Ross Coomber

Using the Internet for Survey Research

The Internet and electronic mail increasingly offer the research community opportunities that it did not previously have. Access to information has increased as has access to and discussion with those working in similar areas. One other aspect of ‘cyberspace’ which presents enormous possibilities to the research community, currently in its infancy, is the use of the Internet to reach individuals as research subjects. In particular, there may be significant research benefits to be gleaned where the group being researched is normally difficult to reach and/or the issues being researched are of a particularly sensitive nature. This paper outlines some recent survey research using the Internet as the interface between researcher and researched. The target group, illicit ‘drug dealers’, are difficult to access under normal conditions and contacting a spread of such individuals across international borders was previously prohibitive. A discussion of sampling issues is undertaken which concludes that the Internet can be a valuable source of indicative as opposed to easily generalizable data. A practical guide to undertaking research via the Internet is also included.

Arenas of Drug Transactions: Adolescent Cannabis Transactions in England-Social Supply

The issue of the social supply of illicit drugs is an important one because it delineates a separate category of “dealing,” whereby friends supply or facilitate supply to other friends. Supply of this nature has been argued to be sufficiently different to “dealing proper” to justify a different criminal justice approach in relation to it. This has been argued to be particularly true regarding social supply among young people who use substances such as cannabis. This research involved interviews with 192 cannabis users in six (three rural, three urban) locations in England. Most were exclusively cannabis users. Nearly half (45%) had been involved in some form of supply, and 78% reported sharing their cannabis with others. Nearly all supply events were between friends within a close age range. The findings suggest that there is little contact by young cannabis users to the wider drug market and that it may be better to understand this activity as taking place in an “arena of transaction” rather than seeing it as an extension of the normally conceived drug market. We argue that there is sufficient difference within this arena of transaction from the wider drug market for most activity there to be dealt with less punitively by the criminal justice system.

Street-Level Drug Market Activity in Sydney's Primary Heroin Markets: Organization, Adulteration Practices, Pricing, Marketing and Violence

This study is a qualitative exploration of two distinctive high-profile street drug markets in Sydney, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 street-level heroin dealers about their experiences of selling drugs in these areas, market organization, drug adulteration and quality assessment practices, and the extent and impact of violence associated with these markets. Most dealers operated independently, working for themselves or in loosely defined groups of two or three with little or no hierarchy while others acted as “runners,” selling for others for a percentage of sales. A range of “folk” or nonscientific methods were employed for testing the quality of drugs, and adulteration or “cutting” of drugs was rare. Moreover, this research suggests that even during periods of heroin scarcity, increased adulteration is not an inevitable outcome. In contrast to popular perceptions, dealers in both areas cooperated with each other, and little intimidatory rivalry was reported or observed. Indeed, most participants considered violence to be fairly rare, largely avoidable, and not an inevitable consequence of their involvement in the market. Numerous popular drug market and drug dealer stereotypes about the two locations were not supported by the findings.

Beyond drug dealing: Developing and extending the concept of ‘social supply’ of illicit drugs to ‘minimally commercial supply’

A concept of ‘social supply’ has emerged in the UK that describes drug transactions that are almost exclusively to friends and acquaintances and that are non-commercially motivated. Social suppliers are increasingly understood not to be drug dealers ‘proper’ and many argue that the criminal justice system should consider and process them differently to commercially motivated suppliers. Recent (2012) changes to sentencing guidelines in England and Wales that have attempted to accommodate this will continue to struggle to deal with social supply however due to a continued reliance on how culpability is defined. This article explores the rationale for understanding social supply activities as a specific form of supply and a new (lesser) separate offence and also outlines a rationale for extending the concept to one of ‘minimally commercial supply’ something that explicitly accommodates the real-life circumstance of most supply transactions and is also inclusive of addicted user-dealers of heroin/other substances whom might reasonably be seen as closer to social suppliers than to drug dealers proper.

Multiple drug use: patterns and practices of heroin and crack use in a population of opiate addicts in treatment

One hundred and sixteen opiate addicts attending treatment services in south London were interviewed about their drug use patterns. In the month before interview, 90% reported heroin use, while 60% had used crack cocaine and 58% alcohol. In the same period, 70% of participants reported multiple drug use, particularly concurrent heroin and crack cocaine use. Of the patients who reported using other drugs with heroin, two-third used crack cocaine, 11% diazepam, 9% methadone and 8% cocaine powder. Twenty-six per cent of crack users sample had injected crack cocaine, which provides confirmation of the increasing prevalence of this recent trend in studies using similar samples. Male participants were significantly more likely to use benzodiazepines with heroin, while women were more likely to use crack alongside heroin (and used larger quantities). These findings have implications for the treatment and management of multiple drug users, for whom opiates may be only a part of their drug-using repertoire.

Drug use and drug market intersections

There is a newish vogue in UK drug market research – that of the ‘mapping’ of drug markets. Numerous studies funded both locally and centrally are looking to build a picture of what particular drug markets look like in various locations around the UK using ‘best-practice’ methodology. This mapping of the drug markets is encapsulated within a further current vogue – the desire for an evidence-based policy. Both however, whilst laudable in terms of aim are in danger of giving their ‘evidence’ a level of credibility beyond what it deserves, merely because it has been wrapped up either in a ‘process’ or a method of information-gathering which alludes to something complete (mapping) or in the claim to better knowledge (evidence-based) that is supposedly free of rhetoric or bias. It is the case however, that the current methods of drug market mapping are highly questionable if not fundamentally flawed and too many evidence bases are constructed at the whim of politicians and civil servants who look toward building up evidence around predetermined issues and concepts (e.g. collating information on ‘best practice’ of school prevention programmes or, as mentioned, mapping drug markets) – an approach that largely reinforces existing ideas about what kind of evidence should be collected and why. Thus, there is a tendency for evidence of ‘what works’ or the ‘best practice’ to be collated on existing approaches. So far, there has been scanty evidence to suggest that an evidence-based policy seeks to assess whether or not the conventional approaches themselves are worthy of assessment in their entirety. A fundamental tool in the mapping of drug markets relates to the interviewing of ‘Key Informants’, i.e., those individuals considered to be key to ‘knowing’ about the local market. At first sight, the kind of individuals targeted seems to make sound logical sense: drug users; drug dealers; senior police officers; drug workers; treatment community leaders, etc. The problem arises when one considers exactly what these individuals actually ‘know’ about the drug markets in their respective areas – and the bigger the area or the more thickly populated it is, the more difficult the task will be, which in reality can amount to very little. The result could be a little more than an amalgam of perspectives, many of which will be based on assumptions and uninformed beliefs. Let me give an example, in my previous research on the adulteration of drugs, I found that just about everyone believed that cutting was prevalent down through the chain of distribution and thought it to be particularly bad at the street level, where anything from rat-poison to ground glass was used. This practice was indeed confirmed by those in the most privileged position to know – the drug dealers themselves. These ‘Key Informants’ are about as ‘key’ as you can get, yet what did they really know – not very much as it turns out. Forensic evidence from seizures around the UK, the US and other parts of the world consistently shows that little drug adulteration occurs after

There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: How “Freebies” and “Credit” Operate as Part of Rational Drug Market Activity

Twenty-one incarcerated drug dealers and 60 opiate users were questioned about the provision of “freebies” (free drugs) and credit in drug market transactions in London and the UK. In particular, each group was asked about the context within which either of these activities might occur and the underlying rationales for them. In contradiction to the common image of drug dealers providing “freebies” as an attempt to secure the custom of nonaddicted individuals (often portrayed as children), it emerged that the provision of free drugs and credit took place within tightly circumscribed conditions. Primarily, the provision of free drugs and credit (two distinct modes of operation with differing outcomes) were available to those known and “trusted” by the dealer and used to cultivate and bond customer relations (freebies) as well as facilitate continued business with the reliable (credit). Credit was not used to “trap” individuals into a dealing relationship. Rather, both parties approach it cautiously. How the provision of free drugs and credit are representative of broader aspects of dealer/user seller/buyer relationships, with particular emphasis on the management of that relationship, is discussed. Brief consideration is also given to the context of drug sales at raves and other dance events, as it is often the case that “the offer” in this context may be made to users unknown to the dealer.

Using Cannabis Therapeutically in the UK: A Qualitative Analysis

Thirty-three therapeutic cannabis users in England were interviewed about their experiences using an illegal drug for therapeutic purposes. Interviews were semi-structured, and responses highly qualitative. Particular issues included how and why cannabis was used therapeutically; what problems its illegality posed in terms of access, cost, reliability of supply, and quality of the product; the perceived beneficial effects of its use; and unwanted effects (problems in relation to family, friends, partners, the criminal justice system, and the health care system). The study did not seek to prove or disprove the efficacy of cannabis used as a therapeutic agent merely to report the experiences of those who use it in that way. It was found that users perceived cannabis to be highly effective in treating their symptoms, to complement existing medication, and to produce fewer unwanted effects. Smoking was the preferred method of administration, permitting greater control over dose and administration. Problems related to prescribed medication motivated many to use cannabis therapeutically. Few problems were experienced with friends, family, partners, and the criminal justice or health care systems, although other concerns about cannabiss illegality were reported. Although most were relatively unconcerned about the risk involved and were determined to continue use, many resented that they felt they were being forced to break the law. Problems relating to access to the drug (in an illegal context) and managing its administration were reported. A brief discussion of the continued prohibition of cannabis for this group is undertaken, and a harm reduction approach is suggested.

The Cutting of Heroin in the United States in the 1990s

This paper explores the nature of drug adulteration and dilution (‘cutting1’) practices relating to illicit drugs and heroin in particular in the US in the 1990s. The conventional model which assumes that the cutting of drugs takes place down through the chain of distribution is no longer applicable to the drugs trade in the US. In recent years the purity of heroin available in the US has risen tenfold and its availability increased. Changes in adulteration/dilution practices have accompanied this shift. New data shows that rather than adulteration being systematic and predictable it is in fact unsystematic and likely to be undertaken by a minority of those involved in its distribution for a whole variety of reasons. Evidence is also presented which suggests that the majority of adulteration/dilution is carried out prior to importation and that this is with comparatively harmless substances.

How social fear of drugs in the non-sporting world creates a framework for doping policy in the sporting world

Doping policy is usually presented as though it sits separate from other societal issues, and yet in part, it is clearly a reflection of the broader concerns and historical responses to drug use in the non-sporting world. This is an under-researched aspect of doping policy formation and continuity. With reference to a number of key ‘drug myths’ and a broad discursive framework of fear and ‘othering’ in the non-sporting world, this article will attempt to show how the ‘drug problem’ has been essentially framed in that arena so that comparisons can be made to the development of doping policy. It will be argued that the broader social context has long inflected upon doping administrators and doping policy and that this has resulted in a relative mirroring of policy formation discourses and trajectory found in the non-sporting world. It will be further argued that this mirroring is reflected in a number of key drug myths and discursive positionings that have emerged in the sporting world: for example, that efficacious performance enhancement is a simple issue, that the health risks are like playing Russian Roulette, that doping undermines sport/morality to a degree that other forms of cheating do not and that doping policy is rational. It will be argued that a fear-based approach to drugs policy can result in a policy that does not protect those it is supposed to and results in a disproportionate and uninformed response.