CHAPTER 3 Emerging Models of Crack Distribution BRUCE D. JOHNSON, Ph.D. Narcotic and DrugResearch, Inc.,New York ANSLEY HAMID,Ph.D. John JayCollege of Criminal Justice, City Universi ty of New York andNarcotic and Drug Research,Inc. HARRY SANABRIA, Ph.D. Narcotic andDrugResearch,Inc.,New York University of Pittsburgh INTRODUCTION "Crack. " Virtually unheard of in 1985, crack inspires hysteria across the United States. Hundreds of articles on crack have appear edin maj or news-papers such asthe NewYorkTimes(Morgan et al. , 1989; Goode,1989) and WashingtonPost."Crackheads,""crackbabies,""crackmothers,""crack houses,""crack epidemic," and the like have quickly become part of common parlance and daily concern. Drug use and trafficking, according to Attorney General Thornburgh,represents " ... the greatest nonmilitary assault on theminds,bodies, andwell-being of our citizensinour Nation'shistory" (U.S. Department of Justice 1989:1) . The United States isin the midst of a "drug panic" {Goode, 1989) and "drug scare" (Reinarman &Levine, 1989); its centerpiece iscrack. Much research has been published during the past two decades on the useand(toalesserextent)saleof"hard"and"soft"drugs,especially marijuana, cocaine, and heroin (Douglas, 1970; Goode, 1970; Johnson, 1973; Single &Kandel,1978;Clayton& Voss, 1981;Elliott et al.,1984;Hamid, 1987,1988b;Johnson&Wish,1986a,Wish&Johnson,1986;Preble& Casey, 1968; Cortina, 1970; Hughes, 1977; Moore, 1976, 1977, 1978; Man-ning,1980; Kaplan,1983; Kleiman,1983, 1989;Zinberg, 1984;Hanson et al.,1985;Williams&Kornblum,1985;Johnsonetal. ,1985;Reuter& Kleiman, 1986; Speckart &Anglin, 1986; Mieczkowski, 1986; Adler, 1985). 56 Int roduclion57 Yet research on crack use and dealing is sparseat best (Holden, 1989). A few researchprojectsbegunatthe endofthe lOSOsare beginningtobe pub-lished in the 1990s (Williams, 1989; Fagan, 1959;Frank et al., 1988; lnciardi, 1986; Weisheit, 1990; Wallace, 1989ab, 1991; De LaRosa, Lambert, & Gropper, 1990). Most of these proj ects have not measured or ignore crack salesanddi stributionasacent ral question mdissue.Only afewpapers present specific information about crack distribution and dealing {Bourgoi s, 1989; Dunlap et al.,1990;Hamid, 1991;& Chin, 1989, 1990; Fagan, 1989; Johnson et al.,1990; Skolnick et al., 1059). The purpose of this chapter isto provide emergi ng models or paradigms for understanding and interpreti ng the comph issues associated with crack distributionandindividualcareersindealingcrack.Thiswillinvolvea criticaldi scussionaboutthestructure,orgwization,andfunctioningof crack distribution at the street andnear stree:-level,and suggest the inter-play of factors which underlie the evolution ar.d consolidation of street-level crack dealing organizations.Whilemost of the discussionfocuses on New York City (in which the authors are currentlrconducting research on crack distributors),similarthemes emergeinothercitiesaswell.This chapter presents conceptual constructs drawn from?riorresearch onother hard drugsellers,r ecently completedstudies on cocaine-crack dealing,and on-going ethnographic fieldresearchin New Ycrk City.Reports fromnews-papers and a variety of official government agrncies are also reviewed. The firstsectionprovidesasuccinctdescription .0f cr ack,itskeyphysiological effects,and appearance of crack dealing throoghout the United States. The structure andfunctioningof crack distribut:onisprovidedinthesecond section.Inthethirdsection, severalimportantfactorsarereviewedthat affectthe appearance, spread, and consolidat:on of crack dealing organiza-tions at the street andnear street-levels. FROM COCAINE TOCRACK The coca plant grows widely in the easten low-lying areas of the Andes (especially Peru and Bolivia). Inthe entirer egion, coca leaf chewing and drinking of coca leaf tea is both legal and traditional (Morales, 1989). The discovery and extraction of cocaine and relatei products from the coca plant in 1850s revolutionized medical treatment b1oroviding local anesthetics for dentistry, optics, and other injuries. lnterna.t;;,nal agreements and national legislationin1906-1920s attemptedtolimitcocai neuseformedicalpur-poses. Such controls were quite effective upto1970 (Rouse & Johnson, 1990). Throughout the 1960s and early 1970srublic concern centered mainly on theuse of the "hard drug" heroin, otherp;ychoactive substances (LSD, etc.),and "soft"drugs such asmarijuana. Atthattime,cocainewas very 58 Chnpter3 IEmrrgmgModels v{ CrnckDistril111tion expensive;itsusewasprimarilyamongupper-cl asscustomers who con-sumeditinrelativelyconcealedsettings,oramongheroinabuserswho mixed heroin and cocainepowder together andinjected itasa "speedball" (Adler,1985; Johnsonetal., 1985, 1990). Bythelate1970s,the context andpatterns of cocaineconsumption changed dramatically. Cocaine prices began to rapidly decrease, due primar-ilytomassiveincreasesincocacultivationintheeasternAndesandthe consolidation of processi ng andtrafficking enterprises in Colombia(Sana-bria, 1989; Morales, 1989; Mabry, 1989; Lee, 1989). Andean coca cultivation continues to expand in spite of the drop in coca prices and increased cocaine interdiction and coca eradication efforts (Bureau of International Narcotics Matters,1990). Between 1975 and 1985, cocaineuse doubled among high schoolseniors(Johnston,O'Malley,&Bachman,1988:65),butdeclined slightly in 1987 and 1988. Its use spread throughout all socioeconomic strata of thepopulation (Johnson et al.,1990).Cocaine prices have continuedto fall."It isvirtually impossible to identify another product-oiL real estate, wheat-whose price has declined by two-thirds to three-quarters in five or six years"(Skolnick et al.,1989:19). On theWest Coast, amethodfor "freebasing" cocaine hydrochloride was devel oped to remove common adulterants, and to convert it to the more potentsmokingform.Originallyarelativelycomplexprocessinvolving highly flammable liquids, the freebasing process has been simplified via the "baking soda" method which can be safely accomplished in two hours. Many New York dealers nowuse microwaves to shorten the "drying time" to five minutes. During the early 1980s, freebasing grew in popularity, undermin-ing the cocaine snorting culture (Williams, 1978) which was replacing mari-juana dealing aswell(Hamid, 1990, 1988a, 1988b). The use and saleof crack isarecent phenomenon.In 1983- 4,anew form of cocaine, called " rock" or "rock cocaine" appeared initially on the West Coast (Klein, Moxen, &Cunningham, 1988; Skolnick eta!., 1989) and soon afterwards in New York under the name"crack."The term "crack" probably came about as theresult of the "crackling" noise it produces whensmoked. The sale of crack vials in New York probably begansometime in 1984; the firstnewspaperarticlepopularizingthename"crack"(Br ody,1985) appeared at the end of 1985. Crack use has since exploded throughoutthe New Yorkmetropolitanarea and elsewhere intheUnitedStates(Reinar-man&Levine,1989; Goode,1989;NewYorkTimes,1986;Newsweek,1986; Time, 1986). Crack use andsellingis by no means restricted to low-income minority urban neighborhoods (Skolnick et al., 1989; U.S.Department of Justice,1989).Yet duetoprofound socioeconomictransformations inthe economy andthe socialinfrastructure of inner-city neighborhoods inthe 1980s, use and sale of crack is often conductedby young adults (Time,1988) intheseneighborhoods(Williams,1989;Johnsonetal.,1990;Johnson, TllrStruct ure ami Fu11cliouing ofCmckDisfribufionGroup;59 Dunlap,&Williams,1990;Bourgois,1988;Reinarman&Levi ne,1989; Fagan&Chin,1989,1990). Crack is essentially freebase cocaine,mass-produced and prepackaged in small plastic vials, and sold at relatively low unit costs ($3- 20 each). In manyareasofthecount ry,crackisnowsoldintinfoilor "baggies"li ke cocaine powder or h eroin.But many crackusers, especially the compulsive ones, will buy severa l vials at a time, orreturn rapidly to purchase additional vials or supplies. When crackisheatedbyalowflame,thepurecocaine present inthe sample is vaporized; but other adulterant s do n ot vaporize. The user inhales thef umeswithpipes,stems,andother paraphernalia.Thepurecocaine fumesgo directlytothealveoliofthelungswheretheyentertheblood stream (along with oxygen), and are pumped by the hear t to the brain where they activate the production of chemicalneurotransmitters (dopamine and norepinephrineespecially)thatquicklygenerateintensesensationsof euph or ia,pleasure,alertness, confidence, andthe like-the "high."Dueto therapidityofabsorptionandhighpotencyofcocainebeingconsu med within a short ti me period (viacrack),the "high" occurs more rapidly and is muchmore intenseviacrack (orfreebase) than isthenasalinhalationor "snorting" of cocaine (VanDyke &Byck,1983). The crack "high"lasts,however,for lessthant hirtymi nutesandis quickly followed by "rebound" - sensations of depression and a deep craving for an additional high. The depression goes away two or three hours after thelas t dosage. Theperiodicity of crack'seffects- rapid and intense high, followedby a quick and equally in tense feeling of depression and craving-explainsits h ighlyaddictivenature.But many(andprobablymost) daily crackusers willexpendmost oftheir ti me andfinancial resourcesto gain additional administrations of crack.The economic returns for hours of work in the crack business, quite literally "go up in smoke!" Such compulsive crack users receive their "j ustdeserts"(the crackhigh) and "surepunishments" (the cocainedepre ssion)-yetgo back formore! THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONING OF CRACK DISTRIBUTION GROUPS Hundreds of thousands, and perhaps over a milli on (Wish, 1990) persons are multi-daily users of crack and/or cocaine powder. Yet the sale of cocaine and crack isillegal and subjected to some of the heaviest penal sanctions in U.S. laws. This section provides anoverview of howindividuals who use or sell crackorganizethemselvessoastoroutinelyprovidethisillegalgoodto customers and attempt to avoidthe policeand penal sanctions.Some basic definitionsofkeyterminologyusedinthisarticleareprovidedinthe 60Clrapln3IEmerging Modelsof CrackDistribution glossary on page 72. The overall structure of relati onships is summarized in Table 3.1. Structure Thestructure of acrackdistributiongroupreferstoactualmethods andrelationshipsamongroles(Radcliffe-Brown,1940)forindividuals whose primary activity is selling crack. Roles refer to the specific activities/ function(s)that an individual is expectedto perform, aswellas duties and responsibilities that those functions entail (Merton, 1949). Since an individ-ual mayperform several distribution roles on a given day(seebelow),his primary role will be defined as that inwhich he hasthe most responsibility for money and drugs during aspecific period of time. The argot (street language) of crack distribution is complex, imprecise in meaning, constantly changing, and varies by city, or even within areas of a city.(Mieczkowski,[1989a:54-55]hascompiledalistofover150 "crack terms"employedinDetroit;onlyabouthalfareusedinNewYorkand frequently with different meanings. ) The definitions of crack distribution roles used here (Glossary and Table 3.1) are considered analogous to stand-ard roles and functions routinely used inlegitimatebusinesses- this helps convey more clearly what persons inspecific rolesmay do.Maj orlevels of distributiondelineatedbypriorresearchoncocaineandheroinselling (Adler,1985;Preble&Casey,1968;Moore,1976;Waldorfetal.,1977; Waldorf, 1987; Hamid, 1990) are presented in Table3.1. Theseprior studieson cocaineandheroinsellingsuggesttwomajor "ideal types" or models of drug distribution which may be applicable to crack dealing. As such, they may not exist in pure form, but nevertheless provide a basisforunderstandingrelationshipsamongpersonswhocooperateto distributeillegaldrugs,including crack.Eachof these models wouldhave numerous variations inactual practice. Free-lancemode].Inthismodel,actorsatalllevelsworktogether withoutclearemployee-employerrelationshipsbeingestablished.The actors cooperate voluntarilyto dist ributeaparticular amountandtype of drug. Allparties develop terms of agreement (how much money or drugs) forparticulartransactions.Iftransactionsoccursuccessfully,theyrna y renegoti ate similar arrangements on amoreregular basis.Noexpectation existsthattheywillcooperateinthefutureandfrequentlycooperating persons maynever see each otheragainafter a given transactioniscom-pleted. Over several months, therefore, an individual will have many differ-entpartners.Dealerswillprovidesuppliesof cracktoseveraldifferent sellers. Free-lance dealers may operate on either a "cash" or "consignment" basis. "Cash only" dealers operate likemost stores; the buyer must pay for the goods at point of purchase. Dealers who obtain drugs on consignment The Slrurl ure and Functioning of Crack Dist ribu!ionGroups61 TABLE 3.1Common roles and functionsat various levels of the drug distribution business and equivalent roles in the legitimate economy 1\pprvximatr role equiVtllm!s in lrgal markets Grower/Producer Manufacturer Traffickers Importer Wholesale Distributor Deniers Regional Distributor RetailStore Owner AssistantManager, Security Chief, Crack SpotManager/ Accountant, Proprietor Stl/m Store Clerk, Salesmen (Phone),Door -to-Door U>w-lwel distributors Advertiser,Security Guards, l eaflet Distributor Servant. Temporary Employee Rolesby "common names" al ooriouss/agesof I he drug dislribution"business'' Coca far mer, opium farmer, marijuana grower Collector , transporter, ela-borator, chemist, drug lord Multi-kiloimporter,mule, airplanepilot, smuggler, trafficker,money launde rer Major distributor, "kilo connection" " Pound a nd ounce men," "weight dealers" House connections, suppli-ers, crack spotsupplier, eightba llseller "' Lieutenant/ ' ''muscle men/' t ransporter , crew boss Street drug seller, "runners," juggle r, private seller Steerer,tout, copman, lookout , holder, r unner, helpfr iend, guard, lookout, go-be tween Run crack house,injector (of drugs), f reebaser,taster, apa rtment cleaner , d rug bagger, fence,launder money Major funclions accomplished nllhis level Grow coca, opium,mari-juana;t heraw materials Allstages for preparation of heroin, cocaine, mari juana as commonly sold Smuggling of large quan-tities ofs ubstances into Uni ted States Transportationandredis-tribution of mul ti- and singlekilograms Adultera tionand sale of modera tely expensive product s Adulteration and produc-tion of retaillevel dosageunits ("bags," "vials," "grams") invery largenumbers Supervisesthree or more sellers, enforces informal contracts, collect smoney, dis-tributesmultiple uni ts to actual sellers Makes actual directsales to consumer; responsible f orbothmoney and drugs Assists in making sales, adverti ses. protects seller f rompolice and cr imi nals, solicits cus-tomers;handles drugs or money bu tnot both Providesshor t-term servicesto drug users or sellers formoney or drug s;notr esponsible f or money or drugs 62Chnl'kr3 IEmergi11gMatlelsof CrackDislributio11 (aloan or advance of crack) expect the seller to return cash of about 50-70 percent of the value of the drugs at a specified future time to their supplier. Thisfree-lancemodelhasbeenmost effectivelydocumentedamong cocaine powder distributors (Adler, 1985; Johnson &Williams, 1986; Willi-ams, 1978; Waldorf et al., 1977; Waldorf, 1987). Free-lance distributors may or may not engage incrack smoking, but many do so.Endless variations in theamountsofdrugsprovided,pricescharged,returndates,lengthof cooperation,andspecificarrangementsoccuramongfreelancers.While manystreetsellersandlow-leveldistributorsmayprefertoworkona free-lancebasis,their own compulsive crackusemaypreventthemfrom havingcashwithwhichtobuydrugsforresale.Areputationfornot repayingmeans that suppliers will not providethemwith consignments. An interesting and confusing phenomena is the emergence of"confed-erations" of free-lancecrack distributors.Severalfree-lancecracksellers may obtaintheir supplies independently of eachother,but make "gentle-men's agreements" not to compete for customers,territory, or prices in a specificlocale.They agreetowarn others of police, and try to "move out" other dealers who are not part of the confederation (Dunlap, 1990). To crack customers andlocal ci tizens, such confederat ions of free-lance dealers may look very similartothe "business model." Businessmodel.Thismodelapproximatesanor ganizedprofit-making enterprise ("business")with clear-cut employer-employee relationships. In this model,a higher-level distributor (" dealer" or "supplier") sets the terms of employment, provides ("fronts") crack supplies, and collects money regu-larly.Whil epersonnelturnovermaybefrequent,employeeswhohave performed adequately can anticipate future drug supplies and expect a range of benefits such bonuses,food,lodging,bail money, and soforth. Two permutations of the ideal "business" model appear common. In a "verticalbusiness"modelof crackdistribution,amulti-layered,hierarchi-callystructuredorganizationemergeswhichcontrolsmostaspectsof employee behavior on the job, with numerous personnel occupying a range of interchangeable roles. Thus, a dealer may employ "lieutenants"to oversee "crew bosses" who supervise several street sellers and low-level distributors on the street(Mieczkowski, 1986, 1989ab).Sellers are assigned to work at particular street locations, sell only at a given price, and hand over all money to the crew boss and lieutenant. At the end of the day or week, each seller and low-level distributor is paidin cash or drugs for his work. The "franchisebusiness"modelof crack dist ributionoccurswhen a higher level supplier provides large quantities to regular (but smaller) deal-erswho buy hissupplies on a regular basis. The dealer isfreeto hire and organi ze hi s sellers and low-level distributors any way he chooses, as long as the supplier get s money on a timely basis. Consignments of large amounts of cocaineby thesupplier to the dealer are common(Williams, 1989). TireStructure nndFunclioning ofCmckDislril,utionCroups63 Crack dealing organizations whose structure approximates that ofthe "franchise business" or "vertical business" models appear to be increasingly present in many urban neighborhoods. The limited researchundertaken to date, however, does not support a claimthat single organizations monopo-li zethedistributionofcrackinanymajorurbancenter(Mieczkowski, 1989ab;Skolnicketal.,1989;U.S.Departmentof Justice,1989).Ra ther, inmajor ur bancentersan array of distribution groupsandindividuals-fromfree-lancedistributorstotightlycontrolled,verticall ystructured organizations- vieforcontrolofter ri tories,markets,andcrack-using customers. Drug gangs are distractions.A great deal ofpublicity over the pastt hirty yearshas inveighedagainst "gangs," particularly in Los Angeles and Chi-cago. Youth or cultural gangs are frequently based on a deep-rooted loyalty toandidentificationwithspecificneighborhoods(territory)fromwhich mostmembersarerecruited,andwhichgangmembersareobligedto defend(oftenthroughtheuseof violence).Membershipofferyouthsa sense ofidentity, belonging,security, and protection(Vigil,1988a, 1988b; Moore et al. , 1978). While some gang members sell drugs, many do not, and many crack sellers have never been gang members (Klein &Moxen, 1988). At arecent symposiumof experts(De LaRosa,Lambert &Gropper, 1990)wideagreementexistedthatyouthgangs(asorganizations)were generallynotmajor actors in crack distribution and that youth gangs and drug distribution groupswere relatively independent phenomena.Never-t heless,manynewspapers/magazinesfrequentlyusetheterm"gang"to describe crack organizations. The Justice Department refers to "street gang traffi ckers,""organized crime gangs" (U.S. Department of Justi ce, 1989:27), and namethe Vice Lords from Chicago, Bloods and Cri ps from California, Jamaican "posses," as well as California's Chicano street gangs; all are said to beheavilyinvolvedindrug distribution(especiallycrack)andexpanding their controlof distributionnetworksnationwide.InNewYorkCity,a dozen "drug gangs" are claimed to violently contest for control of the crack marketinNorthernManhat tan(Raab,1988).Skolnicket al.(1989)have suggested that the use of t he term "gang" obscures fundamental differences between drug-dealing associations andthe olderterritorial gangs. functioning of Crack Distribution Groups Thesuccess of verticallyorganizedcrack distributiongroupsliesintheir abilitytoorganizethelaborandproductivityofmanypersons(likeany business).Thisinturnrequiresstealthandsecrecy,closecoor dination betweennumerous personnelperformingvariousrolesand carryingout differentfunct ionsonacoordinatedbasis,theabili tytoattractrepeat customers, and willingness to use violence to maintain discipline and defend 64Cilapttr 3 IEmtrging Models ofCmckDistri lulion theirmarkets.Inrealit y,the ever-present possibility of arrestimplies that "workers" learn and must perform a variety of roles(steer,tout,look out, rundrugs,sell,holdmoney,etc.)everyday,whichcontributestothe continued operation and success of the organization. In the eventthat one worker isarrested, fired, or leaves, another caneasilyperformhisrole. Forexample,onedealercontrollingacrackhouseinDetroithada "lieutenant" who performed the following duties: take cocaine powder, drop it off andsellit;packthe stuff for potential buyers; and break the cocaine down into "eight-balls. " The "lieutenant" in turn had other workers directly employed by him (Mieczkowski, 1989a:23-24). Specializationoftasksisanother,yetcomplementarystrategythat crack dist ribution groups employ to minimize or ganizational damage in case ofar rest.Forinstance,"lookouts" warnof impendingdangers;"sellers" directly exchange crackforcashwithcustomers; "runners"continuously supplythe"sellers";andarmed"guards"or "enforcers"(Hamid,1991) maintain order and intervene in case of t roubl e. Contrary to popular views, workers at the bottom end of the crack distribution hierarchy earn relatively lowpayforworking long hours under difficult circumstances and in con-stant danger (Kalata, 1989). Steerers, lookouts, and direct sellers often earn amere$50to$80foratwelvehourshift(Hamid,1991;Mieczkowski, 1989a:26);andmany may "use up" their returnswhileselling. Top-level dealers or senior managers may rarely handle large amounts of cash and crack at any one given time. Specialization of tasks minimizes the potential damage and r isks to the organization-in terms of confiscation of money, goods, or drugs-in case of mass arrests. Vertically organized distri-bution groups may employ numerous supervisors (such as a "lieutenants"), personsto whom subordinates are directly accountableformoney and/or drugs . Supervisors may be the person(s) who provided suppli es of crack or other drug(s}onconsignment,or they may approximate alegalemployer who pays asalary for performance of particular dist ribution roles . The success of vertically organized crack distribution groups also rests on thei r ability to control their territories (discussedmore fully below) and especially their abilityto enforce work rules and maintaintight discipline. Key work rules may include the non-smoking of crack while onthe job and fullyaccountingformoney and/or crack owedonaregularbasis. In general, workers who break therules ca nnot, as in legitimate enter-prises, simplybe "fired. "In an environment marked by fierceandviolent competition, lackof trust and unpredictabl ebehavior,andthe presence of thieves,informers, and police,tight discipline and control cannot be main-tainedwithout ultimate recoursetoviolence(Hamid, 1990a).A variety of strategiescanofcoursebeemployedtopersuadeorforceworkersto conform to work rules: these may range from stressing friendship, kinship ti es, and loyalties; payment of a salary or percentage of sales; possibilities of workerstoengagein"sidehustles";roomandboard,"non-monetary FactorsInflutncirJg CrnckDislributiollGroups65 returns" (Johnsonetal.,1985);andliteralimprisonmentofindoorstaff (Mieczkowski, (1989a:29). Yet most vertically controlled crack groups must be able and willing to resort to ruthless violence- to instillfear and respect among competitors and workers alike.Thisthreatofviolenceultimately underliesthepowerof dealers and dist r ibutionheads(Bourgois,1988). FACTORSINFLUENCING CRACK DISTRIBUTION GROUPS The success of differently organized crack distribution groups-their abilitytoselltheirproduct,captureprofits,avoidarrest and,ifpossible, expand-hinges onthe interplay of a numberof key processesand condi-tions.Six of these are particularly important: competition, police pressure, markets, prior drug sellingcareers,prior drug use,and current crack use. Thefirstthree are structural,whilethe lastthree concernthe careers of involvedindividuals. Competition Free-lance sellers and crack distribution groups are in constant compe-tition. They compete foran essentiallysmall number ofcompulsivedaily crack smokers/buyers (Hamid, 1990; Goode, 1989).They also compete for territories and markets-locations where particular categories of distribu-tors and consumers meet to exchange crack for cash(or other goods and services),andwheretheprice,weight,andqualit yof crack,alongwith unique linguisticcodes, differ (Hamid,1990ab). Vertically organized crack businesses may emer ge in communities with extensive competition among numerous sellers, mainly as a means to limit suchcompetition andminimizeri sksandcosts.That is,inthelongrun, excessivelyintensecompetitionmaybreedhierarchicallyorganized businesses-withnumerouspersonnelableandwillingtouseforceto secureterritories-asapreconditionforsurvivalandmaximizinggains. Althoughcompetit ioninsalesofanessent iallyundifferentiatedproduct (cocaine freebase) of relatively high purity should lead to a loweri ng of unit prices (e.g., a $10 vial is sold for $8), in fact, this appears not to be the norm. Rather,intensecompetitionandthe goalofmaintainingprofitvolumes have led eitherto a progressive adulteration of the product (e.g., crack vials packedwith other substances),or to adecrease in its weight. Vertically organized distribution groups will assignemployees to par-ticularlocations,sothattheirsellersdonotcompete directlywitheach other. These groups will strive to control specific locales, spots, or corners and openly advertise their control of these locales by selling vials with caps of different colors. "Owners" of these locales may employ " muscle men" or "enforcers" to expel free-lance sellers and other competing distributors, and 66Chapter 3IEmerging Modelsof Crack Distribution will not hesitateto use violence against them if necessary (Goldstein, 1985, 1987; Hamid, 1990; Bourgois, 1988). As noted above, such organizations are al so most likelyto "hire" an array of salesmen and assist them with lower-level distributors as empl oyees (steerers, touts, guards,lookouts, holders of moneyor drugs,money anddrugrunners). Police Pressure Thetechniquesemployedbysociety,especiallypolice,toprevent or stem the distribution of crack decisively influences the structure and func-tioningofcrackdistributorsanddistributionorganizations,butdonot necessarily vanquishthem. In the mid-1970s, the New York Police Department (NYPD) prevented precinct officers frommaking narcoticarrests (to preventcorruption) and directed its Narcotics Bureauto make higher-level cases. Rival distribution groups soon adaptedto changed circumstances:hundreds of street sellers andlow-leveldistributorswereseeninmostareasofthecity{Zimmer, 1987). In some areas (Harlem and theLower EastSide), distributors setup drug "supermarkets" where thousands of buyers could compare prices and buy goods fromamong severalsellers. In1984thepolicelaunchedOperationPressurePointto "clearthe streets" of drug sellers, eli minate open drug markets, and make streets safe fornonusingci tizens(Zimmer,1987).Policebegan "locking"storefronts, seizing cars, and initiating other forms of harassment. Operation Pressure Point dramatically (but only temporarily) reduced congregations of di stribu-tors onparticular blocks or areas,and volumeofbuyers intargeted areas (Johnsonet a!. , 1990; Goldstein, 1987;Street Studies Unit, 1987).Yet it did not eli minate drugsalesanddistribution(Kleiman,1987)as distribution groupsevolvedinnovativeandsuccessfulstrategiesinresponsetopolice practices.Infact, widespread crack salesintensifiedandspread even after OperationPressurePointhadreducedstreetsupermarkets.Theremay h avebeenmorestreetsellersin1987thanin1984,buttheydidnot congregateinextraordinarily large number sinparticular locales. Today's crack-specific policing initiative in New York City isthe Tacti-calNarcoticsTeam.LaunchedbyMayorKochin1988 followingthecon-tract murder of a rookie policeman by a verti cally organized crack distribut-ingorganization inQueens {NewYorkTimes,1989),theTacticalNarcotics Team has been deployed in other boroughs of the city.The TNT hassuch specialmandatesasthecoordinationofgrassroots communityanti-drug efforts with officialpolice campaigns, so that aconcerted attempt "to win back communities for local residents" can be made. In accordance with this mandate, "buy andbust" operations were planned asthe preferred modus operandiofTNTundercoverofficers.Oncecrackdistributorswere removed from the streets,uniformed TNT officers were assigned to street FactorsInfluencing Cmck Disl ribution Gruovs67 patrolstomaintainthat gain. After two years of existence,thegoals and outcome of TNT operations have come under increasi ngly heavy criticism (Frankel &Freeland, 1990). Suchincreasedpoliceactivitiesandotherformsofcriminaljustice actions in inner-city neighborhoods apparently do littleto actually deter or haltdrugandcrackdealing.Such"gettough"policiestowarddrug(but especiallycrack)use anddealingactuallygeneratebothintended(more arrestsandincarcerations)and"unintended"aftermaths.Muchneeded resources are siphoned away from drug education andtreatment, housing, and so forth that can improve the living conditions of crack dealing recruits, andimprovetheirsocialandeconomicunderpinnings .Continuationof current domesticdrugpolicies-especiallythe emphasisonincarceration and punishment-is likely to result in huge numbers of inner-city minority youths in jail, prison, probation, orparole(Austin &McVey, 1989; Mauer, 1990) and a continued deterioration of the quality of life in these neighbor-hoods (Johnsonet al., 1990;Morganet al.,1989 ). Finally, police operations may temporarily create a power and organiza-tionalvacuum, and disrupt social controls and norms of behavior between buyers andsellers(Holden,1989).Theseprocessesmay intensify street-level competition andits corrsponding levels of violenceinNewYork and elsewhere (Hamid, 1990; Gunst, 1989). In Oakland the arrest of high-level dealers destabilized control of markets and increased violence as new entre-preneurs/competitors attemptedtogainafootholdovermarketslostby others(Skolnicket al. ,1989).Policeoperations,byfosteringcompetition andviolence,mayparadoxically befosteringthe appearanceofvertically organized businesses or greater violence among crack distributors. Markets Asrestaurantsfrequentlytar getspecificsubpopulationsormarkets (thewealthy,specialethnicgr oups,etc. ),likewisecrackdistributorsal so need to appeal to a variety of consumer demands, backgr ounds, and levels of affluence. In one four block area of Brooklyn, several different markets and distributorshavebeenidentified(andeachisgenerallyunawareofthe others). One crack spot sell s mainly to Caribbean crack users, another sell s "eight balls" (an eighth of an ounce) of cracktoworking persons and other crack distributors, and half a dozen compulsive crack users/dealers sell crack to others like themselves (Hamid, 1990, 1991). On the prostitution strip, fe-males exchange sex for crack, and sometimes arrange crack sales for sexual partners. Indoors,several crack distributors may have safehousesor resi-dential apartments, but go to other neighborhoods to sell their drugs . While many buyers purchase crack from persons representingdifferent market-ing patterns, most sellers prefer to define amarketand to locat e andretain repeat customers to increase business and reduce the probability of arrest . 68 C!wpter3IEmergingModelsof Crack Distribution Prior Drug Selling Careers Central to the profitability and success of distribution groups, and the movement from one organizational structure to another, isan individual's drug distribution "career," including the types of drugs sold previously. The concept of a "drug distribution career" isidentical to the concept of "criminal career" (Blumstein et a!.,1986:12), defined as the " characterization of the longitudinalsequenceofcrimescommittedbyanindividualoffender." Criminal "careers" involve participation (evercommitted aspecific crime), frequency (of commission in a given time period), duration (length of ~ i m from first to last offense), and severity (swit ching from less to more senous offense classes). Careers with similar features are present among most sellers. Since crack is a relatively recent phenomenon in New York City (after 1984), individual careers in crack distributionare likelyto be less than six yearsinlength.Nevertheless,manycrackdistributorshavehadrather extensive careers inthesaleand distribution of other drugs.ln their case, the frequency, economic returns, and duration of crack distribution careers will be determinedby their prior careers distributing other drugs. One major category of current crack distributors consists of persons who formerly (and perhaps currently) sold heroin-cocaine. They are accus-tomed to street sales, may have large networks of persons who might supply them, and have devel oped reputationsas reliable sellers.Research among prison andjailinmates(Chaiken&Chaiken, 1982; Chaiken, 1986),street heroin users (Ball, Shaffer, & Nurco, 1983; Hanson et al., 1985; Hunt et al. , 1984ab; Johnsonet al.,1985;Speckart &Anglin, 1986), and street heroin sellers(Mieczkowski,1986)showsthatsuchdistributorsareextremely active,averaging over 300drug salesayearandaminority making over 3,000 sales annually. If t heir low-level distribution activities (Johnson et a!., 1985) are included, daily h er oin u ser s make an average of 1,400 transactions annually.Suchh eroin-cocaine distributors ar e very likely t obecome high-r ate cr ack distributor s. In Williamsburg, for example, where heroin u se and di stribu tion hasbeenentrenched for several decades, crack distribution is now theirpreserve(Hamid, 1991). A second maj or cat egory of crack dist ributor, those who ser ve impor-tant or ganizationalrolesin business-like crackdistribution groups,will be current or former cocaine-only powder distributors.Cocainepowderdi s-tribut orsalreadyhavegoodconnecti onswithsuppliersofhi ghquality cocaineandarelikelyt obewellacquaintedwith avari ety oflower-level dist ributors and sellers . Certainly,the importers and kilodistributor s st u-died by Adler (1985), t he middl e class sellers (Waldorf et al., 1977;Waldorf, 1987; Waldorf, Murphy, & Lauderback, 1989) and black aft er-hours dealer s (Williams,1978) had developed effective networks for supplying cocaine t o buyer s . Thus, some cocaine-only distributor s may exhibit mor e stability in their primary crack di stributionroles (as supervisors)than cr ack distribu-Factors l nfl urncing Crack DistributionGruops69 tor s wh o are r ecruitedfromamong novices orher oin dist r ibu tor s.Atthe sametime, other cocaine snorters may have escalat edt o compulsiveuse of crack,t erminating or limitingt heir crack distribution career s. Athirdcat egor yofcrackdistributorshasbeendrawnfr omamong former marijuana distribu tor s.Ha mid(1987)documentedthe progr ession of Car ibbean marijuana distributor s wh o became involvedin th e import and sale ofpowder cocaine (for conver sion t o freebase forsmoking dur ing the 1981-84 period). In this example, many of t he for mersuccessful mar ijuana distributors were undone by exper imentation and compulsive use/distribu-ti onoffreebase.SeveraLhowever,over cameth eseprelimi nar yobs tacles and returned successfullyto crack distributionafter 1984. The remain ing cat egory of crack dist ribut or s/dealers arethose whose distribution careers may have begu n wit h crack (Fagan & Chin, 1989, 1990). Accordingtot heStreetStudiesUnit(1987)asu bst antialbutunknown proportion o f crack distributors may be "novices" to selling or distributi on, i.e.,person s who havejust init iatedhard drug sellingwith crack. Non using novicesor "n eophyt es"(Hamid,1988a:73) may also engage in crack distribution . Typically, they may be extremely young, often school-goerswhoar edisinterestedincr ackuse.The overridingattract ionisan opportunity to earn lar ge sums of money. Unfor t unat ely, young people are heavily exploited by more mature distributors wh o employ them. They are easilyboughtoffwithafewextravagantgiftsofclothing,jewelry,or sneaker s whichaddup to woefully inadequat e compen sation forthe long hourstheywork,theriskstheyt ake,andthef ortunestheyhelpot hers amass(Hamid,1990,1992). Prior Drug Use Patterns Vir t uallyallcr ackdistributor sar ealsou ser s,fr equent lymulti-daily u sers of sever al differentdrugs(usuallyalcohol, cigar ett es,her oin,and/or cocaine powder). Fagan and Chin (1989, 1990) report that none of 600 crack u ser s interviewedrepor t edthatcrackwastheirfirst drugcon sumed. The vastmajorit yhadstart edwithotherdrugsintheirteenageyear s,with cocaineandher oin amongthelast t obeused .Evenamongtheyoungest subjects, most crack user s r eported init iation t o alcohol and mari juana in t he earlyteens,andt ococaine dur ingt heirmid-teen s(Fagan&Chin,1989, 1990;KandeL 1990). InWashington,D.C. , several youths r epor ted selling drugs (they did not distinguish type),but repor ted being non user s of cocaine andcrack(BraunsteinandAl t schuler ,1989).Formostdrugu sers,t he frequency of useofalcohol,marijuana,andher oinisnot stronglyas soci-atedwithcr ack initiation andr egular ity of u seor wit h crack dealing. Th e frequencyofcocainepowder,especiallyviasn orting,appearsinthelat e 1980st obe associat edwith onsett o andheavy cr ack u se(Fagan&Chi n, 1989,1990). 70 C/i apter3IModelsofCrn(kDislrihutio" Current Crack Use Probably no other factor so strongly influences crack distribution activ-ity as the person's own crack use. Up to a certai n point of compulsive use, greater the frequency of crack use, the higherthe frequency of sellmg andotherdistributionactivity.Aslongastheuser-seller cankeepthe money straight," a var iety of suppliers will sell crack to h im or provide it on consignment. Such crack user-sellers may be able to amounts of cocaineand crack and alsoretain some cashincome for hvmg expenses. But a much more common scenario is for the crack userto become such acompulsive consumer that he/sheusesmorethanissold.Such persons systematically "messup the money" andarealways "adaylate,short (of money), and with a story." Dealers and street suppliers failto advance new suppli es, demand "cash up front ," or "cut" them off (if not worse). Vertically organized crackbusinesses, however, can and do employ many such com-pulsive crack users in lower-level dist ribution roles to assist in sal es- where they arenot responsible for bothmoney and drugs . are_closely super vised, thei rskillsandlabor are utilizedand theISennched. Thus, vertically controlled distribution groups also prov1de a structure withinwhich"failed"user-sellerscangain employmenttoearn thecrack theyso greatlydesire.On the other hand, "fail ed"free-lanceuser-sellers find it difficult to locate persons who will adva nce them crack for sale. They maybeeffectively"disemployed"fromfree-lancesellingroles,although they may occasionally serve as lookouts and steerers for other free-lancers. Some research(Williams, 1989;Hamid, 1990) sugges tsthatthe most successful crack distributors and dealers are those who systematically avoid smoking crack (but snort much cocaine), and spend much of their waking time carefullysuper visingacrew of persons who are instructedto andavoid crack use, especially compulsive or binge use. For many crack dtstnbu-tors,theearlyphases of their sellingmaybeamong th ei rmost successful. For most, a couple of year s of crack selling may occur before compulstve use sets in, andsystemat icallyunderminestheir abilit yto perform responstble andlucrative roles in crack distribution groups(Hamid,1990b). Butmost(probably70percentormore)cracksellersandcrack distributors work most of the day and night, and spend most of the1r cashincometosupportacompulsivecrackusepattern(Mieczkowski, 1989a:SO). Whiletheymay handle hundreds or thousands of dollars each day, they are rarely able to retain even a few dollars for essential needs such as food and housing. CONCLUSION This chapter has presented emergent models and delineatedseveralmajor dimensions of theoretical and practical interest in understanding how crack distributionisorganized,andhowstreet-leveldistributorsand"near-Conclusion71 street" sellers and dealers operate their "business." Future research needs to develop specific hypotheses about the st ructure and functioning of specific crackdistributiongroups,andshowhowvar iousdistributionrolesare allocated among crackusers and nonusers. The concepts and literaturereview above, however, provide a concep-tual framework that is "too neat" to explain the very "messy reality" of crack distribu tion onthe streets. Hamid (1990, 1991) reports on sixteen different combinationsofcurrentcrackusepatternsandorganizationalinvolve-ments (e.g.,compulsiveuser/free-lance distributor, higher-level abstinent free-lancedistributor,controlledbusinessdistributor,etc.),allofwhom werelocated within one small area of Brooklyn. And this doesnot include the personal and career involvements in nondrug crimes (robbery, burglary, theft,prostitution) and selling "beat" (no drug)crack. Particularlycriticaltounderstandingcrackdistributionisobtaining empiricaldataaboutthecrack(andotherdrug)dist ributioncareersof several representative subjects . Retrospective repor ts about their distribu-tion careers prior to crack, whether and how crack changed their drug use patternsanddistributionactivity,andhowtheycurrentlyfunctionare essential tosuchan understanding. Avarietyofpersonscurrentlyperformingvariousroles(dealers, sellers,low-leveldistributors), both asfree-lancers andworkingincrack distributiongroups,needtobecarefullyobservedregardingwha tthey actuallydoandhowmuchmoneytheymake,aswellasthenatureof transactionsinvolved.Inaddition,suchper sonsneedtobeintensively interviewed about how they perceive themselves within the organizational role struct ure of various distribution groups.A particularly heavy emphasis needs to be placed on obtaining the cooperation of "dealers" who are quite successful in avoiding arrest, andwho supply cocaine and crack to several (over ten) sellers, and essentially"manage"t hesaleof thousands ofcrack vials(or cocaine powder "bags") aweek. Only with careful ethnographic field work, careful building of rapport withpotentialsubjects,andintensiveobservationandinterviewingof representativesfromthevarious r oles,willthespecificdetailsandbroad pattern of crack distribution groups and organized businesses become scien-tificallyavailable.Theneedforexaminingthisimportantnewformof crimi nalbehavior isurgent.Suchimprovedunderstandingmayprovide important new insights abouthow distributionof many drugs(including crack)hasbecomeandmaybecomeanevenmorewidespreadformof criminalit y (both in terms of number of offender s and volume of offenses) in major urban centers in America. GLOSSARY Cocaineis a generic term for the illegal substance derivedfromthe coca plant, and refers t othis substancein any of its forms. 72Chapter 3IEmergingModelsof Crack UsrDistribution Cocaine powder(orpowder cocaine) refers to cocaine hydrochloride a nd any adul-teratedversionthereof.Typicallysoldin"bags,"cocainepowderiswater solubleandcanbeconsumedinseveralways,usuallyvianasalinhalation ("snorting"),injection("mainlining").ormixedwithheroin("speedballing"). Becausethevolatilizationpoint is so high, cocaine powder cannot be inhaled directly into t helungs ("smoked"). Free base(or cocaine freebasing) refers to cocaine from whichthe hydrochloride has been removed. Theterm may also refer to the extraction process in which the consumer purchases cocaine powder, employes baking soda and heat t o create freebase, whichisthen inhaled("smoked") directly into the lungs.Free base can onl ybe smoked;it cannotbe snort edor injected.Theterm free base also implies that it is consumed shortly after creation, and is n ot repackaged for sale. Crack(cocainefreebaseforsmoking)ispreparedbyasupplierfromcocaine powder; chunks of cocaine free base are placed in vials for sale. The purchaser needsonlytobuyit,placethechunks inasmokingdevice,andinhalethe vapors. The primary difference between crack and freebasing is inthe market-ingmechanism (generally sold invialsvs. self-extraction) of the same product consumedinthe same way. Distribution Terms Terminologyassociatedwithillegaldistributionofdrugs(selling,dealing, trafficking,distributing)isemployedalmostinterchangeably inlegal s tatutesand common usage. Such drug distribution behaviors, however, a re perceived as differ-entby drugusers and appear to besociologically important Oohnsonetal.,1985; Chaiken&Joh nson,1988).Inthischapter,thesetermsare giventhefollowing specificdefinitions: Distributionis ageneral term covering alltransactions associatedwiththe illegal exchangeofdrugsandmoneyorservices.Itincludestrafficking,dealing, selling, and low-level distributorsas definedbelow. Traffickingisthe exchange of thousands of dollars(or promise thereof)for large weightsofcocaineorotherdrugs(usuallyakilogramormore)priorto adulteration and/or less expensive wholesaleunits. Traffickers may engage in importation or resaleof large quantities andvalues of drugs. They generally supply dealer s orsubgroups of dealers. Deals or dealingis the exchange of money (or promise thereof) for siz:able amounts of drugs(generally less than akilogram) down to provision of multipleretail unitsofillegaldrugs.Generally,thedealerprovidessellerswithmultiple (generally over ten) retail units (bags, grams, vials).Dealers frequently produce (or oversee) the packaging of hundreds orthousands of retailunits which are subsequentlyretailedby sellers.Exceptingt heconsumptionbytheirsellers, dealers usually avoid direct sales transactionstotheultimate consumer. Sales or sellingisthe direct exchange ofmoney for drugs at theret aillevel.The sellerisgenerall yresponsibleforbothmoneyanddrugs.Thus,theseller receives money for providingthebuyer with drug(s) whichwillgenerallybe consumed bythebuyer (orhis friends). Low-level distributionis assisti ng in the sale of illegal drugs atthe reta illevel.The low-level distributor (LLD)maybe responsibleformoney fromsales,or for the drugs, but not both. He may also assis t in sellingdrugs, but be responsible for neither.TheLLD may rapidly and freq uently switch amongavariety of roles to assist drugtransactions. The following roles are carefully defined and documentedin Johnson etal.(1985:Ch. 6): Conclusion73 Steer, tout, or cop drugs-help find customers and transport drugs a nd money between buyers andsellers. Lookout,runner,holder,guard,servcmf- assistthosesellingdrugsinpublic locales. Sell ordislribute needlesor syringes, run a "shooting gallery," or rent"works." Operate a crack house"where people come to use crack;frequently receive money or crack fromsmokers. Dislribule paraphernalia(other thanneedles)-sellor rent otheritemsfor consuming drugs (e.g., crack pipes and stems, coke spoons, marijuana clips,etc.). These definitions provide guidelines by which to classify a ny particular trans-action.However,anyparticulartransactionmaybedifficultto classifybecauseit may contain elements present in two ormore definitions. Also, the definitions above areessentially definitionsof rolesandnot persons;but theseroles are centralto emergent theoretical dimensions of drug and crack distribution. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.Johnsonandhisassociatesdescr ibea"free-lancemodel"of crack dis tribution. What components does this model have? Why is it called by t his particular term? Among which type of cocaine sell ers does it appear t o be the more popular of the models Johnson et al.describe? 2.What are the "confederations" of free-lance cocainedistributors wh ich are dis-cussedin thi s chapter? Johnson callsthem "interesting and confusing." Why? 3.Identi fyatleastfourcharact eristicsuniquelyassociatedwiththe"business model" of cr ack cocainedistribution. Define these fourcharacteristics and inte-g ratetheminto a nexplanatoryschemeconsistentwiththeparametersofthe "businessmodel. "Alsoidentifythetwo "permutations"ontheidealbusiness model that Johnson identifies, and clearly distinguishbetween them. 4.Johnson andhisco-authorscastigat etheideathatyouthgangsareimportant distributors of crack. Review their arguments on this topic.How do they define youthgangs?Whatisthedifferencebetweendrug-dealingassociationsand traditional concepts of youth gangs? 5.Thischapteridentifiessixfactorsinfluencingthenatureofcr ackdistribu-tion; competition,police pressure, marke ts, prior drug sellingcareers, prior dr ug usepatterns, a ndcurrent crackuse.Define eachofthese factors anddiscuss theirrelati veimpor tance ininfluencingthecharacteris ticsofacrackdistribu-tion system. REFERENCES Adler,P.A(1985).Wheelinganddealing:Anethnographyof anupper-leveldrugdealing and smuggling community.New York: Columbia. Austin,J. & McVey A.(1989).The lmpnclof !hewar ondrugs. San Francisco:National Council on Crime and Delinque ncy.December. Ball, J. C., ShaEffer, J.W., &Nurco, D. N. (1983). The day-to day cri minality of heroin addicts in Ba ltimore: A study in the continuity of offense rates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence72(1),19-142. Blumstein, A., Cohen,]., Roth, J. A., &Vis her, C.A.(1986). Criminal careers and career crimi11als." Washington,DC:National Academy of Sciences. 74Chnpter3 I Emerging Moolel>ofCrack Distribution Bourgois, P.(1988,November). Fear and loating inElBarrio: Ideology andupward mobility inthe underground economy of the inner city. Paper presented at t he Annual Meet ingofthe American Societyfor Criminology, Chicago, IL. Brody, J.(1985,November29).Crack: Anew form of cocaine.NetcYorkTimes,p.1. Braunstein, P.J.&Altschuler, D. (1989, November). Patterns of drug use and sales amonginnercityadolescents.PaperpresentedatAmericanCriminology Society,Montrea l,Quebec. Bureau ofInternational Narcotics Matters. (1 990).lnternatio1mlnarcoticscontrolstrategy report.Washington,DC: Uni ted States Department of State. Bureauo fJusticeSta tistics(BJS).(1983).Reportto/heNationonCrimeandJustice. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice. Carpenter, C., Glassne r, B., Johnson, B. D., &Loughlin, J. (1988). Kids, drugs, and crime. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Chaiken, M. & Johnson, B. D. (1988). Characteristics of different types of drug-itwolved offenders. Issues and practices.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Chaike n,M. (1986). Crime Rates and Substance Abuse Among Types of Offenders. InB.D. Johnson andE.Wish(Eds.),Crimeratesamongdmg-abusingoffenders.Final reporllotheNalionallnstilute of Jus/ice(pp.12- 54).New York:Narcotic andDrug Research Inc. Chaiken, J. & Chaiken, M. (1982). Varieties of criminal behavior.Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Clayton,R.&Voss,H.(1981).Yo1mgmenanddrugsinhfanhatlan:Acausala1zalysis. Rockville,MD: NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse. Cortina, F. (1970). Stroke a slain warrior. New York and London: ColumbiaUniver si t y Press. Crack andcrime. (1986, June16). Newsweek.pp. 15-22. Cuomo says state is wide ning effort to combat crack. (1986, June 16). New York Times. p.B1. De LaRosa, M., Lamber t, E., &Groper, B.(Eds.).(1990). Drugs and violence.Rockville, MD: ResearchMonograph51. Washington, DC:National Institute onDrug Abuse. Douglas, M. (1970). Dealing orTheBerkeley-to-BostonForty-Brick Lost-BagBlues.New York: AlfredA.Knopf . Drugs: The enemy within.(1986, September 15).Time,pp.58-73. Dunlap,E.(1990).Naturalhistory of crack distributimt.Unpublishedfield notes. Dunla p,E.,Johnson,B.D.,&Sanabria,H.(1990).Studying crackusers andtheir criminal careers:The scientificandartisticaspects of locatinghard-to-reach subjects a ndinterviewingthem about sensitivetopics.ContemporaryDrugProb-lems(inpress). Elliott , D., Ageton, S. , Huizinga, D., Knowles, B., &Ca nter, R.(1984).Theprevalence andincidenceof delinquentbehavior.Boulder,CO:Behavioral ResearchInstitute. Fagan, J.(1989). Editor' s introduction: Myths and reali ties about crack. Contemporary DrugProblems16(4), 527- 533. Fagan, J. &Chin, K. (1989). Initiation into crack and cocaine: A tale of two epidemics. ContemporaryDmg Problems16(1),579-617. Fagan, J.&Chin, K.(1991[in press]). Social processes of initiation into crack. Journal ofDrugIssues. Frank,B.,Morel, R.,Schmeidler , J.,&Miranda, M. (1988). Cocaine and crackusein New YorkState.Albany,NY:Division ofSubstance Abuse Services. Frankel,A.&Freeland, L.(1990).Isstreet-level enforcement abust? TheAmerican l.nwyer,(March),100-109. Goldstein, P. (1985). Drugs and violent behavior. Journal of Drug Issues (Fall), pp. 493- 506. Conc:lusian75 Goldstein,P.(1987).Personal Communication. Goode, E.(1970).Tlu marijuanasmokers.New York:BasicBooks. Goode,E.(1989).TheAmerican drugpanicoft he1980's: Socia l constructionor object ive t hreat? Violence,Aggress ion, rmd Terrorism3(4), 327- 348. Grin spoon, L.& Bakalar, J.(1976). Cocaine: A drug and ils social e!.'olution. New York: Basic Books. Gunst, L.(1989,March21).The felon factory:Why morebusts mean more dealers . 7Days,p.6. Hamid, A. (1987). Ganja lo crack: Caribbean participation in !Ireullderground economy inBrooklyn (1976- 86).New York:CaribbeanResearchCenter/CUNY. Hamid, A. (1988a). Crack: New directions in drug research. In A. Hamid (Ed. ),Drugs _and drug abuse:Areader (pp.71- 95).Littleton,MA: Copley PublishingGroup. Ha mtd,A.(1988b).Fromganjato crack:Establishment oft hecocaineand crack economy. InA.Hamid (Ed. ),Drugs and drug abuse:Arender (pp. 52-70).Littleton, MA: Copley Publishi ngGroup. Hamid, A.(1990). Thepolitical economy of crack-related violence. Contem11oraryProblems17(1),31-78.' Hamid, A. (1992 [forthcoming]). Drug legalization: What it would look like and how it wouldwork. Ethan Nadel mann(Ed. ). Render onthe Future of DrugPolicy. Pr ince-ton,NJ: Princeton. Hamid,A.(1991).Howsupplyaffects demandandconsumptionof crackinNew YorkCi ty.PresentedatAmerica nAnthropologicalAs sociationmeetings, New Orleans. Hanson, B., Beschner, G., Walters, }., &Bovelle, E. (1985). Life with heroin: Voices fromthe imtcr city.Lexington,MA:LexingtonBooks. Holden, C.(1989).Street-wise crack research.Science246,pp.1376-1381. Hughes, P.(1977).Behind the walls of respect: Community e:cperimrnts in heroin addictioncontrol. Chicago: Universi ty ofChicago Press. Hunt,D.,Lipton, _D.,&Spunt,B.(1984a).Patternsofcriminalacti vityamong methadone cltents and currentnarcotics users not int reatment. Journal of Drug Issues (Fall),pp. 687- 702. Hunt, D., lipton, D., Goldsmith, D., &Strug, D. (1984b). Street pharmacology: Uses of cocaine and heroin inthetreatment of addiction.Drug andAlcoholDependence 13,pp. 375- 87. lnciardi, J. (1979). Heroin use and st reet crime. Crime and Delinquency (July), pp. 335- 46. lncJardJ, J.(1986). The waro11drugs,heroin, cocaine,cri mennd public policy.Palo Alto: Mayfield Publi shingCo. Johnson, B.(1973).Marijuanausers and drug subcultures.New York:Wiley-In terscience. Johnson,B.&Williams,T.(1987).Economicsof dealinginanonmonetarylabor marke t.InProceedmgs of the15th lntentafionnl Institute ontire Prroention andTreatment of DrugDependence.Amsterdam/Noordwijkerhout,Netherlands:International Councilon Alcohol and Addictions. Johnson, B.,Dunlap,E.,&Romano, M. (1989, November). Selling activity of crack sellers: What role: dothey perform? With what frequency? How much do they earn? Paper presented atAmencan Soetety of Criminology, Reno,November. B., Goldstein, P., Preble, E.,Schm_eidler,J., Lipton,_ D. S., Spunt, B., &Miller, .,(1985). careof busmess:Theeconomrcs of cnmebyheromabustrs.Lexington,MA: Lexington Books. Johnson,_ B.&Wish,E.(1986a).Crimeratesamongdrug-abusingoffenders:Finalreportto Nni JOnai of Justrce.NewYork: Narcotic andDrugResearch,Inc. Johnson,_ B. & E. (1987}.Criminal events among seriously criminal drug abusers: Report to Nallonal l nsltlute of ]usllce.NewYork:Narcotic andDrug Research,Inc. 76Chapter3IEmrrgingModelsof CrackDislril>ulio" Johnson, B., Lipton, D., &Wish, E. (1986). Factsabout criminality of cocaine and heroin abusers and some new alternatives to incarceration:Report to theNatio11al h1stitule of justice.New York: Narcotic andDrug Research,Inc. Johnson, B, Dunlap, E., &Williams, T. (1990). The moral chasm: Unintended conse-quences of "getting tough" on dealers. Presented at a conference on Drugs and Violence,NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse. Johnson, B., Williams, T. , Dei, K., & Sanabria, H. (1990). Drug abuse in the inner city: Impact on hard drug users and the community. InM. Tonry and j . Q. Wilson, (Eds.),Drugs and theCriminal ]us/iceSystem.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnston, L.. O'Malley, P., &Bachman, J.(1988). 11/icil druguse,smoking and drinkingby America'shighsclwol students, college students,andyoungadults,1975- 1987.Rockland, MD: Nati onal InstituteonDrug Abuse. Kandel, D. (1990) . Drug and crack use among New York State junior and senior high school students. Paper presentedto Columbia University Drugs andSociety Seminar, New York. Kaplan,J.(1983).Thehardestdrug:heroi n andpublic policy.Chicago,IL:Universityof Chicago Press. Kids and cocaine:An epidemic strikes middleAmerica. (1986,March17).Newsweek, pp.58-65. Kids Who SellCrack.(1988,May 9).Time,pp.20- 33. Kleiman,M.(1983).Drug enforcementandorganized crime:Current knowledge andresearchprospects.In H.Alexander andG.Caiden (Eds.),The politics and economics of organizedcrime.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Kleiman, M. (1987). State and local drug law enforcement: Issuesand pmclices.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Klein,M.,Maxson,C.,Cunningham,L.(1988).Gangi11volvemmtincocaine"rock" trafficking:FinalreportfortheNationalInstitute of]us/ice.UniversityofSouthern California: LosAngeles. Kolata, G. (1989, November 26). Despite its promise of riches, the crack trade seldom pays. NewYorkTimes,p. AI. Laws alone won'tstop crack.(1986, September 2).NewYorkTimes,p.A19. Lee, R. (1989). Thr white labyrinth: Cocaine trafficking and political power in the Andea11 countries. New Brunswick: TransactionPublishers. Mabry,D.(1989).TheLatinAmerietmnnrcoticstrade andU. S.national security.New York: GreenwoodPress. Manning,P. (1980). Thenarc's game. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press. Mauer. M. (1990). Youngblnrk men and the criminal justiCfsystem: A growingnationalproblem. Washington,DC: The SentencingProject. Merton,R. K.(1949). Socialtheory andsocial structure. Glencoe,NY: The Free Press. Mieczkowski,T.(1986).' Geekingup'and' throwingdown':Heroinstreetlifein Detroit. Criminology24(4),pp. 645- 666. Mieczkowski, T. (1989a). The Detroit crack ethnography project . Summary report submitted to theBureauof JusticeAssistance. Washington, DC. Mieczkowski,T.(1989b,November).Theeconomicconceptsofcrackdealersin Detroit:Anexaminationofmarketdynamics.PaperpresentedatAmerican Society of Criminology, Reno,Nevada. Moore, J. (1978).Homeboys: Gangs, drugs, rmd prison in the barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress. Moore, M. (1976).Buy andbust.Lexington,MA:D.C.Heath. Moore,M.(1978).Reorganizationplan112reviewed:Problemsinimplementinga strategy to reducethe supply of drugsto illicit markets inthe United States. Public Policy, Spring,pp. 126- 143. Cmrclusion77 Moore,M.(1977,June).An mmlytic viewofdrugcontrolpolicies.Paperpresentedata meeting of The Committee onProblems of Drug Dependence,NewYork. Morales,E. (1989). Cocaine: The white goldrushinPeru. Tuscon:University of Arizona Press. Morgan,P.,Wallack,L.,&Buchanan,D.(1989).Wagingdrugwars:Prevention strategy or politics as usual. In B. Segal, (Ed.). Perspectives on Adoleswtt Drug Usr (pp. 99-124).New York: The HaworthPress. Murphy,S.,Rei narman,C.,&Waldorf.D.(1988}.Betweenabstinenrl'andaddictio11: Controlledusenan11-year follow-up of a network of cocaine abusers.Unpublished paper. Plasket,B.&Quillen,E. (1985) . The whitestuff.New York:DellPublishing Co. ,Jnc. Preble,E. &Casey, J. (1969). Taking care of business: The heroin user' s life on the streets. International JournalofAddictions4,pp. 1-24. Public found ready to sacrifice in drug fight. (1986, September 2). New YorkTimes,p. 1. Raab, S. (1988,March 13). Brutal drug gangs wage war of terror in upperManhat-tan. NewYorkTimes,p.Bl. Radcliffe-Brown,A.R. (1940).On social structure. Journalof theRoyal Anthropological Institute.Vol.LXX. Reinarman, C. &Levine, H. (1989). The crack attack: Politics and media in America's latest drugscare.JnJ.Best,(Ed.),ImagesofIssues:TypifyingContemporarySocial Problems.(pp.115-137).Hawthorne,New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Reuter,P.&Kleiman,M.(1986).Risksandprices:An economicanalysis of drug enforcement.InM.TonryandN.Morris,(Eds.),Crimeand]usticr: AnAn11ual Review of Research.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press, (pp.289-340). R o u s e ~ &J? hnson, B. (1990). Hidden paradigms of morality in debates about drugs: HtstoncalandpolicyshiftsinBritishandAmericandrugpolicies.In }.lnciardi,(Ed.),The AmericanDrugPolicy andugalizalionDebate.Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications, pp. 183-214. Sanabria, H. (1989). Social and economic change in a bolivian highland valley peasant community: Theimpact of migration and coca. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion,University ofWisconsin-Madison. Sanchez, J.&Johnson,B.(1987).Women andthe drugs-crime connection:Crime rates among drug-abusingwomen at Rikers Island.Jo:nnal of PsychoactiveDrugs 19(2),pp. 200-216. Single, E.& Kandel, D. (1978).Therole of buyingand selling inillicit drug use. In ArnoldS.Trebach,(Ed.),Drugs,Crime.andPolitics.New York:Praeger,(pp. 118-128). Skolnick: LCarrel, T., Navarro, N.,&Rabb,R.(1989).The social strucllm of strut drug dealmg(ReporttotheStateofCaliforniaBureauofCriminalStatisticsand Special Services).Sacremento, CA:State of CaliforniaExecutiveOffice. Speckart,G.&Anglin,D.(1986).Narcoticsuseandcrime:Acausalmodeling approach. journal of QuantitativeCriminology2(3),p. 1-28. Spunt,B., Goldstein, P.,Lipton, D., Bellucci, P., Miller, T., Cortez, N.,Khan, M.,& Kale,A. (1987, November) . Systemic violence among street drug distributors. PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheAmericanSocietyofCriminology, Montreal, Quebec. StreetStudiesUnit.(1986,January).Conversationwithstaff of unit .NewYork: Division of Substance AbuseServices. Street Studies Unit.(1987). Conversation with staff of unit. New York: Di vision of SubstanceAbuseServices. U.S. Department of Justice. (1989).Drug trafficking: Areport tothe President.Washingto n: U.S.Department of Justice,Office of theAttorney General. Use of crack: the futureis unclear.(1986,September 1)NewYorkTimes.p. 1. 783IEmergi r:gModl'isvfCrackDist ril1ution VanDyke, C.& Byck,B. (1983).Cocaine, Scientific Americn11246(3),pp.128- 41. VigiLJ.(1988a).Croupprocessesandstreetidentity:AdolescentChicano gang members.Ethos16(4),pp.421-445. Vigil, J. (1988b). Barrio gangs: Street life nml idmtily in Southem Cnlifomia. Austin: University ofTexas Press. Wallace,B. (1991). Crack cocnine:Aprnclical treatment nppronch for thfCI:emically dependent.New York: Bruner/Maze\. Wallace,B.(1990a).Crackcocainesmokersasadultchildrenofalcoholics:The dysfunctional family link.}ournnlof Su/Jstnnce AbuseTreatmerrt7(2), pp.89-100. Wallace,B.(1990b).Crack addiction: Treatment andrecoveryissues.Contemporary DmgProblems17(1),79- 120. WallaceB.(1989a).Relapsepreve ntioninpsychoeducationalgroupsforcrack cocainesmokers. ]oumal of SubstarrceAbuseTreatment6(4), pp.229- 239. Wallace,B.(1989b).Psychologicalandenvironmentaldeterminantsofrelapsein crack cocaine smokers.journal of Substance Abuse T natmenl6(2),pp. 95- 106. Waldorf,D.(1987).Personal Communication. Waldorf,D.,Murphy,S.,Reinarman, C.,&Joyce,B.(1977). An etlrnograplr!fof cocaine snorters.Washington, DC:DrugAbuse Council. Waldorf,D.,Murphy,S.,&Lauderback,D.(1989,November).Cocainesellers:Self-reported reasons to slop selling cocaine.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Reno,Nevada. Weisheit,R.(Ed.).(1990).Drugs,crime,nnd thecriminal justicesystem.Cincinnati,OH: Anderson PublishingCompany.. Williams,T.(1978).Tirecocaine culture inafter hours clubs.Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion.Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York. Williams,T. (1989).The cocaine kids.New York:Addison-Wesley. Williams,T.,&Kornblum,W.(1985).Growirrguppoor.Lexington,MA:Lexi ngton Books. Wish, E. (1990 [in press)). U.S. drug policy in the 1990's: Insights from new data from arrestees. lnternntional]oumal of Addictions. Wish, E.& Johnson, B. (1986). The impact of substance abuse on criminal careers. In A.Blumstein, J.Cohe n, J.Roth,&C.Visher, (Eds.),Criminalcareersand"career criminals,"Volume2. Washington,DC: National Academy Press,(pp. 52- 88). Wish,E.,Brady,E.,&Cuadrado, M.(1984).Drug UseandCrime inArresteesin Ma nhattan. Paper presented at the 47th Meeting of the Committee onProb-lems of DrugDependence, New York,Narcotic andDrug Research,Inc. Wish,E.,Brady,E.,&Cuadrado,M.(1986).Urinetestingofarrestees:Findings from Manhattan.New York:Narcotic andDrug Research, Inc. Wish, E., Cuadrado, M., &Martorana,]. (1986). Estimates of drug use irrintensive supervisiorr probationers:Results froma pilot/est.New York: Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc. Wish,E.(1987).Personal Communication. Wolfgang,M.,Figlio,R.,Tracy,P.,&Singer,S.(1985).TireNationalSurveyof Crime Severity.Washington, DC:U.S.Government PrintingOffice. Zimmer, L.(1987).OperatiorJ pressure poirrt: The disruption of street-/roe! drug trade on New York's lower east side.New York:New YorkUniversitySchool of Law. Zinberg,N.(1984).Drugs,set andsetting.Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.