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.