Abstract
Recent research on privileged drug offenders argues that they are at an advantage compared to marginalized people dealing drugs. The main question asked in this article is whether this is also the case in a more egalitarian country like Norway, and if it influences dealers’ decision-making. Findings reveal that privileged drug dealers believed they were at an advantage when it came to police and customers compared to people with an ethnic minority background or people dealing in open drug markets, but at a disadvantage in relation to violence and robberies. With regards to decision-making, believing they had advantages in encounters with the police informed their decision to be cooperative expecting fair treatment. Believing they were at an advantage with affluent customers in wealthy communities, and at a disadvantage with more street-oriented drug dealers, restricted privileged drug dealers' dealing to affluent low-risk contexts. The advantages and disadvantages privileged drug dealers talk about in interviews arguably reflect real-life drug market inequalities but are also a mechanism shaping decision-making that may reproduce drug market inequality. The study adds knowledge to the nascent literature on affluent drug dealers by introducing a novel case.
Introduction
There are many potential dangers of engaging in illegal drug dealing. Importantly, people selling illegal drugs can receive formal sanctions by criminal justice systems, experience stigmatization, or become victims of violence (Jacques and Wright, 2008; Taylor, 2008; Topalli et al., 2002). However, the social cost of illegal drug use and drug dealing is not shared equally among the population. Research indicates that the populations most likely to suffer these negative consequences are low-income and living in inner-cities (Mosher, 2001), people who use or sell in open street-based drug markets (Gerell et al., 2021), and/or people who have an ethnic minority background (Shiner et al., 2018). Conversely, a nascent body of research finds that white, middle and upper class people dealing drugs in closed markets to affluent customers are the group least likely to be punished by police, experience stigmatization, or become victims of violence (e.g., Jacques and Wright, 2015; Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010). The main question asked in this article is whether these illegal drug market inequalities are relevant in a more egalitarian country like Norway, and if so, whether perceptions of advantages or disadvantages shape offender decision-making. To answer this question, I review the relevant existing international literature, compare it to the past research on illegal drug markets in Oslo, and draw on interviews and observations with relatively privileged drug offenders from affluent communities in Oslo.
Literature review
Role of class and race/ethnicity in illegal drug market inequality
Being caught and punished by the police for drug law infractions constitutes one of the major downsides of illegal drug market participation. While most people who use or distribute drugs are never criminalized (Askew and Salinas, 2019), studies repeatedly show that those most likely to be stopped, arrested, and subsequently punished come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and/or ethnic minority backgrounds (Shiner et al., 2018). Conversely, those least likely to, for instance, receive a drug charge come from the upper classes (Pedersen et al., 2022) and/or are white (Geller and Fagan, 2010). The underlying mechanisms for why privileged drug offenders avoid punishment are most convincingly elaborated in two studies from the USA. Mohamed and Fritsvold's (2010) study of middle-class white US ‘dorm room dealers’ shows how these illegal drug entrepreneurs ‘amassed enough symbolic capital to grant them a certain degree of legal immunity despite their rampantly illegal drug activities' (132). The university relied on these students’ tuition for revenue and on their social status for its brand reputation (Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010). The authors indicate that the fact that their research participants were white or acted ‘white’ provided a protective seal against the police, along with their class (Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010).
The second major study is provided by Jacques and Wright's (2015) ethnography of middle-class white youth dealing illegal drugs in a wealthy Atlanta suburb. The authors make important comparisons between these well-to-do youths and studies on people with minority backgrounds in urban settings (Jacques and Wright, 2015). For instance, suburban youth were found to be far less likely to be caught, charged, and sentenced for drug law infractions than underprivileged youth (Jacques and Wright, 2015). Both studies show how the blending of socioeconomic background, race/ethnicity, and neighborhood/context caused police to display ‘little interest in proactive drug control' (Jacques and Wright, 2015: 150). Similar for both studies were that participants had almost no interactions with police and very few were formally sanctioned. In short, both studies point to a combination of class, ethnicity, neighborhood/context, and structural allocation of police resources as among the most important reasons participants in these studies never extensively interacted with law enforcement (Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010).
Participants in the two studies from the US resemble participants in the present study in that they were also white, middle and upper class, and sold drugs in closed social network markets. In addition, these studies also conspicuously focused on the relative privileges (i.e., lack of police contact, lack of violence, access to well-to-do customers) experienced by their participants. However, the studies are part of a new and growing literature on relatively privileged drug offenders (Askew and Salinas, 2019; Salinas, 2018; Søgaard and Bræmer, 2023). Participants in these studies are not necessarily middle or upper class (although many are) and avoid negative consequences of illegal drug market participation by leading otherwise conventional lives (e.g., being employed, studying).
Impact of market type on illegal drug market inequality
A person's background, their class, ethnicity, their attachment to conventional life, and the neighborhood/areas they live in, are not the only factors determining the likelihood of punishment for drug law infractions. The type of market is also important. For instance, in public/street markets social actors are visible and thus vulnerable to police attention (Coomber et al., 2019). Another disadvantage of these markets is that they are characterized by low levels of trust. Interactions are fleeting, and market players rarely establish long-term relationships (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011). As a result, conflict and robberies more frequently occur in open street-level drug markets, especially in disadvantaged communities (Contreras, 2013; Jacobs, 2017; Jacques et al., 2014).
In closed markets, buyers and sellers will do business only if they know one another (May and Hough, 2004). The drug markets in studies on relatively privileged drug dealers can be described as closed (Jacques and Wright, 2015; Salinas, 2018; Søgaard and Bræmer, 2023). Recent studies show that a large part of closed market distribution occurs through social supply, distribution for little or no profit to friends and acquaintances (Coomber and Moyle, 2014). The biggest advantage of these markets is the comparatively high level of trust between participants (Taylor and Potter, 2013). Participants with relatively close ties arguably prevent robberies, and the private nature of their transactions may lower the risk of police detection (May and Hough, 2004). While ‘social supply’ may turn into ‘real’ dealing for profit, studies have found these closed markets to maintain their ‘social supply’ values of friendship and trust (Taylor and Potter, 2013).
Semi-open/public markets also exist. Typical examples are clubs, pubs, or cafes (Sandberg, 2012). In these markets sellers will generally do business even in the absence of an official introduction, provided the buyer ‘looks the part’ (May and Hough, 2004). In semi-open markets, it is important to have knowledge of how to ‘find’ buyers, and certain social skills are needed to complete the sale in an inconspicuous way (Sandberg, 2012). In these semi-open markets, there is generally less conflict and risk compared to open markets, but more than in closed social network markets (Sandberg, 2012). The advent of digital technologies has ushered in new ways of distributing drugs. However, public and semi-public/private market categorizations remain. For instance, there exist public illegal drug markets on Facebook, Instagram, and other forums. For public in-person markets, the advantage is the opportunity to sell to many people. In private digital markets (e.g., Snapchat, Wickr, messaging applications) the advantage is less risks of detection by law enforcement (Demant et al., 2019).
In sum, past studies show that most people who commit drug offenses are never formally punished (Askew and Salinas, 2019). It is a small subset of marginalized people who bear the brunt of the negative consequences of illegal drug market participation (Salinas, 2018). Conversely, those least likely to be punished, or become victims of violence, are white, middle and upper class, and distribute drugs in affluent social network markets (Jacques and Wright, 2015; Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010). However, are there similar drug market inequalities in Oslo, Norway?
Illegal drug market inequality in Oslo, Norway
This study took place in Oslo, Norway, a Nordic welfare state. Oslo resembles other large international cities because there is a high level of immigration, rapid population growth, and severe housing market pressure (Brattbakk and Wessel, 2013; Toft and Ljunggren, 2016). While citizens in Oslo generally enjoy a high standard of living, socioeconomic differences are still prominent (Toft, 2018). The most pronounced differences are between the affluent western part, which is dominated by the native ethnic majority, and the less affluent eastern part of the city which is more ethnically diverse (Haandrikman et al., 2021). In Oslo, the open street drug markets are in the inner east side of the city (Nafstad, 2011; Olsen, 2017; Sandberg and Pedersen, 2008). Many of the drug users and distributors come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and/or have ethnic minority backgrounds (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011). These markets have a considerable police presence, with interactions following a dual-track policy of punitive and harm-reducing measures, with the punitive track being historically dominant (Olsen, 2017). Market relations are typically fleeting and often lack trust (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011). The markets, particularly among those distributing drugs for profit, are governed internally by a violent street culture, and participants often experience stigmatization and socioeconomic exclusion from mainstream society (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011; Tutenges and Sandberg, 2022).
In short, the relevant literature on open drug markets in Oslo where people with low-income or ethnic minority backgrounds predominate indicates similar patterns to the literature from European countries and the US. Like international research, illegal drug markets in affluent communities in Oslo have historically been given less scholarly attention. This is, however, changing, in part because recent survey data reveal that there has been an increase in use and availability of illegal drugs such as cannabis and cocaine in wealthy ‘west-end’ neighborhoods (Pedersen et al., 2019). Affluent youth from Oslo's west end have for long been known as the heaviest drinkers of alcohol (Pedersen and Bakken, 2016); however, recent studies show an increase also in cannabis and cocaine use that is now the highest among the city's youth (Bakken et al., 2023; Bakken and Myrold Osnes, 2021). Yet, there is little in-depth knowledge about illegal drug dealing in affluent communities and about the extent to which they encounter police or experience violence compared to past studies on more marginalized people using and selling drugs in Oslo.
In sum, the dominant narrative from the research literature is that marginalized people using and dealing drugs face most negative consequences associated with their illegal drug market participation. White, middle and upper class people selling drugs are at an advantage because they are unlikely to be caught, charged, and sentenced for drug law infractions. To assess whether similar privileges are afforded by the participants in this study, I have compared participants’ experiences with the police to the available research on illegal drug markets in Oslo and beyond. I have also examined the role of the market in illegal drug market inequality, paying particular attention to the cost and benefits participants face engaging with different market types. Finally, I have considered participants’ experiences with violence. Throughout the analysis, I examine how advantages and disadvantages shaped participants offending decisions.
Methods
This study is informed by in-depth interviews with 33 boys/men and one woman who had experience using and dealing cannabis and other illegal drugs such as cocaine and MDMA (Ecstasy) on Oslo's affluent ‘west end.’ Fourteen participants were in their mid-20s and early 30s, and 20 were in their teens and early 20s. The study's sampling was purposively homogenous to study one subgroup in-depth (Suri, 2011), and the inclusion criteria were as follows: participants had grown up and/or gone to school in one of Oslo's west-end neighborhoods, had a history of drug dealing, and were at least 16 years old. I recruited participants in two ways: first through fieldwork with people working on youth drug and crime prevention in the city, and second through my own extended social networks. My typical approach was to ask contacts made during fieldwork or pre-existing contacts whether they knew of anyone who fit the inclusion criteria and might be willing to participate in the study. The study also used the snowball sampling method. Once interviewed, each participant was asked to refer me to other people they knew who could be included in the study (Wright et al., 1992). Most participants were recruited through my own personal network and snowballing. About one-third were recruited with prevention workers.
Participants’ dealing occurred primarily on the western side of Oslo and among its affluent population. Participants’ backgrounds and experiences were similar. For instance, most participants had an ethnic Norwegian background, whereas a few had multiethnic and a minority ethnic background (e.g., one or both parents originally from another country than Norway). In addition, all participants had employed and educated parents, with most occupying positions in high-status professions. Participants were all in school or university and/or employed, and thus arguably otherwise conventionally oriented (Salinas, 2018). However, participants’ inclusion criteria were also broad enough to allow for some variations within the circumscribed sample. For instance, several participants were upper class (e.g., were children of professors or directors), most came from the upper middle class (e.g., were children of consultants, upper and lower secondary school teachers, or mid- to high-level managers and executives), and some came from lower-middle-class backgrounds (e.g., were children of pre- and primary school teachers or office clerks). Combined, participants had grown up in all the western districts of Oslo and attended many different schools. As such, there was also some heterogeneity in the group in terms of their background and experiences.
All participants had sold cannabis and/or other illegal drugs. At the time of the interview many still sold drugs on a regular basis, some sold sporadically, others were taking a break from dealing, whereas some had quit dealing altogether. While it can be difficult to categorize the level of involvement in illegal drug markets (Moeller and Sandberg, 2015) in part because social life is more shifting than can be represented by any typology (Dorn et al., 1992), participants’ involvement in the illegal drug economy can be described as ranging from the lower to the mid-level (Shammas et al., 2014). Like studies on social supply and closed markets, participants mainly sold drugs to friends or acquaintances, although some also expanded their drug dealing to a wider social circle, most often through referrals. Participants sold drugs in many ways including outside, in parks, at schools, bars, by delivery (e.g., bike, car), at parties, etc. Many operated together with other peers, for instance when using cars to deliver drugs. Those who sold less frequently and in smaller quantities more often operated on their own. Most of the participants dealt drugs on a daily or weekly basis, and some had dealt drugs for several years. The motivation to deal drugs was complex. Common for almost all participants was that they sold drugs to finance their own drug use. Several participants were also motivated to ‘help’ friends acquire drugs or to help people acquire cannabis or psychedelic drugs for medicinal or therapeutic purposes. Others were more motivated by money to support a lifestyle of conspicuous consumption. Drug dealing was important to several participants’ identities, but also seemed to vary in degree depending on what part of their lives they were discussing in interviews. Most would not categorize themselves as ‘dealers’ (in that it was a defining characteristic of their identity) but rather that dealing was something they had experience with. What seemed to be more important for their identities was their attachment to the broader drug or street culture. For instance, many spoke very highly of their experiences using drugs, and how it made up an important social component in their lives.
Participants’ contact with the criminal justice system ranged from being stopped to being arrested, charged, and sentenced. Interactions with law enforcement were mostly drug-related, as were their experiences of victimization. 29 of 34 participants had direct experience with law enforcement (e.g., stops, arrests, fines, sentencing). Participants typically met police outside. They experienced encounters positively or negatively depending on whether they believed they were being treated fairly. Most interactions did not lead to prison, but many received other types of punishment such as fines. Contact with police led most to change their drug dealing patterns (e.g., dealing to friends/acquaintances from their social environment, temporarily ceasing to deal, quitting altogether, or dealing less frequently and smaller amounts). Past research on privileged drug offenders observed that they for example, ‘never extensively interacted with law enforcement, at least not for their illicit activities' and that they ‘did not perceive the police as a serious threat to their drug activities' (Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010: 135; see also Jacques and Wright, 2015). Answering why participants in the present study had more experience with law enforcement relative to participants in these past studies is beyond the scope of this article.
Following Norwegian Center for Research Data (NSD) guidelines, all participants were informed that the interviews were voluntary and confidential. After being informed about the parameters of participation, all participants consented to be interviewed. Interviews were semi-structured and focused on the participants’ life stories and several predetermined broad themes. In semi-structured interviews, researchers decide which topics are covered, and interviewees’ responses determined the direction of the interview. Together this allowed me to pursue research questions central to the study while also exploring new ways of seeing and understanding the topic (Stuckey, 2013). I asked broad questions centered around upbringing, school, family, peers, and importantly their legal and illegal drug use and distribution, as well as their experiences with police, victimization, and stigmatization.
I conducted all the interviews. The interviews were usually 1–3 hours long and took place either at the participants’ homes, my home, or outside, such as in a park, or at a university campus. I typically encouraged participants to choose where to conduct the interview. The interviews were audio taped and then transcribed verbatim. Identifying information such as names was removed. To identify common themes in the data, I used the qualitative coding software NVivo, Version 12 and relied on a code book that I updated as I transcribed and read the interviews. First, I created a preliminary codebook based on predetermined research interests informed by fieldwork, data collection, and research on illegal drug markets. Then, in several rounds, I would update the codebook as I read and coded transcripts. Ultimately, the largest and most important codes were police and dealing. These categories have several subcategories. The most important under the police included (i) getting away, (ii) being careful, (iii) managing relations, and (iv) unjust treatment. Under the category ‘dealing’, (i) customers, (ii) income, and (iii) robberies were the most important. The codes helped with organizing the data and making it ready for analysis. The dividing of the findings section of the article into categories about the experience with police, markets/customers, and violence is mainly deductive because these categories were substantively informed by previous research and knowledge. For instance, past research holds that white, middle and upper class people dealing drugs are less likely to be punished for drug law infractions, that they cater to affluent nonviolent customers in environments with little competition, and that they rarely suffer or engage in violence (Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010). Likewise, the question guiding the analysis—whether participants can be said to have advantages and how this influenced their decisions—was informed by the past research, decided upon early in the analysis, and not changed substantively. I took a pragmatic approach to how experiences/perceptions of (dis)advantages shaped interviewees’ decisions. In making decisions, the participants were arguably influenced by a mix of several interconnected factors including their or their friends' and family's direct or indirect experiences with police, past and ongoing interactions with other illegal drug market actors, experience with conflict and violence, social relations and wider social networks, their individual motives, habits, skills, and dispositions, the wider drug market culture, the neighborhoods, schools, and social and physical spaces they occupied, as well as the actions of other important social actors such as police. While I would argue that the participants’ decisions were shaped by several factors, the more generalized advantage and disadvantage dichotomy explains the process in basic terms. Moreover, while action is arguably a multidimensional process, many of the explicitly stated decisions can be read as tied to these perceived/experiential (dis)advantages. For instance, they chose to deal with affluent customers in low-risk/high-reward west-end communities because of the perceived advantages of doing so. Perceptions they held because of their personal experiences, social networks, and dispositions, many of which were tied to already established drug market (dis)advantages.
In qualitative research, it is generally accepted that a researcher’s background and life experience influence the questions being asked and the answers given (Topalli et al., 2020). For instance, I am white, ethnic Norwegian, and from an upper-class background. I also grew up on the west side of Oslo and attended schools there. Therefore, my background is like that of many of the research participants. This can be a strength because prior familiarity with a social environment may allow the researcher to ask relevant questions. However, it can also be a problem because the shared background can lead the researcher and the researched to assume that they ‘know each other's lives' and invite the expectation of particular responses (Mellor et al., 2014). To mitigate some of this inherent bias I took the position of a novice and attempted to create an interview situation where participants were the experts, and I was a facilitator. This often resulted in participants opening up and explaining their experiences and perceptions in-depth. Since the goal of qualitative research is to generate rich data from a small sample, I found this approach to be particularly productive.
Findings
The following analysis examines participants’ experiences with police, markets, and violence, and how these experiences influenced their decisions.
Police and the advantages of class and ethnicity
Most participants had direct experience with the police. A recurring theme in interviews was that participants’ decisions during encounters with the police were shaped by perceiving that they were at an advantage in police encounters due to their background. Mike’s story is a good first example. Mike had been a mid-level cannabis dealer in the city until the police caught him. Like many of the other participants he was from an upper-class background and sold mainly to people in his social network. Here is a quote where he explains what he decided to do when he was caught dealing: I was thinking like crazy. Because I was going straight to the interrogation room after that [being in solitary confinement]. And then I was thinking ‘Ok, what do I tell them?’ Everything I had learned from gangster movies is to never admit anything. But I was like, you have to be a moron to think like that. I’m not going to get away with having sold weed right then and there. All I can do is admit … it can only hurt me if I try and lie about it. So I said ‘yea yea I sold weed … but it was like the first time I did it and that weed … I bought it at the “River”’ [open street-level drug market where ethnic minority youth sell illegal drugs]. I had gotten that tip from a buddy of mine who had used it when police busted him years ago … which had worked really well.
According to Mike, his confession had done the trick. He argued that it satisfied the police, and, said that 6 months later, during trial and sentencing, the prosecution made a point of his ‘active participation in helping with the investigation' and that they indicated that ‘he [would] receive a reduced sentence as a result.' Mike and his friend arguably knew that the police and public in Oslo are familiar with the ‘River’ as an open street-level drug market (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011) comprising stereotypical ‘dealers’ (see, e.g., Coomber, 2006). As such, it held symbolic weight and may have seemed plausible as a ‘first time’ place to pick up drugs, as Mike had argued. Whatever the causes leading to his reduced sentence, it is important to note that Mike's perception of illegal drug markets and his own role in it guided his decision to be cooperative.
Participants also argued that appearance mattered in police interactions and connected it with stereotypes of drug offenders. For instance, Timothy talked about how he would dress in nice button-up shirts and jackets to avoid suspicion while dealing drugs. Timothy's argument finds resonance with a recent study from Denmark on police officer suspicion formation and legal action, showing for instance that police look for people who are young and marginalized or people who look like they have gang connections (Houborg et al., 2016). Timothy on the other hand believed he looked less suspicious when dressing up, thus appearing conventionally oriented and law-abiding. Appearing law-abiding and conventional is a mechanism found to help relatively privileged drug dealers avoid police contact (Salinas, 2018; Søgaard and Bræmer, 2023). Timothy also told of times when he would ‘run from the police and realise mid-way' that he could just stop and ‘blend into the crowd,' whereas his non-white tracksuit-wearing friends could not. Timothy's arguments point to similar findings from a recent study on ethnic minority youth from Oslo's east end, which found that ways of dressing that draw attention from police are found to be coupled with ethnic minority backgrounds (Solhjell et al., 2019) and shows that ethnicity/race and style compounds to form perceptions, including those of drug offenders. Similarly, a study from Denmark on police officer discretion found that officers often chose to stop young people with ethnic minority backgrounds because they suspected them of being criminals based ‘solely on their appearance' (Holmberg, 2000: 190).
In addition to believing they looked less suspicious, and that they therefore could avoid attention from police, participants also argued that being white and in a privileged position provided an advantage in concrete interactions with the police. Here is an example from participant Charles: Do not discriminate against ME! [telling a story of encounters with police]. YOUR service number [as in ‘provide it']. I can cooperate but then I will have to document it to bring it forward to the Equality and Discrimination Agency. And these magic words … these magic words [told with humor and inspiration] are the reasons I don’t get caught … but are also the reasons why my dark-skinned friends do [becomes serious]. Because they cannot formulate themselves in this way.
James's story is another example. Like Mike, the police caught James in the act. Plainclothes officers intercepted him while he was smoking a joint, and they seized drugs from his home. The police closed the case ‘due to a lack of evidence,’ but ‘there wasn’t any lack of evidence … I didn’t even get a fine,’ he said. When asked why things turned out the way they did, James explained that he thought it was because he was ‘G’ [game], ‘didn’t try to run,’ was ‘totally honest,’ and was able to create a friendly atmosphere. Other participants echoed the finding from James.
While stories of being at a relative advantage compared to people with ethnic minority backgrounds when encountering the police was a recurring theme in the interviews, and many chose to be cooperative expecting fair treatment, another recurring and complicating story was when participants said they believed they were treated unjustly by the police. The most common stories were the use of force, misuse of power, fabrication of evidence, or other forms of what participants believed to be illegal or questionable activity on the part of police. For instance, Jacob said he had experiences with officer's use of force and fabrication of evidence ‘there were words [in police rapport put there to justify their treatment of him and help their case] that I never used [during interrogation], that's not even how I talk.' Others told stories of misuse of power and being fined without due process. Similarly, Simon said, ‘it's for instance very common that they [police] search without a search warrant.' Participants experienced these personal encounters as unjust if they deemed the police intervention to be illegitimate or unfair. This is also found in past studies on conventionally oriented youths who have experience with police (Saarikkomäki, 2016). If participants believed they were treated unfairly they sometimes responded by being uncooperative. However, they also argued that being uncooperative resulted in harsher treatment, and some reasoned that had they been more cooperative the outcome might have been better.
Participants’ contact with the police shaped other decisions as well. For instance, some feared harsher sentences if they sold ‘harder' drugs such as cocaine. Therefore, some chose to only sell cannabis. For some encountering the police made them change their operation, for instance, going from selling to many people to selling to fewer people, or from selling smaller amounts frequently to selling larger amounts infrequently. Some also scaled down the total volume of dealing because of police intervention. Others chose to discontinue drug dealing or take a break from dealing.
Because participants had quite a bit of contact with police this study departs from past studies on privileged drug dealers which observed that they had little or no meaningful contact with the police (Jacques and Wright, 2015; Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010). The present study also departs from previous studies on marginalized people dealing in open drug markets because the participants had more varied and even some positive experiences with the police (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011). The observation of varied and positive experiences also builds a bridge between studies of white, middle and upper class youth–police relations and the literature on ethnic minority youth–police relations in Nordic cities, which recently show they have ambiguous experiences with officers, some of which are positive (Saarikkomäki et al., 2021). However, findings also depart from studies on ethnic minority youth from Oslo and other Nordic cities, which consistently find they believe they are unfairly targeted by the police (Solhjell et al., 2019). Experiences of being unfairly targeted can result in antagonistic relations between youth and police (Saarikkomäki et al., 2021). In comparison, participants in this study believed they were at an advantage relative to ethnic minority youth, or people dealing in open drug markets, and most chose to be cooperative expecting fair treatment. Experiences of personal injustice on the part of police could result in participants being uncooperative, but they soon experienced that this was unproductive, leading participants to reason that cooperation was the most sensible route to take. Previous research shows that dignity and mutual respect are important for experiences of procedural justice ‘because individuals value positive interpersonal treatment' (Novich and Hunt, 2017). Through believing they were at an advantage in relation to the police, and deciding on being cooperative when caught, participants arguably contributed to producing their own circumscribed form of procedural justice, because encounters often resulted in a friendly atmosphere being created between officers and participants.
Advantages of closed affluent markets
Another recurring theme in interviews was about the advantages of selling drugs on Oslo's affluent west side. Tommy, a high school student at the time of the interview, provided a good example of the value of wealthy customers: Yeah and those [name of high school] people lots of them have money … they’re going on cabin trips and sometimes they ask for fifty [grams of cannabis] … and it's easier to charge higher prices because they have money, so whatever you tell them they’ll go along with. So let's say a hundred plate [100 grams] usually goes for 7.5 [7500 NOK] and you can tell them 8.5 or 9 and they will just go along.
Tommy valued these west-side customers. Many of them were children of Oslo's economic elite. Like the others, Tommy had access to these buyers because of his background attending west-side schools and growing up in affluent west-side neighborhoods. Moreover, the market was seemingly not saturated with suppliers, thus offering ample ‘opportunity,' as expressed by Tommy and others. Other people were selling illegal drugs either at or around schools or through online applications such as Instagram and Snapchat. This could be people who did not reside in participants’ neighborhoods and/or who were not from their social circles. However, as is found in other closed markets (Demant et al., 2019) young people in these affluent communities prefer to buy from people they know. As such, while selling to known customers was not the only way to sell drugs, it was the most common way to do so. While the advent of digital tools has created more open (e.g., on Facebook groups, forums) and semi-closed digital drug markets (e.g., on Snapchat, Instagram) studies from Norway find that open digital drug markets are rare, and people who sell on Snapchat and Instagram do so only to friends or friends of friends (Demant et al., 2019). In this sense, the market participants in the current study operated in are for the most part closed, as entry is contingent on buyers and sellers knowing and trusting one another (Coomber and Moyle, 2014; Taylor and Potter, 2013). As such, the data revealed that the participants’ backgrounds and markets were connected. Most sold cannabis to well-to-do customers who had a similar background to them. These buyers were sought after for several reasons including because of their social, cultural, and physical proximity, and because they rarely argued prices and often bought in bulk.
When selling to new customers, and given their level of ‘opportunity,' the young people in this study could be selective and chose to deal mainly with people who were vouched for. Martin, who sold cannabis, described how this works: ‘Yeah really just to acquaintances and friends … there always needs to be someone that vouches for them first.' Statements such as these were typical of almost all the people interviewed. Even those who had sometimes dealt indiscriminately strove to deal only with affluent people they knew or had been vouched for. Some participants also argued that ‘west-siders’ feared buying from people with ethnic minority backgrounds, and thus considered buying cannabis and other illegal drugs from middle and upper class white west-siders to be ‘safe.' Still, some told of ‘east-side’ youth who attended schools with affluent youth, and thus had access to these markets. In addition, a few participants had an ethnic minority background. However, their access to customers was based on their social networks having grown up and gone to school in the same west-side neighborhoods, pointing to the importance of trust in these markets. In short, social and physical proximity to affluent buyers with an appetite for illegal drugs seems to have been an advantage.
Urban spaces also mattered due to their illegal drug market advantages. Most important was participants’ experience that there were less police on the west-side preoccupied with catching drug offenders. Philip explained how this knowledge influenced him and his peers’ day-to-day activities: Very often when we walk in big gangs on the east-side, and a patrol vehicle stops and drives past, they can just suddenly stop and start talking to us. Right. So we play it safe and chill at [park on the west-side] … and then it doesn’t matter if there are five six of us … then we are rarely ever stopped. So that's really why we mostly hang out on the west-side. So that's a bit strange [laughs] that they [police] operate like that … I mean it's almost like … I don’t remember the word. But it's almost like they ‘go’ for those from the east-side more. Judge them more … doing more drugs and stupid things and the like, but there's plenty of that on the west-side as well.
Studies of politically progressive US cities reveal that the police focus on areas where ethnic minorities predominate, resulting in racially discriminatory enforcement patterns (Lynch et al., 2013). Similar disproportionally is found in Oslo and other Nordic cities, where youth from ethnic minority backgrounds are over-policed (Sollund, 2006) and targeted when they spend time in their own neighborhood and in groups (Solhjell et al., 2019). Conversely, studies from the US on more privileged groups show that they deal in communities with little police presence and where they are unlikely to gain the attention of law enforcement (Jacques and Wright, 2015; Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010). The findings in this study support these past studies from the US, Norway, and the Nordic region, but from the point of view of youth from the affluent west side of Oslo.
Participants mainly sold to peers in or around their affluent communities. It is not that participants weren’t mobile; in fact, many used digital tools to buy and sell drugs, and several used mobile phones and relied on various modes of transportation to deliver drugs (Søgaard et al., 2019). However, precisely because participants were relatively mobile socially, and many had spent time in different neighborhoods, drug markets, and social groups across the city, they were able to make these discernments about where it was, relatively speaking and in their own terms, more advantageous to deal drugs. In sum, there were several intertwining reasons why it was advantageous to deal in west-side markets according to participants. Affluent west-side youth bought in bulk and did not argue prices; research participants could be selective because their position among their drug-buying peers was contingent on social networks. The police presence was less conspicuous.
Connected to illegal drug markets is the threat of violent victimization (Jacobs, 2017). Fear of robbery was widespread among participants, and most took active measures to counteract it. However, most of the participants were not victimized. Based on the existing research this is likely attributable to the closed market comprised of affluent drug users, lack of police presence, and the fact that participants mostly sold cannabis on a mid to low level, a drug related to a nonviolent hippie culture (Hammersvik, 2015; Jacques and Allen, 2015; Reuter, 2009; Sandberg, 2013).
Violence and the disadvantages of privilege
Despite believing they were at an advantage when it came to police and the market, and in general terms also about violence, the participants also expressed downsides that were more characteristic of their backgrounds and life histories. As mentioned, several participants argued that the police would assume that their ‘east-side’ and/or ethnic minority peers were dealing drugs. As an extension, the participants argued that being white and from the affluent west end could also indicate to other participants in Oslo's illegal drug markets that they were easy targets, the most serious consequence of which was becoming a victim of violent robberies. Lars explained how it worked: ‘It's like that on the east-side if you hear about a [ethnic] Norwegian guy who deals it's like a jackpot … he is not going to shoot you … he is not going to stab you.' William elaborated: You have to look at who they are robbing. They’re robbing a dealer, a west-side dealer … they know he is never ever going to report that robbery [to the police] … and that's what the motivation is.
The fear of being robbed at home caused participants to go to great lengths to keep people from knowing where they lived or where they kept their drugs and cash. This included ‘stashing’ drugs at various locations in the urban environment and doing detours after transactions in the event they were being followed. In addition to the risk of being robbed at home, participants told stories of some ‘east-siders’ who would also attempt to lure west-siders into meeting at a location for what was supposed to be a drug purchase and rob them. A participant shared his experience: ‘they were just going to rob a bag [of cannabis] each … probably learned that it was a Norwegian [ethnic majority] guy that is like [dealing].'
Interviews also show that west-side youth could be robbed if they ventured into the east side, where people with ethnic minority backgrounds were dealing. August experienced this firsthand: I was at [inner-east part of town] … it was like two Somali … and they both had knives and just held it close to me and were like, ‘you can’t deal here so I am going to have to take that bag.’
Participants in this study were of the opinion that robberies were more common in open drug markets, consistent with previous research conducted in Oslo (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011) and in the US (Jacobs, 2017). ‘That's the thing about that “game.” You have to expect that it [robberies] will happen,' Graham said. Moreover, participants who ventured into these markets had to be willing to use violence or, at the very least, gain a reputation as someone not to be messed with. According to Brandon, the ‘competition’ among people dealing in more street-oriented open drug markets was fierce, and robberies were commonplace. The result was that participants chose to deal on the west end to people they knew.
Drug dealers are targeted by robbers in a general way because they cannot contact the police (Jacobs et al., 2000; McLean and Densley, 2022), but participants could be specifically targeted because of their background. This was a contributing factor to participants choosing to deal in a rather circumscribed way—in closed social networks on the more affluent ‘west-side’ of the city. The finding is supported by studies on ethnic minority youth dealing in the inner eastern part of Oslo. Here participants argue that ethnic Norwegians or white people are easy to rob, and typically cannot or will not defend themselves, and that they do not have friends that will back them up in a violent conflict (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011). Thus, the cumulative advantage experienced in other interactions in illegal drug markets, such as selling in closed markets with relatively little violence, and to affluent peers, proved to be a disadvantage in specific interactions with drug market participants who were more committed to a violent street culture. However, the threat of violence and robberies was likely not a general disadvantage. Previous studies on drug dealing show that violence and robberies are more common in disadvantaged communities and in open drug markets comprised of marginalized people (Anderson, 2000; Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011) compared to studies on more privileged people dealing in closed drug markets (Jacques and Wright, 2015). Moreover, although most participants feared violence and robberies, most had not been victims of violence or been robbed.
Concluding discussion
A recurring conclusion in illegal drug market research is that disadvantaged people dealing in open drug markets bear the brunt of the negative consequences of illegal drug market participation (e.g., Mosher, 2001). Conversely, privileged drug offenders are least likely to suffer negatively (e.g., Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010). The question asked in this article is whether similar patterns of inequality are found in Oslo, Norway, a Nordic welfare state. Even though there are important social, economic, and cultural differences between for instance, Norway, the US, and the UK, the available literature from Oslo's open drug markets (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011; Tutenges and Sandberg, 2022, 2024) indicates that these markets receive a lot of attention from police, that there is a lot of competition for customers, and that violence is relatively commonplace. More generally, studies on ethnic minority youth from Oslo, and other Nordic countries, show that police–youth relations are often antagonistic and related to experiences of procedural injustice (Saarikkomäki et al., 2021; Solhjell et al., 2019). While disadvantages faced by marginalized urban populations may differ in degree depending on the region, country, city, or neighborhood, these past studies from Norway on open drug markets and ethnic minority young people indicate similar disadvantages to past studies (Salinas, 2018).
In comparison, the affluent young people interviewed for the present study, reveal that they often believed that they were at an advantage with the police because of their background and the markets they sold in. They also had ample access to customers due to their background and sold drugs mainly in an environment with little competition. Finally, while their privileged background could make them targets of violent robberies, violence was relatively rare compared to open drug markets. Again, while regional differences will exist, the findings from participants in the present study are similar to past studies on privileged drug offenders (Jacques and Wright, 2015; Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010).
The advantages experienced by participants arguably reflect the real characteristics of illegal drug markets in Oslo. However, and perhaps equally important, participants’ experiences shaped their actions. With police, believing they were at an advantage often resulted in cooperation, and decisions to sell on the affluent west end. Believing they were at an advantage with customers and, relatively speaking, with violent predation likewise restricted their dealing to affluent peers. Examining their decisions is important because it likely contributed to the production of procedurally just encounters with police. It also restricted their dealing to a low-risk context with fewer police officers, many customers, and little violence. Combined, the conditions of the markets and their experience and knowledge of their relative advantages and disadvantages arguably aid in the reproduction of already established illegal drug market differences. This mechanism for reproducing illegal drug market inequality may also be relevant in other contexts.
Past studies on relatively privileged people dealing drugs show that they rarely encounter police. This is the case in studies from the US, the UK, and Denmark (Askew and Salinas, 2019; Jacques and Wright, 2015; Søgaard and Bræmer, 2023). In comparison, most people in the present study had encounters with police. While they experienced these encounters as advantageous, many acknowledged the considerable stress involved in these situations and in the process of interacting with the criminal justice system. That many of the participants in the present study did come in non-trivial contact with the police, indicates that while affluent and conventionally oriented drug offenders may be relative ‘anti-targets’ of criminal justice intervention (Askew and Salinas, 2019; Mohamed and Fritsvold, 2010), they are not wholly exempt from drug law infractions. The literature on relatively privileged drug offenders is much smaller than the literature on more marginalized people dealing drugs (Søgaard and Bræmer, 2023), thus there is likely much to be learned. The fact that many participants in the present study did have significant interactions with the police points to the importance of additional studies on ‘conventional’ and relatively privileged people dealing drugs to assess within-group nuances and differences. For instance, in this study, perceptions of police and experiences with police resulted in participants choosing to deal to friends and acquaintances in affluent social environments. For others, encounters with the police could lead to desistance from dealing or stopping dealing altogether.
The participants sold cannabis on the low to mid-level, in closed markets, with little police presence. In combination this arguably contributed to the general low level of violence (Coomber and Moyle, 2014; Jacques and Allen, 2015; Sandberg, 2013). Yet, having a privileged background meant that most participants arguably lacked the embodied street capital needed to deter individuals more devoted to a violent street culture (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011). The embodied street capital is knowledge of the illegal drug trade, and the ability to avoid police attention, but it is also the readiness to use violence (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011). While ethnic minority youth are often stereotyped as dangerous, they can also use this to their advantage in illegal drug markets (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011). As pointed out by the participants in the present study, ethnic majority youth on the other hand are more often viewed as easy targets (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2011). This does not disprove that violence or threat of violence is more common in open drug markets but highlights that violence may occur for a variety of reasons, including because offenders have identified vulnerable victims (Caraballo and Topalli, 2021).
Several participants compared themselves to low-income ethnic minority people dealing drugs. This is not found in past studies on privileged drug offenders (Jacques and Wright, 2015), and may be an indication of the importance of paying attention to context in studies on privileged drug offenders. Participants were, after all, quite mobile—many having experience dealing drugs in many ways and in several neighborhoods, including in open drug markets. Many also had ethnic minority friends or friendly acquaintances, some of which they also dealt drugs with. Finally, a few participants, while middle/upper class, had an ethnic minority background themselves. Thus, these comparisons may have been more readily available to participants compared to past studies on privileged drug offenders.
There are very few studies on affluent people dealing drugs. Past studies have argued that privileged people are at an advantage when engaging in drug offending. The present study contributes by introducing a novel case from Oslo, Norway specifically looking at the advantages and disadvantages perceived by participants in relation to police, the market, and violence.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Willy Pedersen, Sveinung Sandberg, and two anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments. I am also grateful to the European Journal of Criminology editorial team for their work in the review and publication process. I would like to thank the Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, and the PROMENTA Research Center, for being a supportive research community.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway (grant number 288083).
