the bars) among those not buying or selling cannabis (6 + 7 = 13) or even among cannabis buyers (36 + 5 = 41). Thus, it appears that cannabis selling is strongly correlated with heroin use. It should also be noted that there are many cannabis sellers (666) who do not use heroin. The basic point is that the vast majority of college cannabis sellers are not supporting a heroin habit. A similar argument can be made for the methedrine and cocaine; however, similar conclusions for sedatives, amphetamines, and hallucinogens are less compelling.
Why is it that cannabis selling is such an important precondition for the sale of hard drugs? Although the following discussion is somewhat speculative, it is based upon what little evidence is presently available. In American society, there is considerable pressure, both legal and especially informal, against drug selling that affects all dealers.23 In many respects, persons who become sellers must be emancipated, as Becker suggests, from societal controls that attempt to limit supply, to define selling as immoral, and to expose most drug sellers to nonusers who would negatively sanction selling activities. 24
But the data show that large proportions of drug users become drug sellers. Thus, many persons manage to ignore or to become isolated from societal restraints against selling; the question becomes "How do students become increasingly involved in selling?" The data suggest that beginning involvement in the buying and selling of drugs is predominately a function of the use of cannabis. Blum finds that the first drug purchase and sale occurred with a neophyte dealer sharing or selling cannabis at cost to users or buyers at a social gathering; less than a quarter of first sales were to make a profit.' Thus, a budding drug seller generally makes his first sale in a setting that isolates him from pressures against selling and also provides social supports that he may find emotionally rewarding; he is supplying friends who want what he has to offer and who appreciate his services. The crucial point is that through the same supportive peer groups that induce the use of marihuana, increasingly regular users of cannabis are isolated from, and rewarded when they overcome, the social barriers that prevent drug sale. Without this peer-group support, most regular users would be unlikely to sell. So fundamental is cannabis use and sale to the drug subculture that it is mainly (or almost only) among such cannabis users and sellers that the users and sellers of hard drugs are recruited.
As a budding seller becomes known, he may be asked by others to supply cannabis or hard drugs. When approached by acquaintances (as opposed to friends), the person may consider the potentialities of making money and provide the drug on that basis.26 Further selling activities may isolate him from nonusers and pressure against selling as well as provide him with a modest income (generally less than $100 per week) and free drugs.27 In this sense, profit as a motivation for drug sales is about as important to the drug seller as to a small businessman; it is essentially a way to make a living and gain respect from important reference groups. There are, of course, some exceptions; big dealers, although few in number, may make exceptional profits from a few hours' work. 28
Most importantly, cannabis is probably the bread-and-butter drug for sellers at all levels." While providing a low profit per sale, the tremendous demand for cannabis generates a large number of sales, which makes cannabis economically feasible. Although there is no data presently available, student drug sellers would seem to depend heavily upon cannabis sales for a majority of their income. In addition, as the person becomes increasingly involved in selling cannabis, he is also likely to begin using hard drugs and perhaps to be asked to sell these drugs. If he sells hard drugs on a profit-making basis, he will probably depend upon contacts made from cannabis sales to meet customers willing to purchase hard drugs. However, as Graph 5.2 demonstrates, cannabis sellers are not indiscriminate hard-drug sellers; they sell only the hard drug that they use.
Nevertheless, economic motives play an important role in the illicit drug market. Student sellers, especially those selling upon a somewhat regular basis, seriously consider and attempt to maximize income. They do make money, although it is probable that the amounts are small for most sellers. Thus, despite the fact that few students amass great wealth from drug selling, there is definitely an economic motive in student drug selling. But it must be emphasized that this economic motive is secondary to the seller's own use of a given drug and, perhaps, to the rewards of prestige and respect conferred upon the seller by the subculture." The individual seller's income is further reduced by the subculture's expectations that he will provide "free grass" (or drugs) at parties and to close friends, as well as dictating in what drugs he may deal (LSD and pills are acceptable; heroin is not). In addition, student sellers are constrained, like legitimate businessmen, by competition from other sellers, as well as by limited and irregular supplies."
When all of these constraints upon sellers are taken into account, the progression from cannabis selling to hard-drug selling is frequently motivated by the desire for a higher income, since hard drugs have a higher profit per sale than cannabis. 32 However, among cannabis sellers, hard-drug sales are frequently motivated by the person's use of the hard drug; income is decreased because the seller uses drugs that would provide the profit margin. But it is doubtful that many college students give up selling cannabis when they begin selling hard drugs; cannabis sales probably continue to supply an important source of income and provide potential customers for the hard drugs.
Thus, most hard-drug sellers are probably recruited via cannabis use and cannabis sales. Further research into the motivations of drug selling is badly needed, however.
To further prove the centrality of cannabis sales to illicit purchase and sale of hard drugs and to develop the major indicator of drug-subculture participation, the number of hard drugs (methedrine, amphetamines, sedatives, hallucinogens, cocaine, and heroin) that respondents have purchased and sold were counted. Although not presented, data about the number of hard drugs purchased show a strong relationship between cannabis buying-selling and the purchase of hard drugs. Thus, among persons who have never bought or sold cannabis, 2% have illegally bought hard drugs, while 30% of the cannabis buyers and 67% of the cannabis sellers have purchased hard drugs.
Data in Table 6 demonstrate that 0.4% of the nonbuyers and nonsellers of cannabis, 6% of the cannabis buyers and 52% of the cannabis sellers have sold hard drugs. Looking at this result from the opposite direction, about 90% [(212 + 192)/(252 + 196) = 404/448] of those selling hard drugs have also sold cannabis. The main conclusion is that the purchase of cannabis precedes the purchase and sale of hard drugs and that the sale of cannabis is almost a prerequisite for the sale of hard drugs.
Table '6 has another very important function; from it will be derived a variable, the Illicit Marketing Index, with which one can prove the validity of subculture theory. This book asserts that the Illicit Marketing Index is a good measure of: 1) the different levels of participation in the illicit drug market, 2) the concept of drug subculture participation, both theoretically and empirically, and 3) the effects of present drug laws upon patterns of illicit drug use. Indeed, the rest of this book is an attempt to provide empirical proof of these three assertions.
While there are many ways in which this variable could be developed, the simplest is used here. The following pages will develop a measure of increasingly serious involvement in the activities of buying and selling drugs. In doing so, an attempt will be made to isolate groups that are crucial from both a policy viewpoint and a theoretical perspective and have sufficient cases for detailed analysis.
An examination of Table 6 reveals that 2098 respondents state that they have not bought cannabis or sold any drug." To these nonbuyers, nonsellers are added the 7 respondents who left blank the questions on buying or selling of drugs; these respondents had never used cannabis or other drugs (data not presented). However, all of the respondents who refused to answer the buying or selling questions had used cannabis and some other drugs; the refusals have been excluded from the Illicit Marketing Index.
Some 559 respondents claimed to have purchased cannabis illicitly but not engaged in any selling activities. Persons who have bought drugs other than cannabis are intentionally excluded. The three reasons for not including these hard drug buyers along with cannabis only buyers are that there are fewer buyers of hard drugs only than cannabis only buyers (46 versus 559); that including them would not greatly alter the results; and most importantly, the data suggest that persons who only buy cannabis do not differ greatly from those who'do not buy marihuana or sell drugs (nonbuyers, nonsellers). The drug scene's equivalent of the retail customer (cannabis buyer) is more like the nonbuyer than like those heavily engaged in illicit selling activities. If this conclusion emerges, then legalizing cannabis might not have a detrimental effect upon society. Thus, the study will here concentrate upon cannabis buyers.
In Table 6, there are 379 persons who have sold cannabis only and not hard drugs. Most (90%) of these persons have also bought cannabis. These students are interesting because they have confined their selling activities to cannabis and have not sold other drugs.
The last two categories isolate those selling hard drugs; those who sell three or more drugs are more involved than sellers of one or two drugs. The few persons who have sold hard drugs but not sold cannabis are included; their inclusion will have little effect upon the basic findings. About 85% of the sellers of one or two hard drugs have also sold cannabis, while 98% of the sellers of three or more hard drugs have sold cannabis. Some subsequent chapters will combine those who sell one or two hard drugs with those selling three or more into one category of "sell hard drugs," in order to have sufficient cases to prove a theoretical point when holding constant two or three other variables.
Our total sample is classified on the Illicit Marketing Index as follows:
The categories of the Illicit Marketing Index are valid indicators of different levels of involvement in the college student drug market. Nonbuyers and nonsellers are essentially uninvolved in this market. Persons who only buy cannabis are marginally involved, while the last three categories indicate increasingly deep involvement in the illicit drug market. These three different levels of selling may correspond closely, although not perfectly, with the typology of sellers discussed earlier. The person who only sells cannabis may be the equivalent of the trader; he probably sells to close friends just enough to smoke free. He is losing nothing, but his monetary gain is very small. The person who sells cannabis and one or two hard drugs is probably intermediate between the dealer and trader. He probably sells to friends but also may have sold marihuana to friends of friends. He may occasionally sell hard drugs to friends at cost and hence be a trader. But a person who has sold one or two hard drugs to nonintirprates or who is specializing in the sale of a particular drug, such as hallucinogens, while avoiding the sale of pills and narcotics, is more of a dealer. On the other hand, the person who sells three or more hard drugs (and cannabis) is probably fairly close to the concept of a dealer. Although it is possible for a person to "trade" that many drugs, most such persons probably sell on a regular basis and have contacts who can supply them with drugs they or their customers want. A small number of these dealers may even be pushers, supplying large quantities to other sellers. However, one can only speculate about the convergence between the number of drugs sold and the typology of drug sellers developed earlier; there is no data to prove how intimate a seller is with his buyers or the amount of drugs a person has sold.
The Illicit Marketing Index is theoretically independent of drug use, and yet both factors are strongly related because the present drug laws have made the nonmedical use of drugs illegal. Hence, involvement in selling is a good measure of the illegality of drugs. There is no natural law that requires students to use a drug before selling it. There is a concrete reason for the high correlation between use and sale; regular users of a drug have the greatest interest in obtaining the drug. Since they cannot legally obtain it, the task of illegally obtaining and distributing the drug becomes that of regular users by default. Thus, laws designed to discourage the use and the sale of cannabis and other drugs appear to have just the opposite effects: they induce a large number of persons to become sellers. If cannabis could be obtained legitimately, like alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, and tea, even very heavy users might be unlikely to sell it. Sedatives and amphetamines are legitimately dispensed by doctors, and as a result are somewhat less apt to be illicitly bought and sold than the drugs that can never be legally obtained (data not presented). Further, when a drug is very popular but illegal, such as cannabis and hallucinogens, almost three-fourths of the regular users are likely to become sellers.
The drug most crucial to the cycle of use, purchase, and sale is cannabis. It is by far the most popular drug, the most frequently used, bought, and sold. In the sample population, cannabis use appears to be a prerequisite for the use, purchase, and sale of hard drugs.' Thus, in many crucial ways, the illegality of cannabis becomes a central issue; the consequences of the illegality of cannabis will be explored in subsequent chapters.
The Illicit Marketing Index will be the central measure of the concept of drug-subculture participation. Heavy involvement in selling drugs is essentially an outgoing activity. The seller is likely to meet and befriend a wide variety of persons who use and sell a large number of drugs. Sellers are probably the first to learn about new drugs, new ideas, and new beliefs and in turn teach these new beliefs and behaviors to their customers. Because of the danger they face and the large market they supply, drug sellers are accorded considerable prestige in the drug community. Drug sellers are, in short, at the center of the drug subculture and of "what's happening" in the world of drugs.'
But most importantly, the Illicit Marketing Index is a better measure of drug-subculture participation than the other two measures of drug use.,,In the analysis to be reported in the following chapters, involvement in the purchase or sale of drugs, not the frequency of cannabis use, is the most important factor in understanding both exposure to hard-drug-using friends and involvement in delinquency, crime, sex, and plans to leave college. The following chapters will show that when the Illicit Marketing Index is held constant, there is a significant reduction in the relationship between the use of cannabis (as the independent variable) and hard-drug use, friendships with users of hard drugs, crime, premarital sex with four or more persons, and plans to leave college. Similar findings emerge from analysis of the relationship between the Multiple Drug Use Index and crime, delinquency, and sexual behavior. 36
Several interesting questions arise, questions that the present study cannot answer. Rather, panel data about drug use and the purchase or sale of drugs at two different points in time for the same sample of persons is needed. However, the following questions are important and locate areas of concern for future research in this field: What is the relationship between the use of cannabis and the use of other dangerous drugs? Does a person need to sell cannabis before he begins to use other dangerous drugs? Or does his use of hard drugs lead a cannabis user to begin selling cannabis and then hard drugs? Does a regular user of a hard drug, such as heroin, methedrine, or hallucinogens, depend upon marihuana selling to support his heavy drug consumption? Answers to these questions are important but somewhat beyond the scope of the present book.
However, the data suggest some basic guidelines about certain patterns of events in this sequence of drug involvement: (1) The use of marihuana is almost essential for the nonmedical use of hard drugs (see following chapter) and involvement in the buying or selling of cannabis and other dangerous drugs. (2) The use of a hard drug is almost a prerequisite for the illicit purchase or sale of that drug. (3) Involvement in the buying or selling of cannabis is almost a prerequisite for the illicit purchase and especially the sale of other dangerous drugs. (4) The illicit buying of a drug probably preceeds the selling of that drug. (5) Only among cannabis sellers are increasingly regular users of a hard drug likely to sell that drug.
This chapter suggests that a possible and reasonable way to stop drug selling is to permit students to legally obtain cannabis. Before one can discuss the policy implications of these findings, one must investigate other controversies about drug use, the most important of which is whether marihuana use leads to hard-drug use.
REFERENCES
1. Robin Moore, The French Connection, Boston: Little, Brown, 1969 describes how the Mafia imported drugs into the United States in 1962. However, Charles Grutzner, "Mafia Is Giving Up Heroin Monopoly," New York Times, Sept. 2, 1968, claims that organized crime has gotten out of heroin. Rather than giving up, it appears that the Mafia has moved to South America: "Heroin: Now It's the Latin Connection," Newsweek, Jan. 24, 1972, pp. 24.26.
2. James L Carey, The College Drug Scene, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1968, pp. 68-93. Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers, New York: Basic Books, 1970, pp. 243.263. Richard Blum, "Drug Pushers: A Collective Portrait," Transaction, July-August 1971, 18.21. Richard Blum et al., The Dream Sellers, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972, p. 39.
3. Goode, Ref. 2, p. 250.
4. Will Oursler, Marijuana: The Facts, The Truth, New York: Paul Erikson, 1968, pp. 113-120.
5. Blue Shield ad, Blue Shield, N.Y., N.Y.
6. Goode, Ref. 2, p. 252.
7. Ibid., p. 255.
8. Ibid., pp. 257-259. Blum, Ref. 2, pp. 49, 113, 140, 233.
9. Carey, Ref. 2, p. 73.
10. The legal distinction between simple possession and possession with intent to sell fluxuates considerably from state to state. A close reading of "The Criminal Penalities tinder the Current Marijuana Laws," compiled by National Organization to Reform the Marijuana Laws (NORML), Washington, D.C., July 1, 1971, shows that nine states (none with a population of three million) have made the possession of less than an ounce a minor offense or misdemeanor; many other states treat possession cases as felonies without regard to the amount of drug possessed.
11. Carey, Ref. 2, p. 70.
12. Ibid., p. 68.
13. Anonymous, "On Selling Marijuana," in Erich Goode, Marijuana, New York: Atherton Press, 1969, p. 94. This comes close to fitting the description of the dealer as we understand this concept. There are many such dealers working at legitimate jobs and selling marihuana to their coworkers: Nancy Mayer, "How the Middle Class Turn On," New York Magazine, Oct. 20, 1969, pp. 42-46.
14. Goode, Ref. 2, p. 260. Blum, Ref. 2, p. 140.
15. Carey, Ref. 2, p. 72. Goode, Ref. 2, p. 256.
16. Goode, ibid., p. 251. Blum, Ref. 2, p. 39.
17. Goode, Ref. 2, p. 248.
18. For forty-six respondents, it appears that a friend gave them marihuana, which was later sold to someone else.
19. Goode, Ref. 2, p. 255.
20. This finding is justified by the following facts, which can be verified in Table 19 presented in Appendix A: The average percent difference in cannabis selling due to cannabis use is reduced from 71% to about 60% (average percent difference) when measures of subculture participation are held constant. However, the 40%-50% differences in cannabis selling due to subcultural variables are reduced to less than 20% (average percent differences) when cannabis use is held constant. Thus, the independent effect of cannabis (60%) is three times as powerful as the independent effect of subculture variables (20%).
21. Robin Room, "The Effects of Drinking Laws on Drinking Behavior," Paper presented at the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Denver, Colorado, August 28, 1971, p. 5. Gerald Globetti, "Problem and Non-Problem Drinking Among High School Students in Abstinence Communities," Paper presented at the First International Conference on Student Drug Surveys, Newark, September 14, 1971, shows that problem drinkers were more likely (70% versus 30%) than nonproblem drinkers to obtain alcohol from "merchants and bootleggers" in Mississippi abstinence towns.
22. Blum et al., Ref. 2, p. 51.
23. Ibid., pp. 38, 142.
24. These ideas are borrowed from Becker's discussion of marihuana use but also apply to drug selling: Howard S. Becker, Outsiders, New York: Free Press, 1963, pp. 59-78.
25. Blum et al., Ref. 2, p. 33.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., p. 39. Goode, Ref. 2, pp. 249-251. Carey, Ref. 2, p. 90.
28. Blum et al., Ref. 2, pp. 39, 141. Carey, Ref. 2, pp. 99-117.
29. Carey, ibid., pp. 89-95.
30. Goode, Ref. 2, pp. 248-259.
31. Carey, Ref. 2, pp. 73-79.
32. Ibid., pp. 94-110.
33. Concealed among these 2098 cases are an unknown number of persons who failed to respond to the questions on buying and selling. In editing the answer sheets, the researcher marked such blank responses as "never" bought or sold. Hence, an unknown number of persons who may have actually bought or sold drugs are incorrectly classified as not involved. The ramifications of this editing mistake are discussed in the following chapter.
34. We will demonstrate in the following chapter that the use of cannabis appears to be a prerequisite for the use of hard drugs.
35. Goode, Ref. 2, pp. 257-259, and Carey, Ref. 2, p. 84, discuss the importance of the prestige motive among sellers. Jerry Mandel, "Myths and Realities of Marihuana Pushing," in J. L. Simmons, ed., Marihuana: Myths and Realities, North Hollywood, Calif.: Brandon House, 1967, pp. 58-110, feels that prestige is not an important motive.
36. See Chaps. 8-9.
|
