The focus of this article is on the distinctive features of the social organization of crack cocaine use in one type of setting. The activities of crack cocaine users can only be understood if one has knowledge of its social organization in specific settings. Extensive observation in four base houses and in-depth interviews with forty crack users who frequented houses were conducted in two metropolitan areas (Atlanta and New York City). Results show that base houses are a purposive setting in which a cycle of activities occurs. A typical cycle consists of six stages: getting together, getting ready, getting started, getting high, getting down, and getting out. The activities related to each stage have particular functions and are determined by a set of norms. The primary purpose of this article is to fill a gap in knowledge about the social organization of crack cocaine use in one type of setting.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerH.1952Becoming a marijuana user. American Journal of Sociology59:235–42.
2.
BeckerH.1963Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
3.
BlumerH.1969Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BourgoisP.1989aIn search of Horatio Alger: Culture and ideology in the crack economy. Contemporary Drug Problems16:619–49.
5.
BourgoisP.1989bCrack In Spanish Harlem: Culture and economy in the inner city. Anthropology Today5:6–11.
6.
ClouetD.AsgharK.BrownR., eds. 1988Mechanisms of cocaine abuse and toxicity. U.S. Department of Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph no. 88. Rockville, Md.
De La RosaM.LambertE.GropperB., eds. 1990Drugs and violence: Causes, correlates, and consequences. U.S. Department of Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph no. 103. Rockville, Md.
9.
DouglasJ.1976Investigative social research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
10.
DunlapE.JohnsonB.SanabriaH.HolidayE.LipseyV.BarnettM.HopkinsW.SobelI.RandolphD.Ko-LinC.1990Studying crack users and their criminal careers. Contemporary Drug Problems17:121–44.
11.
EriksonK.1962Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems9:307–14.
12.
FineG.1990Organizational time: Temporal demands and the experience of work in restaurant kitchens. Social Forces69:95–114.
13.
FriedmanS.SterkC.WilliamsT.DozierC.1988Crack use puts women at risk for heterosexual transmission of HIV. IVth International Conference on AIDS. Stockholm, Sweden.
14.
FriedmanS.SterkC.Des JarlaisD.SuffianM., 1989Potential limitations on the use of bleach as an HIV decontaminant by intravenous drug users. Journal of the American Medical Association262:1467.
15.
GarfinkelH.1967Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
16.
GoffmanE.1959The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
17.
GoldsteinP.BrownsteinH.RyanP.BelluciP.1988Crack and homicide in New York City, 1988: A conceptually based event analysis. Report to the New York State Division of Substance Abuse. New York: Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.
18.
HeissJ.1981Social roles. In Social psychology: Social perspectives, ed. RosenbergM.TurnerR., 4–30. New York: Basic Books.
19.
HewittJ.1984Self and society. 3d. ed.Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
20.
InciardiJ.1987Beyond cocaine: Basuca, crack, and other coca products. Contemporary Drug Problems14:461–92.
21.
InciardiJ.1989Trading sex for crack among juvenile drug users: A research note. Contemporary Drug Problems16(4):689–700.
22.
KirkJ.MillerM.1986Reliability and validity in quantitative data. Newberry:Sage Publications.
23.
KozelN.AdamsE., eds. 1985Cocaine use in America: Epidemiological and clinical perspectives. U.S. Department of Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph no. 61. Rockville, Md.
24.
LoflandJ.1969Deviance and identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
25.
LoflandJ.LoflandL.1984Analyzing social settings: An examination of human associations in everyday life. rev.New York: Free Press.
McCallG.SimmonsJ.1978Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations in everyday life. rev.New York: Free Press.
28.
MieczkowskiT.1990Crack distribution in Detroit. Contemporary Drug Problems17(1):9–30.
29.
National Institute on Drug Abuse1991National household survey on drug abuse: Highlights. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
30.
ReinarmanC.LevineH.1989Crack in context: Politics and the media in the making of a drug scare. Contemporary Drug Problems16:535–77.
31.
SiegelR.1982Cocaine smoking. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs14: 271–359.
32.
SterkC.1988Cocaine and HIV seropositivity. The Lancet1:1052–53.
33.
Sterk-ElifsonC.ElifsonK.BolesJ.1991Determinants of behavioral patterns among crack cocaine users: The basis for HIV intervention. Presented at the VIIth International Conference on AIDS, Florence, Italy.
