Assignment 10

Mohammad and Fristvold used a research style very unique to ethnographic studies in their book, Dorm Room Dealers.  In this type of study, the researchers study the group of people in question by following them for months, even years, and taking careful note of all of the events, social relationships, and customs that the target population experiences.  Of course, before having such an intimate glimpse into the culture, the researchers must work to create a relationship of trust with the subject.  In the case of Mohammad and Fritsvold, it was necessary to find dealers who would share their practices.  Finding these drug dealers was easier than expected, and was done by using their experience, intuition, and by word of mouth from other students (page 18).  Then, once they had identified a few dealers by themselves, the researchers were introduced to other drug dealers by their current subjects, a phenomenon known as the “reverse snowball effect” (page 19).  Some dealers even volunteered their stories to the researchers (page 19).  After gaining a population to study, the researchers would normally have tried to gain the trust of the subjects.  In this case, however, most of the dealers seemed quite happy to provide their story (page 19), although promises of anonymity (page 9) and having well-known research assistants within the community (page 9) helped gain the trust of any remaining uneasy participants.  The researchers also tried to interview university officials and university law enforcement officers (page 10) to get the opinions of those trying to enforce anti-drug laws.  Most of the interviewees were quite helpful, although a few proved difficult to secure for an interview (page 10).  When collecting data, the researchers abided by Patricia Adler’s “peripheral membership,” which means that though the researchers would observe all activity of their subjects, the researchers would not participate in any of the key cultural activities, such as illegally selling drugs (page 9).  In terms of data analysis, the researchers approached the data using Robert Merton’s post factum interpretation, which meant that they were not trying to test a theory, but were merely trying to use the data to examine social patterns and dynamics to determine objective information (page 10).  Overall, the authors used all of these methods and processes to gather the data that created Dorm Room Dealers.

            When I think of a drug dealer, I think that my mental picture is pretty stereotypical.  I think of a thug from an impoverished minority group, perhaps in a gang, with lots of jewels and guns.  He is part of a larger drug dealing group, is uneducated, and uses drug dealing as his primary source of income.  A lot of violence is included in his drug trade, and the people that he sells to are poor addicts as well.

            In many ways, my stereotypical view of a drug dealer is disproved.  First of all, my demographics are basically wrong; most of the drug dealers and buyers in this book are white, middle to upper class, and educated (page 2).  These students, called the “anti-targets” (page 2), are definitely not what people expect from drug dealers.  However, this exposes a darker side of the War on Drugs: minorities (especially blacks) and the poor are stereotypical scapegoats for the sale of drugs and are disproportionately incarcerated than whites (page 126).  Meanwhile, the rich white students in this book have blatantly obvious illegal sales, yet have no fear of being punished (page 135).  This is because not only do they not fill the stereotype of a typical drug dealer, but also have parents whose pockets give the university and university police much to gain monetarily as long as the dealers stay out of jail (page 56).  The buyers are also not expected “druggies,” but are instead just regular students.

            The students also don’t deal because they need the money.  Indeed, most of the dealers in the book come from very well-off families that provide most, if not all, of their living expenses.  Instead they sell for various other reasons.  They could sell to make money to support their own drug habit (page 42).  They could sell drugs to have extra spending money, to spend on luxuries such as travelling or car rims (page 46).  The dealers sometimes sell to take advantage of opportunity, such as when other dealers are told to shut down their sales (page 47).  They may also want to feel socially influential (page 51), or even just want a thrill (page 53).  Regardless, the dealers in Dorm Room Dealers have many reasons to sell drugs, but none of which involve needing the money to make a living, which would be expected of a “stereotypical” drug dealer.

The stereotypical drug dealer

            Also, I would expect a drug trade to be quick, tense, and perhaps even violent.  However, this is definitely not the case in Dorm Room Dealers.  In fact, drug deals are often quite relaxed, “friendly-like”, and drawn out, sometimes even lasing up to an hour (page 25).  The deals are often private, such as in the dealer’s home.  This, and the fact that dealers tended to only sell to acquaintances, allow for a much more relaxed atmosphere (page 26).  Interestingly, there is also quite a bit of ritual during the marijuana-buying process.  The purchaser is often allowed to sample the marijuana before purchase, and after purchase, sits around with the dealer and chats (page 25).  Then, the buyer smokes some of the marijuana they just bought, often offering the dealer the first hit (page 25).  It is such a cultural norm that violating any part of this ritual creates an atmosphere of mistrust between the two parties, often dissolving any business relationship that the two may share (page 26).  This elaborate custom in the culture shows that it is much more developed than quick, impersonal interactions that are often expected of stereotypical drug deals.  Also, there is a stark lack of violence in in college drug trade, which is perhaps because of a large clientele and consistent drug demand (page 144).  This is definitely different from what is expected from a drug trade: weapons, violence, and perhaps even murder.

            In conclusion, Dorm Room Dealers blows the stereotype of who a drug dealer is out of the water.  The stereotype is often an impoverished, violent thug, which could have not been more the polar opposite of the wealthy white college-age students who were were actually the drug dealers studied in this book.  This stark reality teaches a great lesson: stereotypes don’t always hold true, and so society should stop acting like it.  

Sweden has had a very dark past in terms of its drug culture, which developed relatively late in the 1930’s (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007).  The government was shocked after addictions slowly took hold over the population, and many public warnings led to the fluctuation in drug purchases (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007). However, addiction claimed many Swedes, particularly adolescents, in the 1960’s (Johansson & DuPont, 2009).  In an attempt to wean citizens off of drug addiction, particularly from the Black Market, drugs such as amphetamines and opioids were medicalized (Johansson & DuPont, 2009).  However, this practice was condemned after a 17-year old girl died from overdose on prescribed drugs, and soon after in the 1980’s all drugs were banned from the country, setting the grounds for Sweden’s drug policy today (Johansson & DuPont, 2009).

            Sweden is a “first-class” European country with a population of about 9.7 million as of July 2014 (“The World Factbook”, 2014).  It is a very well-educated country at a 99% literacy rate (“Sweden Facts”, n.d.), with a very strong economic position leading to an “enviable” standard of living (“The World Factbook”, 2014).  They also are a relatively healthy country, with low rates of obesity and HIV/AIDS, a high life expectancy of about 82 years, and a great health care system (“The World Factbook”, 2014).

            The United States and Sweden share the same general view of public policy with regards to drugs: both have a no-nonsense attitude towards drugs, and feel that drugs are dangerous enough to be eliminated from society.  In the United States, this policy is expressed through Nixon’s War on Drugs, which listed drugs as “Public Enemy #1.”  Sweden leads a “zero-tolerance” policy, which essentially means that they want to get rid of all drug use in the country (Murkin, 2014).  Despite the fact that both of these countries may go about their restrictions differently, one thing is clear between the two: drugs will not be tolerated in either society and they will work to reduce drug use as much as possible. 

            Sweden and the United States also have similar approaches when it comes to how to reduce drug use: both rely on enforcement-led approaches to carry out the laws (Murkin, 2014).  Enforcement-led approaches focus more on prosecuting drug users, prevention, and abstinence from all drug use.  Comparatively, a rehabilitation-led approach would focus more on more sympathetic treatment of users, focusing on detoxification and rehabilitation of the patient, as well as funding research into the causes and preventions of addiction itself.  Clearly, rehabilitation-focused policies are much more sympathetic towards the drug user.  While Sweden’s drug policy has always been no-nonsense and enforcement-focused (Murkin, 2014), the United States’ policies originally started skewed more towards rehabilitation.  However, as time passed, different presidents took office and public opinion about drugs changed.   Policies became more and more enforcement-based.  Both countries’ policies make it extremely difficult to try and rehabilitate drug users, and instead focus solely on punishment (Murkin, 2014).  Because of the nature of enforcement-based policies, both countries spend quite a bit of money on required components, such as law enforcement and public education (“How attractive is the Swedish model?”, 2008).  The controversy of this spending depends on the perceived success of the programs.  In the United States, the War on Drugs is seen mainly as a failure, and therefore spending is widely scrutinized. In Sweden, the policies have been seen as widespread successes, and therefore the spending is seen as a requirement for this success (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007).

            Sweden and the US focus a lot on public education to deter the public from using drugs.  In the US, this is exhibited through programs such as the Drug Abuse Resistance Education training, in addition to multiple public service announcements, such as the “Meth: Not Even Once” campaign.  Sweden has had similar campaigns.  Programs encouraged in legislation such as The National Action Plan on Drugs focused on educating the public about the dangers of drugs to convince them to say no to taking drugs in order to avoid addiction in the first place (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007).

            Despite fundamental similarities between the policies, there are many differences between the two countries.  Classification of drugs is very different between the two countries.  In the US, different drugs are classified under different legality schedules to determine “how bad the drug is,” based on conditions such as medical use and potential for abuse.  In Sweden, all nonmedical use of narcotics is strictly banned (Johansson & DuPont, 2009).  There is no classification between drugs, and all drugs have relatively the same punishment for possession (“Sweden Drug Use Data and Policies”, 2014).  Punishment for drug possession also differs between the two countries.  In the US, drug users are often jailed for extensive periods of time.  Jail sentences differ depending on the type of drug, circumstances of drug use, amount of drug, etc.  However, in Sweden, fines are the main form of punishment, and punishments are not given based on type of drug, but more of the nature and amount of drug (“Sweden Drug Use Data and Policies”, 2014).  These offences can be considered major or minor, and sentencings change depending on the classification (“Sweden Drug Use Data and Policies”, 2014).  Furthermore, Sweden policies focus on giving help if it is needed (Johnasson & DuPont, 2009), and even have programs such as needle exchanges in the interest of public health, though not very many (“How attractive is the Swedish model?”, 2008).  Conversely, the US system has been criticized for relatively little rehabilitation efforts for offenders, as well as for lack of needle exchanges, which were still illegal, as confirmed by the Clinton Administration.

            The effectiveness of the policies also differs between the two countries.  In the United States, the War on Drugs has been regarded as a failure.  In addition, public opinion about drugs such as marijuana has become much more accepting, quite the opposite of what the US government wanted.  Sweden, on the other hand, has been applauded for having a successful program (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007).  Drug use has been dropping, and this drop has been attributed to Sweden’s drug policies (“How attractive is the Swedish model?”, 2008).  Furthermore, public opinion of the Swedes seems to be swaying against drugs, further discouraging people from taking drugs: there is a higher perceived risk of taking drugs (“Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy”, 2007), and, in particular, young people also perceive this high risk of taking drugs, particularly with regards to marijuana (How attractive is the Swedish model?, 2008). 

            However, Sweden’s “success” story is sometimes debated as not being as effective as once thought (Murkin, 2014).  First of all, drug use in Sweden, as in the US, has a lot of social, cultural, and economic factors involved; drug culture revolves around people with more “deprivation” and more “social inequality”, with law enforcement having no effect (Murkin, 2014).  Drug-induced deaths have also been increasing in Sweden, showing that drug abuse could be a huge threat to the population (Murkin, 2014).  So, though at first glance Sweden’s policy may be productive, though, like everything else, it stands to be improved.

            In conclusion, Sweden has had a dark past with drug abuse, which is predominant in the depraved, adolescent, and discriminated against.  Sweden’s drug policies are zero-tolerance, and though they may seem similar, have many differences.  Sweden’s drug policies are widely hailed as being very effective, but of course there is a lot of work to be done to perfect them.

Works Cited

(2008, May 15).  How attractive is the Swedish model?  The Drug Foundation. Retrieved from     http://www.drugfoundation.org.

(2014, June 20).  Sweden. CIA.  Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov.                                             

Johansson, P., & DuPont, R. (2009, October 15). Drug policy choices – the Swedish way.  World              Federation Against Drugs.  Retrieved from http://www.wfad.se.

Murkin, G. (2014, December 15). Drug policy in Sweden: A repressive approach that increases                     harm.  Transform. Retrieved from  http://tdpf.org.uk.

Sweden. (n.d.).  Find the Data. Retrieved from http:// http://country-facts.findthedata.com/.

Sweden Drug Use Data and Policies. (n.d.).  Drug War Facts. Retrieved from             http://drugwarfacts.org.                                                          

SWEDEN’S SUCCESSFUL DRUG POLICY: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. (2007,             February 1).  United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved from             http://unodc.org.

Assignment 8

            The “War on Drugs” that was declared in 1971 by Richard Nixon has been hailed as both a success and chastised as a failure by different people.  The War on Drugs stated that drugs were “Public Enemy Number One,” and that the fate of society and future generations relied on the elimination of drugs, which were said to destroy minds and bodies.  So, the war on drugs dedicated itself to eradicating drug use from society, and led to numerous pieces of national anti-drug groups and legislation.  I personally think that the War on Drugs was lost.  Some costs of losing the war include leaving lasting racial disparities, uprooting the check and balances in different parts of the legal system, and distrust in the government.

            First of all, losing the drug war would lead to lasting racial disparities that the war created.  The war on drugs has created a lot of racial tensions throughout the years in that it tended to target black people over white people.  90% of drug arrests were made on black people and under 1% were made on whites, even though whites were responsible for 77% of drug use and blacks were only responsible for 15%.  There were also disparities in sentence time.  Minorities are more related to the possession of crack cocaine, and whites are more related to the sale of powder cocaine.  One can receive a minimum of five years in prison for possessing 5.01 grams of crack cocaine, but will not receive a five year prison sentence for possession of powdered cocaine until this possession reaches 500 grams.  These differences in sentencing times, when examining the demographics of the people caught with the drugs, easily shows that whites are favored in this system and points to the trends that more blacks are in jail for drug charges than whites.  Even after losing the war on drugs, the bitter taste of this discrimination will remain, causing conflict for future generations.  It truly shows that there are definitely power differences between the different cultures in America, and these proofs will live on even after the War on Drugs is lost.

            Secondly, losing the war on drugs will help uproot some of the set checks and balances that exist in the criminal justice system.  The police with the discretion to arrest offenders who will have longer sentences begin to override judges’ jobs to sentence people in the War Against Drugs.  Thus, the power will become more unequal between the two parties, as the police begin to make more and more decisions themselves.  Unfortunately, even after the loss of the War on Drugs, police will get used to this power in the court system.  They will begin to expect to make these types of sentencing decisions over the judges of the courts, and this power difference could cause a lot of tension between those in power in the criminal justice system.  So, losing the war on drugs could lead to tensions in power in the criminal justice system.

            Finally, losing the War on Drugs would lead to public distrust in the government.  The government has spent millions upon millions of dollars on this war, and if it doesn’t even succeed then all of this money will have gone to waste. Countless peoples’ lives would have been destroyed from prosecution, and racial tensions and tensions within the criminal justice system would be as high as ever.  Furthermore, because the drug policies changed from president to president in the War on Drugs, a feeling of instability might surround the government.  Propaganda and misleading information released by the government in the war also makes people wary.  Overall, all of these tensions combined could leave the citizens not trusting the US government, which could even last for years after the loss of the War on Drugs.

            In conclusion, I think that we have lost the War on Drugs.  I think that this loss will lead to racial disparities, inconsistencies in power in the criminal justice system, and distrust in the government.  While drug use is definitely a problem in the United States, I don’t think that a “War on Drugs” is the appropriate way to handle the problem, and I think that another method should be used instead.  Losing the War on Drugs runs the risk of certain social turmoil, which is certainly not the desired result when trying to tackle a societal issue.

Assignment 7

            The debate over the legalization of marijuana has been widely publicized in the past couple of years.  The public is extremely polarized either for or against legalization, and both sides are very passionate about their stance.  In “Legalize Marijuana?  A Conversation with the Experts”, six professionals discuss different pros and cons of marijuana legalization.  This essay will present the two sides of marijuana legalization based on their arguments.

There were many reasons against the legalization of marijuana.  First off, it is feared that there are a lot of different negative health consequences from the use of marijuana.  It was mentioned that research found negative consequences from marijuana use that included, but were not limited to, anxiety, psychosis, early-onset schizophrenia, and paranoia.  Another health risk from use of marijuana was the potential for cannabis addiction, which is recognized by the DSM-V as a dependence disorder with a high potential for abuse.  This is especially problematic for people with addictive personalities.  When people get addicted, the addiction becomes a burden emotionally, physically, and financially for the users and their families, especially while trying to detox.  The process of breaking an addiction could be further complicated by marijuana withdrawal, which exists for some people.  If legalization of marijuana leads people to see it as a safe drug, more people will take the drug, leading to more addicts around the country, creating a public health epidemic likened to the recent prescription drugs epidemic.  Furthermore, in addition to the gateway drug theory (which states that users who try marijuana will be more inclined to try more hard-core drugs), studies on lab rats showed that male rats who were given THC regularly at a young age had offspring who actively searched for heroin, rather than offspring from rats who had no THC, who did not seek out any drugs.  Unfortunately, despite knowing all of these possible effects, it is hard to determine how a person will react to a drug, especially when potency increases.

            The idea to legalize medical marijuana also poses a problem.  First of all, there isn’t enough data to prove that marijuana has medical use to FDA standards, and legalizing medical marijuana based on a public vote will allow the drug to circumvent scientific safety testing, creating a public safety risk.  It is often thought that medicalization is just an excuse to people to commit fraud and fake pain to get medicinal marijuana for recreational use, which also makes individual states appear to be much unhealthier than they are.  Legalization of medical marijuana would call for the implementation of public policies which prevent this type of fraud from happening.  Furthermore, intoxicating drugs that keep people from functioning at their normal cognition level can hardly be called medicine, and with no known dose range, marijuana should not be voted on as a medicine to smoke.

            Finally, legalization of marijuana in the states contradicts federal law, which declares it an illegal Schedule I drug.  This discrepancy could cause tension between not only the state and federal government but also between states with differing laws on the drug.  If marijuana were to be made legal, a huge overhaul of national and state policies would be necessary, and it would be difficult to make everyone agree and to come up with a system that would work for everyone.

            However, there are many arguments that are made for the legalization of marijuana.  First off, it was argued that it can be used medically, and in fact has been used for hundreds of years as a pain reliever and relaxant.  It can also be used for many other purposes, including as a drug to increase food intake in people who have illnesses that cause them to not be hungry, such as cancer.  It was argued that after hundreds of tests, effects of the drug can indeed be predicted, especially when tolerance to the drug has been developed, and that marijuana usage does not cause cognition problems.  Though the drug may be intoxicating, it is not to be intended for use during working hours, but is intended for times of relaxation and sleep.  Other legal drugs can be intoxicating, yet are still legal.  The main key to control this is dosage, and because THC concentrations are rising, less marijuana must be smoked, leading to smaller doses and less intoxication.  You can get addicted to or take too much of any substance.  However, it was suggested that marijuana has a lower abuse potential than other drugs.  Regardless, simply saying that the drug is safe will not encourage people to smoke more.  This is merely a correlation and correlation does not lead to causation.

            Marijuana has been historically demonized, giving the public a skewed perception of the drug.  Aversion to the drug initially stemmed from racial bias, as usage of the drug was related to Mexican immigrants around the impoverished times of the Great Depression.  Now, unfounded claims about marijuana and detrimental health effects keep the public wary of this drug.  However, legalizing marijuana could lower the stigma around the drug, which could help out many people.  For example, it could minimize the pasts of people with illegal marijuana convictions, and could give them and their families the chance to start over without the record of a petty drug charge.

            Finally, legalizing marijuana would be beneficial because it would put an important decision into the hands of hopefully educated voters.  Once it is legal, different public policies can be experimented with to find out which work for society.  After a bit of experimentation a policy can be put into place that works best over time, and that produces the most good for everyone.

            In conclusion, the debate about the legalization of marijuana was heated in the video that we watched.  It will most likely be a very pressing subject in society for years to come, and though different people will think of different solutions, hopefully the solution that best benefits society will be put into place.

Assignment 6

The documentary “OxyContin Express” studies the mass distribution of prescription pills by doctors from pain clinics in South Florida, predominantly in Broward County around Ft. Lauderdale.  These doctors prescribe OxyContin five times more than the national average.  Because this distribution is legal in Florida, unlike in other states, this opens the opportunity up for a major drug trade between Florida and the rest of the US.  As the problem becomes more and more widespread, authorities have been scrambling to try to contain it.

Personally, I am not very happy that South Florida is known as the pill popper’s paradise.  I am from this part of South Florida, and I am proud of where I grew up.  I am sad and slightly ashamed that my hometown is making such a great contribution to destroying peoples’ lives everyday.  However, somehow, I never knew that this prescription drug situation was a problem.  I never thought twice about seeing pain clinics, and never knew that a lot of these clinics were in business to make money by distributing drugs to addicts.  I’m truly disgusted that doctors would be willing to forget their pledge to help society and exploit the addictions of patients just to make money.  

I think that in order to stop the pill pipeline that stems from Ft. Lauderdale and Appalachia, the problem must be attacked at its source.  I think the source of the problem is that Florida doesn’t have the same laws as other states about prescription drugs.  Because the laws in Florida are much less constrictive, people from all over the country come to Florida to easily get hundreds or thousands of pills.  So, to stop this “pill pipeline,” I think that we should enact all of that same laws that other states have to make it harder to get large amounts of these prescription drugs.  One of these laws would create a prescription drug database, which would track who buys an amount of drugs prescribed from what doctor in order to prevent “doctor shopping,” in which addicts get different prescriptions from many different doctors to get a huge amount of drugs.  If it is noticed that either a patient or doctor are acting suspiciously, an investigation should occur.  On-site pharmacies should also be made illegal, to remove the monetary incentive for pain clinics to prescribe medication.  It should be required to make all drug transactions with some sort of paper trail, to monitor how much of each drug a person is buying.  If these standards are put in place and rival the codes of other states, the addicts would have no reason to come to Florida to pills, thus killing the “pill pipeline.”

There are many ways that this relates to the class.  First of all, use of the prescription drugs by addicts is illegal recreational use of a Schedule II drug.  Because the drugs can be used for a medical purpose, they are Schedule II and not I, but they can still be very dangerous and deaths from overdose have become quite common.  The ease through which addicts can get drugs in South Florida has created a bit of a culture both in Florida and elsewhere.  The illegal drug trade in Florida has created an environment in which the drug trade thrives.  The pain clinics has sprouted all around Florida, and addicts feel free to doctor shop and get as many pills as they want.  When people go up north to areas like Appalachia after buying the drug in Florida, another culture is created.  Illegal drug trade blooms, creating a problem for both addicts and police alike.  Apparently nearly no family goes untouched from this addiction, and law enforcement officers have a very hard time containing the trade for this illegal drug.

In conclusion, I think that it is horrible that this seemingly unethical practice of selling prescription drugs to addicts is so common in South Florida.  I think that state laws should be made to imitate those of other states, so that people do not come down to buy the drugs so easily.  I think that this is a very sad situation that destroys lives all over the country, and I hope that an effective solution is eventually created. 

Assignment 5

For his research for The Cocaine Kids, Terry Williams conducted an ethnographic study.  In this type of study, a researcher will spend a long period of time immersed in the culture with the people that they are studying, interacting with the participants in the culture for an extended period of time.  In this case, Williams spent two hours a day three days a week from 1982 to 1986 with the eight “Cocaine Kids,” as he dubbed them (page ix).  During this time, he would follow the Kids around in their daily activities, take brief notes about his observations, go home, and record detailed entries about events and conversations from the day.  He would do this so as to not make the Kids’ customers nervous, to keep his notes as accurate as possible, and to protect himself from the hazardous surroundings he was in (page 3).  Before beginning his studies, Williams had to earn the trust of the Kids.  Williams met Max through a mutual friend, and earned his trust by being honest and by keeping Max’s secrets (page 16).  Max then opened Williams to the world of the cocaine trade, and it is through Max that Williams met the other Kids, who worked for Max.  Over time, he gained the trust of all of the Kids, and not only watched daily business, but was also able to get an insight into the thoughts, feelings, hopes, and dreams of all of the Kids, which he recorded as a part of his study.

            The first thing that I thought was interesting was that the drug trade seemed to be a never-ending cycle, even after most of the Kids left the trade.  Most of the Kids moved on with their lives from selling cocaine, but Williams walked through the streets and neighborhoods they had dealt at for old times’ sake.  There, new teenagers were out selling the drugs, and it can almost be said that they have replaced the Kids who had left the trade (page 132).  I thought that this was interesting because I think that it provided a new look at how the drug culture works.  We often see that new generations take on the drug trade, but we don’t often think that a lot of the generation from the previous drug era moved on to bigger and better things in life.  They grow up, and seem to grow out of dealing.  I feel I don’t often look at the drug dealing as a cycle from generation to generation, with one replacing the other as they grow weary of the lifestyle, but this study definitely made me realize that, almost seeming to give the drug trade culture a life of its own.

            A second thing that surprised me was how intelligent all of the Kids were.  Often, we think of drug dealers as uneducated bums who turn to drug dealing as a quick, easy paycheck.  However, in reality, drug dealing seemed to be hard, and took a lot of cunning to be successful.  The Kids must know market prices, first of all, which were constantly fluctuating, in order to make a profit (page 7).  The Kids would have to know the market well enough to know how to manipulate it to make a profit for the sellers, suppliers, and distributors, while still keeping repeat customers.  They would use clever tricks such as “cutting” (adding impurities to the drug to increase the amount of cocaine to be distributed) to increase their profits, or even to keep some extra cocaine for themselves.  There is also a considerable amount of strategizing by the supplier, Max.  He decides who to hire as a seller, how much cocaine to give each of the Kids, and how much to have them sell it for.  He must be clever enough to know to trust them, as well as to develop a system, with the intricacies of the market in mind, to make a profit and get his money back (page 36).  Through all of this, the Kids must be clever enough to keep their illegal activity hidden from the police.  Overall, I found all of this required knowledge and cunning in the cocaine-dealing world to be very interesting and surprising, and I definitely think that it uproots the common stereotype that drug dealers are uneducated and not intelligent.  Clearly, brains and wit are required to succeed in this field.

            The final thing that I thought was surprising about the drug trade was the etiquette that goes into the cocaine culture.  Normally, I’d think that a transaction would be done as quickly as possible; the customer would state how much they want and pay for the requested amount.  However, this does not seem to be the case most of the time.  First off, before a transaction, it is expected that the seller provide a free sample, or “taste,” or the cocaine (page 29).  After sampling the cocaine and chatting for a bit, the transaction is made, and both the seller and the buyer go on their way.  Breaching this tasting ritual does indeed elicit complaints from the customers.  Another bit of etiquette that I thought was interesting was that dealers would go to after-hour bars to give out “C-C,” or calling-card cocaine (page 97).  Giving out this free cocaine not only increase the prestige of the dealers (it gives off the illusion that they have cocaine that they can spare to bar patrons for free), but it also attracts new customers (page 98).  I think that it is interesting that the cocaine culture has these etiquettes.  It shows that taking the drug is not only a hobby, but it is a lifestyle that molds into creating a culture for all of those who participate.

            Williams’ observations relate to this class in many ways.  First of all, his study covers the illicit trade of cocaine, and we learned that the trade of illicit drugs is a huge industry.  His study also seems to indicate that there is an entire culture and lifestyle revolving around cocaine.  In class we learned that drugs have been used throughout history, and indeed are often integral parts of a culture.  However, this usage isn’t always illegal recreational usage, which is the type of usage that the Kids participated in.  Williams also covered the darker side of drug usage that we learned about.  Although the Kids seem to enjoy taking the drug recreationally, they sometimes seem to be slightly addicted to the drug.  Addiction is a topic that we covered in class, and unfortunately, because cocaine was everywhere in their daily lives, it seemed quite easy for the Kids to get addicted.  Indeed, Hector got addicted to freebasing (page 122), which was looked down upon in disgust by the Kids, much like much of society looks down upon drug users as a whole.  However, the Kids did seem to embody a lot of the stereotypes used to demonize drugs.  They were minority youths who were sucked into selling drugs because they were poor and, for the most part, didn’t have a higher education.  However, much unlike what we studied, most of them seemed to break free from the trading of drugs and were able to move forward from the drug trade and build their lives up.

            In conclusion, I thought that The Cocaine Kids was a very good read which provided a very unique and interesting insight into the cocaine drug trade.  I think that it shows that people don’t exactly understand the depth of illicit drug trades, and I think that they deserve more study so that the public understands the cultures a bit more.

Assignment 4

            The use of drugs as a stimulant and sleep aid in the military has been a hot topic for debate in the past.  There are many different viewpoints to examine, and while there will inevitably be no right answer, the conclusion cannot be taken lightly, as the results that stem from this debate will have an effect on the health and safety of thousands of people around the world.

            Overall, I think that I agree with the usage of amphetamines in the military to increase the alertness and effectiveness of the pilots.  I think that the demands of the pilots’ jobs call for extra safety measures, and as long as the usage is regulated and the pilots are supported physically and psychologically throughout the process, the usage of these drugs may be required.  Unfortunately, militaries around the world are looking for ways to gain an edge over their opponents, as exhibited by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which called to find a new way to keep warriors fighting for up to seven days (Knickerbocker, 2002).  Unfortunately, because forces all over the world are turning to means such as these, in order to keep our soldiers as equipped as possible, they must at least match, if not exceed, the equipment of the enemy.  As long as their mental and physical needs are cared for, soldiers should be able to choose whether or not they want to use drugs to enhance their performance.  As covered by Duenwald and Shanker, battles can be a life-or-death situation, and pilots should be given the choice to have an advantage on the battlefield (2003) if needed.

            I believe that the military is ethically distributing these pills, though the ethicality could probably be enhanced.  First of all, the pills that they are giving are legal (though they are Schedule II drugs, meaning that they are highly regulated) (Knickerbocker, 2002).  So, no illegal activity is going on.  Also, all three of the articles mentioned that the pilots don’t have to take the pills if they don’t want to (although it was admitted in every article that in one way or another, the pilots may be pressured into taking the drugs).  Finally, there is a system in place to try to regulate where the pills are at all times, and how many pills a pilot takes at one time (Bonné, 2003).  However, there are flaws, and there are ways to make this process more ethical.  First of all, it could become healthier for the pilots.  They could stop mixing “go” and “no-go” pills, thus reducing the risk for synergistic interactions between the drugs.  Pilots should also provide full consent to taking the drug without feeling forced, as seems to be the case now.  Consenting pilots should be admitted to psychological therapy after service in order to either avoid addiction to the drug (which could be a side effect to taking the drug) or to get rid of the addiction.  Finally, the regulation system to control the amount of pills given to the pilots should be more firmly regulated.  Though the process of giving these pilots is moral enough, there are many things that can be done to make it an even more moral process.

            Unfortunately, I do think that the pilots’ careers will suffer if they do not take the pills.  First of all, as mentioned before, militaries from around the world are always racing to have the best equipment.  Stephen Baker, the former chief of operational testing for the Navy mentioned how advancements in the world of medical technology will be some of the most profound in the coming future (Knickerbocker, 2002).  Unfortunately, if our warriors do not keep up with this trend of medicalization, they will be quickly overtaken by anyone more advanced.  Also, because this field seems to be so advanced, many people support the medicalization of warfare.  So, anyone who does not support this medicalization may not be given as many opportunities on the battlefield as those who do, as they will be seen as unproductive and trying to work against modern scientific discoveries.

            Finally, I feel there are many consequences to taking amphetamines.  First of all are the many side effects that come from taking these drugs.  Aggression, anxiety, and paranoia were all listed side effects of amphetamines.  It is believed that this is the reason that the American pilot accidentally fired on friendly Canadian troops (Duenwald, Shanker, 2003) in April of 2002.  It was also stated that it can be a very addictive drug, and can cause dependence even if its intake is regulated.  Reliance on this drug may also occur in order to obtained desired results for a mission, even the easiest missions.  This reliance may allow for soldiers to lose accountability for their actions, as they would be able to blame them on the drugs that they take, a phenomenon that was studied in class.     

            These consequences can be dealt with in different ways.  Unfortunately, though the side-effects of a drug may not be able to be avoided, there can be ways to minimize the effects.  The soldiers can first be tested to see how the drugs will affect them.  They can be given lower doses, and can be given the drugs only when they are well-rested, which is when the drugs are most effective with the least amount of side-effects.  In order to try to avoid dependence, intake can be regulated, with stocks of the drug being locked up in a secret place when it is not in use.  After service, the pilots can be sent to cognitive therapy in order to try to counteract any type of dependence that may have developed.  Finally, in order to avoid reliance on these drugs to have a successful mission, the drugs should be a last-resort.  They should be saved for only the longest hardest missions, and emphasis should be placed on the power of skill and well-being on the battlefield rather than relying on a drug to carry the team through.  Eliminating reliance on the drug will also move accountability for actions back over to the soldiers.

            In conclusion, the debate over the use of amphetamines by the armed forces is a hot one.  I think that it is acceptable as long as it is ethical and made as safe as possible.  Given the increasing advancement in medical technology, I think that drugs will be used more and more to improve combat performance.  However, I’m sure the debate will always remain, as there is no right or wrong answer as to what the soldiers should do.

Works Cited

Bonné, J.  (2003, January 3).  ‘Go pills’: a war on drugs?.  NBC News.  Retrieved from            http://www.nbcnews.com

Duenwald, M. et al.  (2003, January 19).  Threats and responses: military; bombing error puts a spotlight on pilots’ pills.  The New York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

Knickerbocker, B.  (2002, August 9).  Military looks to drugs for battle readiness.  The Christian         Science Monitor.  Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com.