Retail Drug Trade,Effects on Neighbourhoods,and Sellers’ Navigational Strategies: Accounts of Nigerian Dealers

Abstract

Studies have examined the negative effects of drug markets on neighbourhoods. But few explore the views of drug sellers. Drawing on 31 in-depth interviews with Nigerian retail drug sellers, we explore why they sell drugs, the effects of drug markets on neighbourhoods, and how they navigate social and legal problems. The participants sold drugs as a means of livelihood in the context of poverty and economic decline. Drug market activities were seen as nuisance, and as fostering crime and violence in neighbourhoods. These views stirred opposition from residents and led to police raids on drug scenes. Drug sellers navigated policing and opposition by concealing drug trade, selling covertly and reducing nuisance among other strategies. We argue that retail drug trade is shaped by the imperatives of survival in the context of poverty. Providing alternative means of livelihood for drug sellers offers potential to curb drug selling and related problems.

Introduction

This study explores the reasons for selling drugs, the negative effects of drug selling and consumption on neighbourhoods, and how drug sellers navigate social and legal problems in drug markets. Public drug use often evokes negative reactions from community members due to the perception of people who use drugs (PWUD) as criminally dangerous, morally deviant, and diseased individuals (Smith, 2010; Strike et al., 2014). Also, poor dependent drug users may engage in economic crimes such as shoplifting and burglary to support their drug use (Briggs, 2013; DeBeck et al., 2007; Degendhart et al., 2005). Drug-related crimes further contribute to stigma and negative attitudes towards PWUD. Drug use behaviours are also associated with concerns about crime and personal safety (Strike et al., 2014). Studies have shown that drug-related crime, anti-social behaviours, intimidation and violence are major problems for residents of neighbourhoods where drug markets exist (Graham, 2000; Lupton, Wilson, May, Warburton, & Turnbull, 2002; Page, 2000). Such drug market-related problems are seen as barriers to the creation of safe neighbourhoods (Lupton et al., 2002).

Drug sellers are equally perceived in a negative light by neighbourhood residents. Studies have shown stereotypes of drug sellers as immoral criminals who take advantage of the misery of others’ addiction to make profit (Commber, 2006, 2010; Taylor & Potter, 2013). Negative attitudes towards drug sellers and users are reinforced by the negative effects of drug use and drug scene nuisances (e.g., public drug selling and use, loitering, violence, and littering) on neighbourhoods (Cusick & Kimber, 2007; Kolla et al., 2017; Van Hout & Bingham, 2013). Open drug markets have been conceptualized as spaces where drug sellers are reasonably visible to those seeking drugs (Hough & Natarajan, 2000; Jacobs, 1999; May & Hough, 2004). This visibility elevates the risk of detection and arrest of sellers and buyers by law enforcement agents, and also increase the likelihood of exposure to violence (May & Hough, 2004; Coomber & Moyle, 2018). Open drug markets produce nuisance through large number of visits to certain properties or public spaces (Lupton et al., 2002). They also generate safety concerns that often lead to police intervention (Aalbers, 2006).

The existing literature identifies a number of strategies for addressing the negative effects of drug use and drug scene nuisances. A key strategy is enforcement approaches such as highly visible policing, intensive law enforcement, buy-and-bust operations, intelligence-driven policing and confiscating drugs and arresting buyers and sellers (Harocopos & Hough, 2005; Lupton et al., 2002). However, retail drug markets can be highly resilient to law enforcement interventions (Bouchard, 2007). As Harocopos and Hough (2005, p. 2) have observed, ‘simply arresting market participants will have little impact in reducing the size of the market or the amounts of drugs consumed’. Conventional short-term interdiction efforts often yield only short-term results as the market responds by adapting to policing operations (Curtis & Wendel, 2007). Drug market participants are known to be able to modify their strategies in response to law enforcement activities (Abele, 2004). Most of the existing studies on this topic were conducted in western societies. Comparatively, less is known about drug-related neighbourhood problems in Africa, where estimates show an increase in drug supply and use (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2021).

Another strand of research literature show how stigma attached to drug use and open drug markets contribute to perceptions of neighbourhood deterioration and foster efforts by opposed residents to enforce spatial boundaries in an attempt to eradicate the ‘disorders of drugs’ (Sibley, 1995; Smith, 2010). In North America, this dynamic has led to the use of zoning by-laws by groups opposed to open drug markets within neighbourhoods (‘Not-In-My-Backyard’ groups) to exclude PWUD from parts of municipalities (Bernstein & Bennett, 2013; Smith, 2010). While there is a large body of research that examines negative attitudes toward open drug markets and residents’ opposition to drug-related activities (Bardwell et al., 2017; Cusick & Kimber, 2007; Kolla et al., 2017; Strike et al., 2015; Van Hout & Bingham, 2013; Wenger et al., 2011), the accounts of drug sellers have been neglected. Exploring the perspectives of drug sellers is important because, among other reasons, it offers an insider view on why they engage in drug selling and how they navigate opposition and police raids.

The gaps we have identified in the literature (the dearth of research from Africa, and limited exploration of the perspectives of drug sellers) informs our study. The study, which is based on qualitative interviews with 31 commercially-oriented retail drug sellers in a Nigerian city, is driven by three research questions: what are the motives behind participants' involvement in drug selling? What are the negative effects of drug markets on the neighbourhood? How do they navigate social and legal problems (i.e., opposition, police raids) in drug markets? The significance of this study is underlined by the paucity of research on the effects of drug market activities on neighbourhoods in Africa, and the policy salience of understanding the resilience of drug selling in the face of societal opposition and repressive policing.

Drug Markets and Control Policy in Nigeria

Illegal drugs consumption is a significant public health problem in Nigeria. The most comprehensive national-level data on drug use is provided by the nation-wide survey of drug use conducted in 2018. The survey reported a past year drug use prevalence estimated at 14.4% (which corresponds to 14.3 million people aged 15–64 years) (UNODC, 2019). Geographically, the highest prevalence was found in the south, including the south-south region where the present study was conducted. Cannabis was the most commonly used drug (used by 10.8% or 10.6 million people), followed by prescription opioids such as tramadol and codeine-containing cough syrup (4.7% or 4.6 million people) (UNODC, 2019). Prescription opioids (e.g., tramadol) are controlled drugs in Nigeria, available on a doctor’s prescription. Possession or use of these drugs without a doctor’s prescription could lead to arrest by law enforcement officers.

Nigeria is a major producer of cannabis for the international drug market (UNODC, 2007). The crop, which was introduced to the country by ex-servicemen returning from Asia and North Africa after the second world war, found a suitable habitat in the country’s tropical climate (Obot, 2004), and was soon after exported to Europe and the United States on a scale large enough to attract official attention (Akyeampong, 2005; Ellis, 2009). A recent survey conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported an estimated 8900 hectares of cannabis in six states in the southern parts of the country (UNODC, 2022). Nigerians have been involved in the trafficking of heroin and cocaine from Asia and South America through West Africa to European and North American markets since the 1980s (Akyeampong, 2005; Elis, 2009).

Drug trafficking through Nigeria and other West African countries enroute to drug markets in Europe and North America, attributed to entrepreneurial ingenuity, widespread poverty and inadequate law enforcement (UNODC, 2007; Williams & Cockyane, 2009), has led to the emergence of domestic consumer markets in the country (Elis, 2009). Felbab-Brown (2010) has described how endemic corruption, widespread poverty and limited opportunities for social mobility in many West African countries have created a context where illegal activities such as selling drugs are seen as legitimate undertaking to secure livelihoods. Drug trade and use in the region are entwined with conditions of poverty and marginalization blighting large segments of the population (Aning & Pokoo, 2014; Felbab-Brown, 2010; Williams & Cockyane, 2009). In Nigeria, poverty is widespread and a large segment of population lack basic necessities such as food and shelter. An estimated 40.1% of Nigerians (about 82.9 million people) live in poverty (World Bank, 2022). Nelson and Tasha (2021) have shown how retail drug trade serves as a means of income generation for many Nigerian youth in the context of poverty and deprivation.

On the other hand, studies have documented perceptions of drug selling and use as criminal and anti-social activities (Dirisu et al., 2019; Ugwu & Dumbili, 2021). Stigma and negative attitudes to illegal drug use have a long history in Nigeria, and are rooted in public anxieties about drug-related crime, violence and social deviance (Klein, 1999). As a signatory to the United Nations conventions on narcotics, Nigeria relies on enforcement-based measures to curb drug production, distribution and use (Klein, 1999; Obot, 2004). This include raids on street-level markets by law enforcement agents as well as arrest and detention of sellers and users (Nelson, 2018). Drug market activities have persisted despite negative societal perceptions and law enforcement activities (Nelson, 2018; Nelson & Tasha, 2021). This study builds on the existing literature to explore drug sellers’ views on motives for selling drugs and how they navigate social and legal problems associated with drug markets.

Methods

The Study Setting

The study was conducted in Uyo, the largest urban centre in Akwa Ibom State in Nigeria. The city has an estimated population of 1,143,689 people (World Bank, 2020). A large proportion of the population (51%) lives in absolute poverty, defined as living on less than one US dollar per day (National Bureau of Statistics [NBS], 2010). This translates into significant social and material deprivation, including inability to meet basic subsistence needs (e.g., food, shelter, healthcare) for a vast majority of people. Urban expansion has provided impetus for massive in-migration, resulting in a rapidly growing ethnically-diverse urban population. Infrastructural development and provision of basic social amenities such as healthcare, housing, electricity and safe water supply have lagged behind population increase and urban expansion. The local economy is centered around commerce, services and a variety of low-level office, administrative and salaried positions in the civil service. A large segment of the city’s population toil in the informal economic sector, where regulation is weak and illegal activities such as drug selling abound.

Participants and Recruitment

The study (i.e., recruitment of participants and data collection) lasted for 6 months (November 2019 to April 2020). The participants (n = 31) were male between the age of 26 and 45. Their mean age was 35 years. Female dealers could not be recruited. This was mostly due to the high level of stigma surrounding women’s involvement in drug selling, which makes it difficult for women to volunteer to participate in research (Nelson, 2021). Of the 31 participants, 14 were unemployed, six were students and 11 were engaged in other economic activities. Snowball sampling, were participants are asked to refer others who meet the inclusion criterion and those they refer are also asked to refer others, was used to recruit participants (Noy, 2008). Inclusion criterion was being an active commercially-oriented retail drug seller (i.e., currently selling illegal drugs for commercial profit at the time of the interview). Although all participants used drugs, none was a social supplier. We used contacts established by the first author during previous researches to recruit the first six dealers from different networks in order to generate a more diverse sample. This approach improved external validity in a sample where representativeness is difficult to determine because the parameters of the population are unknown (Wright & Decker, 1996). The first author has developed a good relationship with people who use or sell drugs in the city due to his involvement in the provision of health and social services for this population. The familiarity and trust he has developed helped to put the participants at ease.

Interviews

In-depth interviews were conducted with a semi-structured guide that allowed the participants to respond freely and openly as well as introduce new themes and concepts. The guide covered different topics, including policing, drug market violence, and entry and exit from drug selling. In the course of interviews, the participants spoke about negative perceptions and opposition to drug market activities from residents of the neighbourhoods. Questions were added to probe these emerging issues (such as, ‘what effects do drug selling have on the neighbourhood?’, ‘how do people in your neighbourhood react to drug use or selling?’, ‘how do your family members look at your drug selling?’). To improve internal validity, participants were not asked for names. They were also assured of confidentiality and anonymity of responses. Interviews took place at locations chosen by the participants (e.g., eateries, drop-in centres), the aim being to make them feel comfortable and safe during the interviews. Participants gave verbal consent before they were interviewed. They were gifted N500 (US$1.19) for their time. This was offered at the end of each interview session (and without prior information) to mitigate any effect it may have on the interview. Interviews lasted between 60 and 90 min, and responses were recorded digitally with participants’ consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and all identifying information were removed.

Analysis

Interview transcripts were cross-checked with the recorded versions to ensure accuracy. The framework approach, which is suited for enabling different aspects of a phenomenon (such as the negative effects of drug markets on neighbourhoods) to be captured (Ritchie et al., 2010), was used to code and analyse the data. After reading the transcripts repeatedly and gaining an overview of the responses, a ‘coding index’ was developed from initial themes and sub-themes identified in the data (e.g., livelihoods, policing, perceptions, effects on neighbourhoods). This index was applied to code the data through line by line reading of each transcript. Following initial coding, thematic charts were created to capture interpretations of the themes and sub-themes, which were further developed by working backward and forward across each transcript to make sense of the data, clarify information and select relevant quotes. Ethics approval was obtained from the research ethics committee of the Ministry of Health, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria (MH/PRS/101/Vol.IV/269).

Results

Reasons for Engaging in Drug Selling

In this sub-section, we describe the economic motives that influenced involvement in drug selling. This will help to explain why most of the participants continued to sell drugs despite opposition from neighbourhood residents and police raids. The participants sold different types of drugs, including crack cocaine (26), heroin (29), Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) (17), cannabis (31) and diverted prescription drugs (27). On average, they had been selling drugs for 16.5 years (range = 3–27). The major reason most of them started selling illegal drugs was to earn income to meet basic needs in the context of poverty and economic decline. Iko (36, unemployed), who had been selling drugs for about 10 years, stated:

The reason I started selling is because of how condition is. Things are very difficult in this country. You cannot tell someone give me this or that all the time. You have to fend for yourself. So, I decided to do this business to make money so I can take care of myself.

Participants generally viewed retail drug trade as a lucrative venture, which could provide income for one to meet basic needs. We were told that the livelihoods potential of drug selling is the reason people get involved in it. Amos (39, unemployed), who had been involved in drug selling for over 15 years, described the lucrativeness of the trade thus:

This drugs issues that we are talking about is something that if you buy drugs for N10,000 (US$23.79) you are going to make the same N10,000 (US$23.79) from it. So, you see the level of profit in it. That is why people sometime go into it to sell it to sustain themselves.

Participants who had other income generating activities also found drug selling lucrative, with some considering it more lucrative than most legitimate economic activities (‘It gives you more money than making furniture [carpentry]’, Ikpe 36, carpenter). However, drug selling is also associated with problems. In this study, we focus on opposition to drug selling and use arising from the negative effects of drug markets on neighbourhoods.

Effects of Drug Markets on Neighbourhoods

Accounts indicated that drug selling and consumption were seen as having negative effects on the neighbourhoods where these activities took place. We group these negative effects into three categories: ‘nuisance’, ‘crime’, and ‘violence’.

Nuisance

The participants reported that drug market activities were seen as offensive and distressing for residents of the neighbourhoods where these activities took place. Accounts indicated that drug scenes (known locally as ‘bunks') were viewed by residents as annoying, with some describing how the noise and commotion that are often associated with drug scenes made residents to call on the police to disrupt these activities. For example, Joe (29, unemployed), who had been selling drugs for about 12 years, told us:

The thing is that the bunk is very shouty (i.e., noisy) because by the time people (referring to customers) sit down there and take drugs, a lot of things will happen. Some will start to be violent. Some will even go a long way in causing trouble. People will then bring police and show the place because by the time all this is happening, it is affecting other people who are living in the area.

Joe’s comment indicates that it is the nuisance associated with drug scenes that prompt the residents to call for police intervention. Apart from noise and commotion associated with drug scenes, indiscriminate consumption of illegal drugs within the neighbourhood was also seen as nuisance that often led to police intervention. This was due to the fact that drug consumption disturbed the residents. In the quote below, Henry (31, masonry), who had been selling drugs for about 6 years, described how smoking marijuana in a beer parlour could be offensive to residents of the neighbourhood, leading them to call on the police:

Some people who buy from us will go and stay at the bar and smoke it. Then someone who does not like the smell of weed (marijuana) will call police, and police will come in without you knowing. It is not the people smoking there that call the police. It is those who are outside. The people who feel that smoking of weed is disturbing other people in the neighbourhood.

The above quote makes it clear that the call for police intervention is made from ‘those who are outside’, which refers to those residing around the beer parlour who are disturbed by the use of marijuana within the parlour. Drug market activities were perceived as causing more than minor inconveniences to residents; it was also seen as potentially harmful. An example is when police arrest innocent residents mistakenly during raids on drug scenes. Iko (quoted earlier), whose neighbours were arrested by police officers during a raid on the drug scene where he operates, told us:

The problem is police arresting innocent people in the area because of drugs. When they arrest people, you will go and bail them. Like they can arrest five people at your place. Sometimes, like in the one that happened to me, it was my tenants who were not involved (i.e., who were non-users) that were arrested. I had to contribute money so that he can be bailed. At least that will reduce their anger against you.

Harms to residents arising from drug market activities in the neighbourhood could have repercussions for the drug seller. This may be seen in how Iko framed his contribution of money to bail the arrested tenants as a gesture to assuage their displeasure. He went on to explain how such expenses (i.e., contributing money to bail his innocent tenants) reduced his profit.

Crime

Drug-related crime was also identified as part of the negative effects of drug market activities on neighbourhoods. Studies have shown a relationship between dependent drug use and acquisitive crime (DeBeck et al., 2007; Wilkins & Sweetsur, 2011). In the present study, drug sellers explained that such crimes are common, and sellers who are complicit may be in real trouble. For example, a seller who becomes a criminal accomplice by selling drugs in exchange for stolen goods could be a jeopardy. Henry (31, unemployed), who had been selling drugs for over 10 years, explained:

There is someone who is selling and someone brings laptop that does not have his name on it. You know this laptop goes for like N100, 000 (US$237.91), but he will bring it and smoke for N10,000 (US$23.79) and you collect. When the problem of that laptop comes it will affect many people. Those who did not expect to go to prison will go. Plus, it will affect your business too.

As seen in this quote, a seller’s complicity in criminal activities through collection of stolen items could generate legal problems that affect many people. It could lead to police raid on the neighbourhood and indiscriminate arrests that could affect non-users (‘they will arrest anyone they see because of the crime’, Henry). Further, residents and police officers often see drug scenes as hideouts for criminals (Nelson, 2018). The participants corroborated this view when they described how some residents have directed police officers on a hunt for crime suspects to their drug scenes, leading to arrest of innocent users. Mike (27, student), who had been selling drugs for 3 years, stated:

Some people can go and make trouble outside, steal or do something else that you don’t know about. They will come and hide there at the bunk. If police come and ask where are those people, people in the neighbourhood will say, ‘they are sitting there; go and arrest them there’. There is how they come and arrest everyone, even if you did not go with them.

The risks associated with being linked to criminal activities as an accomplice prompted many of the drug sellers we interviewed to exercise caution in their dealings with their customers. For example, Iko (quoted earlier) told us that he does not exchange drugs for anything other than money to avoid becoming an accomplice to a crime. In his words:

Me, I don’t collect anything other than money. Wherever you go to get the money bring it, I will collect and sell to you. It won’t be that your father’s phone is what I am collecting to sell for you. When your father looks for it, I will be in trouble. I will not be willing to return it to you because you bought up to N10,000 (US$23.79) worth of drugs.

Others emphasized that the perception of drug scenes as a refuge for criminals made it difficult for drug sellers to avoid problems with the police regardless of how careful they may be in their dealings with customers. This suggests that drug sellers and their trade are negatively affected as a result of the effects of drugs on neighbourhoods.

Violence

The relationship between drug use and violence is a complex one (Parker & Auerhahn, 1998). But this appears simple and straightforward in the public view (i.e., anyone who takes drug will engage in violent behaviour). The drug sellers we interviewed held such an uncomplicated view of the drug-violence relationship. They explained how people blame them for instigating violence by selling the drugs that violent perpetrators used. This may be illustrated by the following comment by Danny (38, shoe-repairs), who had been selling for over 20 years:

So, there are people who will smoke and go and beat up their parents at home. Such thing is not good. There are parents who will not tolerate that kind of thing. They will say it is through the person who is selling it (drugs) in the neighbourhood. (They say that) It is because the drugs are there in the area.

The quote presented above show that drug sellers are blamed for family violence attributed to drug consumption because of the diffusion of drug selling throughout the neighbourhood. Thus, drug market activities within neighbourhoods shapes how residents interpret other social problems. As in the case of nuisance and crime, drug sellers risk police arrest when users engage in violent behaviours, even though this occurs outside the drug-scene. Imo (35, unemployed), who had been selling drugs for about 13 years, told us:

There are problems like fights, quarrel, and some people after smoking will even go and steal… All this is blamed on the seller. If they arrest the user, they will ask him ‘take us to where you bought it’. Then he will bring them to the seller and from there problem will reach the seller.

This, and the many other examples discussed earlier in this section, show how the negative effects of drug market activities on neighbourhoods create problems for sellers. Drug sellers found ways to navigate these problems. We discuss these strategies in the next sub-section.

Opposition and Navigational Strategies of Drug Sellers

Illegal drug use and trade are viewed in a negative light, and those who sell or consume drugs are often stigmatized by other members of the community. In the study setting, a previous study had documented negative perceptions of illegal drug trade as a means of livelihood (Nelson, 2023). Wider societal attitudes toward drug selling were echoed by the participants, who described drug selling as a socially unacceptable trade even though it served as a means of livelihood for those engaged in it. Okon (31, student), who had been selling drugs for about 7 years, stated:

Since it is not something that is generally accepted in our society, I don’t think it is a good business. And, for the fact that it is not everybody that is a smoker or taker in one way or the other, and it is not legally accepted so it is not a good business. Although it might serve someone that is into it to be able to provide for his needs, it is not a good business because you are going to face the wrath of the law enforcement agency when they come for you.

In the above quote, the participant recognized the potential benefit of the drug selling as a means of livelihood but noted that it was ‘not a good business’ due to societal disapproval and legal prohibition. This highlights the complex and paradoxical nature of the trade that is drug selling. Negative perceptions of drug selling were the reason some of the participants intended to quit the trade, as seen in the following quote from Udok (41, mechanic), who had been selling drugs for 17 years:

Interviewer: How would you describe the business (drug trade)?

Udok: I already know it is illegal and it is not good. That is why I want to stop it. Because I know that it is not good.

It is important to note that Udok only expressed an intention to quit drug selling due to social disapproval. He had, however, been selling the drugs for almost two decades. This shows that intentions are not always translated into action. This may be due to reliance on drug selling as a means of livelihood. An interesting dimension of the accounts was how, contrary to extant negative perceptions of drug selling, some participants viewed it as beneficial in the context of poverty and marginalization. In this context, drug selling was compared to selling legitimate goods. This is seen in the following quote from Basil (27, unemployed), who had been selling for about 5 years.

Interviewer: So, how would you describe selling drugs? What kind of work is it?

Basil: My own perception, I would call it the street hustling for the common boys, because due to how our economy is it is not everybody that could get good jobs for themselves. So, some people in order to put food on their table, they venture into selling of drugs. Some are into hawking goods.

Given the livelihood benefits of drug selling, most participants adopted different strategies to navigate the social and legal consequences. For example, some participants concealed drug selling activities from close relations to mitigate the risk of negative consequences. This is illustrated by a quote from Ido (38, barber), who was able to conceal drug selling until he was arrested by law enforcement officers:

Interviewer: Did your family members know about it?

Ido: My family didn’t really know because I had to do it at a very top secret and comfortable way of mine. It was when I was caught that they even knew that I had been doing something like that. Had it been I was not caught, they wouldn’t have known that I have been doing it. So, I was able to keep it top secret. I didn’t allow them to know about it… It was after I was arrested that they knew.

For some participants, the need to conceal drug selling was reinforced by concerns that some repercussions may follow if their neighbours and family members knew that they were selling illegal drugs. In the quote below, Mike (quoted earlier) noted the potential problem he could have if his brother, a law enforcement officer, learned that he was involved in drug selling:

They don’t want me to do it. I hide to do it. I don’t let them know… if they know, they will make trouble. Especially my elder brother who is a police officer. He does not know because he has not seen me smoking cigarette before. If I want to smoke cigarette, I hide to smoke. The only thing they see me do is drinking beer and the palm wine that is sold in the neighbourhood.

Accounts captured some real-life experiences of the negative consequences of being found to be involved in drug selling. Imo (quoted earlier) explained that his father, suspecting that he was using drugs, vowed never to come to his rescue if he ever had problems with police. Imo went on to narrate that the father kept this vow when he was arrested by the police by refusing to visit the police station during his detention. In his words:

My father didn’t know I used to sell. He just heard that I used to smoke. He was just hearing, since he had never seen it in my hand before. But he had made a statement that any day that I am being caught by the authorities, his hands and his legs will not come to the station. So, when the incident happened he made sure that he kept the vow he made. He was not the person who came for my release. It was one of my brothers that came to release me.

Concealing drug selling meant selling to customers covertly (‘You have to sell on the low [i.e., covertly]’, Imo). This approach helped to reduce the negative effects that are often associated with drug markets (i.e., nuisance, crime and violence). Some sellers sold mostly to customers who would use in safer ways to reduce the risk of being hounded for spreading drug-related problems in the neighbourhood. Jude (34, unemployed), who had been selling drugs for about 5 years, stated:

…You look at people before you sell to people. When people buy and smoke they will start behaving funny… Sensible people will say, ‘let me smoke so that I can eat’. When he finishes smoking, he enters a restaurant, buys food and eat and go home. That is the kind of person I will sell for.

The different navigational strategies highlighted in the participants’ accounts (concealing drug selling, selling discretely and selling to those who would use in safer ways) were used to reduce negative social and legal consequences, and to enable the participants to continue earning a living from illegal drug trade.

Discussion

This study explored the reasons for selling illegal drugs, the negative effects of drug selling and use on neighbourhoods, and how drug sellers navigate social and legal problems in drug markets. The participants took to drug selling as a means of livelihood in the context of poverty and worsening economic conditions (Elis, 2009; Felbab-Brown, 2010; Klein, 2009). Drug selling was attractive to the participants, who were mostly from the margins of society, because it was seen as a more lucrative option than the available alternatives in the legal economy. As a means of livelihood, illegal drug selling was often referred to as a ‘business’ by the participants, despite extant negative socio-legal and moral categorizations of the trade. We contend that retail drug trade is a highly contested economic activity, situated within the rupture between socio-legal discourses on drugs and the imperatives of day-to-day survival under conditions of poverty and economic decline. In Nigeria, current drug policies are based on a narrow view of drugs as a cause of crime and violence, and scarcely recognize the influence of socio-economic conditions on entry into drug selling (Nelson, 2023). Our findings suggest that addressing the socio-economic factors driving entry into drug selling may be a more sustainable approach to reducing drug-related problems.

Our findings corroborate previous studies, which have reported on the negative effects of drug selling and consumption on neighbourhoods (Cusick & Kimber, 2007; Kolla et al., 2017; Van Hout & Bingham, 2013). Specifically, we found that drug selling and use were seen as nuisance, and as purveyors of crime and violence within neighbourhoods. Previous studies have shown that drug scenes are associated with violence, disorder and fear of crime (Aalbers, 2006; Graham, 2000; Lupton et al., 2002; Page, 2000; Strike et al., 2014). Our study contributes to this literature by highlighting potential harms to residents arising from drug market activities within neighbourhoods, including arrest of non-drug using residents by law enforcement agents during raids on drug markets. Further, studies have revealed how economic crime committed to fund drug use and the perception of drug scenes as locations where criminals congregate had a negative effect on drug trade by increasing the risk of police raids (Briggs, 2013; DeBeck et al., 2007; Nelson, 2018). Developing this literature, our findings highlight a tendency to blame neighbourhood problems such as family violence on drug sellers based on a simplistic view of drug-violence relationship. This dynamic further created a risk for police raids on drug markets. There exists a need for a comprehensive approach to drug control that balances the concerns of neighbourhood residents about drug-related problems with the plight of drug sellers who earn a living from drug trade.

A key finding of this study is the effects of negative perceptions of illegal drug trade on drug sellers and how they navigate these problems. Some of the participants expressed a desire to quit the trade due to social disapproval. However, such intentions were rarely translated into action partly due to unemployment and lack of alternative sources of livelihood. As a means of livelihood, drug selling was seen as justifiable under conditions of poverty and economic decline. Such rationalizations, however, did not make it socially acceptable. Neither did they eliminate the risk of arrest by law enforcement officers. The participants developed strategies for navigating these challenges. For example, they concealed drug selling from neighbours and family members to reduce the risk of social and legal sanctions (Nelson & Tasha, 2021). Other strategies were selling drugs covertly to reduce nuisance, avoiding criminal complicity and selling drugs to customers who use in safer ways. As shown in previous studies (Abele, 2004; Bouchard, 2007; Harocopos & Hough, 2005), drug sellers’ strategies for navigating social and legal challenges partly explain the resilience of drug markets. The implication of this insight for policy is that doubling-down on law enforcement and repression is not a sensible approach. Instead, the focus should be on addressing the socioeconomic factors that influence entry into drug trade (e.g., poverty, unemployment).

A major problem facing drug sellers was police raids on drug markets in response to residents’ opposition. Police intervention was the resort of residents and community members who wished to address the nuisance and public order effects of drug market activities within their neighbourhoods. Previous studies have demonstrated that raids on drug scenes within neighbourhoods by law enforcement agents do not lead to reduction in drug market activities (Bouchard, 2007; Harocopos & Hough, 2005), due to the ability of drug market participants to adapt to policing operations (Abele, 2004; Curtis & Wendel, 2007). Corroborating these studies, our study revealed that police raids did not lead to a reduction in drug selling and consumption within the neighbourhoods. The sellers navigated policing by concealing drug selling, selling to users covertly, and reducing nuisance and disorder. The study contributes new insights to the literature by highlighting the unintended consequences of police raids on drug markets within neighbourhoods in the form of arrest of innocent residents. Overall, the findings indicate a need for alternative approaches to the control of drug markets. Providing viable alternative means of income generation for drug sellers could enable those who intend to quit the trade to translate their intentions into action. This calls for a development-centered approach to drug policy that addresses the linkages between socio-economic conditions and illegal drug trade.

Conclusion

This study has revealed the economic factors influencing drug selling, the effects of drug trade and use on neighbourhoods, and how drug sellers navigate related social and legal problems. Retail drug trade is a highly contested economic activity that is shaped by the imperatives of survival in the context of poverty and economic decline. Drug selling had negative effects on neighbourhoods, including nuisance, violence and crime, which led to police raids on drug scenes. Police raids did not reduce drug market activities within the neighbourhoods due to the sellers’ ability to navigate policing by concealing drug trade, selling covertly and reducing nuisance and disorder. Instead, police raids had unintended consequences by facilitating arrests of innocent residents. The findings indicate a need to consider alternative approaches to curbing drug market activities within neighbourhoods. We argue that providing alternative means of income generation for drug sellers could encourage them to exit the trade. This highlights a need for a development-centered approach to drug policy, which places livelihoods and poverty reduction at the centre of drug control efforts. The major limitation of the study is the absence of the views of female drug sellers. Future studies on this topic should explore the perspectives of female sellers.