Female Crack Sellers in New York City

This article was downloaded by: [UNSW Library] On: 28 May 2013, At: 22:44 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Women & Criminal Justice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wwcj20

Female Crack Sellers in New York City a

a

Eloise Dunlap PhD , Bruce D. Johnson PhD & Lisa Maher PhD

b

a

Special Populations Research, National Development and Research Institutes Inc., New York, NY, 10013, USA b

National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Sydney, Australia Published online: 13 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Eloise Dunlap PhD , Bruce D. Johnson PhD & Lisa Maher PhD (1997): Female Crack Sellers in New York City, Women & Criminal Justice, 8:4, 25-55 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J012v08n04_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

Downloaded by [UNSW Library] at 22:44 28 May 2013

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Female Crack Sellers in New York City: Who They Are and What They Do


Eloise Dunlap Bruce D. Johnson Lisa Maher

ABSTRACT. This paper presents a descriptive analysis of female crack dealers in New York City. It focuses on the various roles women perform and the ways women have been incorporated into existing roles within drug distribution networks. The paper examines the niches some women have carved out for themselves in the crack economy exhibiting broader patterns and relationships among supply, demand, and consumption. The need to finance consumption by female crack users has led to the creation of additional roles specifically associated with crack distribution. Even though these roles are within the confines of low-level sales and distribution activities, they account for a significant element of female participation in the drug economy. The women in this paper were recruited as part of a larger five year ethnographic study of crack distribution in New York City, “Natural History of Crack DistributiodAbuse,” examining the structure and functioning of crack distribution groups. [Article copies availablefor afeeeefrom The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail a d d m : [email protected]]

Eloise Dunlap, PhD, Principal Investigatorkoject Director, and Bruce D. Johnson, PhD, Director of Institute for Special Populations Research, National Dcvelopment and Research Institutes, Inc., New York, NY 10013. Lisa Maher, PhD,National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Sydney, Australia. Rescarch for this paper was provided for by thc National Institute on Drug Abuse (NlDA), grant number lROlDA05 126-02. The authors thank Ansley Hamid, Charles Small, John Muffler, Douglas Goldsmith and Doris Randolph for their comments and contributions to this research. An earlier vcrsion of this paper was presented at the American Society of Criminology, annual meeting, 1992, New Orleans, LA. Women & Criminal Justice, Vol. 8(4) 1997 0 1997 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

25

26

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE


ZNTROD UCTION The advent of crack cocaine precipitated a number of changes in the ways in which illegal drugs are sold and consumed. Several studies have sought to document these changes Q3ourgois, 1989; Fagan and Chin, 1991; Hamid, 1990; Johnson, Williams, Dei and Sanabria, 1990; Johnson, Hamid and Sanabria, 1991; Mieczkowski, 1989). However, few studies have examined the impact of these changes on the role of women as economic actors in the crack marketplace. For the most part, where women have been the focus of drug studies, they have been examined from the stance of their participation as consumers. The empirical studies on women and crack that do exist tend to focus on women crack users in their roles as mothers (e.g., Maher, 1992; Murphy, 1991); sex workers and sexual barterers (e.g., Goldstein et al., 1992; lnciardi et al., 1993; Ratner, 1993); or as participants in non-drug distribution criminal activity (e.g., Maher and Curtis, 1992). Women have rarely been studied as dealers, managers, and other roles in the drug economy and few researchers have attempted to assess how the participation of women in drug consumption and distribution has affected the drug marketplace itself (but see Fagan, 1994; Maher, 1994). Drug distribution and sales have expanded dramatically in recent years and the drug economy has become a prominent feature of economic and social life in many low-income minority communities. In particular, the cocaindcrack economy has emerged as a major employer of inner-city residents and the economic importance of the trade has increased the systematic use of violence by dealers (Johnson et al., 1990). The signifcame of crack use and sales in the inner-city and the concomitant increase in oppommities for participation in criminal activity suggest the need to understand more about how and where women fit into this economy. This paper presents a descriptivc analysis of female crack dealers recruited as part of a larger study of crack distribution in New York City. It focuses on who these women are and what they do-and describes the various roles they perform in the crack economy. The first part of the paper examines these women’s experiences using the analytical framework of drug distribution roles developed by Johnson, Hamid, and Sanabria (1991). The second part provides a taxonomy of emergent roles performed by women in this study. These roles, which do not appear to have functional equivalents within existing models of drug distribution, appear both specific to women and unique to the crack economy. In concluding, we suggest that the experiences of these women, the roles they occupy, and the functions they perform, provide important insights into the struc-

Dunlop, Johnson, and Maher

27

ture and functioning of crack distribution groups and the broader patterns and relationships between supply, demand, and consumption.


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The data presented here are derived from an on-going NlDA funded study, The Natural Histoly of Crack DistibutiodAbuse. This research consists of an ethnographic study of the structure, functioning, and economics of cocaine and crack distribution in low-income, minority communities in New York City.The volume of data collected so far for this research is one of the richest in this field; numbering thousands of pages of transcribed tape-recorded material and field notes. The study has a healthy representation of dealers from a range of economic statuses including street comer crack sellers and cocaindcrack weight distributors. Numerous distributors, both male and female, wcre contacted and interviewed using both group and one-on-one interview methods. Close relations and rapport were established and maintained with many of these dealers and their families. To date (1994), the study has involved the conduct of systematic observations and interviews with 111 dealers, all of whom were racidethnic minorities. Blacks however, are over-represented relative to Hispanics (93% versus 7%) and males outnumber females in the study by approximately two-to-one (65% versus 35%). The majority of participants (87%) were not legally employed at the time of interview and two-thirds (66%) left high school prior to graduation. Males are over-represented in this study for two reasons. Firstly, men dominate drug distribution-there are simply more male dealers than female dealers. Secondly, although some women dealers appear to have adopted many of the attitudes and stances maintained by male distributors, this study found that women tend to be more cautious and thus more diffcdt to gain access tcFespecially women with children, women who do not have a criminal record and women who have been in the business a short amount of time. This research also indicates that female crack sellers tend to be concentrated at the lower levels of drug distribution. In most cases, women eithcr acquired their supply from male distributors and/or worked for males. The women in this study represent a population about which little is known and therefore may not be statistically representative of all crackselling women.’ However, the collection of qualitative data, in the form of observationslfield notes and lengthy open-ended interviews, has allowed us to constmct a set of case histories which shed light on the participation and movement of women within the crack economy. The ethnomethodo-

28

WOMEN 6;CRIMINAL JUSTICE

IogicaVethnographic mode of inquiry allows us to examine these women in detail; to view aspects of their lives that would never be known through strictly quantitative analyses.


EXISTING DRUG DISTRIBUTION ROLES FOR WOMEN This section of the paper dmws on the conceptual framework for understanding and interpreting crack distribution networks and individual dealing careers identified by Johnson, Hamid and Sanabria (1991). This framework provides an overview of how organizations and individuals involved in the distribution and sale of crack cocaine organize themselves in order to meet consumer demand for their product while attempting to avoid detection, arrest and incarceration. While such a framework inevitably glosses over much of the “messy reality” of crack distribution (1991:71), the ovcrall structure of these relationships and the roles and functions employed at various levels of the hierarchy are summarized in Table 1. Within this context, two “ideal types” or models are believed to characterize crack distribution at the street or near street-level: the “free-lance model” and the “business model.” The free-lance model is distinguished by voluntary co-operation between a number of actors at different levels, considerable variation in market prices, short term and flexible agreements between parties and the absence of clcar employer-employee relationships. Free-lance dealers supply any number of individual sellers on either a cash or consignment basis. These free-lance sellers, in turn, may employ any number of operatives to assist in distribution roles, including that of runner, steerer. tout, lookout, enforcer or guard and holder. The vast majority of free-lance distributors are also crack consumen. This model is pcrhaps best represented by the distribution networks encountered in the free-lance nickels markets described by Hamid (1 992). The second “ideal type” identified by Johnson, Hamid, and Sanabria (1991) is the “business model.” This model resembles legitimate profit making organizations and is characterized by pooled interdependcnce, ver&icaldifferentiation, and well dcfmed employer-employce relationships. The “business model” is well represented in the evolution of highly structured drug markets in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg described by Curtis and Maher (1992). This model gains expression in the form of either the “vertical business” or the “franchise” business. The vertical business is marked by a formal, multi-tiered, task-directed system of control evincing considerable hierarchical differentiation (see also Mieczkowski, 1986; 1989). A dealer typically cmploys several “lieutenants” or “crew bosses”

Dunlap, Johnson, and Maher

29

TABLE 1, Common roles and functions at various levels of drug distribution.' Roles by "common names" at various stages of the drug distribution model

Major Functions accomplishedat this level

&&@

"Pound and ounce men," "weight dealers"

Adulteration and sale of moderately expensive products

Free-lance dealers

Purchase, (grams) of cocaine wok up. bag up. sell sometime have sellers(s) who work on consignment basis


(NINETY NINE) (CHEF) House distributors, crack spot supplier, eightball seller

(JOYCE) "Lieutenant," "musde men," transporter, crew boss

(TONY)

Adulteration and production of retail level dosage units ("bags," "vials," "grams") in very large numbers Supervises three or more sellers, enforces informal contracts, collects money, distributes muniple units to actual sellers

&&@

Street drug seller. "runners," iuggler. private seller

(QUEEN BEE) Low-Level distributors Steerer, tout, cop man, lookout, holder, runner

(SHA, RENEE)

Smokina Partner Deals to orderhas contacts

(KIKI) Female Co-op Shon term forays in crack sales

(PEANUTIJEAIVCOOKIE)

Makes actual direct sales lo consumer; responsible tor both money and drugs Assists in making sales, advertises. protects selbr from police & solicits customers, help friend, guard, lookout, go-between Provides drugs and company to well-off customers Pool resources to purchase and sell drugs

30

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE TABLE 1 (continued)

Roles by “common names” at various stages of the drug distribution model Run crack house, injector (of drugs), freebaser, taster, apatlment cleaner


Freakhouse Girls Servant, worker in freakhouse runnertcoppingagent in freakhouse. Live-ins and Pati time

(JILL)

Major Functions accomplished at this level Provides short-term services to drug users or sellers for money or bagger, fence. launder money Provides sexual services including performances sex-for-crack exchanges clean house, make runs

’Forthe drug distribution, buSinessand equivalent roles in the legitimate economy table cf. Johnson el al. Emerging models of Crack Distribution. In T. Mieczkowski (Ed.), pruas. Crime. and Social Policv: Research. Issues. and Concerns, p. 61, This table was based on the drug distribution business and equivalent roles in the legitimate economy. It was reformulatedto specifically display where women fit in the distributionnetwork and the roles they have carved out for themselves. Names in parentheses identify the women associatedwith these roles.

who work on a shift basis in a variety of roles oriented toward the effective organization and supemision of street-level sellers and distribution personnel. Lieutenants are both on-site managers and suppliers with general responsibility for delivering consignments, collecting revenue, hiring, fning and reimbursing sellers. Sellers perform retailing tasks at fixed locations or “spots” involving little discretion and autonomy and may be accompanied and assisted in this function by low-level distribution operatives including steerers, touts, lookouts, enforcers, and holders. The “franchise” business model allows individual dealers to negotiate large quantities of supplies from high level suppliers on a regular basis while maintaining control over the day-today organization of the business, including the hiring and deployment of street-level operatives (e.g., see Williams, 1989). Before we turn to the data however, it is important to note that the presentation of the women in this sample in terms of this framework is not intended to suggest that their experiences necessarily “fit.” Rather, the framework provided by Johnson et al. (1991) is a reference point for examining women’s experiences, while at the same time allowing us to depict the gendercd nature of crack distribution by detailing when and how women’s experiences depart from those documented by previous


31

research. The remainder of this section examines the ways in which the women in this study experienced the following roles: lieutenants, employee sellers, free-lance sellers and low-level distribution roles such as steerers, lookouts and coping agents.


Lieutenants

The position of lieutenant fulfills an important function in the hierarchical organization of the “business” model. Lieutenants act as a conduit for drugs and money, facilitating their exchange between the street and the higher level boss or “owner.” The position of lieutenant is usually secured either by way of family or kinship ties or by means of internal promotion for individuals who have established their trustworthiness (Waterston, 1993). As a licutenant, which is basically a managerial or supervisory rolc, women must evince some degree of control over their drug consumption in order to avoid the hazardous consequences which often result from mixing business and consumption. Tony, a 53-year-old African-American woman, originally entered drug distribution as a street-level seller. Her decision to seek drug economy employment was motivated by financial prcssures. I owed a whole lot of bills and I saw where thcy were selling drugs was not too far from where I live and so I asked the pcrson who was doing it if I could go to work and he said yes and that’s how that all started. . . but it was base then.

Tony began her cocaine dealing career through selling freebase and powdered cocaine, in the early stages of crack distribution. She was also somewhat unusual in that she was older (in her 40’s) and did not consume cocaine prior to selling it. As a non-consumer, Tony’s boss felt she was more trustworthy and very soon put her in a supervisory position where her customers were mainly prostitutcs and pimps. Later, when dealing out of a midtown area, her customers wen: mostly taxi drivers, professionals who workcd in the area and other office workers. She also had people who came to buy in limousines (see also Williams, 1989). Wasn’t all about everybody bcing poor and raggcdity . . . they came to buy [in limos] and they were customes [not dealers]. Tony’s responsibilities as a lieutenant included “holding” and distributing the supply of drugs. Sellers would come to her to “re-up.’’ She would take the cash, issue new packages of drugs and pay the sellers their


32


salaries. Tony was also responsible for hiring and firing employees. She received packages of pre-cooked drugs (freebase) sorted into specific sizes. In an era when distributors were still fine tuning the marketing and sale of crack, sellers were often given large quantities to sell (for example; fifty twenty-dollar packages). With individual sellers responsible for large amounts of money and drugs the potential for “messing up the money” (Johnson et al., 1985) loomed large. Through trial and error, distributors gradually reduced the bundles and the amount each package contained. Tony’s experiences also indicate that not all open-air street-level drug markets are the same. Some areas consist of highly ‘‘privatized’’ or individualized turf.Individuals consider themselves to be “owners” of particular spots from which they sell. Many people have been shot, maimed, and killed over incursions on another’s turf. Other areas are truly laissez-faire market places where anybody with a product can “set up shop.” However, freedom from regulation often means a marketplace filled with sellers who, as Tony put it, [You] don’t know what you’re selling . . .whom you’re selling it for. All you know is you’re getting paid at the end of the night. . . It gets complicated.

When Tony started as a lieutenant she and her sellers were paid a flat rate, regardless of the amount of product they sold or “turned over.” They were beginning a change in system. See before this, when the guys were paid it was a system change. They begin to pay them two dollars for each thing that was sold. They changed the whole thing. They wouldn’t give them salaries. They’d be getting two dollars out of each ten dollar bottle. The advent of crack and the institution of this new system prompted a change in Tony’s duties. She was required to make frequent contact with street sellers in order to deliver the smaller packages and collect money from sellers. Although everybody was making more money under the system of percentage pay, Tony was much busier. The majority of sellers that Tony distributed to were young, either in their late teens or early twenties. Tony claimed that very few of these workers wanted drugs instead of money and that most preferred to take the money and then purchase the drug2 Tony’s boss also employed another group of workers who cooked, measured, filled vials, and made up packages, as well as a number of “watchers” or lookouts who were paid less than sellers.


33

Employee Sellers


Women who work as employee sellers typically have a network of distributors from whom they manage to secure work. Many of thc women who had worked as sellers expressed the view that it was easier to sell for a distributor, earn a certain amount and not have to bother with the responsibilities incurred as a free-lance seller. The following women illustrate the ways in which women secure work as employee sellers and the activities this involves. Queen Bee, a 35-year-old woman, provides an example of an employce seller whose involvement in drug distribution also pre-datcd crack. Queen Bee began her drug distribution career as a free-lance seller, selling angel dust while still in high school. Aftcr quitting school, Queen Bee continued to sell angel dust and expanded her operation.

I had to pay my workers . . . I used to buy the juice, get the mint leaves, put it in a plastic bag, pour some juice on it, put it in the refrigerator, bag it up. And I had to have somebody help me bag. I offered them a price and usually they accept it or they reject it, boom. Queen Bee had three people working for her; one to help her “bag” the dust and the other two to sell it. During this period, she also frequented afterhours clubs and one evening she made a bet with a heroin dealer. They gambled for the heroin he had and shc won. After that he asked hcr to work for him and she began to sell heroin. Well, back then [I was paid] 70/30 and 60/40. . . I built my clientele up by the pack. That was the bundle that I had won from him. So after that I sold that bundlc . . . I know they use it I just let them know I have it. That’s whcre I used to hang out at, the afterhours spot.

In 1984, Queen Bee moved from hcroin into the nascent world of crack distribution. Not unlike male crack seller-users, some women also gained access to crack distribution roles through being at a particular place at a particular time. Queen Bee began work at a crack spot she frequented as a customer. When a vacancy arose for someone to work the door, she was given the position. At this time crack was selling for $10 and $20 a vial and Queen Bee claimed that this particular spot had a turnover in excess of $5,000 a day. As a door guard, Queen Bee (who was also pregnant at the time) was required to search everyone entering the premises to ensure that no guns or weapons wcre brought inside. This position was considered very important because it was the “doorman” (sic) who watched out for

34


stick-ups, the police, or any other kind of trouble. Queen Bee performed these duties so well that she was promoted.


I was doin’ such a good job, I used to even search the boss when he come in . . . and then, you know, searchin’ the boss, he said, yeah I like her . . . she got a lotta nerve . . . she ain’t got no favoritism. I search my friends, my associations. Queen Bee suggests that in these early days, as long as one was willing to work and could do the duties, opporhmities existed both for entry lcvel jobs and promotion. Her initial promotion entailed supervising the pipe and torch. Here she made sure that people bought crack, smoked it, didn’t flip the stem, and that when their time was up, they either paid again or left. If they didn’t leave quietly, Queen Bee would put them out. Further promotion saw Queen Bee “workin’ on the box is when they come in, they got to pay for the crack.” She was eventually promoted to the highest position, that of “chief.” This position cntailed supplying pre-cooked crack to the spot, picking up the money, and making sure everybody got paid. Queen Bee related that as chief she made sure she did a good job: “I made sure everybody got paid, got brcakfast, got lunch, you understand what I’m sayin’ . . . and I made sure the supplies was cornin’ in.” Queen Bee remained in this position until about 1987. In 1988 she went into busincss for hersclf as a free-lance distributor for a short period but the price of cocaine began to go up and it became too expensive for her to acquire. Since then Queen Bee has returned to work as an employee seller-either as part of a crew or individually. She feels that as long as she “gets paid” it does not make any difference whether she is selling her own drugs or someone else’s. As she explained: Like now I’m workin’ part-time. I’m sclling crack right ’cause it’s not mine. I’m working’ for somebody . . . so I’m not gettin’ paid like I want to . . . but, what I’m gettin’ is acceptable. Sooner or later I be back to the way I want it. Queen Bee’s career trajectory suggests that there are both boom periods and slumps in the drug industry. When prices increase, free-lance distributors at the lower levels of dealing have to bccome sellers for those distributors who are able to absorb price increases. Like many othcrs, Queen Bee claims to be waiting for the price of cocaine to come down so she can purchase weight andor for some of “her people” (former employers) to come home from prison. When she works for “her people,” Queen Bee claims she not only gets paid more, but is treated better and receives additional bcnefits such as clothing.



35

For the most part, Qucen Bee currently generates income and supports her own consumption by selling crack for various dealers in the area. At this point, she is satisfied workmg for someone and like many women interviewed during the course of this research, feels that being an employee is both easier and safer. As an employee she is not required to outlay any funds and does not have to worry about sclling thc merchandise in order to cover her investment. She feels that selling for someone else avoids many of the headaches that come with free-lance dealing, including the responsibility of supervising workers. For the moment, Queen Bee is comfortable letting someone else assume these responsibilities while she rests up before re-entering the dealing arena. Queen Bee carries her drugs around in an old beat up brown paper bag which she usually places beside a fire hydrant or behind a car wheel (see also Johnson et al., 1985). She keeps about ten vials in her pockct and watches closely to make sure no one tampers with the vials she has stashed nearby. As she sees it, her major task while selling is to avoid the police. According to Queen Bee, the widespread proliferation of crack use and sales has changed both the nature of the drug marketplace and relations between employen and employees.

I f somebody came by sellin’ clothes or somethin’ and you wanted it, [the boss] buy it. And the majority of the time it wouldn’t come out your pay, it come out thcir pocket . . . they trcated us like human beings. Queen Bee’s narrative highlights a clear perception that both the working conditions and social relations of drug distribution today are different from previous drug eras. Working in the field since high school, Queen Bee has had a range of different bosses, both young and old and different ethnic identities including Wcst Indians, African-Amcricans and Dominicans. She fccls strongly that the younger bosscs, characteristic of crack distribution today, are “wild.” They are quick to resort to violence iftheir money is not correct and will beat the worker or break an arm ifthings are not in order. By comparison, Queen Bee felt that older bosses tended to be “cool, calm, and collected. . . come up a little short, you h o w they get the next pay, you pay thcm right off top, out your pay.” The young ones, however, are very violent. But these young one, they don’t wanna hear it. They want all theirs. If you get busted, they evcn want thcirs. I mean, I’m serious that’s right. The package, they want you to pay for it. Let’s say the police come up, and you got to throw a package away to keep from havin’ it

36


on you, you know, gettin’ arrested. They want you to pay for it. In other words, they tellin’ you that I don’t give a fuck if you got caught with it, but that ain’t gonna bail you out cause you owe me. But they, they want theirs. You know it’s hard to-I don’t fuck with them, them young ones.


According to Queen Bee, the young dealers also take advantage of sellers in other ways. They require them to work long hours and often do not pay on each package sold but hold up on the seller’s money and pay the seller at the end of the night or at the end of the week. Queen Bee’s considerable experience of the drug industry allows her to adopt a philosophical stance in relation to hcr carcer. Things like selling drugs is a up and down thing . . . you can be up today and down tomorrow. . . so you take the bitter with thc swect. Queen Bee’s varied experiences have taught her how to survive a number of selling situations. In this context, survival depends on the “transferability” of sclling skills to different types of drugs, “supervisors,” and between drug markets. It is necessary to observe which drug is making the most money at any point in time and to enter that market, pick up the drug and sell it. In this way one can stay in the business and not get too “sbung out” (caught with dealing a particular drug and not moving with the market and changing consumer demands). But while Queen Bee admits that in the past she has been able to make “good money” this way, her crack habit currently consumes most of hcr income. Her career also reveals that while drug distribution is fraught with its own particular dangers and uncertainties, like so many occupations that involve dealing with the public, many of the negativc aspects of the job involve customers. All I like about it, [is] sclling andmoney. Other than that it’s [dealing drugs] too tiring, it’s a headache, you have to deal with the public. You know, you got to have a nice attitude dcalin’ with the public, you know, whether it’s drugs or whatever. . . dealin’ with the public, you can’t like talk to your customers any kinda way regardless of what thcy do and how thcy do it. Without the customers, you wouldn’t make that money.

Queen Bee is expressing the retail dilemma of keeping customers satisfied while at the same time accepting that, in relation to drugs, ‘‘[Y]ou gotta put your fcct down, you know . . . you just can’t let your customers



37

walk all over you.” The drug market requires sellers to develop a finely tuned sense of balance between being pleasant and “keeping the customer satisfied”-but at the same time being aware of those who will inevitably seek to take advantage and knowing when and how to negotiatc such situations. Utilizing her experiences as both boss and worker, Queen Bee also offers some insights into the conflict between supervision and autonomy in the context of drug distribution. As she put it, “When they [sellers] workin’ or whatever they doin’ you got to know, let ‘em do it they way.” Queen Bee’s sentiments are representative of many of the women in this sample, most of whom felt that it was important for workers to demand and maintain a certain amount of autonomy. They did not llke being told what to do and how to do it. In allowing for at least some measure of autonomy and control over their consumption, s e l l i n m d free-lance selling in particular-appears to provide women with the feeling that they are their “own person.” These sentiments wcre strongly rcmforced by the following group of womcn who demonstrated considerable occupational mobility as thcy moved in and out of free-lance and employee selling roles. Free-Lance Sellers

Ninety-Nine is a 30-year-old African-American femalc. For the most part Ninety-Nine is a free-lance seller who buys her own supply, cooks it up, bottles it, and sells it. However, on occasions when she has smoked too much (i.e., been on a “mission”), and is unable to secure supplies to cook and sell, she often ends up working for someone else. Like Tony and Queen Bee, Ninety-Nine has a history in drug distribution that predates crack. At the age of 19, she was selling angel dust and making about two hundred dollars a day bcfore moving to marijuana sales at 21. Both these early experiences saw Ninety-Nine in the role of an employee. I was workin’ for somebody. . . I would get a package, sell that.

..

get the next package sell that . . . they call that hustlin’ right. hustlin’ . . . hand to hand contact, you know . . . But after a while, like you get tired of it . . . any hustler gets tired of hustlin’ after a while. . . they get tired of sellin’ the same thing. They want maybe to switch up to something else. Make more money. Some drugs sell quicker than other drugs, you know.

Ninety-Nine also refers to thc importance of mobility within the drug industry. The relative popularity of different drugs at any given point in

38

WOMEN L CRLMINAL JUSTICE

time also provides opportunities for sellers to switch markets in order to make money. When Ninety-Nine moved into selling marijuana she began to make between $300 and $400 a day. However, selling both types of drugs necessitated working long hours and Ninety-Nine typically started selling at 4:OO p.m. in the afternoon and often did not stop until 4:OO a.m. In her current role as a street-level crack seller, Ninety-Nine moves back and forth between free-lance and employee status. As she explained,


I work on consignment, but now I’m buying it, I bought it straight up . . . sometime I free-lancc, sometime I work for others . . . I might work for someone else to get my own, you know, get my own money to buy my own s t d . At the time of the interview, Ninety-Nine was working as a free-lance distributor. Although this involved an initial outlay of $560 for approximately twenty-eight grams of powder cocaine, by coohng, bagging up and selling the finished product (crack), Ninety-Nine always managed to double her investment. One of the advantages of her considerable experience as a free-lance distributor which she brings to employers is that Ninety-Nine maintains her own customers and her own spot. The site she deals from has several sellers in the immediate vicinity. Each seller has a specific spot and the boundaries of particular spots are respected and enforced. Below, NinetyNine’s comments about how she retains her selling spot provide a glimpse of the meanings which accrue to respect in inner-city street culture. They also suggest how women draw on their often considerable knowledge of street life to negotiate potentially dangerous situations. I had incidents like that before [others coming in and attempting to take over her spot], and I told the guys, ‘look you all can’t sell here now because 1 am here. I am here everyday. I built up my clientele here. I am not gonna come and let you take my money like that you know, how can I do that?’ . . . they might talk back you know but in the long run they see that I am right. . . they wouldn’t want it done to them . . . so in the long run I usually have the upper hand . . . I mean if I have been there for months and all of a sudden out of the blue you come on, you want to sell, come on how could you do that. . . you know that’s disrespectful in not respecting somcone else’s place.

One of the aspects Ninety-Nine disliked about working for someone else illustrates a problem faccd by both femalc and male sellers in streetlevel drug markets. When the product is lost or stolen, sellers are made to


Dunlup, Johnson, and Muher

39

pay. While the ability to avoid the police has long been seen as an integral part of the seller’s role, intensive police intervention in some drug markets in New York City has meant that it is much harder for sellers to evade police. Moreover, when sellers are known to the police and have a record of arrests, attention is drawn to the operation which increases the likelihood of the owner losing his product. When Ninety-Nine was recently arrested and the police confscated the package she was holding, her boss wanted her to pay it back. In fact, he required her to pay it back under threat of physical puni~hment.~ According to the women in this sample, bosses are increasingly less willing to consider being arrested, and the subsequent loss of product, as an occupational hazard (SCC also Waterston, 1993; Maher, 1994). Rather, arrest is more likely to be perceived as an individual fault of the seller, placing sellers at risk of potential retribution from supplicrs for not doing their jobs “properly” if they are arrested. Some bosses provide sellers with a look-out which may reduce thc risk of arrest; however, they do not provide a lawyer to get an arrested worker out of jail. Ninety-Nine clearly preferred working as a frce-lance seller than as an employee. In stating this preference she referred to the constant problems and confusion over petty incidents those working in “crews” encountered! [Llike arguments, they argue a lot, they argue with people a lot, you know . . . who is holding the money, who is doing the work, who is looking out, who is watching the package.

Although she does not like working in a crew situation, Ninety-Nine works in the area she grew up in and as a result knows most of the people there. She feels that there is always somebody to “watch her back” and that she has a level of protection that she would not have outside “her” neighborhood. Basically, Ninety-Nine tries to avoid the “bickcring” that goes on between sellers and attempts to maintain good relations with her fellow free-lance sellers. Ninety-Nine views cooperation and the ability to work together while maintaining a measure of independence as critical to individual survival. As a free-lancer and sometimes employee, Ninety-Nine exerts considerable control over the way in which she sells, who she sells to, when she sells, and how long she sells. For her, selling crack-even for someone elsoprovides a way in which she remains her “own person.” Chef is a 32-year-old African-American female. Like Tony, Queen Bee and Ninety-Nine, Chef had also sold other drugs prior to selling crack.

40


Chef used to earn $300 to $500 a week selling marijuana out of a candy store for her bosshoyhend. As she described it:


[Tlhe front of it was a candy store. We have no more candy there after the police had raided it so many times. Everybody knew it was just a rccfer spot. Chef had a personal relationship with her bosshoyfriend for four years and during this time she wore diamond rings and rode around in Porsches (her boss reportedly owned three). Chef moved into crack sales after being approachcd by a male distributor, JoJo. JoJo had been working as a free-lance seller for some time and was keen to employ a worker. He offered her a number of payment options. She could get paid in cash and make good money, get paid in crack or she could get half and half (half crack and half money). Like most sellers, Chef opted to get paid in cash and purchase her own drugs. Similar to Ninety-Nine, Chef currently alternates between selling for various dealers around the area and buying her own cocaine, cooking it up and selling it. She acquired the name Chcf because of her reputation for cooking high quality crack When Chef cooks her own crack (regardlcss of the amount she prepares) it takes her no more than three hours to sell hcr supply. At .the time of interview, Chef worked for various dealers selling crack curbside. Unlike Ninety-Nine, she has an uncertain reputation among dealers because of past mishaps, and is viewed as untrustworthy. Chef is therefore watched closely when selling and is only given small quantities to sell at a time.

Low-Level Distribution Roles Sha, a 32-year-old African-American woman, and Renee, a 26-year-old African-American woman, are partncrs in their pursuit to acquire and consume crack. Not only do they work together as a team “stccring” customerS to particular sellers, but thcy share their lives together as lovers. As expenenccd consumers, Renee and Sha utilize their intimate knowledge of crack selling locations to generate income by charging their customers a fee for showing them where to buy the best quality drugs. Renee fust got involved in crack distribution through an ex-boyfriend with whom she was involved for nine years. “I used to go and get it and I found a better place to go. I would get it and it was good and I would take customem to him.” With the breakup of her relationship and a deepening involvement in crack consumption, Renee began to depend more on steer-


41

ing activities to acquire both money and crack. In talking about her early experiences she relates:


I just started gettin’ high the whole day. And, uh, when my money would run out, there would be white people. I’d be on my way, white people come and say “Where can I get somethiin’?” They would ask me, and I would tell ’em. And then they would get high (share their drugs) with me. Renee has maintained a low status and role in the distribution of crack. In part this is due to a history of selling “dummies” (fake crack). Such activities can be dangerous and sellers do not take kindly to such individuals hanging around their areas attempting to rip off their customers. As a result of her involvement in this practice, Renee is not trusted to sell the ‘‘real thing.” Unlike Renee, Sha has a family history of selling drugs. She grew up in a family where most of the members used drugs and many were involved in distribution and sales activities. Shit, they sold every mother fucking thing. . . they bootleggin’ . . . you know throw card games on Fridays, sell the booze on the side. . . My uncles, they stay in drugs, you know, I was in that type of situa-

tion all my life. Well with, yeah, with the law period. With the law period. You know what I’m sayin’. You know, they d m g dealers and stufF like that. . . So it affected my family too, you know. My mother too at that time cause we was in there, you know; cause I guess that they was the only people that she could turn to at the time whcn she had us, so we was there involved with this, and I was there seein’ it. Sha’s family history provided her with ample exposure to drug use and distribution activities. Her own selling career was instigated at an early agc when she began to sell marijuana for her brother. For Sha, selling marijuana provided both independence and a sense of self woah. [I]t gave me a whole lot of self-esteem. I felt good about myself. I had-everything I had on was brand new. I could do whatcver I want, eat whatever I want. I could go wherever I want. It felt damn good. Sha’s family’s involvement with drug distribution and consumption provided her with an intimate knowledge of the trade and informal introductions to many suppliers. Eventually, however, she took advantage of these family connections and fell into disrepute with various distribu-


42


tors. As her consumption of crack increased, her reputation became more questionable. Due to her untrustworthiness, Sha’s options narrowed to the point where she could only find work in the role of steerer. Sha and Renee usually work as a team steering unfamiliar buyers to sellers. Sometimes they acquire drugs from individual sellers in return for bringing customers who purchase large amounts of crack. In this sense, they are often paid twiceby the seller and the customer. In addition to their activities as steerers, Sha and Renee have also developed a sideline in stealing from drug users. The role of “coping agent” (one who purchases drugs on behalf of another) is well-established in inner-city street-level drug markets, particularly those markets characterized by passing trade or “outsiders” from other parts of the city who may be unfamiliar with andor intimidated by the setting and fearful of arrest (Maher, 1994). Usually this role entails purchasing drugs on behalf of others in exchange for either money or drugs. However, those who rely on street crack uscrs In to cop drugs for them are extremely vulnerable to bcing ~ictimized.~ addition to negotiating a cash fee, Sha and Renee often acquire extra drugs for their personal use by tampering with the purchase between the point of salc and the point of return and/or by sharing the drugs with the customer. Sometimes, under the pretext of offering to “cop” or purchase drugs for others, Sha and Renee simply abscond or “run o f f ’ with the monies. As Sha put it, I’d scheme on ’em you know what I’m sayin’. They’d be stupid enough to give me the money, to go get mother fuckin’ drugs. I fuckin’ go through one door and come out the next. That’s it. No more details, just hope I don’t get caught. Suckers, yeah suckers; straight-up suckers, I see ’em comin. The women prescnted thus far serve to illustrate the variety of career trajectories and the gendered ways in which women experience the roles outlined in previous studies of drug distribution. The desire for autonomy, considerable occupational mobility within the industry, the selling styles they adopt and the strategies they utilize in order to minimize the risk of violence endemic to drug markets are all suggestive of gender differences in role performance. However, these women are clearly expected to conform to the dcmands of the market within existing occupational structures if they expect to survive as sellers. In the absence of any gender concessions or special privileges, women crack sellers may be forced to acquire certain attitudes and adopt specific behaviors, many of which can be characterized as ‘masculine.’ The following section will explore a number of emergent roles and statuses for women within the crack economy.

Runlap, Johnson, and Malier

43

Many of these roles can only be understood within the context of the deeply gendered nature of the crack epidemic, and are deeply rooted in women’s expcriences of crack consumption.


EMERGING DRUG DISTRIBUTION ROLES FOR WOMEN Thus far we have sought to examine the experiences of women crack sellers in terms of the analytical framework provided by Johnson, Hamid, and Sanabria (1991). Howcver, many of the women encountered during the course of this study occupied roles specific to the crack distribution chain which do not appear to have been so clearly incorporated into existing typologies of drug distribution. These roles appear unique to crack distribution and many of them are specific to women consumers. They are roles based on the dcmands of the drug, which women crack users appear to have carved out for themsclves in order to gencrate income. In this sense women crack users can be seen to have crcated a number of additional low-level positions within the drug economy. Drawing on their experienccs, we provide thc following taxonomy of emerging drug distribution roles: house distributors, freakhouse girls, smoking partners, and the female co-op.

House Distributors Joyce is a 32-year-old fcmale. The daughter of Panamanian immigrants, Joyce generates enough income from selling crack to comfortably support her own consumption and that of her girlfriend. Although Joyce dealt out of the indoor location described below, she could sometimes be seen working the nearby streets as a free-lance dealer in a bright red jumpsuit. At the time we met her, Joyce was the “housc” distributor at Joe’s “freakhouse,” a small weatherboard cottagc in a respectable neighborhood in Brooklyn. Joe is an African-American malc in his late 40’s. Upon the death of his mother, Joe and his siblings inherited the housc and Joe remained in it for almost a year until the estate was finalized and the house was sold. Joe had been a crack smoker for about a year at this point and the house soon filled with various crack smoking acquaintances. The presence of a number of homeless and sexually available women smokers in the house Icd to its evolution as a “freakhouse.” As described by Hamid, who first noted the phenomenon in several low-income minority neighborhoods in New York City, freakhouses are typically organized where the exchange of sexual services for gifts of crack and or money is prominent (cf. Hamid, 1992:344).


44


At the time of interview, Joe was in debt to Joyce who had given him a substantial amount of crack which he had smoked up. Joyce’s dealings with Joe illustrate the aggression women must exert ifthey want to survive in the harsh world of the drug business. In no uncertain terns, Joyce let Joe know that he had over-extended himself and would not receive any more credit until he straightened out his present debt. Although she was living in Joe’s home and earning her living from the freakhouse clientele, Joyce bad the upper hand in this relationship and clearly controlled the interaction pattern-a position no doubt consolidated by the fact that she weighed almost 300 pounds. Although Joyce has worked for others at various stages of her carecr, at the time of this research, she operated as a free-lancer, with the freakhouse providing a lucrative outlet for her distribution activities. The advent of crack had placed her in a position where she, like many other women crack users, was able to carve out a temporary niche which enabled her to generate income. In general, Joyce maintained a steady flow of income and exerted reasonable conbol over herself and her crack consumption. She was a good business woman with a demonstrated ability to assert herself by “luckin ass” when and if needed Freukhorise Girls

Not all of the women who occupy these newly emergent roles are as well placed as Joyce. Jill, a 30-year-old African-American, illusbates a krther dimension of women’s participation in the cocaindcmck economy. Jill is a failed user/seller. Her crack consumption has made her so untrustworthy that nobody will give her anything to sell. Many women encountered during the course of this study were, for a variety of reasons, no longer capable of talung on thc rigors of the street. For some women, like Jill, their reputation was besmirched by continually “messing up” and “smoking up” the product they had been given to scll. Such women can no longer gain an employee-sellerstatus, so they slip into a particular form of low-level “service” provider made possible as a result of the unique “opportunities” provided by the freakhouse. Before Jill began work in a freakhouse, she had been a free-lance seller. She was subsequently arrested and imprisoned for selling drugs at skeet level. This aspect of the business clearly served to deter some of the females encountered in the course of this study from dealing. Such women may find workiig in freakhouses more attractive insofar as they are perceived as minimizing risk-not only from violent customers-but from arrest and subsequent imprisonment. As a worker in a freakhouse, Jill occupies a low-level position in the


Dunlap, Johnson. and Maher

45

crack distribution network. In addition to providing a variety of sexual services including “performances,” encounters between women, and an array of sex acts, women like Jill also perform a variety oftasks associated with crack distribution. This may take the form of purchasing crack from nearby street-level dealers or acting as a ‘‘runner” or coping agent within the household. At the time of this study, Jill was pregnant and felt that this placed her at a disadvantage because shc was “picked” less often than the other girls. Generally she got what she temcd the “crumbs” of business. Most of the time she also ended up doing the housekeeping because she was not “picked” by the male clients. However, cleaning and making runs for people did not provide her with sufficient crack and necessitated her taking to the “strect” (soliciting in the street) from time to time. This particular freakhouse had two classes of girls. First, the regular house girls who “lived in” and were available at all times for male customers. Second, part-timers came to the freakhouse intermittently. Among these women, a hierarchy existed depending on how they looked, what they were willing to do, their tenure in the household, and perceptions of their trustworthiness and dependability. Women like Jill who inhabit freakhouses and crackhouses have been described by Inciardi, Lockwood and Pottieger (1 993). Many have no history of street-level prostitution. While most engage in sexual bartering, in this study they also performed a number of other functions including the purchase of drugs and, in some cases, domestic labor within the household. Many of these women also peceived their position as safer and involving fewer risks than that incurred by strcet-level prostitutes. Workers in freakhouses may also receive the benefit of knowing that the male must spend money and “take care o f ” the girl (share crack) if they want her to “get busy.” Jill and other women in her position utilize these opportunities provided by the emergence of the freakhouse as a unique setting for the purchase and consumption of both crack and sexual services in order to maintain their instrumental nceds and support their crack habits. Smoking Partner

Kiki, a 29 year old African-American woman, is unusual in a number of ways. Although Kiki initially appears to be a free-lance seller, a number of features differentiate her role from the low-level distribution positions typically occupied by user-scllers in the drug economy. Kiki does not sell to just anyone. Rather her customers consist of a select group of discrete crack usen. The majority are white, most arc employed or self-employcd and all of them arc concerned to keep their crack consumption hidden. Because they are not part of a regular crack-smoking network, thcy rely on

WOMEN & CRIMJNAL JUSTICE

46

Kiki to provide not only drugs but also, in most instances, to provide company to get high with. As Kiki notes of her clientele,


[Tlhey don’t know no better and they don’t want their wives to know. They don’t want their pecr, their peer members to know . . . they don’t want their wives to sec. They don’t want you know when most of the people are sleep when they come out, after twelve o’clock. . . you look right to them, they’ll come up to you. Most of thcm got cars so they park some where and get high. Kiki’s operation is also unusual in that she neither purchases nor obtains on consignmcnt a set quantity of drugs. Rather, she deals to order based on customer’s requests. In addition to supplying crack, Kiki’s operation is further distinguished by the fact that she has the contacts which enable her to sell (cocaine) weight to customers. Kiki secures money up front from her customers and places her orders with a Dominican dealer whom she has known for many years. This dealer gives Kiki a “cut” (personal portion) on weight deals. On top of this she reccives money, and, usually drugs as well, from her clicnts. As she puts it, many of her clients “pay me just to get high.” In discussing her successful dealing style and customer base, Kiki places considerable emphasis on honesty:

And I’d go [with the money to purchase the drugs] and come back. Remember this, it is always important to come back . . . because when you come back, the longer you stay high, as long as you come back. Because you never know how much your client has. . . I make so much business for the dealer, I get my free cocainc cause I done brought so much business to them . . . they have to give me something.

Kiki’s experience as a dcaler/smoking partner illustrates how womcn crack smokers can use their intimate knowledge of the crack marketplace to cultivate intcr-personal relationships with less experienced users in order to generate income and support their own consumption. Kiki typically derives income and drugs in four ways: she sells weight to customers who usually give her a percentage in rctum; shc obtains “free” cocaine from her supplier; she sells cocainehack to customers in exchange for cash; and she obtains “free” drugs from customers by smoking with them. What differentiates Kiki from distributors who “deal-to-order” from black books or work off beeper systems is her use of inter-personal skills in developing relationships with well-off customers who pay for drugs which they then share with her (cf. Dunlap, Johnson, Manwar 1994).


47


Fentale Co-op The following three women could also be subsumed under the broader category of free-lance sellcrs. However, upon closer examination, they represent a distinctive variant insofar as the affordable price of cocaine, its widespread availability and the lack of skills and resources needed to “cook” crack have enablcd them to engage in short-term sporadic forays into crack sales. Such enterprises also resemble the “crack sellers co-op” identified by Hamid (1992:341) in that the women involved typically pool their resources in order to purchase and sell crack. One woman may have the apament, another may have the knowledge and contacts as whcre to buy the best quality cocaine and secure the best price, another may possess the expertise to “cook” crack, and yet another may know how to file down “bottles” and fd them. However, this enterprise is clearly distinguished from thc “crack scller’s co-op” by its instrumental nature and the temporary positioning of its participants within the crack distribution network During the course of this study, a group of three women who lived in the same budding formed an instrumental association for thc purpose of gencrating income from crack sales. The association began when one woman, Jean, became friendly with another resident in her building, a woman named Peanut who distributed crack from hcr apartment to a select clientele. One day Peanut suggestcd to Jean and her friend Cookie that they pool together some capital to make some money by buying a quantity of cocaine and converting it into crack. Accordingly, Jean and Cookie decided to forgo some of the items in their household budgets in order to put aside small amounts toward the purchase of the cocaine. When they had saved enough money, the three women travelled by cab to buy the cocaine from a contact of Peanut’s. Peanut was frisked at the door, shown the many weapons the distributors had, given a sample and then advised that she would have to make a purchaseany amount-before leaving. Peanut had taken $280 each from Jean and Cookie for the purchase of three “8-balls” which she concealed in her vagina in a kotex. Peanut’s precaution proved well founded as the women were stopped by a squad car not far from where they had bought the cocaine and Peanut was searched. They narrowly escaped detection when the female officer affumed that Peanut was in fact menstruating. On returning to their neighborhood, the women purchased 1,000 plastic vials for $8 at the comer store. They filed down the vials to make them smaller so that the two rocks they intended to put in each vial would look “huge.” After converting the cocaine into crack in Cookie’s apartment, the womcn packagcd the vials and returned to thcir respective apartments to begin selling them. Both Jean and Peanut made a healthy profit from the


48

WOMEN & CRIh4lNA.l JUSTICE

enterprise. Jean managed to purchase her cousin’s car for $500, buy clothes and jewelry, and put down some money for furniture. Cookie however, could not restrain herself and consumed all of her share herself. Jean was particularly grateful when the distribution episode was completed. She had been tempted by the crack and the stress had caused her to dnnk a beer and break 90 days of sobriety. Fear of the police had also caused Jean and Peanut anxiety and both maintained that they had been “paranoid” throughout their dealing episode. Many people had come into their apartment buildings but neither woman had wanted to sell outside in thc street because of the risk of arrest. Once they sold their supply of crack, they breathed a sigh of relief because the whole episode had been a stressful experience. Unlike Jean and Peanut, Cookie did not make any money because she had completely smoked up her share. This account provides an illushation of how some women pool their resources in order to move in and out of crack distribution. For a relatively small initial outlay, these women stand to make a considerable amount of money which-as was the case with Jean and Peanut-they may use to purchase things they need. Several other women encountered during the c o m e of this study made similar short term investments in the drug market by pooling their resources in this way. These women are instrumental in their motivation to distribute crack. They come together to sell crack to make a specific amount of money for a defined purpose. They may sell from an existing “crack house,” turn their own apartment into a temporary selling spot or occupy an apartment in an abandoned building to distribute crack. These women are transient within the crack distribution business. They enter the business for a short amount of time, for a specified purpose and for the most part, prefer to acquire both income and crack by other means. Their experiences suggest that intermittent participation in this kind of distribution activity serves instrumental needs by providing a temporary source of extra income for a specified purpose@). DISCUSSION

Johnson, Hamid and Sanabria (1991) have suggested that individuals involved in street or near street-level crack distribution can be divided into four categories with respect to their drug career employment histories. Firstly, many crack distributors evidence extensive prior involvement in the distribution of marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. The second categoIy consists of individuals currently engaged in crack distribution who were cocaine-only powder distributors. The third group of crack distributors are drawn from the ranks of former marijuana distributors. The fourth catego-


49

ry consists of drug “neophytes” whose foray into distribution was coter-


minous with crack cocaine. Only those women who occupied the emergent roles described in the second section of this paper could be situated in this fourth category. Most of the women who occupied existing roles had extensive histories of involvement in drug distribution which pre-dated crack cocaine (cf. Dunlap, Johnson, and Manwar 1994). These women, most of whom viewed drug distribution as a “career,” had sold many different types of drugs. Shifts in both their own drug use and their drug sales careers oftcn occurred in tandem with market shifts. Still others sinply sold whatever drug was making the most money at different points in time, while a few sold more than one drug at a time. So, whilc crack has undoubtedly precipitated incrcased participation in drug sales, few of the women occupying roles described in previous studies of drug distribution were market neophytes. By contrast, most of the women who occupied the emergent roles described in this study commenced their drug distribution careers subsequent to their use of crack. Although their individual career trajectories evidence considerable variation, a number of common themes also emerged from these women’s experiences. Almost all of thc women presented here acquired an early ~n active street life is a pre-requisite for successful start in “street low-level drug distribution activities, providing individuals with contacts, customers, and a dynamic communication network. Crack suppliers and crew bosses look for individuals who have good networks and know many people who can be turned into customers. This early start in street life introduces women to alternative ways of makmg money and drug consumption leads to further immersion in the drug economy. However, this investment in the acquisition of knowledge and skills of street life and the drug economy invariably means that social and economic skills necessary to compete for legitimate jobs are either forgonc or becomc increasingly outdated. Continued participation in street life and drug use also takes its toll on family responsibilities. Most of the women in this study had children. Their children were either being raised by family or friends or had been placed in institutionalized foster care. Although many of the women exprcssed their love for their children, and some vowed that they intended to quit street life because their children were getting older, the street itself can be a pervasive, if not “addictive” way of life. In some cases, women rarely lcave the area in which they sell and consume drugs. Somctimes this area can encompass as little as a four or five square block radius. For the majority of the women in this samplc, family responsibilities were secondary to a vigorous street lifc which provided opportunities to make money.


SO

WOMEN & CRlMlNAL JUSTICE

However, street life and, in particular, the crack “ecosystem” presents a number of dangers for women (Bourgois and Dunlap, 1993; Maher and Curtis, 1992). As Hamid (1990) has argued, within the context of illegitimate work, fierce competition over turf, the absence of relations of trust and the volatile combination of police, informers, and robbers, violence is a way of maintaining discipline and control. Women who participate in crack distribution must be aggressive and prepared to defend themselves. Within this environment, women are not extended special consideration on the basis of their being female. Rather, men and women alike adopt the attitude that “if you are out here then you can take the heat.” In order to adapt and cope with the demands of this violent work place, many women reportcd that they had to “toughen up.” Acts of violence in the context of drug distribution are often seen by participants as both necessary and justified. Below, Chef‘s comments demonstrate the adherence to the situational n o m which condone the use of violence as a regulatory mechanism in the drug economy.

I have seen it done. I’ve seen this big guy beat this girl, and pregnant, and just beat. . . beat her into a comer. . . she deserved it, ’cause you know she’s gonna cheat too many people of money out here . . . They got sick and tired . . . rip her heart out . . . whip her into a comer. . . And she lost her baby then. The street provides a constant testing ground and women in distribution roles are frequently called upon to prove whether they are tough enough to be in those roles. As Ninety-Nine related ofher experiences as a strect-level seller: One time somebody didn’t pay me money and I just like hit them. You know, I really don’t ldce to get into that. . . It was a girl . . . you hit them one day and two days later you standing out there hustling and they call the cops on you. Despite their apparent acceptance of the dangers vested in the crack workplace, many of the women attempted to use their social skills and knowledge of street life to prevent or avoid potentially violent situations. They tended to search for compromises or ways to deflate situations rather than assume a similarly aggressive posture to the confronting male(s). For example, while women were justifiably cautious about exerting violence on customers because of potential repcrcussions such as calling the police, the ability of many of these women to empathize-to place themselves in the position of others-appeared to mediate their willingness to exercise violence. As Ninety-Nine put it,


51


I wouldn’t really, you know, hurt a person because what if I had somebody’s package and I messed up? I wouldn’t want it done to m e . . . I have to think about it like that. What would that person do to me? I wouldn’t want it done to me . . . I would ask them to pay me my money back, yeah you know gotta pay me back but I wouldn’t deal with it [them] no more, you h o w . While recognizing the need to maintain her “rep” or a certain amount of professional integrity, Ninety-Nine is herself reluctant to resort to violence. This may also be because most of the people she sells to are also those she grew up with. Rather than get violent, she prefers to let an incident go. So some women like Ninety-Nine clearly feel that since they do not want others to do certain things to them, they will refrain from committing certain acts against othen. On the other hand, women like Chef illustrate the attitudes women sellers are often forced to adopt to survive in this violent workplace. The other salient feature that emerges from this analysis of women involved in crack distribution and sales activities is that, in contrast to previous research (e.g., Inciardi ct al., 1993), many of the respondents felt that participation in the crack economy brought additional benefits beyond supporting personal consumption. Although by the time of interview all of the women were engaged in drug distribution primarily to support their own consumption, some women were not drug consumen when-they began selling drugs. Moreover, even those women who entered the market as consumers reported motivations that extended beyond simply supporting their consumption. As Sha indicated when talking about why she chose to participate in the drug economy rather than seek legal employment: I like a lot of things. I like to travel. That’s what I told you. I like to get that fast money, and I don’t like the white man tellin’ me what to do all the time, breathin’ and holdin’ over my neck. So this is the way I do it. The majority of women interviewed considered dealing as a profession which, in addition to income, provided them with a sense of security and self-esteem. For many of them, it was the only profession they had ever had. Being able to sell large quantities of drugs made them feel they could do something good. Ninety-Nine’s reputation as a good seller was an important source of pride in her self, “[e]ven though it was something not to be good at, but I was good at it.” Many of the womcn in this study were proud of their ability to sell and considered themselves excellent sales-

52


women. In the midst of bitter destitution, selling crack appears to provide them with a rare oppomnity to feel good about themselves and their abilities.


CONCLUSloN

This paper has examined the ways in which women have been incorporated into existing roles within drug distribution networks. It has also documented how, within some contexts, the need to fmance consumption by women crack users has led to the creation of additional roles specifically associated with crack distribution. Although these roles remain within the confmes of low-lcvel sales and dishbution activities, they nonetheless account for a significant element of fcmale participation in the drug economy. They are roles generated by the advent of crack cocaine and its impact on patterns of consumption, organizational structure and gender relations within the drug economy. Collectively, these women’s experiences illustrate the multiplicity of roles by which females currently participate in the drug economy. While they occupy a minority status in the sense of being women in a male-dominated labor market, these women have the capacity to change and shape this world insofar as they can be seen to exhibit considerable innovation, role variation and a number of different patterns of involvement. At the same time, some of the findings of this study are consistent with studies examining male drug use and sales careers. Although women in this sample were not represented at higher levels of distribution, they moved in and out of various roles at the street level in a manner similar to that documented for male distributors (Fagan and Chin, 1991; Johnson, Golub and Fagan, 1995). The literature also suggests that, at the lower levels of distribution, almost all crack distributors are users of multiple substances including crack (Fagan 1994; Fagan and Chm, 1990; Mieczkowski 1989). As daily users of crack and in many instances, other substances as well, the women presented here certainly fall into this category. There are few studies, however, that focus specifically on women as participants in the crack economy. The literature that does exist suggests that reseaEhers typically examine women crack smokers through the lenses of addiction and prostitution (Inciardi et al., 1993). In doing so, they tend to reinscribe the excessive sexual scripts which reference popular discourse on women crack users. Within this context, women crack users have been characterized as pathetic, out of control, hyper-addicted and hyper-sexual (IvIaher, 1994; Rosenbaum et al., 1990). Even where women have been shown to be actively engaged in drug sales, the images presented are radically different from those portrayed here. By focusing on a particular subset of women involved in the cocaindcrack economy, re-



53

searchers havc neglected the broader range of occupational roles and patterns of consumption found among women crack users.’ As noted in the discussion, many of the women in this study expressed the view that involvement in drug distribution offered some degree of control over their lives. In some instances, selling became a career long before they were addicted to any drug. For these women, drug distribution was much more than a means to an end. The cocainelcrack economy offered them an (albeit infrequently realized) opportunity for control over their lives. Womcn made remarks which indicated that they viewed drug dealing as enabling independence and self-sufficiency. Women claimed to work when they wanted and how they wanted. Others claimed to work for whom they wanted and some of them were clearly able to work for themselves. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the relative numbers of women participating in drug distribution remain small and to this extent the dmg economy reflects the larger economic position of women, and minority women in particular, in American society (Johnson et al., 1990). Whiie the positioning of these women within the distribution chain illustrates the occupational segrcgation of women in the drug economy (Maher, 1994), this study has also sought to draw attention to the ways in which, within these confines, women have carved out additional ways to generate income in crack distribution. In concluding, we suggest that women’s expericnces as economic actors within the crack economy do not sit comfortably with cxisting models o f dmg distribution which have been derived from studies of male actors. Indeed, we havc argued that the gender4 status of women within the crack economy has led to the creation of new roles. Our data suggest that further detailed study and careful analysis of women’s experiences within this context may provide ncw insights into the evolution of drug markets and recent changes in the organization of drug distribution and sales.

NOTES 1. Because the parameters of the population are unknown, it is difficult to assess the representativeness of any sample of women engaged in crack sales and distribution. Even though multiple recruitment methods were used in an attempt to access a broad spectrum of women crack sellers engaged in a variety of roles and statuses, the fact that these women constilute a small self-selected sample suggests that care should be taken when generalizing to other samples. It should also be noted that given thai all of the women in this study were raciaVethnic minorities, these findings presented here may not apply to white women. 2. Research suggests that payment in crack is resisted by many workcrs in the drug economy, both male and female, and in particular by women with histories

54

WOMEN & CHMLNAL JUSTICE

of street-level prostitution pre-crack (see Maher, 1994; Maher and Curtis, 1992;


Ratner, 1993). 3. From the perspective of the employer, arrest is clearly the employee’s fault for getting caught: i.e., they “chose” to sell to an undercover agent or they “allowed’’ the police to catch them and confiscate the product. Sellers are expected to be astute enough to sell the product without getting caught by the police or being robbed. 4. Fagan and Chin (1990) document that crack sellers who report working in groups report higher rates of violence than those who only work alone, or who do not sell drugs. 5. Renee and Sha do not commit robbery-force persons to give them moneythey only disappear with money given to them to purchase drugs (theft). 6. For a rich, detailed description of street life, particularly as experienced by women, see Miller (1986), especiallypp.139-146 and pp.162-165. 7. Recent ethnographic research which examines the effccts of occupational norms in relation to street-level prostitution in governing sex transactions and the sexual practices of women crack smokers, also points to a broader set of occupational roles than that identified in thc literature (Maher, in press).

REFERENCES Bourgois, P.(1989). In search ofHoratio Alger: Culture and ideology in the crack economy. ContemporaryDrug Pmblems, 16,619-49. Bourgois, P. and Dunlap, E. (1993). Exorcising sex for crack: an ethnographic perspective from Harlem. In M.S. Ratner (Ed). Crack pipe as pimp: An ethnographic investigation of sex-for-crack exchartges (pp. 97-132). New York Lexington Books. Curtis, R. and Mahw, L. (1992). Highly structured crack markets in the Southside of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. In J. Fagan (Ed). The ecology ofcrime and drug use in inner ciries, New York Social Science Research Council. Dunlap, E., Johnson, B.D. and Manwar, A. (1994). A successful female crack dealer: Case study of a deviant career. Deviant Behaviol: 15, 1-25. Fagan, J. (1994). Women and drugs revisited: Female participation in the cocaine economy. Journal of Drug Issues, 24, 179-225. Fagan, J. and Chin, K (1990). Initiation into crack and powdered cocaine: A tale of two epidemics. Conrernporu?yBugPmbkm, 16,579-617. Fagan, J. and Chin,K. (1991). Violence as regulation and social control in the distribution of crack. In M. de la Rosa, E. Lambert, and B. Gropper (Eds). Drugs and violence. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No, 103 (pp. 8-43). DKHS Pub. No. (ADM) 90-1721. Rockville, Md. Goldstein, P.J., Ouellct, L.J. and Fendrich, M. (1992). From bag brides to skeezers: An historical perspective on sex-for-drugs behavior. Journd of Pvchoacrive Drugs, 24, 349-61. Hamid, A. (1990). The political economy of crack. Contemporary Drug Problems, 17, 3 1-78.


Dunlap, Johnson. and Maher

55

Hamid, A. (1992). The developmental cycle of a drug epidemic: The cocaine smolung epidemic of 1981-1991.Journalof&choactive Drugs, 24,337-348. Inciardi, J.A., Lockwood, D. and Pottieger, A.E. (1993). Women and crack cocaine. New York MacMillian. Johnson, B.D., Goldstein, P.G., Preble, E., Schmeidler, J., Lipton, D.S., Spunt, B. and Miller, T. (1985). Taking care ofbusiness: The economics of crime by heroin abusers. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. Johnson, B.D., Williams, T., Dei, K. and Sanabria, H. (1990). Drug abuse in the inner city: Impact on hard drug uscrs and the community. In M. Tonry and J.Q. Wilson (Eds). Drugs and crime: Crime and Justice (Vol. 13 pp. 9-67) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnson, B.D., Hamid, A. and Sanabna, H. (1991). Emerging models of crack distribution. In T. Mieczkowksi (Ed). Drugs and crime: A wader @p. 56-78). Boston: Allyn-Bacon. pp. 56-78. Johnson, R. D., Golub, A. and Fagan, J. (1995). Exccutive summary: careers in crack, drug use, drug distribution, and nondrug criminality. Crime and Delinquency 41,275-295. Maher, L. (1992). Punishment and welfare: Crack cocaine and the regulation o f mothering. Women & Criminal Justice, 3,35-70. Maher, L. (1994). Dope girls: Gender, race and class in the drug economy. Ph.D Dissertation, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ. Maher, L. (in press). Hidden in the light: Occupationalnorms among crack-using street-level sexworkers.Journal ofDrug Issues, 26, 143-173. Maher, L. and Curtis, R. (1992). Women on the edge of crime: crack cocaine and the changing contexts of street-level sex work in New York City. Crime. Law and Social Change, 18,22 1-258. Mieczkowski, T. (1986). Geeking up and throwing down: heroin street life in Detroit. Criminology, 24, 645-666. Mieckowski, T. (1989). The economic concepts of crack dealers in Detroit: An examination of market dynamics. Paper prcsented at the Annual Meetings, American Society of Crinlinology.Reno, November. Miller, E. (1986). Street Woman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Murphy, S. (199 1). Maternal crackhocainc use: Ethnographic reports. Paper presented at the Annual Meeiings, American Society of Criminology. San Francisco, November. Ratner, M.S. (Ed). (1993). Crack pipe as pimp: An ethnographic investigation of sex-for-crack exchanges. New York: Lexington Books. Rosenbaum, M., Murphy, S., Irwin, J., and Watson, L. (1990). Women and crack What’s the real story. Unpublished paper. Institute for Scientific Analysis, San Francisco, CA. Watcrston, A. (1993). Street addicts in the political economy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Williams, T. (1989). The cocaine kids. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.